- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 23, 2010

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

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.

STANLEY ORMAN AND EUGENE FOX

Rockville, Md., and Plano, Texas

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide