Should the United States Ratify the New START Treaty?

By U.S. News Staff

August 13, 2010 RSS Feed Print

In March, President Obama announced a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, meant to lower nuclear stockpiles and keep such weapons from rogue regimes and terrorists. It requires 67 Senate votes for ratification, but critics call it a sellout.
Edited by Robert Schlesinger

Yes

John Kerry
Democratic senator from Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee

Ratifying the New START treaty is a common-sense step that will make America safer. Since the Reagan administration, the Senate has approved every U.S.-Russian strategic arms control agreement with broad bipartisan support. In negotiating and signing this treaty, President Obama has followed a tradition pursued by every...

No

Jim DeMint
Republican senator from South Carolina and member of the Foreign Relations Committee

The concessions President Obama made to Russia to get the New START signed are precisely why the Senate should not ratify it. New START is another Obama giveaway at the expense of U.S. citizens. The treaty mandates strategic nuclear weapons parity with the progeny of an old Cold War foe, yet allows the Russians...

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

They should not pass START yet.
Wait untill new congress is seated and then make a few meaningless changes and then pass it. Lets not let The Obama administration get any credit.

Charles Sego of KY 11:36PM December 21, 2010

Whether or not the new START treaty should be signed is really not the issue. The issue is whether or not it should be shoved through the week before Christmas by people who have just lost their jobs. In the regular workplace - if you have "lame duck" employees you make sure that they can't damage the company before they move on.
This is an important and BINDING treaty - it should be given the due attention and TRANSPARENCY required to consider ratification. IT should NOT be shoved through. Have we learned nothing over this summer about "pass it so we will know what is in it"? Is that really the position we want to take on NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

Bruce of FL 7:31AM December 16, 2010

The Federal government has already identified 29,311 civilians who lost their health (including 18,618 who developed cancer) due to exposure to radiation and toxic substances while producing our nuclear weapons since the Energy Employee’s Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) was first passed by Congress. Thousands more Americans will be exposed to the nuclear weapons’ radioactive and toxic compenents if this treaty is passed. However, while Congress provided medical benefits and survivor compensation for civilians who were injured producing our nuclear weapons, they excluded those workers who are injured dismantling them. Due to the Federal government’s sovereign immunity, this means those workers who get sick or die due to exposure to radiation and toxic substances while dismantling our nuclear weapons under the proposed treaty will have no legal recourse.
http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/weeklystats.htm

Mark H. of FL 11:22AM August 14, 2010

Should the United States Ratify the New START Treaty?

Related News

Ratify the New START Treaty?

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Cartoons

Debate Club

Latest Video

Subscribe

Photos »

The White House »

Political Cartoons »

2012 Election »

Congress »