April 17, 2014

While America’s arsenal of nuclear weapons is declining under the 2011 New START agreement, Russia’s stockpile is not. If anything, Russia’s nuclear arsenal is increasing.

This unilateral reduction is problematic not only for the U.S. but for the rest of the world as well. The Heritage Foundation’s Michaela Dodge and Rebecca Robison explain:

With Russia’s recent invasion of Crimea, the Kremlin has demonstrated that it is willing to use brute force to dismember a national state. This behavior is a clear indication that the U.S. must recalibrate its position—as articulated in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review—that Russia is no longer an adversary and that the potential for a conflict between the two countries is low. With Russian forces still menacing Ukraine, now is not the time to further undermine U.S. nuclear weapons posture.

Dodge and Robison recommend that the U.S. immediately withdraw from New START, because it is “a treaty that only serves Russian interests.”

Should America be party to a treaty that serves Russia’s interests ahead of our own?

Comments (3)

Carol - April 18, 2014

With Russia’s recent invasion of Crimea, the Kremlin has demonstrated that it is willing to use brute force to dismember a national state. This behavior is a clear indication that the U.S. must recalibrate its position—as articulated in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review—that Russia is no longer an adversary and that the potential for a conflict between the two countries is low. With Russian forces still menacing Ukraine, now is not the time to further undermine U.S. nuclear weapons posture.

Stewart Engelman - April 20, 2014

New START was a gift on a silver platter to the Russians. This one-sided treaty:

(1) Forces the US to reduce its strategic nuclear stockpile, and lets Russia increase. This is not parity because the new Russian ICBM’s will have state of the art science, whereas our remaining strategic nuclear weapons will be 100% based on 40 year old delivery and trigger systems.

(2) Ignores the fact that China is in the process of becoming a major Russian nuclear ally, and the US has no major nuclear allies.

(3) Permits Russia to maintain a massive numerical advantage over the US in tactical nuclear weapons.

(4) Does not make clear the right the US to expand our ABM capabilities to a level that allows us to achieve parity with Russian ABM deployments.

In a treaty, BOTH parties should benefit. New START simply pounds the US down, and lets Russia grow stronger. As a domestic contract, such an agreement would not even be enforceable, as there is no mutual consideration. Technically, at a domestic level, agreements like New START, which benefit only one party, are revocable gifts.

Holly Chapo - May 17, 2014

Our sovereignty comes first as do the best interests of the country. We should NEVER sign a treaty that gives any of that away. Period!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>