The START Treaty is Up To Iowans

“Instead
of New START being an opportunity to reduce the excessive nuclear
arsenals of Russia and the United States, some view this as an
opportunity to modernize them. The logic of this is twisted, considering
that a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States seems
unlikely.”

That Phyllis Schlafly would surface in the debate over ratification of the New START Treaty is not surprising: opponents of the treaty are running out of people on the bench. A broad bipartisan consensus of support for ratification of New START has been building over the last year, and the conservative bench has emptied as the team has, for the most part, lined up in support of the treaty. Treaty opponents are left with are the likes of John Bolton and Schlafly, people who have a long history of opposing arms control measures with the Russians.

In a recent blog post, Schlafly trots out the same worn sawhorses opponents have used to build their arguments against New START. This from a woman who opposes the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and who wrote in 1961 that arms control “will not stop Red aggression any more than disarming our local police will stop murder, theft, and rape.” Every argument Schlafly presents in opposition to New START has been addressed by Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, during the hearings he conducted. Ranking member of the committee, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) has spoken in favor of ratification. One hopes that the treaty's fate rests with people like Lugar and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who has also spoken publicly about his concerns over the treaty. The concerns of Senator Corker and others like him have been and will continue to be addressed as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on New START approaches in mid-September.

While there has been substantial discussion of nuclear weapons by public officials since the 2008 elections, the truth is that the United States has been acting like a country that has moved past the nuclear age for a long time. Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) said on March 6, 2003 during floor debate of President George W. Bush's Moscow Treaty, “It assumes a degree of trust between nations that are no longer on the precipice of war.” Senator Corker noted after recent trips to investigate the condition of our nuclear arsenal, “If Americans had witnessed, as I did, the deteriorating state of our nuclear infrastructure and weapons, they would recognize the urgency to maintain them.” Instead of New START being an opportunity to reduce the excessive nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States, some view this as an opportunity to modernize them. The logic of this is twisted, considering that a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States seems unlikely.

If one asks members of the millennial generation about arms control issues, the topic is not on the radar for most. The assumption is that others will take care of national security and deal with the problem of our aging nuclear arsenals. The others are you and me and ratification of the New START Treaty may come down to Iowans and our two senators.

The New START Treaty has become a whipping boy to vet ideas about nuclear non-proliferation and the role the United States plays therein. A year ago, one thought the New START treaty would be a slam dunk for ratification, but it has become a strong point for conservatives to stop another success of the Obama administration. Ratification of New START would be a modest step along the road to nuclear non-proliferation and a world without nuclear weapons. It is a step we need to take.

Iowans should urge Senators Grassley and Harkin to vote in favor of ratification of New START when it comes out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul
Deaton