• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Front and Center / Breaking News: The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Like Arms Control

November 24, 2010

Breaking News: The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Like Arms Control

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial yesterday calling on Republicans to continue their delay and extract strategy on New START.

The editors spend most of their ink recycling talking points from the Heritage Foundation playbook about how the treaty limits missile defense and the administration has yet to demonstrate a viable commitment to sustaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

And then in the second to last paragraph we get this gem:

New Start is a relatively minor treaty that lacks the nuclear high drama of the Cold War era. Russia is no longer an adversary, its arsenal is going to shrink in any case from cost and decay, and the U.S. will have enough missiles to maintain its nuclear deterrent even under New Start. We would nonetheless probably oppose it on grounds that it furthers the illusion that arms control enhances U.S. security.

 So there you have it: The Journal flat out admits that it opposes New START (or any arms control treaty for that matter) because they don’t like arms control.  I gather the “probably” qualifier was inserted as an escape clause in the event that 80+ Republican Senators embarrass the paper by following our military’s advice that the treaty should be ratified.  Or perhaps it’s an admission that the editors would be less hostile to the treaty if it was negotiated by a Republican President.

In any event, former Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush would no doubt dispute the notion that arms control is a dangerous waste of time.  They viewed it as an essential tool in managing and reducing the nuclear threat, as well as an important demonstration of American leadership.  But apparently ideological intransigence is what passes for serious thinking about national security at the conservative movement’s leading voice in the print media.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • The Evolving Cyber-Based Threat: The Need for International Regulations to Avoid ‘Accidental’ Conflicts September 12, 2023
  • 전문가들 “김정은 방러, 전방위 군사 협력 현실화…중국 셈법 복잡” September 12, 2023
  • North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to meet with Vladimir Putin as Russia seeks closer military ties, more support for Ukraine war September 5, 2023
  • Biological threats have evolved for the worse, and we are not prepared September 1, 2023
  • ‘Oppenheimer’: Questions From the Outside August 30, 2023

Footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2023 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency