New START Treaty Debate: Extend or Walk Away?

Arguments for Extending New START

• 💡 New START treaty limits are crucial for keeping Russia under control, especially as China rapidly expands its nuclear arsenal.
• 🎯 Extending the treaty for one year allows time for strategic planning and preparation to confront China's nuclear buildup.
• 🔑 The immediate tactical move by Russia to upload more warheads is a significant concern that the treaty helps to mitigate.

Arguments Against Extending New START

• 🚀 Paradoxically, ending the treaty could make the U.S. stronger and the world more peaceful by allowing for adequate deterrence levels.
• ⚠️ The current treaty caps deterrence force levels at inadequate levels to deter both Russia and China simultaneously, a conclusion from a commission both experts served on.
• ⚡ The world has changed significantly since the treaty was established, necessitating a reassessment of U.S. nuclear posture.

The Strategic Posture Commission Findings

• 📊 The commission report highlighted that Russia could immediately begin to build up its warheads once released from New START limits.
• 📈 Both experts served on a commission that concluded the U.S. needs to build up its deterrent force to adequately deter Russia and China simultaneously.

Nuclear Proliferation and Deterrence

• ⚠️ Both experts agree that nuclear proliferation is not beneficial, emphasizing the need for friendly deterrence instead.
• 💰 NATO European and Asian allies should focus on conventional force buildup and modernization rather than expensive nuclear programs.
• 🤝 Allies must have faith in the U.S. nuclear guarantee, as they have for decades, to deter aggression.