August 11th, 2010
10:40 AM ET
12 years ago

Clinton pushes approval of nuclear arms treaty

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption =" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked lawmakers to ratify a nuclear arms treaty with Russia on Wednesday."]

Washington (CNN) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Senate ratification of the new nuclear arms treaty with Russia on Wednesday, stressing that it's a critical component of U.S. efforts to keep tabs on Moscow's arsenal.

"It will advance our national security and provide predictability and stability" between the world's top two nuclear powers, she told reporters at the State Department.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed in April by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev cuts the total number of nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia by about a third. Specifically, it fixes a ceiling for each country of 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 deployed nuclear delivery vehicles.

Some top Senate Republicans, however, have expressed skepticism about the accord, arguing that it complicates U.S. efforts at developing a missile defense system.

"Opposing ratification means opposing the inspections (that) provide us a vital window" into Russia's nuclear arsenal, Clinton warned. "As time passes, uncertainty will increase," leading to greater unpredictability.

The last START treaty expired in December.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to begin formal consideration of the new accord in mid-September, Clinton said.

The treaty needs 67 votes in the Senate to be ratified.

soundoff (13 Responses)
  1. Tom-Vermillion, Ohio

    Quoting from the above article: 'Some top Senate Republicans, however, have expressed skepticism about the accord, arguing that it complicates U.S. efforts at developing a missile defense system.'

    Who exactly were those 'top Senate Republicans'?
    What defense missile contractors have contributed to their election campaigns, lobbied or otherwise was in contact with them?
    How much money was involved?

    It appears to me that the only real 'complication' here is that the treaty enhances accountability by the defense contractors and somehow decreases profits.

    August 11, 2010 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  2. Rachel

    Go Hillary you and the president worked hard on this of course the senate will tray and stall ratifying this treaty.

    August 11, 2010 11:06 am at 11:06 am |
  3. fiscal responsibility

    Yikes. Hillary is selling the safety of this country for very, very little. FIrst of all, we are less worried about Russian and more worried about rouge groups that would never sign an agreement. Second, how do we know that anyone else is keeping the agreement.

    Now I think that a reduction in nuclear arms is important, but the Hillary approach (and 'urgency') is a little suspect.

    August 11, 2010 11:06 am at 11:06 am |
  4. Anonymous

    President Reagan's goal was to eliminate nuclear weapons. This treaty goes a long way to accomplishing that goal. There has been near unanimous support for previous nuclear treaties. I predict the GOP will vote NO this time.

    August 11, 2010 11:07 am at 11:07 am |
  5. bennie new york

    If aid for 9/11 first responders can't pass, an arms reduction treaty can't. And it's a shame.

    August 11, 2010 11:07 am at 11:07 am |
  6. Augsbee

    So Clinton thinks we can trust the opposition, Russia, to honor their agreement? And Lindsay Lohan promises to stay of our trouble, that will be the day.

    August 11, 2010 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  7. aneanderthal

    Just saw the DJI numbers and this summer of recovery is killing my retirement savings. I know Obozo lovers don't save for their retirements because Obozo, Dingy Haryy and Princess Pelosi will take care of them. But for those of us who don't smoke dope, actually work and pay taxes as well as take personal responsibility for our lives rather than leaving it in the hands of liberals and corrupt, slimy union bosses, this inept, incompetent, corrupt, union toady administration is killing us. 2012 and the end of this farce cannot come soon enough.

    August 11, 2010 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  8. Duck Fallas

    Only sissy weaklings like Reagan negotiate nuclear weapons treaties with the Russians.

    Good thing we have Palin to watch them from her back yard and make sure they're complying.

    August 11, 2010 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  9. Dave

    Democrats running the country, running Imams as representatives of the state department, etc.
    Politically correct state department policy is no policy it is just unimpressive talking that no one in the world appreciate. We have been reduced to experts on rhetorics that no one pays attention to in the world!

    August 11, 2010 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
  10. Ancient Texan

    One could feel better about this if Russia could be trusted. They've not been very good about honoring commitments in the past. Sanctions against Iran is a prime example.

    August 11, 2010 11:59 am at 11:59 am |
  11. advance our national security and provide predictability and stability

    except that Russia doesn't know where all its nukes are

    August 11, 2010 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm |
  12. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    When we don't have to worry about fission weapons, then it is one less thing we have to defend against. How can that be a bad thing.

    August 11, 2010 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm |

    The Senate has been an utter failure this year, due to the strategy of Mitch McConnell and the Republican-Tea Party.

    The DEMS have been 70% accurate on governing.........Yet they get no help from the other side. Both parties need skin in the game for America to win.............

    August 11, 2010 12:10 pm at 12:10 pm |