New England Republican Senators Could Hold Key to New START Ratification

Today's top nuclear policy stories, with excerpts in bullet form.

Stories we're following today: Monday, August 16, 2010:

New England Republican Senators Could Hold the Key to Nuclear Arms Reduction - The Keene New Hampshire Sentinel [link]

• Some Republicans like to insist that they aren’t the party of “no,” but the claim doesn’t hold much water when it comes to nuclear arms control.
• We asked Republican Sen. Judd Gregg whether he would support ratification, as fellow Granite State Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen had pledged. Gregg, who had enthusiastically backed ratification of the START treaty in 1996, was said to need more details before taking a stand.
• Republican senators have made only one clear demand of the administration, which is that it spend $10 billion to upgrade its nuclear weapons complexes over and above the extra $10 billion that the Obama administration asked for earlier this year. Suddenly deficit hawks aren’t quite so hawkish.
• The arms control treaty needs 67 votes to be ratified. All 59 Democrats and Independents in the Senate back the deal, and Sen. Lugar has promised his vote. That leaves seven votes required for ratification, half of which could be supplied by New England: Gregg, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine and Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
• All are independent-minded Republicans who should know better than to hold up the world’s safety for a purely partisan charade.
  
  

Russia Sets Date for Crucial Step in Iranian Nuclear Start-Up - The New York Times [link]

• In a move sure to disappoint United States diplomats trying to halt Iran’s nuclear program, the Russian state nuclear power company said Friday that it would take a crucial step later this month toward starting Iran’s first nuclear power plant.
• The United States had asked Russia to delay the plant’s start-up until Iran stopped uranium enrichment and allayed concerns that it was using its civilian nuclear program as a cover for weapons development.
• Russian officials, who are also concerned about Iran’s nuclear progress, had long appeared to use the plant’s construction schedule and the drawn-out start-up process as leverage with Iran’s leaders and in wider Russian diplomacy in the Middle East.
• Russia says the Bushehr plant is a critical step in the process of bringing all of Iran’s nuclear activities under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Senate September Showdown - Joe Cirincione in The Huffington Post [link]

• Hillary Clinton did not pull her punches at the podium last week. "Our national security is at risk," she said last Wednesday. "When the Senate returns" from its August break, the Secretary of State warned, "they must act" to approve a new nuclear arms reduction pact.
• Her remarks signaled a new determination in the Obama administration not to play the patsy for GOP delay tactics. She raised the stakes in a looming showdown this September.
• The White House strategy of keeping this low-key and arguing purely on the treaty's merits has won over several key senators now leaning in favor of the treaty, but has not made a dent in the political calculus of the Republican leadership. Hence, Clinton's gambit to raise the price of further delay.
• Until Clinton's speech, the White House wasn't looking for a political battle.
• When the Senate returns in September, it will mark 280 days since US weapon inspectors have been allowed in Russia. We will find out if Clinton's strategy will convince the Senate Republican leadership to let them return.

Iowa Senators Should Support New START - Des Moines Register [link]

• The chorus swells. Ever since the unholy and horrific devastation that occurred when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 65 years ago, thoughtful people have called for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
• It's time now for Sens. Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley to get on board.
• A good first step would be giving strong support to the ratification of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). Senators, join the chorus and vote "yes" on the New START.

Time for New START: Four Responses to Treaty Critics - Tom Collina in The Hill's Congress blog [link]

• Current military leaders and former senior officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations have testified that New START would increase U.S. security by reducing the nuclear threat from Russia, providing transparency about Russian strategic forces, and bolstering U.S. efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups and additional states.
• Moreover, stalling New START undermines U.S. security. The previous START I treaty, negotiated by President Ronald Reagan, expired last December, and there have been no inspections of Russia's nuclear forces for the past 250 days. "I’m not comfortable with that,” Gen. Kevin Chilton, U.S. STRATCOM Commander, said Aug. 12.
• Close scrutiny reveals that none of their concerns should stand in the way of prompt New START ratification when the Senate returns in September.
• Senators have every right to ask hard questions and demand good answers. But once the answers are in, senators need to have an open mind. The answers are in, and the debate is over. New START deserves to be ratified as soon as possible.

Nukes Forever - Page Van Der Linden in Foreign Policy [link]

• The New START treaty's opponents have created the false impression that Obama isn't doing enough to maintain America's fearsome nuclear arsenal, when in fact he's throwing billions into the effort -- even, arguably, expanding it.
• But there are a vocal few who consistently argue that whatever funding is provided for the nuclear security complex simply won't be enough. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is the loudest of these opposing voices.
• His arguments seem to boil down to two things: a different definition of "modernization" and simply wanting new warheads and possibly even new testing.
• So, regardless of how the opposing sides define modernization, both factions should be pleased with what they're getting as the final package. That's why the treaty has garnered the support of everyone from the directors of the national laboratories and the NNSA to many key military figures and nuclear strategy experts.
• There is no reason to object to the treaty on the basis of the question, "Will the arsenal work?" There's enough money in the pipeline for it to "work" for many, many years to come.