What Missile Defense and Nuclear Disarmament Have in Common

Baker Spring / August 02, 2010

Responding to James Carafano’s July 29 critique of New START, William Hartung asserts that the proposed nuclear arms treaty imposes no limitations on U.S. missile defense options. It’s a faithful parroting of the administration line.  But given Hartung’s longstanding views regarding missile defense, arms control and nuclear disarmament, this argument—coming from him—is quite disingenuous.

Should New START enter into force, it is a virtual certainty that—excepting only the government of Russia—Hartung would be the first in line to state that improving U.S. missile defense capabilities is incompatible with the terms of the treaty.  His argument that New START imposes no restrictions on missile defense is only a temporary—and rather transparent—expedient to encourage Senate ratification of the treaty.

At the heart of the debate over missile defense and New START is the language in its preamble.  This language prohibits defensive capabilities that have the potential to undermine the “viability and effectiveness” of Russia’s strategic nuclear force.  Hartung argues that language in the preamble is not legally binding.  That’s highly questionable.  But even if true, the language is certainly morally and politically binding. (more…)