Avoiding Friendly Fire: Disarming New START

Conservatives too often form “circular firing squads,” going after each other instead of standing together against the bad ideas of the Left.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that with the latest issue sparking internal debate among the Right: the New START nuclear-arms pact between the U.S. and Russia. Opponents include Mitt Romney and others. Meanwhile, several conservative greybeards, including Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz, have come out for the treaty.

Before the more conservatives reach for their guns and start circling, let’s ponder dispassionately “What should conservatives think, and how should we act?”

Before answering that, let me first explain why I think New START should be a non-starter for conservatives.

Strike 1: New START would force the U.S. to reduce our strategic nuclear weaponry. Not so, with the Russians. Moreover, the verification provisions intended to let us determine what Russia is actually doing with its nuclear arsenal are far weaker than those provided under either the original START or the currently prevailing Moscow Treaty.

Strike 2: By putting Russia on a more equal nuclear footing with the U.S., New START empowers Russia as a nuclear state. An emboldened nuclear Russia would be destabilizing — potentially leading to renewed nuclear competition between China and Russia and a more aggressive Russia in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

American policymakers should understand that Russia views nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of its defense strategy. It has no interest in ridding the world of nuclear weapons, only in solidifying its position as a dominant nuclear power.

Strike 3: Starting with the treaty preamble, New START creates a pernicious linkage between offensive arms and missile defenses. It commits the U.S. to accepting the principle that our missile defenses can be limited in exchange for Russian arms reductions. This could prove an insurmountable obstacle to the development of optimum missile defenses.

While the treaty fosters weakening of both our offensive and defensive forces, it does absolutely nothing to deter the nuclear ambitions of Iran or North Korea. This may well have the perverse effect of encouraging these and other nations to redouble their efforts to become nuclear powers.

It’s important to modernize our nuclear infrastructure with a new generation of nuclear weapons tailored to 21^st century needs. But this treaty doesn’t move us forward. A presidential pledge to modernize infrastructure is not, by itself, an acceptable justification for ratifying this treaty.

Yes, conservatives should press for a new, stringent arms control and nonproliferation regime. But that regime would bear little semblance to the New START now before the Senate. Any agreement should incorporate–or at least be inextricably tied to–all of the following:

– A simple, clear policy that says the U.S. will use nuclear weapons to protect and defend itself and its allies from strategic attack. That means the U.S. declaratory policy established in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review must be withdrawn and revised.

– A sustained program to modernize both the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure and the arsenal, providing a new generation of nuclear weapons that are safe, secure, reliable, sustainable and appropriate for deterring threats.

– Rejection of the current Preamble’s language that creates a linkage between arms reduction and missile defense.

– A commitment to a robust missile defense program that includes systems such as the ascent intercept version of the SM-3 IIB interceptor, the Network Centric Airborne Defense Element, the Airborne Laser boost-phase intercept system, and a test bed for examining options for space-based kinetic energy interceptors.

– Language that preserves the option to conduct nuclear tests in the future.

– A policy statement that assures our allies and partners that we will be able to provide them with all necessary nuclear deterrence–including modernized, tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

– No limitations on strategic delivery vehicles or launchers. (To do otherwise could impose limits on our conventionally-armed strategic strike systems.)

These provisions provide what the New START lacks: safeguards that assure so we will be able to defend ourselves, even as we seek to reduce the real nuclear threats of the 21^st Century. Those are goals all conservatives — indeed, all Americans — can support.