On Tuesday House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation castigating the Obama administration for allegedly weakening U.S. national security.  The New START treaty was the subject of particular derision.  Said Cantor:

The administration hails the renewal of the START treaty as a major accomplishment. But what does it really accomplish?...A Republican Congress will turn back harmful treaties like START.

Cantor's comments on the treaty look especially pitiful in the wake of former Secretary of Defense Jim Schlesinger's testimony last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  According to Schlesinger, who as Travis noted is viewed by Republicans as a kind of Yoda on nuclear issues,

it is obligatory for the United States to ratify. And any treaty is going to have limitations, questionable areas. There are some in this treaty. We need to watch them for the future, but that does not mean that the treaty should be rejected.[emphasis mine.]

Schlesinger, is not the only key validator to come out in support of New START...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, validators (all tags)

Travis got this ball rolling last week, but we've put together a longer list of what some folks with some pretty serious credibility on national security issues have been saying about the NPR and New START.  And it don't exactly mix and match with what some of our good friends on the right have been saying.  Read the whole thing below the jump.  Here are a few excerpts:

“The chiefs and I fully support the findings of this nuclear posture review, because we believe it provides us and our field commanders the opportunity to better shape our nuclear weapons posture, policies and force structure to meet an ever-changing security environment….Even while it reduces the role played by nuclear weapons – a reduction I wholly endorse – this Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms our commitment to defend the vital interests of the United States and those of our partners and allies with a more balanced mix of nuclear and non-nuclear means than we have at our disposal today.”

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Press Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review, April 6, 2010

“The Russians may issue a statement saying that they have the right to withdraw if we deploy defenses to threaten the strategic balance.  They issued such a statement in 1991; we issued a statement right back and both of them went into the dustbin of history.  I think it would be – it is for the Senate to decide whether this treaty deserves ratification.  I think it does.  It would be tragic if we allowed Russian statements made for domestic purposes to derail it. [T]here is no restriction in START with regard to our missile defense capability.”

Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Press Briefing on Understanding New START and the Nuclear Posture Review, April 9, 2010

“There’s a particularly important point that I think will strengthen us for the future under the NPR.  It’s something I’ve advocated for in the past, and this is the funding that is, and the commitment to funding and the focus on improving the nuclear enterprise under NNSA; this will truly strengthen the deterrent, not only for today but for 20, 30, 40 years from now.  And the NPR’s endorsement of that I think is one of the most important aspects of that for strengthening our deterrence posture for the future.”

General Kevin Chilton, Commander, STRATCOM
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 14, 2010

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review, missile defense, validators (all tags)