William Helms: “The bottom line, Mr. President, is that it is prima facie ridiculous to still insist that the United States must forgo…”

“The bottom line, Mr. President, is that it is prima facie ridiculous to still insist that the United States must forgo defending itself against missile attack in order to ensure that Russia ratifies START II. The United States has already paid a dozen ransom notes to Russia in an effort to secure START II's ratification--to no avail. This latest price demanded by Russia is simply too high. Now, I believe that START II may still be in the United States' national security interests, but it is not of such overriding interest that we must forgo the defense of the American people in order to salvage START II. What will happen if START II is not ratified? Strategic forces are expensive to maintain, as both the United States and Russia have rediscovered. That is why the Clinton administration is seeking permission to fall below START I levels regardless of whether the Russians honor their START II obligations--because it wants the money that would be spent on strategic nuclear forces to be used for other, neglected requirements like readiness. And what of Russia, Mr. President? The truth is that Russia's strategic force levels are going to plummet far past the levels mandated by START II regardless of whether there is any agreement in force. The strategic missiles Russia (then the Soviet Union) deployed in the 1980s are reaching the end of their useful life, and cannot be replaced. Russia has neither the money nor a reason, to replace them.”