Like James, I generally support the START Treaty and think the Senate should pass it, but I don’t think it would be a travesty if the current Senate were to let the next one make the call on ratification. ~Doug Mataconis

I’m not sure that it would be a travesty, but I am quite sure that it would be a mistake. It is true that the treaty isn’t “emergency legislation.” It is a treaty that has been exhaustively studied and discussed for the last six months. The “assurances” skeptics have asked for have all been given, and the “concerns” they have raised have been addressed so many times that one might suspect those “concerns” are really just delaying tactics. The lame-duck argument is just the latest in a string of delaying tactics, which is another reason why it shouldn’t be taken that seriously.

Presuambly, having inspectors in Russia who can monitor Russia’s arsenal rather than not having them is valuable, and without ratification in the next month we won’t have inspectors there for the better part of another year at best. As Republican numbers go up, the chances of the treaty’s ratification go down. We all know this. This isn’t a choice between ratifying in December and ratifying in January. It is a choice between voting on the treaty, and delaying consideration of the treaty on the Senate floor for months or even longer. If the treaty is worth supporting and should be ratified, it really does matter that this happen now. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs The Politico

“>describes the treaty as “essential” to national security. Maybe he’s exaggerating for effect, but I don’t think that’s true in this case. I don’t know of other things that are deemed “essential” to national security that can be put off until much later and perhaps indefinitely.

There are other security matters that will be affected by the treaty’s fate. Ratification or the promise of it would probably improve the chances of NATO-Russian cooperation on missile defense. In the absence of that, the upcoming Lisbon summit will probably produce nothing on this. Sen. Lugar has talked about the importance of ratification for continued cooperation in securing Russian nuclear materials. As Rogin reported yesterday:

Lugar also warned that the failure to ratify the treaty could have drastic consequences for other facets of U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation — especially the Nunn-Lugar effort to secure loose nuclear materials throughout the former Soviet Union.

If START fails, the cooperation between the United States and Russia on securing loose nukes could be imperiled, representing an even bigger risk for national security, Lugar said.

As Lugar is one of the architects of this effort, his opinion should count for something. Since Russian nuclear materials are the most likely source of weapons proliferation, securing them would seem to be a fairly high priority, and putting that effort in jeopardy seems unwise. Failing to ratify New START, or putting it off for months or years, will have the added unfortunate consequence of eating up time that could conceivably be spent on beginning to work out agreements with Russia on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. As I mentioned earlier this week, several European governments are eager to have the U.S. remove its tactical nuclear weapons from their soil, and START ratification could be the first step to realizing that end. This would be desirable for American, European, and Russian security. As former Sen. Nunn explained in an op-ed yesterday, the physical security of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe is not very good, which makes their presence there a real threat. Hastening the day when the U.S. and Russia can agree to reduce significantly or eliminate these weapons would therefore be in the interests of all parties. The idea of reducing or eliminating tactical nuclear weapons will go nowhere if the U.S. cannot ratify a strategic arms agreement in a timely fashion. The longer that this is put off, the worse it will be for American security.