Written by Don Kraus for the Huffington Post

What's more dangerous: the thousands of nukes that will still target U.S. and Russian cities if the New START treaty is not ratified OR the opportunistic, Tea Party pandering politicians who would derail this commonsense agreement?

If you answered "the nukes", you're wrong.

New START will reduce the global inventory of strategic nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert to levels not seen since I was born in 1954. But these weapons are not nearly as dangerous as the obstructive "Cold War" messaging that treaty opponents are deploying to upset New START's ratification.

Seven former commanders of the Strategic Air Command and the U.S. Strategic Command who recently endorsed the pact said, "There is little concern today about the probability of a Russian nuclear attack." The terrorist bomb that takes out Washington or New York will most likely come in a shipping container rather than an ICBM.

The utility of New START is that it makes the world more predictable. It replaces the START treaty originally negotiated by President Reagan that expired last December. Like its predecessor, New START not only reduces the number of warheads, it assures that both nations "trust but verify" each other's compliance with the terms of the treaty. Ratification will send a strong message that the U.S. is seriously pursuing its nuclear disarmament obligations, giving it more credibility to demand that nations like Iran and North Korea not build nuclear weapons.

New START is on track for approval. A huge list of Republican and Democratic policymakers, including five former defense secretaries and six former secretaries of state are pushing for ratification. But a gang of right wing politicos will try to use the August congressional recess to blame, frame and fundraise New START into oblivion.

Operatives including Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, the Heritage Foundation, and even the Tea Party's "Liberty Central" are launching misinformation campaigns to kill the treaty. This is part of an isolationist strategy that should be considered a greater long-term threat to our nation's security then the warheads that New START will eliminate. Their core belief is best expressed by the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly who, in her rant against New START said, "We live in a dangerous world in which bad guys respect strength and weapons, and disdain weakness and disarmament."

But in fact, ratification of any treaty and participation in international organizations sends a message of cooperation, partnership, and a desire for clear rules and a level playing field. In a recent interview Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a hard-nosed realist, said "it's amazing how much trust matters in relationships, whether it's with governments or with individuals around the world." It's only human nature to prefer to do business with those we like and respect. The United States is stronger when perceived as a friend.

Unfortunately, a growing chorus of ultra-nationalist voices is spreading disinformation and fear when it comes to all things multilateral. Tea Party candidates, like former NFL star Clint Didier, know what their audience wants to hear, "We need to get out of the U.N. and to get the U.N. out of the United States" because, "they are out to take our guns and repeal American sovereignty." This sentiment is shared by Nevada's Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle who wants the U.S. to sever all ties with the United Nations.

Voices of fear are fanning xenophobic passions that threaten our nation's values, aspirations, and our ability to thrive in a connected world. Like the proverbial genie, globalization cannot be put back in the bottle. America cannot close its borders, nor can it afford to ignore the international community. Childlike temper tantrums will not make the world go away.

Ratification of New START is essential to the U.S. for a variety of reasons. Not only will it provide greater security by reducing the threat of nuclear annihilation, but it is also a valuable opportunity for internationalist adults -- Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative - to retake control of our foreign policy. It is time to advance the cooperative international institutions, laws, and norms that enhance U.S. security and promote democratic values.

Yes, the nuclear weapons that New START addresses present a clear risk to our nation. But the vocal cadres who will do anything to block the ratification of all international agreements present an even graver threat: At stake is our ability to enshrine our beliefs and values in the growing web of agreements that are the legal bedrock of this world.

Don Kraus is the CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions and co chairs the CEDAW Task Force of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Ideologically diverse yet respected foreign policy experts and high-ranking military officials—Henry Kissinger, George P. Schultz, Richard Burt, Robert Gates Hillary Clinton, and Adm. Mike Mullen—support the New START treaty. Ambassador Nancy Soderberg noted the reason for this phenomenon: “At its core, the debate is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who understand the world of nuclear weapons has changed dramatically and those who still view national security through a pre-9/11, Cold War lens.”

Treaty opponents embrace this Cold War hysteria, imagining a game of international chess that did not stop with the collapse of the Soviet Union. For them, first strike capability, acceptable losses, and thousands of nuclear weapons trained on major population centers have become a way of life. They demand to see negotiation records, hoping to uncover proof of Ivan’s cunning as he stealthily softens up lazy American capitalists for a surprise nuclear strike. Small wonder that those who entertain this skewed fantasy would sacrifice the proven benefits of a strategic arms treaty and bet the house on an unwanted, nonexistent panacea. These neo-Cold Warriors either are incapable of accepting the changes resulting from the end of the Cold War or they seek to return to the heady days of an unfettered nuclear arms race.

Take, for example, the repeated claim that the treaty will hobble the development of a missile shield. According to the far-right Heritage Foundation, it should “be the goal of the U.S. to have a missile defense system that renders nuclear threats by other nations useless.” They tacitly ignore the actual purpose of U.S. missile defense—preventing a nuclear strike from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran—and demand a missile shield unlike anything ever imagined by the last Bush administration. The missile shield they dream of is a relic of the Cold War, a fantastical Star Wars system capable of enveloping the U.S. in an impenetrable cocoon of nuclear deterrence against Russia. If the U.S. were to follow the path laid out by these treaty opponents, a costly and destabilizing modern-day arms race will be unavoidable.

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. DeMint inquired "Don't we want to expand our defenses so that we can obliterate Russia's offensive capability?” His simple question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the inherent relationship between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons. Beyond that, Sen. DeMint’s query woefully misinterprets the history of arms reduction treaties, and the necessity of non-proliferation in a post 9/11 world.

If the U.S. were to develop this mythical impenetrable missile shield, it would send shockwaves through the nuclear community. According to Sen. Kerry, it could “obliterate one party’s sense of deterrence,” and force nations like Russia and China to pour resources into developing an offensive nuclear arsenal large enough to eliminate this sudden gap.

Unchecked proliferation presents a more pressing concern, with unsecured nuclear weapons exponentially raising the likelihood of nuclear terrorism. A missile shield could not prevent a martyr from detonating a bomb in an American city, and nuclear deterrence holds no sway with non-state actors. Even if we spend untold billions arming ourselves to the teeth, safely ensconced in our mythical cocoon, we will not be invulnerable. Worse still, it will usher in a new age of nuclear paranoia not seen since the height of the Cold War.   

In a nuclear world America cannot go it alone.  Contrary to the baseless fear mongering of opponents like the Heritage Foundation, ratifying the New START treaty will not lead to a new arms race. It is not a drastically new agreement, but a reiteration of arms treaties supported by every administration since Reagan. If we ignore the treaty and pursue a path of nuclear hegemony, we will create a living, breathing monster that threatens the citizens of every nation.

The best and brightest cannot concoct a strategic plan or weapon system that will provide the safety and security that New START offers. There is no magic solution, no technological marvel to guarantee safety. Opponents of the treaty would do well to heed the words of “Nuclear Wizards” author Fred Kaplan: “The nuclear strategists had come to impose order -– but in the end, chaos still prevailed.”

The history of civilization shows no force more unstoppable than the madness of man. Mankind survived the Fall of Rome, the Grand Inquisition, and the Holocaust, but now we face a thousand-year night. That’s why we must remain vigilant. That’s why we must support New START. President John F. Kennedy recognized the catastrophic alternative: “Every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”

Michael Crabtree is a Research Associate at Citizens for Global Solutions.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be voting on the New START treaty August 3rd. Join the New START facebook page for one final push. It's time to tell the Republican members of the SFRC to vote Yes on START.

As the hearings on the New START Treaty continue in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, support for the treaty has come from many sources, including the United States military. Gen. Kevin Chilton, U.S. Strategic Command Chief and the man responsible for the country’s nuclear forces, presented both financial and tactical reasons for ratification. Without the treaty, U.S. insight into Russian nuclear capabilities would be severely limited. Guesstimates would replace concrete Intel, leading to one of two possibilities:

• Under development: “It will be a security issue.” By underestimating Russia’s capabilities, the U.S. fails to develop necessary systems.   
• Over development: “It would be a cost issue.” By overestimating, the U.S. could end up pouring money into the development of capabilities that it does not require.

Considering the budgetary quagmire the U.S. is currently faces, we can ill afford an unnecessary and unwarranted spending spree.

Does this treaty endanger America’s National Security?

But with a vocal minority up in arms over perceived limitations to missile defense, suspicion abounds that the New START treaty will critically hinder U.S. defenses. Are these concerns warranted? The answer is a resounding no, and it has been reiterated by steady stream of military officials and foreign policy experts from both political parties. During his testimony before the SFRC, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates emphatically noted, "The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses."

At another SFRC hearing, Senator Lugar (R-IN) said “Yesterday, our treaty negotiators told us that missile defense language, including the unilateral Russian and American statements accompanying the New START Treaty, in no way inhibits future missile defense deployments.” As an afterthought for those conspiracy minded individuals who stubbornly resist ratification, the Senator added “And there are no secret deals with Moscow on missile defense.”

While a renewed treaty with Russia certainly appears to be in the best interest of the United Sates, the threat of a nuclear exchange between these two nations seems remote. Does this treaty take into account the threat posed by rogue states such as Iran or North Korea? According to Kerry (D-MA), Co-Chair of the SFRC, it does indeed. “Numerous witnesses, including the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified that the treaty will not affect America's ability to defend itself from an Iranian or North Korean missile now or in the future.” These statements hardly leave room for ambiguity. 

The result of these hearings will reach far beyond the partisan gridlock that currently plagues Washington. The New START treaty allows us to renew and strengthen our relationship with the other major nuclear power. Considering the United States and Russia possess 95 percent of world’s nuclear weapons, a firm commitment for verification and reduction is essential to peace and security for both nations.

Following the end of the Cold War and passage of START I, the two countries have witnessed the benefits of mutual cooperation. START I created a watershed moment for the two nuclear powers. “Since Russia and the United States no longer presented an existential threat to each other,” explained Sen. Kerry, “they now had a common interest in cooperating to make their nuclear deployments smaller, safer, and more secure.”

The New START Treaty stands poised to continue this positive momentum built up over the last two decades. This security extends beyond the here and now. As gravely noted by Henry Kissinger during his testimony before the SFRC “This Committee's decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more.” 

Support New START? Join the New START Treaty's Week of Action.

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and failed presidential contender, now sets his sights on the 2012 election. He has decided the best way to secure the nomination is to ramp up the crazy.

Romney took to the Washington Post to decry the New START treaty currently making its way through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rather then add substantively to the debate, the former governor trotted out the same tired arguments that treaty opponents have been bleating since Senators Kerry and Lugar began hearings over two months ago. From Senator Inhofe and DeMint to the Heritage Foundation, Republicans focused on what they view as a glaring flaw in the treaty, missile defense. They claim the treaty will severely limit the development of a U.S. missile shield, and will signal to hostile powers that America lacks the will to defend itself. There’s one problem with these claims: they are flat out wrong.

Romney’s argument follows the rich tradition driving the Republican Party right now. The tea-partiers and other fringe groups require a certain level of cocksure militarism. Just look at McCain in 2008, with his impromptu hit song “Bomb Iran” set to the tune of the Beach Boy’s “Barbara Ann.” It evoked a jingoistic swagger that the Republican base ate up, akin to G.W. strutting on an aircraft carrier in his flight suit and codpiece. After all, what could be the harm in starting a third war with a far better equipped country while still hemorrhaging resources in America’s two current wars?

Numerous witnesses have repeated in SFRC hearings that the New START Treaty will not constrain missile defense in any way, shape, or form. Period. Seriously, look it up. Bi-Partisan support for the treaty makes this crystal clear. An op-ed written by under secretary of Defense for Policy and in collaboration with the under secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics stated:

 “The fact is that the treaty does not constrain the U.S. from testing, developing and deploying missile defenses. Nor does it prevent us from improving or expanding them. Nor does it raise the costs of doing so.”

This doesn’t sound like the Neville Chamberlain capitulation that Mitt Romney rails about in his piece. But is it an isolated opinion? The answer is a resounding no, unless, like Romney and friends, you choose to ignore the opinions of authorities like Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, Hillary Clinton, or the 30 top National Security leaders that came out in support of ratifying the treaty.  

In this post 9/11 world, it’s interesting how quickly certain individuals revert to a Cold War mentality. In Romney’s article, he cursorily mentions rogue nations like Iran and North Korea, and doesn’t bother to discuss terrorist groups seeking to construct a dirty bomb. Instead it’s right back to the arms-races. Romney claims that “New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States,” noting the disparity of Russia’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons that currently outnumbers the United States by 10:1. He observes that while they cannot strike America “surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella.”

An interesting observation. The nuclear umbrella and the security provided by the U.S. and NATO have allowed European nations to invest in social programs rather than defense. Is this in the best interest of American citizens? Representatives Barney Frank and Ron Paul noted, 

“After World War II, with…the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role…The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense.”

This doesn’t mesh with the foreign policy strategy of the former governor, who prefers to invoke a neo-Teddy Roosevelt policy that relies on the big stick, but ignores speaking softly. America should not turn its back on our allies, yet we must find another path to global security. Conveniently, the Reps’ indicated a common sense policy of protection: 

“When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed.”

Until Mitt Romney and his obstinate brethren in Congress stop trying to score cheap political points, America’s national security continues to be put at risk. It’s time to move beyond the Cold War. The Berlin Wall fell twenty-one years ago. The Soviet Union ceased to exist nineteen years ago. Ratifying New START will not drive Russia into a headlong pursuit of nuclear hegemony; instead it will provide verifiable benchmarks for the two major nuclear powers to reduce existing stock and monitor the development of new weapons and delivery systems. Passing the treaty will not harm America’s national security. Failing to pass it will. 

For more on the New START Treaty, visit our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/newstarttreaty

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to push forward with hearings on the New START Treaty, despite vocal opposition from stubborn opponents relentlessly repeating the same misguided objections. Listening to these obstinate Representatives continue to regurgitate these same obstructive statements, a listener is left wondering if any amount of information, military experts or hearings would really convince them to put security over partisan politics.

Working Across the Aisle for a New START

Bi-partisan collaboration is not only possible, it has been a cornerstone of non-proliferation treaties since START I. The New START Treaty is no different. It maintains a broad coalition of support from respected individuals, both Democrat and Republican. As noted by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the treaty “is, by definition, not a bipartisan but a non-partisan challenge.” This claim has been echoed by a veritable parade of respected authorities, both civilian and military, that have come forward with their support.

During several hearings, the SFRC has heard the testimonies of former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense. According to James Baker and William Perry, ratifying the Treaty is crucial in preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. According to foreign policy experts Henry Kissinger and Stephen Hadley, the New START is fundamental to the relationship between the United States and Russia, while Brent Scowcroft warned that if the U.S. fails to ratify the treaty, diplomatic efforts for nuclear non-proliferation may be thrust into “a state of chaos.”

Why Should We Ratify?

The reasons for ratifying the New START treaty are numerous and compelling. Since the expiration of START I in 2009, the United States and Russia have lost a critical link between the two governments. For this reason, the treaty offers benefits far greater than an incremental decrease in nuclear weapons. It will reestablish definitions, counting rules, and a means of verification previously laid out in the expired START I treaty

Failure of Treaty negotiations will have even greater strategic consequences. Henry Kissinger noted the importance of passing New START in order to achieve other key objectives, specifically “to reduce or eliminate the danger of war by miscalculation…to bring about the maximum stability in the balance of forces to reduce incentives for nuclear war by design…to overcome the danger of accidents fostered by the automaticity of the new technology. Kissinger even broached the topic of disarmament, albeit cautiously, stating “All these measures combined might, if successful, merge into a strategy that would reduce or limit—and, in the end, perhaps eliminate—the use of these weapons as a conscious choice.”

To join the discussion and stay current with Committee proceedings, become a fan of the New START Page

Today the Obama administration released the much-anticipated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), coinciding with the anniversary of President Obama’s progressive Prague speech last April. Splitting with Bush-era nuclear doctrine, the NPR renounces the development of new nuclear weapons and states that the “fundamental purpose” of nuclear weapons is deterring other states from deploying them. The NPR is the beginning of a six week focus on nuclear issues, as President Obama signs New START on Thursday, hosts a Nuclear Security Summit in April, and the UN holds the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May.

Yet the NPR might be more of a status quo document than an expression of President Obama’s Prague vision, as some advocates had hoped. Despite the its modest advances, there were early expectations that the language in the NPR would be bolder and suggest more concrete numbers for nuclear weapons reductions. The NPR’s largely middle ground stance indicates some political signaling to Congress. The Obama administration’s nuclear priority in Congress at the moment is to ratify the New START, which will require 67 votes in the Senate, including the votes of key Senate Republicans. More drastic changes to the NPR might have fueled conservative opposition to New START.

The review states that non-nuclear weapon states will not be subject to nuclear retaliation if they attack the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons. However, states in violation of the NPT fall outside this category, including Iran. This is designed to assure non-nuclear weapons states and provide support to the NPT, which will be discussed at length at the NPT Review Conference in May. The conference is an absolutely critical next step for non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, given that the last conference is widely regarded as a failure.

For nuclear weapons states or states in violation of the NPT, however, there are no such guarantees. President Obama made clear that these states – especially those disrespecting the obligations of the NPT – can expect that attacking the U.S. may come with serious (nuclear) consequences.

The NPR also declared that any attacks on the U.S. would be countered with a “devastating” conventional military response. Clearly the U.S. has the most powerful conventional capabilities in the world. Projecting such strong military power should make the need for nuclear weapons obsolete, or at least allow deterrence to qualify as the “sole” purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Although CGS is disappointed that the U.S. could not identify the purpose of nuclear weapons to be “solely” deterrence, we recognize that the NPR still represents noteworthy progress in U.S. policy.