Originally published on the CGS blog on June 25, 2012.
Last Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the implementation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), seeking to gauge the treaty’s performance in the time since February 2011, when it first came into effect. Witnesses brought before the committee included the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Thomas P. D’Agostino; the Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the State Department, Rose Gottemoeller; and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Madelyn R. Creedon.
Each of the witnesses offered positive assessments of New START’s effectiveness, highlighting the ways in which the agreement has helped to make nuclear relations between the US and Russia more stable and transparent. In her testimony, Gottemoeller remarked that New START has helped to improve the flow of nuclear weapons-related information between the two countries. In particular, she cited the treaty’s verification mechanisms, including exhibitions of strategic arms and guaranteed on-site inspections, as concrete examples of provisions that have helped to improve the aforementioned information flow.
Meanwhile, in his testimony, D’Agostino sought to dispel the notion that signing New START revealed the Obama administration as being insufficiently committed to preserving the efficacy of the US nuclear arsenal. Insisting that the President Obama recognizes the need to maintain a secure and modernized nuclear force, D’Agostino went on to highlight specific actions that the Administration has taken to ensure this reality. To that end, he cited the Obama Administration’s commitment to extending the life of 80% of the active US nuclear stockpile, as well as its request for an increase in funding for the weapons activities account, for the purposes of nuclear modernization.
Finally, Creedon used the bulk of her testimony to dispel several common misperceptions of New START’s provisions and objectives. First, she countered the notion that New START imposes one-sided restrictions on the United States, pointing out that Russia, like the United States, would be subject to limits on the number of warheads and delivery systems that it can possess. Second, she refuted the idea that New START contains a provision that would limit US missile defense systems, explaining that these weapons systems do not fall under the purview of the treaty.
Though this week’s Senate “vote-a-thon” prevented many of the committee’s members from attending Thursday’s hearing, the majority of those who did attend expressed positive views of the treaty’s performance thus far. However, several senators expressed concerns over the Obama administration’s perceived lack of commitment to maintaining the US nuclear force. In particular, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) expressed disappointment in the administration’s follow-through on promises to modernize the arsenal, asserting that the administration has not delivered what it promised in this arena and was deliberately “slow-walking” nuclear upgrades.
These concerns aside, Thursday’s hearing painted the picture of a treaty generally succeeding in its objectives of forging a more secure and transparent nuclear relationship between the US and Russia. Obviously, in the context of such a relationship, where the stakes run as high as accidental nuclear war, it behooves both parties to maintain as open of a relationship as possible. With regards to this objective, New START is, and will hopefully continue to be, a step in the right direction.
The witnesses’ written testimonies can be viewed here.
