Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
A national network of organizations working to address issues of nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup

* * * M E D I A A D V I S O R Y * * *

March 3
This piece is available at the Democratic Policy Committee website, here.

There is broad, bipartisan support among political leaders and national security experts for negotiating a follow-on START treaty with Russia. Further mutual reductions in U.S. and Russian Cold War-era nuclear arsenals are considered critical for maintaining strategic stability in our relations, enhancing the global nonproliferation regime, and, in effect, advancing U.S. security. Despite this widespread consensus in favor of a new START, some analysts have advanced unsubstantiated myths, unfounded concerns, and political slogans as negotiators have worked toward a treaty. With the Senate poised to consider the new treaty once finalized in the coming months, it is vital that these misleading and irresponsible claims be debunked, ensuring that the debate is grounded in the facts.

New York Times Editorial
February 28, 2010
Available here.

Every four years the White House issues a “nuclear posture review.” That may sound like an anachronism. It isn’t. In a world where the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons — and Iran, North Korea and others have seemingly unquenchable nuclear appetites — what the United States says about its arsenal matters enormously.

President Obama’s review was due to Congress in December. That has been delayed, in part because of administration infighting. The president needs to get this right. It is his chance to finally jettison cold war doctrine and bolster America’s credibility as it presses to rein in Iran, North Korea and other proliferators.