Last week, President Barack Obama signed an agreement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that will pave the way for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The current START expires at the end of this year, and the new "joint understanding" commits the United States and Russia to a serious reduction in strategic warheads and delivery vehicles.
There's just one hitch: That whole advice-and-consent thing.* Congressional Quarterly*'s Josh Rogin reported this weekend that Senators may stand in the way of ratification, meaning the Obama administration will have to press ahead with planned cuts to the nuclear arsenal without congressional approval.
Resistance centers around Republicans who support modernization of the aging stockpile. Rogin quotes Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, who described nuclear modernization as a condition for treaty approval. “I think a central first step to even consider it . . . is getting on a path, which we’re clearly not on, for a robust nuclear modernization program,” Vitter said.
And then there are the missile-defense cheerleaders. While Obama continues to fund many major missile-defense initiatives, the future of a Central European-based missile shield has been left unresolved. Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, however, want to link the new START treaty to stationing missile-defense interceptors in Europe, a move the Russians vehemently oppose.
So: Republicans heart missile defense, Obama hearts arms control. What's the news here? Well, for starters, it's worth pointing out that the Senate never ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- but while it's not a binding treaty, the United States has continued to observe the nuclear testing moratorium. And perhaps more interestingly, the modernization debate is not a simple Republican vs. Democratic issue. Obama's own defense secretary, Robert Gates, has also been a staunch supporter of nuclear modernization, and reductions in the overall number of warheads could revive support for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a sturdy, simplified bomb design that would replenish the nuclear arsenal.
[PHOTO: Wikimedia]
See Also:
- Brandishing Nukes, North Korea Demands 'Apology'
- 'Worst Downside' of Pakistan's Implosion: Loose Nukes (Updated ...
- World Without Nukes? Not So Fast, Graybeards Say
- Obama's 'No Nukes' Push: Reagan Redux?
- Danger Room Debrief: Lead by Example on Nukes, Mr. President-Elect ...
- Israel Hits Syrian Nukes?
- IAEA Chief: Iran Could Have Nukes in 'Six Months'
