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.”

Ultra-conservative fundraising groups like the Heritage Foundation, John Birch Society and Tea-Party-sponsored Liberty Central have begun campaigning against the treaty as well. They share in the hard-right’s nostalgic paranoia about Russian intentions, and refusal to give diplomacy a chance.

Nuclear arms-control expert Kingston Reif sheds light on the Heritage Foundation on Nukes of Hazard:

The degree to which Heritage will say just about anything to cast doubt on New START is pretty amazing, though perhaps not surprising. For example, yesterday Peter Brookes stated: “So we will cut our strategic nuclear warhead levels to 1,550, but Russia will keep 2,100.”

…But experts predict Russia’s strategic forces will drop to 1,000 warheads, which is below the 1,550 level of accountable warheads in New START, with or without the treaty. It would be nice if Heritage could at least get its story straight, even if they continue to have a little trouble with the facts!

The administration must secure two-thirds of Senate votes but key support is still missing. Case in point: Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, says he can’t support the treaty in its current form. “I’d like to be in a position to support it…[but] not yet.” This is crazy – This is a treaty, not a piece of legislation that can be amended, and there are no other forms of the treaty for him to support. So Lieberman, with apparently no specific objections to the treaty, joins currently undecided Republican senators Bob Corker, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others.

The good news is that bi-partisan support for the treaty continues to grow. One of the newest supporters, Consensus for American Security, sums it up in their opening statement:

The New START Treaty is a critical and essential first-step. The Consensus demonstrates bipartisan support for efforts to SECURE the world’s current nuclear stockpiles, PREVENT terrorists from getting access to nuclear technologies, and REDUCE the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide.

The START Treaty represents the US national interest. It is the only option that allows us to invest in the nuclear security priorities necessary to confront the threats of today and tomorrow. Building on the successes of President Reagan, the Treaty allows us to control old weapons while supporting our forces and the development of advanced capabilities. Without this Treaty, we will not be able to move forward with new strategic issues that are vital to protecting America.

Tom Daschle, former Senate Democrat leader and member of the Washington think tank, Center for American Progress also spots political motives in treaty opposition. Daschle claims that failing to ratify new START would renew the arms race and encourage states like North Korea to join in, and “American credibility on nuclear issues would evaporate.“

The obstacles today to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, the obstacles to increasing this country’s national security, the obstacles to continuing down the path that President Reagan himself first cleared—they are entirely political.

Daschle accuses irrational GOP opposition like Romney of ”flirting with nuclear anarchy.” He says Republican senators have a choice:

[they] can choose Mitt Romney or they can choose the entire U.S. military establishment.

Treaty opponents repeatedly claim that the administration’s plans for disarmament are radical. But Obama’s vision is nothing new. In fact, it’s shared by former presidents Reagan, Kennedy and Eisenhower. It doesn’t get more mainstream than that.

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?

Please call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at (202)224-3121, ask for your senators, and let them know the following:

“My name is _________ and I’m calling from ___________. I am calling to urge Senator ______ to vote to ratify the New START Treaty, and exert her/his full influence in the Senate to help assure ratification. I also urge Senator _____ to work to further reduce US weapons stockpiles and to reduce the enormous nuclear weapons budget.”

Feel free to add your personal thoughts about why limiting nuclear weapons is important to you.

Then click here to send us an email and tell us how your call went.

This treaty needs the support of at least two-thirds of the Senate, a big challenge given Washington’s bitterly partisan climate, so we’re pulling out the stops to see it ratified. Failure to do so would undo over three decades of nuclear disarmament agreements between the United States and Russia. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May, Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford, said, “I recommend ratification of this treaty… this committee’s decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge.”

Please call your senators today and ask them to vote Yes on the New START Treaty.

Thank you for standing up.

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.

The Obama administration needs 8 to 10 Senate Republican votes in order to pass the treaty. So far, 1 has pledged support (Richard Lugar, R-IN) and only 2 oppose (Jim DeMint, R-SC and James Inhofe, R-OK.) But a number of GOP heavy weights are on-the-fence, including John McCain. Their decisions are expected to swing remaining senators. This still leaves too much room for doubt.

There is too much at stake to assume safe passage for the New START treaty. Among its benefits, the agreement will reduce the size of nuclear arsenals in the US and Russia, which account for approximately 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. The consequences of failing to ratify the treaty would extend beyond US – Russian relations.

Former Democratic Senator Gary Hart believes that the non-proliferation agenda will falter without New START ratification:

The two of us have the greatest burden, but sooner or later we want to bring in China and our European allies that have nuclear arsenals and see how far we can go. But it must begin with us and the Russians, and if we turn our back… it’s a giant step backward and it would set back our diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security in serious ways.

John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, warns those who seek to oppose the treaty:

The alternative [to ratification] is no START treaty, no verification, a clear setback to U.S.-Russian relations and widespread questioning of U.S. ability to carry forth international agreements if we can’t get this treaty through.

The US’s allies recognize that the New START treaty is essential to the administration’s foreign policy agenda. Many European diplomats are growing increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress on the treaty. Obama promised them ratification, yet it’s been 6 months since the previous treaty expired.

France’s Ambassador to Washington Pierre Vimont told foreign policy blog, The Cable:

From the European point of view, nobody can understand why the START treaty has not been ratified. When we send cables back home saying that START might not be ratified, they ask us ‘What have you been drinking?

Timing is crucial for New START ratification. We must ratify the treaty before Senate recess. It’s in the GOP’s best interest to delay the vote because after the November election, a GOP-heavy Senate will make it even harder to pass. That’s why Washington can’t count on New START ratification without making the most of these last few weeks.

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.

The fact remains that as long as we have the power to destroy the planet and humanity many times over, we live with the unthinkable chance that a nuclear weapon will be used again, and the world will never be the same.

That’s why it’s up to us to organize and demand that these weapons be abolished. We are at a critical crossroads in our 60-year fight to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Can we count on your support with a donation?

Peace Action West has been leading a national coalition of 140 organizations working to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide, starting with passing a new treaty with Russia to reduce the size of American and Russian nuclear arsenals.

The treaty is called the New START, and it would be a crucial step towards a world without nuclear weapons. People around the world and across the political spectrum are aligning in a call for a nuclear weapons free world. New START is crucial because it would set the stage for bigger victories that lead us toward that goal, such as a total ban on nuclear testing.

If we fail to pass it, the door on more progress could slam shut and we’d be faced with an unthinkable prospect — leaving the threat of nuclear destruction to our children and grandchildren.

We are just 8 senators shy of making the biggest progress towards nuclear abolition in 20 years. But in spite of the stakes for our country, some hawkish Republicans in Congress are trying to stall, playing old partisan games with our security in the hopes of denying the Democrats a pre-election victory. That’s why we are leading a coordinated effort with groups around the country to make sure the treaty gets the support it deserves. Please click here to give $40, or whatever you can.

We are countering right-wing misinformation in the press aimed at stoking the public’s fears so they are driven to cling to nuclear weapons. We’ve got organizers on the phones, in the streets, and in DC, generating grassroots pressure. We’re funneling resources to Arizona, Utah and other crucial battleground states to win over key swing senators to ratify this treaty. As one of our organizers put it, “Americans overwhelmingly support getting rid of nukes and there’s no reason except dirty politics to block this treaty.”

We’ve been going all out to push for this treaty, but we can’t keep up the momentum unless we have your support to do it. Please click here to pitch in, and we’ll put your support right to work.

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:

Some skeptics have pointed out that Russia may not be in total compliance with its obligations under START. Others have expressed opposition to the START Treaty on the basis that no arms control agreement is 100-percent verifiable. But such concerns fail to appreciate how much information is provided through the exchange of data mandated by the Treaty, on-site inspections, and national technical means. Our experiences over many years have proven the effectiveness of the Treaty’s verification provisions and served to build a basis for confidence between the two countries when doubts arose. The bottom line is that the United States is far safer as a result of those 600 START inspections than we would be without them.

In early April both nations’ leaders signed the document in Prague. It’s currently being considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will likely vote to send it to the full Senate in the next few weeks. The real hurdles will be getting a successful vote on the treaty in the full Senate as soon as possible.

This is not a radical treaty. For one, its reductions are fairly modest. Normally this treaty would garner strong bipartisan support. The Senate approved George W. Bush’s Moscow Treaty 95-0 in 2003 and George H. W. Bush’s START agreement 93-6 in 1992. But many in the GOP are keen to deny the Democrats a foreign policy victory just before the November elections and are holding up the process to try to extract concessions to bulk up the already bloated nuclear weapons complex. The Obama administration has offered a whopping $180 billion 10-year increase to funding for nuclear weapons, and it’s unclear exactly how that funding would be used. So some GOP are still looking for funding that is clearly for new nuclear weapons programs, something eschewed in the president’s nuclear posture review, and a development that would contradict the leadership-by-example message the US might send with this treaty.

So the administration has been pulling out the stops to push for the 7 or so votes that hang in the balance for ratification. Secretary Gates and Clinton have both testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in support for the treaty, as has Energy Secretary Chu and Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If that wasn’t convincing enough, even Cold Warrior Henry Kissinger came before the committee and had this to say :

In deciding on ratification, the concerns need to be measured against the consequences of non-ratification, particularly interrupting a [bilateral arms control] process that has been going on for decades, the relationship to the NPT, and to the attempt to achieve a strategic coherence. And so, for all these reasons, I recommend ratification of this treaty…

In short, this committee’s decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge…

This START treaty is an evolution of treaties that have been negotiated in previous administrations of both parties. And its principal provisions are an elaboration or a continuation of existing agreements. Therefore, a rejection of them would indicate that a new period of American policy had started that might rely largely on the unilateral reliance of its nuclear weapons, and would therefore create an element of uncertainty in the calculations of both adversaries and allies. And therefore, I think it would have an unsettling impact on the international environment.

One of the red herrings the Republicans are using in the debate is concern that the treaty might reduce US missile defense capabilities. I don’t think it’d be such a bad thing to save a few billion dollars on a missile defense program that still, to this day, shows no promise of working, or even being relevant to our real security concerns. Still, members of the administration and Pentagon officials have been swearing up and down that this treaty won’t limit our plans for missile defense.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Thursday, leading US officials including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the importance of ratifying the START treaty and refuted claims that the new treaty will “limit” U.S. missile defense deployment.

According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates :

We are discussing missile defense cooperation with Russia, which we believe is in the interests of both nations… but such talks have nothing to do with imposing any limitations on our programs or deployment plans.

The Obama administration hopes to ratify START before the November Congressional elections, though some think the vote could occur in a lame duck session after the November election. The Senate could vote as early as August, but it will take real momentum to make sure that happens.

Rebecca Glass contributed to this post.