Council for a Livable World

In my tradition it is customary to memorialize a dead person 30 days after one’s death. I want to follow that tradition for John Murtha. I am struck by the irony that on the 30th day after John Murtha’s death, the House Democratic leadership banned bud…

Good  New York Times article today about the difficulties in the “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations.

People may have thought it just like getting back on a bicycle, but it isn’t.

There are too many grievances over the last 20 years – or is it 80 years – between the U.S. and Russia to make buddy-buddy easily again.

Most experts thought that the New START nuclear reductions treaty negotiations would go rapidly and smoothly.

Unfortunately, not so.

The most important deadline was the December 5, 2009 expiration of the START I agreement, and the two countries breezed past that three-month-old deadline.

The U.S. nurses grievances over Russian trade with Iran and Moscow’s harsh response in last year’s Russia vs. Georgia conflict. And their crackdown on dissidents.

The Russians nurse grievances about how we treated the former Soviet Union when it was down (before petro-dollars shot up) and our persistence in placing missile defense in former Soviet dependencies. And our tendency to tell them how to run their country.

Both countries could probably extend their list of grievances as long as their arms (either connected to their bodies or their weapons).

We have heard predictions that the New START agreement is 95% done and will be concluded in a matter of weeks.

But we have heard those predictions before.

The new treaty will be worth the wait and will be positive for American national security and yes, even for improved U.S.-Russian relations, but it has been a wait.

The Times article suggests: “The American officials said the answer might be persistence and patience,” and they are correct.

Persistence. Patience.  Say in over and over again.

Sen. Feingold (D-WI) issued a statement in support of START today–Highlights below. Full text after the jump.
__

The United States and Russia maintain over ninety percent of the world’s approximately 23,000 nuclear weapons. Each of these weapons has the capacity to destroy an entire city; collectively, they can destroy the world. The mere existence of these weapons creates the risk of a nuclear accident, unauthorized use, and theft by a terrorist group. The size and structure of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals reflect an antiquated Cold War mindset that we must move beyond.

It is in the national security interest of the United States to reach an agreement with Russia to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and ensure that strong verification and transparency measures remain in effect. This is the core purpose and focus of the START follow-on agreement.

_

Nor is there any reason to continue to develop new nuclear weapon technologies or warheads. Our brightest experts have concluded that we no longer need new nuclear weapons in order to maintain a credible deterrent. A recent report from the independent JASON Defense Advisory Group concluded that, as a result of our nuclear laboratories’ successful life-extension programs, the lifetimes of our nuclear warheads can be extended for decades.

__

I want to commend the administration for its efforts to reinvigorate the nonproliferation regime by negotiating a follow-on to the START treaty. We must act now to address the spread of nuclear weapons and materials, which is one of the gravest dangers facing the United States.

Statement for the Record in Support of a Follow-on Agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)

Senator Russ Feingold

March 9, 2010

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of our administration’s efforts to negotiate a follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Our negotiating team in Vienna is currently working with the Russian delegation to finalize this agreement, and I look forward to reviewing the treaty when it is submitted to the Senate.

The United States and Russia maintain over ninety percent of the world’s approximately 23,000 nuclear weapons. Each of these weapons has the capacity to destroy an entire city; collectively, they can destroy the world. The mere existence of these weapons creates the risk of a nuclear accident, unauthorized use, and theft by a terrorist group. The size and structure of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals reflect an antiquated Cold War mindset that we must move beyond.

It is in the national security interest of the United States to reach an agreement with Russia to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and ensure that strong verification and transparency measures remain in effect. This is the core purpose and focus of the START follow-on agreement.

The START follow-on agreement is an important component of our efforts to work with Russia and other international partners to collectively address the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. These dangers include the vulnerability of nuclear material to theft by terrorists, as well as the risk of nuclear proliferation by other countries.

Ratification of a START follow-on agreement would also be a clear signal that the United States is upholding our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would reaffirm our leadership on nonproliferation issues and demonstrate, as the President has advocated, that we are serious about moving towards a world without nuclear weapons while maintaining a reliable deterrent for so long as it is needed. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity; without a demonstrated effort to fulfilling our nonproliferation responsibilities through a new START agreement, it will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to secure the international support needed to address the urgent security threats posed by the spread of nuclear weapons.

The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States concluded that “terrorist use of a nuclear weapon against the United States or its friends and allies is more likely than deliberate use by a state.” Our priority, therefore, should be to work together with Russia to reduce the size and vulnerability of our nuclear arsenals, and ensure that proper security and surveillance safeguards are in place.

Unfortunately, today Russia continues to possess huge stores of nuclear materials that are inadequately secured and which, if stolen by terrorists, could be used to destroy an American city. The size of our own nuclear arsenal is also unsustainable, both from a security and cost perspective, and should be tailored to the new twenty-first century threats we face.

The reductions required by the START follow-on agreement will not adversely affect our national security. The United States could pursue much deeper reductions in the size of our arsenal and still have more weapons that we would ever need. In fact, it is precisely the size of our nuclear arsenal and complex that make them vulnerable to exploitation by terrorists. There is no longer any compelling national security reason to maintain or expand the size of our nuclear stockpile.

Nor is there any reason to continue to develop new nuclear weapon technologies or warheads. Our brightest experts have concluded that we no longer need new nuclear weapons in order to maintain a credible deterrent. A recent report from the independent JASON Defense Advisory Group concluded that, as a result of our nuclear laboratories’ successful life-extension programs, the lifetimes of our nuclear warheads can be extended for decades.

I am encouraged that efforts to negotiate a START follow-on agreement have bipartisan support among national security experts. Notably, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, headed by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger, endorsed a follow-on agreement to START. Similarly, Secretary Perry joined with former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for the extension of the key provisions of START and further reductions in our nuclear stockpile.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to commend the administration for its efforts to reinvigorate the nonproliferation regime by negotiating a follow-on to the START treaty. We must act now to address the spread of nuclear weapons and materials, which is one of the gravest dangers facing the United States. In a time of terrorism and of rising international concern about Iran’s nuclear program, international cooperation remains key to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The START follow-on agreement is an essential step towards that goal, and towards a world without nuclear weapons.

Congrats to all those working for CTBT ratification in Utah, as the Utah state House just unanimously passed a resolution (HR-4) urging the U.S. Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

From the resolution:

“United States ratification of the CTBT would be a significant step towards preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, reducing nuclear weapons arsenals worldwide, and building confidence among nations that abolition of nuclear weapons can someday be achieved,

…further nuclear weapons testing is not necessary to maintain the integrity, effectiveness, and deterrence value of the existing United States nuclear weapons stockpile,

…as part of its recognition of the 50th anniversary of nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site, in the 2001 General Session, the 54th Legislature of the state of Utah expressed, ‘the fervent desire and commitment to assure that such a legacy will never be repeated,’

…the House of Representatives of the state of Utah strongly urges the United States Senate to promptly give its advice and consent for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.”

As experts have identified, support from Utah’s two Republican Senators – Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennet – will be key in new efforts for Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Both Hatch and Bennett voted against the agreement when it was first brought to the Senate in 1999. Though the primary concerns that led to that first failed vote no longer hold water, the Senators will be under significant pressure from Republican leadership not to break ranks with the party conservatives who will oppose the agreement.

Today’s unanimous vote is a giant leap in the right direction for both Utah and the country, and it demonstrates the truly bipartisan consensus that exists for a smarter nuclear weapons policy that addresses today’s national security challenges.

From the Salt Lake City Tribune:

Rep. Trisha Beck, D-Sandy, reminded her colleagues of a pamphlet distributed decades ago by the U.S. government saying that the nuclear-test site in Nevada was safe and did not cause illness.

But, by 1990, the federal government had passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to aid those who had been damaged by above- and below-ground testing that continued through the Cold War.

‘The pamphlet said it was benign,’ Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, said. ‘People would sit out and watch the explosions with their kids.’

Noel urged passage of HR4, saying his own mother had died of cancer.

You can read the entire resolution here.

Avatar– Acting Ways and Means Chairman Sander Levin

The Blind Side – Republicans in Congress

District 9 – Washington, DC Council Member Marion Barry

An Education  – Nuclear Posture Review

The Hurt Locker – Democrats in Congress

Inglourious Basterds  – Sen. Jim Bunning and friends

Precious  – Bi-partisanship

A Serious Man – Sen. Jon Kyl

Up – Federal budget deficit

Up in the Air – New START nuclear reductions treaty

AND THE WINNER IS — CHECK BACK ON ELECTION DAY NOVEMBER 2010