- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 23, 2010


Thursday’s editorial “Why START now?” (Comment & Analysis) made some excellent points regarding why the Senate should not hurry to approve the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

At the same time NATO exchanges details of missile defense programs with Russia, our secretaries of state and defense claim we must have a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with this new ally.

Have the secretaries forgotten that the previous START was signed with an implacable enemy, the Soviet Union, in an attempt to limit their buildup of offensive systems? We do not need a New START to reduce our own stockpile - we need an improved Nuclear Posture Review that specifies far more clearly what we need to do to increase our security in this new multipolar world.

If we are to treat Russia as a potential partner as indicated by the NATO overtures, then we should be consistent. Leave them to decide their nuclear deterrent policy while we produce a sensible one for ourselves. We certainly need an improvement to the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that was produced in April, which jeopardized the surety of retaining safe, secure, reliable and effective warheads.

Where is the logic of requesting a lame-duck Congress to approve a treaty that has languished unapproved for the past six months? It can be only in the certain knowledge that the incoming Congress will have nothing to do with this relic of the Cold War. START offers us nothing and, like the 111th Congress, should be consigned to the folder of history.


Rockville, Md., and Plano, Texas

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide