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
    • 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 / More on Republican Disarmers

February 24, 2012

More on Republican Disarmers

In his latest New York Post column, the Heritage Foundations Peter Brookes lambasts the Obama administration for allegedly considering reductions in deployed strategic warheads below the New START limit of 1,550.  No surprise here, given that Brookes vehemently opposed the New START treaty.

We could have plenty of fun with most everything in the op-ed, but the third to last paragraph was my favorite:

Yes, Republican presidents have ditched plenty of nukes over the years. But those reductions came with US arms-control wins, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and our indisputable conventional superiority.

In other words, it’s fine when Republican presidents move to reduce the arsenal (1) by pursuing arms control agreements, (2) because the world has changed, and (3) due to our overwhelming conventional superiority. But it’s basically appeasement when Democratic presidents move to reduce the arsenal (1) by pursuing arms control agreements, (2) because the world has changed, and (3) due to our overwhelming conventional superiority.

Sounds like Robert Burns’ follow-up story on the administration’s review titled “Boldest nuclear cutters recently? It’s been GOP” struck a nerve with the Heritage folks.

There are legitimate arguments one can make against further reductions in the arsenal.  See this contribution from Elbridge Colby, for example. I strongly disagree with Colby (that’s a post for another night), but it’s a seriously argued case.

The same can’t be said of Brookes latest diatribe.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

Tweets by Nukes of Hazard

Recent Posts

  • Growing number of high-security pathogen labs around world raises concerns March 17, 2023
  • Global Biosafety Fears Grow Amid Rise in Labs Handling Dangerous Pathogens March 17, 2023
  • Evolving Threats, Un-evolving Solutions: Geo-Politicization of Export Control Policy March 17, 2023
  • Fact Sheet: The Australia Group March 16, 2023
  • Fact Sheet: Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones March 14, 2023
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