New START: Severely Weakening America’s Security
Editor’s note: Late last week, Heritage Action began sending direct mail to ten states urging Senators to oppose the New START Treaty. Throughout the week, we’ll examine the claims made in the mailer, one-by-one.
On Veteran’s Day, let’s examine one of the most disturbing claims:
In a New York Times op-ed, former ambassador John Bolton and former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo went a step further:
The Senate should heed the will of the voters and either reject the treaty or amend it so that it doesn’t weaken our national defense. … [And the] resolution, which supposedly addresses concerns about missile defense and modernization of the nuclear arsenal, is a Trojan horse. Any senators who fall for this ploy will not only imperil our safety, they will also undermine the Senate’s formidable powers in the treaty-making process.
As Bolton has mentioned before, this is not just about Russia. America will “pay” for this dangerously misguided treaty “in future conflicts entirely unrelated to Russia.” And for those who may be tempted to dismiss the former ambassador, his comments were echoed by former secretary of state Henry Kissenger, who said “unnecessarily limiting strategic options of a future president” should have been avoided.
Those constraints are serious and broad. As former undersecretary of state Robert Joseph and former undersecretary of defense Eric Edelman point out, the “most serious” flaw with the treaty is the “constraints on missile defenses and conventional, long-range, precision strike weapons.”
Simply put, the treaty limits America’s offensive and defensive capabilities. As it now stands, the treaty is unacceptable and should be rejected by the Senate.