National Defense
Americans have a right to defend themselves and their country from foreign enemies at a reasonable cost in tax dollars, while protecting civil liberties.
INVESTING IN A 21ST CENTURY MILITARY – I believe that the security of American citizens and the effectiveness of our military are directly related. However, this relation does not warrant the almost blank check that Congress has written to the Pentagon over the last decade. As we continue to enter a new century we will face changing threats that a WWII style military is not best suited to handle. For example, in both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan the military’s role has largely been one of counter insurgency and policing rather than war fighting.[1] In Haiti, America’s military has provided security, rescue and relief assistance. Because new missions and roles for our military constantly arise, it is of the utmost importance to keep our weapons systems modernized to deal with these more modern objectives.
The decision making process for new defense technologies has long been ineffective and continues to defer decisions to military commanders.[2] Many would argue that this is in the interests of our national security. However, military commanders often favor projects that would be beneficial in current missions but offer little versatility for future missions. The problem with this is that while policy planning and vision usually extends for four to five years in the future, development of a new weapons system generally takes fifteen to twenty years and are used in the field for twelve to fifteen years, meaning that by the time these new systems reach the field their envisioned use is long outdated.[2]
The best example of this paradox comes with the development of the B-1 bomber that took a total of $54.2 billion over its twenty-seven year development, despite staunch opposition from the State Department.[2] Multiple steps must be taken to fix the decision making problems in Washington.
First, steps must be immediately taken to improve communication between the military and Congressional committees who allocate funding.[2] Senators have an obligation to educate themselves generally on military weapons systems. And it is of the utmost importance that the culture in congress be shifted away from current policies that defer weapons decisions to military commanders.
Second, the ways in which weapons systems are developed and chosen needs to be more ‘policy focused’ or have more of a broader vision. There are many great proposals for new weapons that could help current military missions, but it is the job of Congress to decide which systems can meet the long term objectives of the country and then decide to invest in such systems.[2]
Third and finally, Congress must take actions to cut the cost of weapons development. This can be done by having more scrutiny on the approval of weapons systems and by holding the Defense Department to a budget. Implementing a standardized weapons system across branches of the military would also decrease the need for each branch to develop new weapons individually. For defense modernization to be effective Congress will have to make several tough decisions when making these cuts in the defense budget. I am fully prepared to make the decisions that will best protect our troops and our citizens in the long run.[1]
STOPPING NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: Since the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons have been one of the largest threats to America’s national security. Reducing and securing current nuclear stockpiles, while preventing the growth of future stockpiles, is of the utmost importance. Multiple steps must be taken to help strengthen the legitimacy of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) including but not limited to: the immediate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the completion and ratification of a bilateral arms reduction treaty with Russia, which extends commitments made in the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and the completion of commitments made by the United States through its ratification of the NPT.
The Immediate Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty- America is slowly losing credibility on nuclear non-proliferation as demonstrated by our inability to persuade either North Korea or Iran to drop their development of nuclear weapons. By ratifying the CTBT America can begin to rebuild its non-proliferation credibility, and use the treaty as a tool to prevent further proliferation by placing another roadblock in the way of future proliferators.[3] Moreover, verification and monitoring measures outlined in the CTBT give the U.S. the ability to cooperatively monitor future proliferators like Iran. [4] Ratification of the CTBT does not conflict with America’s need to continually modernize its nuclear weapons arsenal. New technology gives our nation the ability to test and modify its current nuclear weapons as to make them more powerful and effective without a nuclear test, and it has done so while following a strict moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992.[5]
The Completion and Ratification of a Bilateral Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia- The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), first ratified in 1991, was one of the best showings of trust and cooperation between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, and with its expiration in December of 2009, the U.S. is given a great opportunity to build on its relationship with Russia. The new treaty will attempt to both reduce and secure the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia.[6] By extending the former agreement the U.S. will build a level of cooperation, extending beyond nuclear weapons issues, revitalizing the relationship.[7] Furthermore, reducing the nuclear weapons stockpiles of America and Russia is an important step in rebuilding the credibility of the U.S. on nuclear proliferation. It would help end the double standard sited by proliferators such as Iran and North Korea, who often use large U.S. nuclear stockpiles as arguments against non-proliferation efforts.[8]
The Completion of Commitments Made in the NPT- The year 2010 will be an interesting one for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the United Nations lead review conference begins to meet and attempt to rebuild the broken commitment. It is of the utmost importance that the U.S. Senate cooperates with both the Obama administration and the NPT Review Conference.[9] The NPT is the only international structure in place to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and as a U.S. Senator, I plan to support proposals that rebuild its legitimacy. These proposals are the best way to prevent the spread of nuclear material to states such as Iran, and create an international standard against nuclear weapons. As long as the U.S. is able to take the lead on key issues such as nuclear proliferation, the U.S. stands out as a nation that pursues the security of its citizens and gains the support of the international community for reducing the threat of mutual nuclear mass annihilation.
[6] START and Beyond. New York Times, December 18, 2009.
[7] Spencer P. Boyer and James D. Lamond. Mr. Obama Goes to Moscow. The Root, July 6, 2009.
