New Start is bad for U.S. security

A recent letter writer complains that Republicans won't just say yes to ratification of Obama's New Start Treaty.

Apparently, he is unhappy that GOP senators want to take time to consider the merits of this incredibly important treaty. However, he offers no rationale as to why New Start should be ratified. The fact is this is a poorly negotiated treaty that seriously reduces U.S. security. There are many reasons why it should not be ratified. Here are just a few.

First, despite administration denials, New Start will harm our ability to develop and use our missile defense capabilities. This defensive capability will become increasingly important for the U.S. and its allies as more nations develop nuclear capability - think Iran and North Korea.

Second, Russia has a huge advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons. New Start does nothing about this disparity; it should.

Third, New Start limits development and deployment of U.S. conventional weapons. This would diminish our ability to defend ourselves and our allies. In this time of shifting allegiances and proliferating rogue states, we must not do this.

Nuclear weapon reduction is a lofty goal. However, the thought that New Start will actually achieve it is naive. Volatile states like Iran and North Korea will not see this as an example to follow but rather as an opportunity to gain ground in the nuclear arena.

The letter writer accuses the Republicans of "just saying no" to anything Obama. This is wrong. A senator's first and most important consideration in evaluating ratification of New Start must be how it will affect the security of the U.S. Without question, this treaty reduces our national security and it should not be ratified.

John Craychee

St Charles