“President Obama seems to base his plan to cut America’s defenses on this false notion that we are safer without nuclear weapons. This is a serious problem.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) spoke about how President Obama’s plan to cut America’s deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to a third is irresponsible and will weaken our national defense.

Click here to watch his remarks.

Excerpts of his remarks:

“Last week, President Obama gave a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.

“In that speech, he said he plans to cut the number of America’s deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to a third. 

“This would be a drastic cut – and would be on top of the drastic cuts in the New START arms control treaty from less than two years ago.

“President Obama’s latest defense cuts are shortsighted – and his approach to making this important announcement has been far too hasty.

“First of all, in the President’s speech he repeated what’s been sort of a mantra for people who want to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

“He said, ‘so long as nuclear weapons exist,’ he said, ‘we are not truly safe.’ 

“Well, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan went to the same spot, at the Brandenburg Gate, in the shadow of the Berlin Wall.

“He gave a speech in which he urged the leader of the then Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall.’

“In that speech, President Reagan also said that ‘freedom and security go together.’

“In contrast to President Obama’s idealism, President Reagan grounded his beliefs in history, and in facts.

“We’ve experienced a world without nuclear weapons.  Great powers went to war with each other repeatedly. They caused unthinkable amounts of death and suffering. 

“The estimated number of dead from World War II generally ranges from 45 to 60 million. We haven’t had a war with that kind of global death toll since then.

“Nuclear weapons, and their deterrence power, are a critical reason for that.

“Ronald Reagan knew that America’s nuclear deterrent helps keep Americans safe and helps keep our country free.

“I think it’s important that we recognize that essential truth.

“President Obama seems to base his plan to cut America’s defenses on this false notion that we are safer without nuclear weapons. This is a serious problem.

“Now, second, I think it’s important to recognize that a vital part of the deterrent is what’s called the nuclear triad.

“This is the idea that we as the United States have three ways that we can defend America.

“We have nuclear weapons on bombers, that can be flown to where they’re needed.

“We have nuclear submarines where nuclear weapons can be launched from the ballistic missile submarines – which are stationed around the world.

“And we have nuclear weapons in the ground that we can launch on intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“All of these have different uses, and together they create a flexible, survivable, and stable nuclear deterrent.

“The triad ensures other major powers are never tempted to go too far and threaten America’s security or that of our allies.

“So the second threat of President Obama’s plan is that it could require substantial cuts to the ICBM force across the country.

“That means a weaker triad; a weaker deterrent; and a weaker defense.

“Now, the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, gave a speech the other day too. He committed to actually keeping the triad of air, sea, and land based deterrents.

“So, if the President is serious about protecting Americans and our allies, he should immediately announce that he agrees with what his Defense Secretary said the other day.

“The President needs to reassure the American people that he will take no steps that could weaken the triad, or any of the parts of it.

“So the question is, why now? The Senate just ratified New START about a year and a half ago.

“That treaty set new levels for nuclear weapons and for delivery vehicles—but we haven’t had time to even implement those new levels and the President goes and makes this next statement.

“Why the big rush to say that those levels are all wrong, and we need to cut even more nuclear weapons?

“In 2010, the Senate held hearings about New START. The head of U.S. Strategic Command at the time was General Chilton.

“He was asked if the treaty allowed the United States ‘to maintain a nuclear arsenal that is more than is needed to guarantee an adequate deterrent.’

“General Chilton said: ‘I do not agree that it is more than is needed. I think the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent.’

“Exactly what is needed. A former Secretary of Defense testified at the same hearing, James Schlesinger.  He said that the strategic nuclear weapons allowed under New START ‘are adequate, though barely so.’

“So, what’s changed since that testimony in 2010, or since the Senate ratified the treaty at the end of 2011?

“The level was barely adequate a couple of years ago. It was exactly what was needed then.

“So how can we now cut another 33 percent off of that level? That’s what the President’s proposing.

“The only thing that’s changed since then, that it seems to me that that the threat of hostile nuclear programs has become even greater. 

“As countries that are not our friends grow closer to modernizing their nuclear weapon program, it would be irresponsible for us to weaken our own program. 

“We haven’t even had a chance to confirm that Russia is complying with its obligations under New START.

“Now Russia has a long history of not complying with treaties.

“President Obama set out to reset relations between our two countries.  Well, there is no evidence that anything really has changed.

“Even the ‘Washington Post’ admitted the failure of the so-called ‘reset.’

“They ran an editorial last week, ‘Obama’s starry-eyed view of Putin,’ they titled it.

“It said: ‘In touring Europe this week, President Obama has portrayed Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a ruler with whom he can build a constructive, cooperative relationship that moves us out of a Cold War mind-set.’

“They go on to say ‘It’s a blinkered view that willfully ignores the Russian president’s behavior.’

“The ‘Washington Post’ got it right.

“Finally, the President seemed to be laying the groundwork in his speech for a new round of cuts that he could do unilaterally.

“That would be a mistake. Any further reductions in America’s nuclear defenses should be done through a negotiated treaty with Russia.

“That means a thorough process, open to the scrutiny of the American people, and subject to full consideration by this body.

“The new START included a Resolution of Ratification that specifically says future nuclear arms cuts can be made only through a treaty.

“Arms control advocates pushing President Obama to make more cuts know that negotiating in public is difficult.  They would prefer to strike back room deals.

“That is not the political system that our framers designed. They specifically required two-thirds of the Senate to ratify treaties.

“Such important decisions should not rest in the hands of the President alone, or with his selected advisors.

“Under the President’s plan, he would cut our nuclear defenses 55 percent.

“Russia continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal. China is expanding its nuclear stockpile. Iran is accelerating its nuclear efforts. North Korea continues its nuclear threats.

“We already have the New START treaty.

“It would be irresponsible to move forward with these sorts of cuts that the President is talking about, without extensive discussion with the American people and Congress.

“The world remains a very dangerous place. Instead of drastically weakening America’s defenses, the President should focus on stopping countries like Iran and North Korea from expanding their nuclear programs.

“America can’t afford to lose the full deterrent effect of a strong nuclear defense.”