Argument: New START restricts US missile defense options
- Debate: New START Treaty - con argument.
Baker Spring. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix." Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. September 16th, 2010: "Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options. New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options in at least four areas. The first and most important restriction is derived from para graph 9 of the preamble. This language applies a logic that says that U.S. missile defense capabilities must be reduced in accordance with the reduction in the strategic offensive arms of Russia because the defenses will otherwise “undermine the viability and effectiveness” of Russia’s offensive force. On April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that Russia could withdraw from New START if the U.S. takes either qualitative or quantitative steps to build up its mis sile defense capabilities. Second, Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa. Third, several provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests. Finally, the treaty gives the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, a broad mandate that could permit it to impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program."
Mitt Romney. "Stop START." Boston.com. December 3, 2010: "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable."