Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, DC – With Tea Party darlings such as Rand Paul among the incoming Republican Senators, many observers are wondering how the growing GOP Senate caucus will respond to the pending nuclear disarmament treaty between the U.S. and Russia. New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed in April, would reduce the number of, restrict the deployment of, and modernize the protection of nuclear warheads possessed by both nations. But, months later, the Senate has still not ratified the treaty, and it's unclear whether that will happen in either the lame duck session or once the new Senators take their seats in early 2011. Here's what foreign policy wonks, as well as conservative pundits on both sides of the argument, have to say.

Tea Party Likely to Oppose" Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin writes, "If the Senate vote on the New START nuclear reduction treaty with Russia is postponed until next year, the new Tea Party-affiliated senators are likely to vote no." Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul is among them. "Yes votes are equally unlikely from other Tea Party-affiliated freshman senators, such as Florida Republican Senator-elect Marco Rubio. ... But the Tea Party senators will only get to weigh in on New START if the administration's plan to vote on the treaty during this year's lame duck session of Congress falls apart."

Republican Leaders Urge 'Delay': Politico's Laura Rozen reports, "a Nov. 5 memo from the Republican Policy Committee to Senate GOP staffers asserts that 'it’s not time for the Senate to vote' on the U.S.-Russian strategic arms control treaty. ... Some observers interpreted the memo as more about tactical positioning than signaling an absolute GOP intention to block a Senate ratification vote by the end of the year. 'I read it as a tactical move to extract more concessions,' from the administration, the Center for American Progress’ Russia expert Samuel Charap told POLITICO."

GOP Should Pass START: The Washington Post's Robert Kagan, whose work with David Petraeus formed the basis of the much-heralded "surge" in Iraq, urges passage. "I fear Republicans are missing the bigger strategic picture. New START, whatever its flaws, is not a threat to U.S. security. The three previous arms-control treaties, all negotiated by Republican presidents, cut deployed nuclear weapons from near 12,000 to around 2,000. New START reduces the totals to 1,550. Passing it will neither produce a nuclear-free utopia nor disarm the United States. But blocking the treaty will produce three unfortunate results: It will strengthen Vladimir Putin, let the Obama administration off the hook when Russia misbehaves and set up Republicans as the fall guy if and when U.S.-Russian relations go south."

---

Quote:

---

A lobbying group affiliated with the Tea Party has joined the effort to derail President Obama's new arms-control agreement with Russia, launching a grassroots campaign by spreading misleading information about the pact to the general public.

Former governor Mitt Romney kicked off the conservative nationwide campaign to convince ordinary Americans to actively oppose the new nuclear reductions treaty with Russia. He is even trying to raise money off of it. The Heritage Foundation has a new grassroots lobbying arm that has made opposition to New START one of its core activities. Other right-leaning issues organizations are now following suit.

The latest salvo is being launched by a Tea Party-affiliated group called Liberty Central, a 501c4 lobbying organization that has started a letter-writing campaign entitled, "TAKE ACTION: Tell Your Senators to Oppose START Treaty."

1.Our existing missile defense system, put in place by the Bush Administration, actually does not have the technology to stop a Russian missile attack.

2.The Treaty drastically reduces our offensive nuclear capabilities without advancing our defensive capabilities - specifically through the development of a meaningful missile defense program.

3.According to the Russians themselves, the section of the treaty that actually allows either the U.S. or Russia to withdraw from the treaty is included specifically so that Russia can withdraw if it believes that it is being "threatened" by developments in U.S. missile defense programs.
4.As part of the negotiating process, President Obama gave up our missile defense presence in the Czech Republic and Poland, but it is not clear that the Russians gave up anything of similar value. If we concede something, they must as well.

5.In 2009, General James Cartwright testified that, at a bare minimum, the United States needs at least 860 weapons launchers. However, this new Treaty limits our capabilities to only deploying 700. Why did we agree to have 160 less than necessary?

6.In addition to reducing the number of weapons in our arsenal, this Treaty also limits the types of circumstances in which the United States is allowed to launch our weapons!

The criticisms omit several relevant facts and get others wrong. For example, although the existing U.S. missile-defense system has its origins under the Reagan administration, it was never intended to stop a Russian missile attack. In any case, New START was never aimed at advancing defensive capabilities, which fall outside the scope of the treaty.

Moreover, there is no section that allows each country to withdraw; rather such language is in the preamble, which does not include the word "threatened."

Nor did President Obama did not give up the U.S. missile-defense presence in Poland and the Czech Republic as "part of the negotiating process"; that decision was made independently of the START talks and was aimed at strengthening the system's ability to thwart the short- and medium-range missile threat from Iran.

The treaty also does not limit the type of circumstances in which the U.S. is allowed to launch weapons. Here, Field might be referring to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which reduced the scenarios under which the United States would launch a nuclear strike.

None of that prevented Liberty Central from including these assertions in its form letter, which members can send to senators with one click of the mouse.

"The START Treaty fails to ensure the ability of the US to maintain a reliable nuclear deterrent going forward, and severely limits our missile defense systems. I urge you to protect American security by opposing this treaty," the letter states.

"This group is trying to come up with any argument they can and so they came up with several that aren't even relevant to the treaty," said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World. "It's even more troubling when we see these same arguments repeated by some GOP senators."

---