The debate rages in the Senate on ratification of the New START treaty, as we wait for a vote from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The opposition claims that Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons-free world is utopian, unrealistic and radical. But I think we know who is actually off their rocker on this issue.

The far right has abandoned the rational debate in favor of party politics in the divided Senate. Mitt Romney has made an anti-START agenda the focal point of his future presidential campaign with a fundraising pitch to supporters. Numerous arms-control and foreign policy experts have criticized Romney’s lame OpEds, including members of his own Republican party. Senator Richard Lugar described it as ”hyperbolic attack” that “repeats discredited objections and appears unaware of arms control history and context.”

The moment we are working towards is fast approaching. We are getting word that the Senate could vote in just a few weeks on a new US agreement with Russia called New START that will cut the size of both nations’ nuclear arsenals. Your senators need to be reminded that this treaty would serve as a crucial stepping stone towards a nuclear weapons free world.

From Palin to Romney, hard-right Republicans are putting nuclear security on the line to score a win against Obama. According to former Sen. Tom Daschle, the failure to ratify this treaty could trigger “nuclear anarchy” by unraveling decades of international agreements that have kept the spread of nuclear weapons in check. There is too much at stake to let partisan games stand in the way. Will you call your senators now?

In these last crucial weeks before a likely vote on the New START, many Senate Republicans are still on-the-fence about which way they will vote. So what are the consequences if New START fails?

The latest bout of treaty opposition is in the form of fundraising from right wing groups such as The Heritage Foundation and The John Birch Society (which has consistently opposed every nuclear arms treaty between the US and the Soviet Union/Russia.) Mitt Romney followed up his ridiculous Washington Post op-ed with a fundraising letter calling for donations to stop the treaty. It’s another not-so-subtle attempt to burnish his neoconservative credentials for the 2012 GOP presidential race.

I was 17 the first time I took a stand against nuclear weapons.

The US was planning to build the neutron bomb near my hometown in Colorado, and I was outraged at the risk the bomb plant posed to the health of families living near the plant. I was sickened to think that a bomb built near my home could be used to kill many thousands of people. I knew I had to do something.

These many years later, I know how important our voices were in helping to close the Rocky Flats Plant near Denver. Today it is so important we not forget our collective power to make change.

A major nuclear agreement between the US and Russia, called New START (The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is awaiting approval from the Russian Parliament and US Senate.

The treaty calls for reductions in the sizes of US and Russian nuclear arsenals, as well as an increase in information sharing between the two nations. The original START expired last December, along with the framework it provided for verifying that each nation was in keeping with the agreement. The new agreement will replace the expired one, and the verification measures have provided a backdrop of urgency in ensuring the treaty passes. Since December, there have been no “boots on the ground” inspecting Russian arsenals. Sen. Dick Lugar, a leading Republican in favor of the treaty, had this to say: