On the recordDecember 22, 2010
I too am opposing the ratification of this New START treaty because I think it makes us less secure, not more secure, as a nation. Of course, that has to be the ultimate test. A toughly negotiated, balanced treaty with Russia which allowed for adequate and reliable inspections and data exchange could make us more secure. But this is not such a treaty. It is clear to me that President Obama went into negotiations willing to give up almost anything for a treaty, and that basic posture produced what it always will--a bad deal for us. The proponents of the treaty suggest as much when they lay out as their top arguments for ratification: a better relationship with Russia, the help from Russia on other issues that ratification could engender, and progress with world opinion. I think it is dangerous to count on any of that or to look at all beyond the four corners of the treaty--the pros and cons of the details and the substance of the treaty itself. When I look within the four corners of the treaty, I am particularly concerned about four cons of the treaty. First, serious roadblocks to missile defense: I think it is a fundamental mistake and a dangerous precedent for any treaty on offensive arms to even mention missile defense, and Russia has made it clear that any major progress on U.S. missile defense will cause them to leave the treaty.
