Close this search box.

Senate Should Reject START Treaty and Demand Release of Negotiating Record

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Cliff May, President, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Frank J. Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General
Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
David McIntosh, former Member of Congress, Indiana
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Gary Bauer, President, American Values
Dr. Herbert London, President, Hudson Institute
Richard Viguerie, Chairman,
Craig Shirley, Chairman, Citizens for the Republic
Mathew D. Staver, Founder & Chairman, Liberty Counsel
Susan Carleson, Chairman & CEO, American Civil Rights Union
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator
Jim Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association
Brent Bozell, President, Media Research Center
J. Kenneth Blackwell, former U.S. Ambassador, UN Human Rights Commission


Senate Should Reject START Treaty and

Demand Release of Negotiating Record

RE: The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty – New START – negotiated between the U.S. and Russia and signed on April 8 in Prague – weakens America’s national defense with little or no benefit in exchange.

ACTION: The United States Senate should reject the New START treaty because it’s a bad deal for America. Moreover, the Senate should refuse to even review the treaty until the release of the full negotiating record, which will provide lawmakers with insights into not only the official text, but also the course of discussions between the Obama Administration and the Kremlin.


The “New START” treaty will make America less safe START is an integral part of President Obama’s bid to “rid the world of nuclear weapons.” Senate consent to its ratification would legitimize that unachievable and ill-advised goal. Taken together with the rest of the Obama denuclearization agenda, START would undermine America’s deterrent. The Treaty seeks to resuscitate the bilateral arms control nostrums of the 1970s. It might more accurately be called “New SALT” for it replicates many of the shortcomings of the earlier Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties. In particular, New START will effectively relegate the United States to a renewed – and dangerous – posture of “mutual assured destruction” with respect to Russia. The Treaty does nothing about the immediate problem: nuclear proliferators like Iran and North Korea. Overall, the Administration’s nuclear policy ensures that only the United States will be disarmed. Without our global deterrence, there will be more wars, not fewer, and more proliferation, not less. What is in START Throughout the treaty, the Russians’ preferences prevailed – at America’s expense. The United States is the only one making unnecessary cuts. START is rooted in a false and undesirable vision of “parity” between the U.S. and Russia. The treaty’s restrictions will exacerbate the effect of President Obama’s unilateral restrictions on modernizing our deterrent. START imposes no corresponding limitations on the comprehensive nuclear modernization efforts the Russians now have underway. The START treaty text explicitly limits U.S. missile defense development under certain conditions. Worse yet, Russian officials claim that U.S. negotiators offered guarantees that the U.S. will not make qualitative or quantitative improvements to its existing missile defense systems. What is not in START It is focused on Russia and ignores the nuclear threats posed by others – especially China. The cuts the treaty would make in U.S. nuclear forces are more likely to encourage Iran and other proliferators to build up their arsenals, rather than discourage them. The treaty does not address the issue of lower-yield, “tactical” nuclear weapons, in which Russia has a ten-fold advantage over the United States. The treaty’s verification arrangements are inadequate. The Obama administration refuses to undertake the steps needed to build a credible U.S. deterrent for the 21st Century, including the modernization of existing weapons and the creation of new ones that are safe, reliable and appropriate for modern threats. The Russians view START Treaty as their victory According to Leonid Ivashov, a retired three-star general and well-known hard-liner, the treaty was a “real diplomatic success,” because the Russian delegation “did not yield.” Another well-known hardliner, Sergey Kurginyan, stated bluntly that “Russia could not have an easier partner on the topic of nuclear arms than Obama.”

Simply put, the United States should not be party to a treaty which does not benefit the United States. As currently written, “New START” does not meet that standard and its ratification should not be approved by the U.S. Senate.

MOREOVER, even consideration of such approval by the Senate should be preceded by a careful review of the New START Treaty’s negotiating record – a step made necessary in particular by the conflicting representations by the U.S. and Russian sides about the nature and extent of the negotiations on limitations with respect to missile defenses.


(All organizations listed are for identification purposes only)