Stephen Rademaker’s recent piece in the Washington Post is the latest in a series of offensives against the New START treaty with Russia.  He falsely plants the blame for the delayed ratification schedule on the Democrats, although it is the Republicans who have spent the past few months scrambling to hold the treaty hostage to political maneuvering. On the plus side, he implicitly concedes that the debate on the content of the treaty is essentially over – he has no beef with the text or implications of New START. At a loss for substantive things to critique, he turns to an otherwise tedious and boring topic: Senate processes.

Rademaker says that critics of the treaty have been unfairly excluded from the process, but the evidence is to the contrary. Claiming that Senate leaders haven’t given Republicans time to formally file their complaints with the treaty is a criticism of last resort. There have been 20 hearings, three classified briefings and almost 800 questions asked on the record. There have been countless meetings between concerned Senators (primarily Republicans) Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and various members of the negotiating team. 

The negotiating record on missile defense was shared with the Senators who asked for it, even though Senator Kerry pointed out that the precedent for this practice is minimal and should be repeated only with caution. That sentiment goes as far back as George Washington, who firmly opposed sharing a treaty’s negotiating record. 

Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, specifically delayed the vote from August until September to give Senators who weren’t sure how they felt about new START more time to come to a decision. After announcing the delay, he said: "If we forced a vote today, I would have won. But I would have angered some people and made them feel they weren't being included," Kerry said. "I think it's important to build a broader consensus." Kerry has already solicited input from Senators on the resolution of ratification, which is exactly what Rademaker insisted must be done. 

Rademaker’s article makes a serious omission in its discussion of the negotiations between the administration and Republican senators who want the most bang for their “yes” vote. The issue of funding for nuclear modernization has taken center stage in the informal negotiations, with Senator Kyl and others demanding billions in nuclear pork in exchange for a yes vote on New START. Even though the administration already proposed almost historic funding for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex, Republicans are trying to squeeze out more dollars.

But few Senators have been openly critical about the treaty, and most of them have not made any specific demands. The majority of Republicans are hiding in the shadows on the issue, and Senators Corker and Kyl are doing their dirty work. 

Complaining that Senators have not been given the opportunity to express their reservations on the treaty is ironic, given that Rademaker’s intent is to support ongoing efforts of Republican obstructionism in the Senate.  Opponents of the treaty – like Rademaker – are clearly struggling to escape the resounding support in favor of New START. The list of respected foreign policy and arms control experts from both sides of the aisle who support New START seems never ending. They all say that the treaty is necessary to our national security.  Why shouldn’t we believe them?

The delay in ratification only increases the time that will pass before we can get our hands on information about Russia’s nuclear program. Instead of relying on complaints from obstructionists about mundane Senate procedures, we need Senators to do the right thing and put national security over partisan games.  

August 6th marks the 65th anniversary of Hiroshima. The atomic bomb, dropped from an American B-29 war plane on the morning of August 6, 1945, killed 140,000 people; some were incinerated mid-step on the pavement.  In addition to U.N Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, a U.S Ambassador will be present at the Japanese commemoration for the first time.

The invention of the bomb was one of many regrettable byproducts of a world at war. Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein drafted a resolution in 1955 giving warning to the threat of nuclear war. They urged governments to “find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute.”  There is greater demand than ever before for governments to find peaceful ways to settle disputes, often through treaties and international institutions. Despite the positive trend, there are still thousands of nuclear weapons looming in the arsenals of a handful of nations. These weapons have evolved significantly over the years. The codenames for the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” respectively. Today we are dealing with weapons of morbid obesity.

 One of the most daunting threats to the continued survival of our world is nuclear war. Since nuclear weapons cannot be “un-invented”, we need to find the political will to confine them to the pages of history books. Political will is needed for nations to trust each other. It is needed for politicians to ratify treaties. Without it we cannot safely guarantee that we will be commemorating the 75th anniversary of Hiroshima.

Ideologically diverse yet respected foreign policy experts and high-ranking military officials—Henry Kissinger, George P. Schultz, Richard Burt, Robert Gates Hillary Clinton, and Adm. Mike Mullen—support the New START treaty. Ambassador Nancy Soderberg noted the reason for this phenomenon: “At its core, the debate is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who understand the world of nuclear weapons has changed dramatically and those who still view national security through a pre-9/11, Cold War lens.”

Treaty opponents embrace this Cold War hysteria, imagining a game of international chess that did not stop with the collapse of the Soviet Union. For them, first strike capability, acceptable losses, and thousands of nuclear weapons trained on major population centers have become a way of life. They demand to see negotiation records, hoping to uncover proof of Ivan’s cunning as he stealthily softens up lazy American capitalists for a surprise nuclear strike. Small wonder that those who entertain this skewed fantasy would sacrifice the proven benefits of a strategic arms treaty and bet the house on an unwanted, nonexistent panacea. These neo-Cold Warriors either are incapable of accepting the changes resulting from the end of the Cold War or they seek to return to the heady days of an unfettered nuclear arms race.

Take, for example, the repeated claim that the treaty will hobble the development of a missile shield. According to the far-right Heritage Foundation, it should “be the goal of the U.S. to have a missile defense system that renders nuclear threats by other nations useless.” They tacitly ignore the actual purpose of U.S. missile defense—preventing a nuclear strike from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran—and demand a missile shield unlike anything ever imagined by the last Bush administration. The missile shield they dream of is a relic of the Cold War, a fantastical Star Wars system capable of enveloping the U.S. in an impenetrable cocoon of nuclear deterrence against Russia. If the U.S. were to follow the path laid out by these treaty opponents, a costly and destabilizing modern-day arms race will be unavoidable.

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. DeMint inquired "Don't we want to expand our defenses so that we can obliterate Russia's offensive capability?” His simple question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the inherent relationship between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons. Beyond that, Sen. DeMint’s query woefully misinterprets the history of arms reduction treaties, and the necessity of non-proliferation in a post 9/11 world.

If the U.S. were to develop this mythical impenetrable missile shield, it would send shockwaves through the nuclear community. According to Sen. Kerry, it could “obliterate one party’s sense of deterrence,” and force nations like Russia and China to pour resources into developing an offensive nuclear arsenal large enough to eliminate this sudden gap.

Unchecked proliferation presents a more pressing concern, with unsecured nuclear weapons exponentially raising the likelihood of nuclear terrorism. A missile shield could not prevent a martyr from detonating a bomb in an American city, and nuclear deterrence holds no sway with non-state actors. Even if we spend untold billions arming ourselves to the teeth, safely ensconced in our mythical cocoon, we will not be invulnerable. Worse still, it will usher in a new age of nuclear paranoia not seen since the height of the Cold War.   

In a nuclear world America cannot go it alone.  Contrary to the baseless fear mongering of opponents like the Heritage Foundation, ratifying the New START treaty will not lead to a new arms race. It is not a drastically new agreement, but a reiteration of arms treaties supported by every administration since Reagan. If we ignore the treaty and pursue a path of nuclear hegemony, we will create a living, breathing monster that threatens the citizens of every nation.

The best and brightest cannot concoct a strategic plan or weapon system that will provide the safety and security that New START offers. There is no magic solution, no technological marvel to guarantee safety. Opponents of the treaty would do well to heed the words of “Nuclear Wizards” author Fred Kaplan: “The nuclear strategists had come to impose order -– but in the end, chaos still prevailed.”

The history of civilization shows no force more unstoppable than the madness of man. Mankind survived the Fall of Rome, the Grand Inquisition, and the Holocaust, but now we face a thousand-year night. That’s why we must remain vigilant. That’s why we must support New START. President John F. Kennedy recognized the catastrophic alternative: “Every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”

Michael Crabtree is a Research Associate at Citizens for Global Solutions.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be voting on the New START treaty August 3rd. Join the New START facebook page for one final push. It's time to tell the Republican members of the SFRC to vote Yes on START.

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and failed presidential contender, now sets his sights on the 2012 election. He has decided the best way to secure the nomination is to ramp up the crazy.

Romney took to the Washington Post to decry the New START treaty currently making its way through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rather then add substantively to the debate, the former governor trotted out the same tired arguments that treaty opponents have been bleating since Senators Kerry and Lugar began hearings over two months ago. From Senator Inhofe and DeMint to the Heritage Foundation, Republicans focused on what they view as a glaring flaw in the treaty, missile defense. They claim the treaty will severely limit the development of a U.S. missile shield, and will signal to hostile powers that America lacks the will to defend itself. There’s one problem with these claims: they are flat out wrong.

Romney’s argument follows the rich tradition driving the Republican Party right now. The tea-partiers and other fringe groups require a certain level of cocksure militarism. Just look at McCain in 2008, with his impromptu hit song “Bomb Iran” set to the tune of the Beach Boy’s “Barbara Ann.” It evoked a jingoistic swagger that the Republican base ate up, akin to G.W. strutting on an aircraft carrier in his flight suit and codpiece. After all, what could be the harm in starting a third war with a far better equipped country while still hemorrhaging resources in America’s two current wars?

Numerous witnesses have repeated in SFRC hearings that the New START Treaty will not constrain missile defense in any way, shape, or form. Period. Seriously, look it up. Bi-Partisan support for the treaty makes this crystal clear. An op-ed written by under secretary of Defense for Policy and in collaboration with the under secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics stated:

 “The fact is that the treaty does not constrain the U.S. from testing, developing and deploying missile defenses. Nor does it prevent us from improving or expanding them. Nor does it raise the costs of doing so.”

This doesn’t sound like the Neville Chamberlain capitulation that Mitt Romney rails about in his piece. But is it an isolated opinion? The answer is a resounding no, unless, like Romney and friends, you choose to ignore the opinions of authorities like Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, Hillary Clinton, or the 30 top National Security leaders that came out in support of ratifying the treaty.  

In this post 9/11 world, it’s interesting how quickly certain individuals revert to a Cold War mentality. In Romney’s article, he cursorily mentions rogue nations like Iran and North Korea, and doesn’t bother to discuss terrorist groups seeking to construct a dirty bomb. Instead it’s right back to the arms-races. Romney claims that “New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States,” noting the disparity of Russia’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons that currently outnumbers the United States by 10:1. He observes that while they cannot strike America “surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella.”

An interesting observation. The nuclear umbrella and the security provided by the U.S. and NATO have allowed European nations to invest in social programs rather than defense. Is this in the best interest of American citizens? Representatives Barney Frank and Ron Paul noted, 

“After World War II, with…the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role…The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense.”

This doesn’t mesh with the foreign policy strategy of the former governor, who prefers to invoke a neo-Teddy Roosevelt policy that relies on the big stick, but ignores speaking softly. America should not turn its back on our allies, yet we must find another path to global security. Conveniently, the Reps’ indicated a common sense policy of protection: 

“When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed.”

Until Mitt Romney and his obstinate brethren in Congress stop trying to score cheap political points, America’s national security continues to be put at risk. It’s time to move beyond the Cold War. The Berlin Wall fell twenty-one years ago. The Soviet Union ceased to exist nineteen years ago. Ratifying New START will not drive Russia into a headlong pursuit of nuclear hegemony; instead it will provide verifiable benchmarks for the two major nuclear powers to reduce existing stock and monitor the development of new weapons and delivery systems. Passing the treaty will not harm America’s national security. Failing to pass it will. 

For more on the New START Treaty, visit our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/newstarttreaty

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to push forward with hearings on the New START Treaty, despite vocal opposition from stubborn opponents relentlessly repeating the same misguided objections. Listening to these obstinate Representatives continue to regurgitate these same obstructive statements, a listener is left wondering if any amount of information, military experts or hearings would really convince them to put security over partisan politics.

Working Across the Aisle for a New START

Bi-partisan collaboration is not only possible, it has been a cornerstone of non-proliferation treaties since START I. The New START Treaty is no different. It maintains a broad coalition of support from respected individuals, both Democrat and Republican. As noted by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the treaty “is, by definition, not a bipartisan but a non-partisan challenge.” This claim has been echoed by a veritable parade of respected authorities, both civilian and military, that have come forward with their support.

During several hearings, the SFRC has heard the testimonies of former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense. According to James Baker and William Perry, ratifying the Treaty is crucial in preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. According to foreign policy experts Henry Kissinger and Stephen Hadley, the New START is fundamental to the relationship between the United States and Russia, while Brent Scowcroft warned that if the U.S. fails to ratify the treaty, diplomatic efforts for nuclear non-proliferation may be thrust into “a state of chaos.”

Why Should We Ratify?

The reasons for ratifying the New START treaty are numerous and compelling. Since the expiration of START I in 2009, the United States and Russia have lost a critical link between the two governments. For this reason, the treaty offers benefits far greater than an incremental decrease in nuclear weapons. It will reestablish definitions, counting rules, and a means of verification previously laid out in the expired START I treaty

Failure of Treaty negotiations will have even greater strategic consequences. Henry Kissinger noted the importance of passing New START in order to achieve other key objectives, specifically “to reduce or eliminate the danger of war by miscalculation…to bring about the maximum stability in the balance of forces to reduce incentives for nuclear war by design…to overcome the danger of accidents fostered by the automaticity of the new technology. Kissinger even broached the topic of disarmament, albeit cautiously, stating “All these measures combined might, if successful, merge into a strategy that would reduce or limit—and, in the end, perhaps eliminate—the use of these weapons as a conscious choice.”

To join the discussion and stay current with Committee proceedings, become a fan of the New START Page

Monday May 3 will mark the beginning of the 8th Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, and 189 governments party to the treaty and hundreds of NGOs will flock to New York to discuss our world’s greatest security concern – nuclear weapons. The stakes are high, with issues such as demands of disarmament and Iranian development of nuclear weapons topping the agenda. The last review conference, held five years ago, was such an abysmal failure that the pressure is strong on all parties to reach agreement on the many controversial issues.

Yesterday UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wrote an op-ed in the New York Times laying out the urgency of the Review Conference and some of the top considerations for the agenda. While stressing the importance of holding realistic expectations, Ban Ki-moon asserted that the opportunities presented by Review Conference must not fall by the wayside, especially on the topics of disarmament, non-proliferation, a nuclear weapons free-zone in the Middle East, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

In particular, Ban Ki-moon focused on the need for a serious and thorough consideration of disarmament. “The Earth’s very future leaves us no alternative but to pursue disarmament,” he said. “And there is little prospect of that without global cooperation.”

If the Review Conference does not address the issue of disarmament, it is sacrificing an opportunity to start taking the necessary steps to make the world safer. The very real possibility of nuclear terrorism – highlighted in President Obama’s recent Security Summit– reinforces the widespread relevance of the issue and underscores the necessity of international cooperation. “Nuclear terrorism is not a Hollywood fantasy,” wrote Ban Ki-Moon. “It can happen.”

Sign an international petition calling on President Obama to initiate talks on an international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons. Call on President Obama to work with international leaders to abolish nuclear weapons – within our lifetimes. You can be a part of the over 5 million signatures that will be delivered to the White House and the United Nations next week.  Click here to Sign the Petition Now.

“I state with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” ~President Obama, Prague Nuclear Security Speech, April 2009

The existence of nuclear weapons remains the greatest threat to life on earth.  Sign the petition and call on President Obama to make good on the commitment he declared in Prague one year ago.  Call on President Obama to initiate talks on an international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons. Call on President Obama to work with international leaders to abolish nuclear weapons – within our lifetimes.

You can be a part of the over 5 million signatures that will be delivered to the White House and the United Nations in early May to coincide with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in New York.  Click here to Sign the Petition Now.

In 1970, the NPT was created to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. But it is unequipped to deal with 21st century challenges, and the NPT alone cannot bring about a world free of nuclear weapons. The 8th Review Conference of the NPT (May 3-28, 2010) provides a key forum to initiate good faith talks on disarmament, and it is an opportunity for President Obama to publicly restate his commitment to work toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (right) meets with Libran N. Cabactulan, President-Elect of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Source: UN News & Media

Nuclear weapons must be eliminated to ensure a safer future for generations to come. Unite with more than five million voices and urge President Obama to begin multilateral talks on an international agreement to abolish nuclear weapons.

More on the 2010 NPT Review Conference:
As the only binding multilateral treaty that mentions disarmament, the NPT sets up a grand bargain. It says that nuclear weapons states will ultimately disavow these weapons in exchange for an agreement from non-nuclear states to stay clear of developing nuclear weapons capabilities.

Since 1970, several states have dismantled as a result of the Treaty: Belarus, Kazahkstan, South Africa. And Argentina, Brazil, Libya and Sweden were all dissuaded from pursuing their nuclear aspirations. But India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea have all become nuclear weapons-states, and many non-nuclear weapons states have argued that the states outside the Treaty are receiving the most benefits.

Now forty years have gone by since the Treaty’s establishment, and the Non-Aligned Movement (with 118 member countries mostly in the developing world) is pushing the disarmament agenda seriously. It wants to see the five nuclear powers completely fulfill their disarmament obligations under the NPT. Some states in the NAM already have declared that they will oppose U.S.-supported measures, such as stronger nuclear energy inspections and punishment for countries that withdraw from the NPT.  These same states want the major powers’ nuclear programs to be subject to UN inspections as well as a timeline for disarmament.

Review conferences for the NPT are held in five-year intervals, and last conference in 2005 was deemed a failure when its efforts to produce a final document were botched. This makes the outcome of the 2010 Review Conference absolutely critical. Still, there are many challenges ahead that must be addressed to prevent this conference from going the way of the 2005 meeting.

Because the final conference document must be a consensus piece, any country can use the veto at its disposal. For the Obama administration to sustain the momentum on nuclear security coming off the tail winds of the April Security Summit and the signing of the New START agreement with Russia, the issue of disarmament must remain on the table. The demands of the NAM must be taken seriously otherwise the meeting may be compromised as the 2005 Review Conference was. How the U.S. delegation maneuvers its position and considers the issue of disarmament during the month of May will certainly affect the impact of the Review conference’s outcome.

Sign the Petition Today!

Today the Obama administration released the much-anticipated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), coinciding with the anniversary of President Obama’s progressive Prague speech last April. Splitting with Bush-era nuclear doctrine, the NPR renounces the development of new nuclear weapons and states that the “fundamental purpose” of nuclear weapons is deterring other states from deploying them. The NPR is the beginning of a six week focus on nuclear issues, as President Obama signs New START on Thursday, hosts a Nuclear Security Summit in April, and the UN holds the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May.

Yet the NPR might be more of a status quo document than an expression of President Obama’s Prague vision, as some advocates had hoped. Despite the its modest advances, there were early expectations that the language in the NPR would be bolder and suggest more concrete numbers for nuclear weapons reductions. The NPR’s largely middle ground stance indicates some political signaling to Congress. The Obama administration’s nuclear priority in Congress at the moment is to ratify the New START, which will require 67 votes in the Senate, including the votes of key Senate Republicans. More drastic changes to the NPR might have fueled conservative opposition to New START.

The review states that non-nuclear weapon states will not be subject to nuclear retaliation if they attack the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons. However, states in violation of the NPT fall outside this category, including Iran. This is designed to assure non-nuclear weapons states and provide support to the NPT, which will be discussed at length at the NPT Review Conference in May. The conference is an absolutely critical next step for non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, given that the last conference is widely regarded as a failure.

For nuclear weapons states or states in violation of the NPT, however, there are no such guarantees. President Obama made clear that these states – especially those disrespecting the obligations of the NPT – can expect that attacking the U.S. may come with serious (nuclear) consequences.

The NPR also declared that any attacks on the U.S. would be countered with a “devastating” conventional military response. Clearly the U.S. has the most powerful conventional capabilities in the world. Projecting such strong military power should make the need for nuclear weapons obsolete, or at least allow deterrence to qualify as the “sole” purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Although CGS is disappointed that the U.S. could not identify the purpose of nuclear weapons to be “solely” deterrence, we recognize that the NPR still represents noteworthy progress in U.S. policy.

Academics often cite “security dilemma” explanations to demonstrate how nuclear proliferation spreads. When one country has it, others will follow suit in case the country decides to attack. Many proponents of nuclear weapons believe that the world is safer precisely because of nuclear weapons and the threat of mutually assured destruction if any country uses such violence against its enemies. The biggest flaw in this logic is that assumes that states with nuclear weapons have full control over them. The alternative is truly frightening to consider, but sometimes we need to remind ourselves about the threat of nuclear technology going into the wrong hands.

A much talked about threat of “loose nukes” comes from the former Soviet Union. Before its collapse, it had over 27,000 nuclear weapons. Though former Soviet Republics turned in their nuclear warheads to Russia in the 1990s, few countries still have stockpiles of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Even within Russia, authorities have admitted that they have had to break up hundreds of nuclear-material smuggling operations. Wherever nuclear materials exist, governments have to continually fight off hostile actors.

Pakistan has also provoked much concern, especially considering the powerful role of its military in the government. The acquisition of nuclear technology in Pakistan itself demonstrates how nuclear secrets cannot remain safe. It was disgraced scientist, A.Q. Khan, who introduced the country’s nuclear program. He has been accused of stealing this technology through spies in other countries. Khan also confessed to contributing to the transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. Pakistan’s own stock of nuclear weapons is also under serious threat, particularly now as it is waging a violent war against the Taliban. Unfortunately, the threat to Pakistan’s stockpile could come not only from extremists within the country, but also from the government’s lack of control over its weaponry. A book called “Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade of Nuclear Arms” claimed that, during the Kargil war against India, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons had been deployed to launch sites without the President’s knowledge or approval.

Closer to home, the U.S. has demonstrated that even a powerful government cannot secure a full-proof grip over its weapons.  For instance, in 2006 the U.S. military accidentally shipped nuclear material to Taiwan. In 2008, it was revealed that the U.S. Air Force did not know the locations of several nuclear missile components and other nuclear parts. One official said that more than 1,000 components were missing.

We have all heard enough stories and seen enough pictures from Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to imagine the kind of damage that nuclear material in the wrong hands can cause. Can this ever be worth the risk?

Nuclear proliferation equates to regional instability and insecurity. We have seen destabilizing situations. Pakistan- India, Iran-Middle East, and the fear of loose fissile material. It’s about time the U.S. change its rhetoric in regard to nuclear proliferation. Unlike the past administration, this administration does not shun the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA has just arrived in Iran to conduct inspections, and the U.S. is finally holding high level talks with Iran on their nuclear program. These talks are being conducted through a multilateral approach --with the support of the Permanent-Five members of the United Nations.  

It is not surprising that Iran and North Korea’s attempts to process nuclear material have led to regional uncertainty and tension. States in those regions feel threatened and often feel the need to counter any shifts in regional power. During the Bush administration, Israel drew up plans to attack a few of Iran’s nuclear sites. Iran has also threatened Israel should it attack any Iranian territory. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and other powers around the Korean Peninsula feel uneasy. These tensions only fuel our stance that nuclear proliferation is of no benefit to anyone. We still have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.

It is time for the U.S. to set an example. We have taken some steps with Russia to reduce our stockpile, but it is time to do more. We must ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, fulfill our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty, and must strengthen the IAEA.