Congress risks Reagan’s legacy on nuclear arms

Almost 30 years after the end of the Cold War, duck-and-cover drills are distant memories for most Americans. Unfortunately, Russia’s nuclear arsenal still poses an existential threat to the United States. Over the years, the United States has worked tirelessly to build an intricate system of treaties and agreements aimed at controlling and reducing the number of nuclear weapons pointed at this nation, including places like the Research Triangle. Many of the tools and measures were directly created or fostered by President Ronald Reagan, who famously said, “A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.”

Guided by that idea, President Reagan directed the negotiation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This groundbreaking achievement eliminated an entire class of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, specifically intermediate-range nuclear missiles. More recently, the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty built on the success of previous administrations, to limit the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed launchers (land-based missiles, bombers and submarines). It also permits U.S. military inspectors on the ground in Russia, giving us a real-time view of their strategic nuclear arsenal. That allows us to trust, but verify Russian nuclear reductions.

These agreements, along with other nuclear agreements, have received broad, bipartisan support. Preventing a nuclear war, it seemed, was too important to get bogged down in politics.

Fast forward to present day, where Congress is considering the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Provisions in the House and Senate versions of the bill threaten to gut the treaties, programs and agreements that have kept a lid on Russian nuclear activities since the Cold War.

Of course, the arms control regime is not without problems. Russia is currently in violation of the INF Treaty and U.S. attempts to fix the problem have been unsuccessful. Despite the ongoing violation, our military leaders have repeatedly affirmed that INF continues to be in the U.S. national security interest. To deal with this problem, the NDAA takes a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” approach and would put the United States on its path to violate INF by developing a similar intermediate-range missile. Instead of legislating our way into a bigger crisis, Congress needs to push the administration to find a diplomatic solution.

The House version of the bill would also restrict President Trump’s ability to extend New START after its expiration date beyond the 2021 deadline, if the president cannot certify that issues with INF have been resolved. That means the United States would throw away a fully-functioning, military-backed treaty that is providing much-needed stability. The U.S.-Russian relationship is already fraught with tension. Why would our elected leaders choose to increase the risk of miscalculation between U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces?

Defying any reasonable logic, the House version of the bill would also limit our ability to dismantle nuclear weapons that have already been retired. We live in an era when terrorists are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It is hard to fathom why political leaders would want to signal to the world that there is no need to rush the dismantlement of unneeded nuclear weapons.

At the same time, both Houses will likely approve a vastly oversized budget to modernize our nuclear weapons infrastructure. To be sure, we need to make the proper investments in maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal, but what some lawmakers are proposing now is closer to the beginning of a new nuclear arms race. Indeed, through the NDAA, North Carolina’s politicians are now in a position to dismantle the very organizations and institutions that helped keep us out of a nuclear war.

For the last 30 years, American leaders from both parties have taken bold steps to reduce nuclear threats facing our homeland. These efforts have made us safer, and they need to be preserved. Sens. Richard Burr, Thom Tillis, and the 13 North Carolina Representatives all need to hear this from their constituents. They need to know that North Carolinians did not send them to Washington to start a new Cold War. They need to know that President Reagan’s nuclear legacy is worth saving.

This story was originally published July 7, 2017 at 12:00 PM with the headline "Congress risks Reagan’s legacy on nuclear arms."