Eight problems with Romney's eight problems, or an open letter to Mitt Romney

Dear Mr. Romney,

Your efforts to restart the Cold War are valiant, but when Henry Kissinger is siding with the Democrats on national security, you can solidly be assured that you are in the wrong.  I hate to tell you, but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also disagrees with you.  At this point, you should just try to save your rapport, instead of making waves.  But that’s just my advice, who am I to judge?

Firstly, I don’t quite understand why you are so adamant that strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms are not interrelated.  You make it sound as if we are bowing to the will of the Russians in agreeing to such a claim.  The only difference between the two is their location, according to the definitions established in the treaty.  There is a delicate balance between the two when it comes to preventing, or preempting first-strikes.  However, as we’ve previously established, we already have more than we need.

As far as your stated Russian-tactical-nuclear-weapons advantage goes, you should realize that since it’s true that the treaty, as signed, does not address them, your argument to the Senate not to ratify the treaty is irrelevant on this point.  Whether New START is ratified or rejected, it will not change the reality that tactical nuclear weapons have yet to be addressed.  Our strategic arsenal is not going to be non-existent under New START terms, and therefore will not compromise our ability to protect our allies from a Russian tactical attack.  Third, your ten-to-one ratio is apparently unfounded.  The number is classified, but estimated at about 2,000, compared to the United States’ 500 (which is still an unnecessarily high number according to strategists and military officers).

You also state your concern for unilateral reductions of arms and launchers.  You cite the Russian press’ statement that “by 2012, Russia would have fewer than 500 launchers and 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons (using New START counting rules) because of the aging of its systems.”  The treaty states that each party may have no more than 800 ICBM and SLBM launchers, either deployed or not, and 1550 warheads.  Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers cited by the “Russian press” (whoever they are), even if the US was the only one reducing capabilities, by the terms of the treaty, we would still outnumber them, since raw numbers mean so much to you.

You seem to like to talk about “multiple warheads” which have been mounted on a single “bomber.”  Which despite the valid point about the types of missiles that it’s possible to put into a bomber, the treaty limits deployed bombers, of which we still have more.  You mention also that Russia has embarked on new long-range bomber and long-range air-launched nuclear cruise missile programs.  Much like your statement on Russia’s tactical weapons, this argument is irrelevant to the ratification of New START.  You should take it up with the lovely people at the Department of Defense who decide how their budget is allocated.

Your point that rail-based launchers, while not currently maintained by either party, are not at all mentioned.  However your concern that should Russia inaugurate such a program again (once again cited to the mysterious “Russian press”) it would not be covered by the terms of the treaty is false.  Article III, Section 5 states that a mobile launcher of newly constructed strategic offensive weapons shall begin to count as a part of the weapons limit stated by this treaty when it leaves the production facility.

I believe that your fear of Russians making each of their weapons MIRVs is unfounded.  Just because the treaty does not specifically limit the number of MIRVs each party can have, does not mean that Russia will go around trying to exploit this loophole.  Remember that the loophole is equally applicable to the United States, and that we are financially poised to make such a move.  However, this would completely undermine the efforts towards transparency and cooperation that this treaty espouses.  The reality of today is extremely different than that of the arms race of the Cold War.  Just because the Russians can does not mean that they will, and just because the United States also can does not mean that we should.

You are also worried that the Russians will not provide us with their most up-to-date telemetric information.  However, the number of exchanges has been agreed on by both parties (the treaty only states that the number be agreed upon, it does not explicitly state five).  You seem to have this fundamental distrust of the Russians, but remember that any loophole they can exploit we can too.  It is beneficial to the national security of both parties that the information be as valid as possible.

Lastly, I would advise you actually take a look at the treaty.  Your last argument that it limits conventional weapons is absolutely absurd.  The treaty sets limits for launchers intended for nuclear weapons specifically, why on earth we would be using them for conventional weapons is beyond me.  Correction:  While apparently convetional ICBMs are in development, the treaty, if ratified, would not sigificantly impact our current conventional arsenal.  And the development of such weapons carries with it other significant risks which call into question the merits of their development in the first place.  (See the thoughtful comment left by fellow I-Streeter, James.)

I urge you to consider the ramifications should New START not be ratified.  While it is not perfect, if it is rejected by the Senate, we are left in a void where there are absolutely no limits or transparency on nuclear warheads or strike capability.  That world is a much more dangerous place than the reality we would be facing under the treaty.  If it is rejected, any such future agreement would be automatically forgone.  Since when has bipartisanism been priority over national security?  I urge you to listen to take FP’s advice and listen to Ronald Reagan when he advocated for “peace through strength.”

All the best,
Denise

Relevant reading:
Obama's worst foreign-policy mistake, Mitt Romney, The Washington Post
How New-START will improve our nation's security, John Kerry, The Washington Post
Press Release of Senator Richard Lugar: Romney Misinformed on New START Treaty
Eight Problems with the New START, Mitt Romney, National Review Online
Fighting the Right on New START, William Hartung, The Huffington Post
The Case for the New START Treaty, Robert Gates, Wall Street Journal
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (full-text)