The US has had an arms reduction treaty in place with Russia effectively since the SALT I treaty in 1969. The latest of these treaties, SORT, is set to expire in 2012 so in 2009 the US and Russia negotiated the "New Start Treaty" to continue the process.
Congress has been debating the final approval of New Start since Obama signed it in April and like seemingly everything else that doesn't involve bringing pork to South Dakota, our Senators line up on completely opposite ends of the debate.
Democrat Tim Johnson said he will vote for the New START treaty as an important part of national security. Without it, Johnson says U.S. has no inspectors in Russia.
Republican John Thune said on Sunday that he would vote against it because it doesn't hold the Russians to a strict enough inspection program.
I am having a really hard time trying to understand Thune's position as wouldn't voting this down effectively replace the inspections called for in the treaty with nothing? That certainly doesn't sound very strict to me. I would think having something in place that reduces both country's ability to blow up the world from 15 times to only 10 and keeps verification procedures of some kind in place would be a whole lot better than having nothing at all.