The denuclearizers’ dangerous ambitions
New START treaty
Hold on to your hat. No sooner had the Senate finished approving the so-called New START Treaty by the closest margin of any bilateral arms control agreement with Moscow than the accord's principal architect served notice of her ambitious plans for further denuclearizing the United States. Unfortunately, the disarmament agenda Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller is helping President Obama pursue will make the world more dangerous, not safer for America and its interests.
As with Mr. Obama, who reportedly first espoused the idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons while a radical undergraduate at Columbia, Ms. Gottemoeller is no newcomer to the idea of "global zero." In the 1990s, she even lent her name to a report recommending that the United States engage in nuclear disarmament unilaterally, if necessary. During the Clinton administration, then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen declined to give her a top Pentagon post in the face of intense controversy about her views. She subsequently secured a consolation prize in the form of a succession of senior positions in the Department of Energy.
Last year, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entrusted Rose Gottemoeller with responsibility for negotiating the so-called "New START" Treaty with the Russians. Their shared determination to secure that accord no matter what led to a succession of concessions that made the final product lopsidedly advantageous to the Kremlin. A desire to obscure that reality doubtless contributed to the administration's refusal to share with the U.S. Senate the record of the New START negotiations - which, in turn, contributed to the uninformed nature of the abbreviated debate and vote for the treaty during the just-concluded lame-duck session.
Next up on Secretary Gottemoeller's agenda are the following, among other, problematic initiatives:
- The Senate's urgent reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). A majority of Senators rejected that accord in 1999 on the grounds that it is unverifiable and inconsistent with the maintenance of a safe, secure and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent. Both defects persist today.
- Further and still-more problematic cuts in U.S. and Russian strategic forces. Such reductions would likely preclude the maintenance of the sort of balanced deterrent posture based on a "Triad" of land- and sea-based missiles and long-range bombers that the United States has correctly deemed necessary for decades - and that may be needed more than ever in the future.
- A treaty on so-called "tactical" nuclear forces. A clear defect of New START was that it left Moscow with a ten-to-one advantage in such weapons, whose destructive power is often greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. Even if the Kremlin dropped its historic opposition to limiting these arms in a new accord, verification would be impossible as a practical matter and the price high in terms of further reducing the "nuclear umbrella" U.S. tactical nukes provide our allies.
Read next: DSA Growing More Dangerous Daily, Former Member Admits
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
Frank Gaffney Jr.——Bio and Archives
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.
