START and Modernization

There’s an interesting discussion occurring in the blogosphere about Kyl’s amendment to the Defense Authorization Act.  “Morning Joe” placed Kyl’s National Ledger article in the “view from the dark side” category and Nukes of Hazard has a rebuttal to Kyl’s main arguments.  While both are very good sources for nuclear material, there is a bit of disagreement to be had on the modernization question.  It doesn’t seem like missile defense will play a major role in the upcoming follow-on and verification measures should be able to draw on START I lessons to make better and more efficient enforcement without THAT much difficulty.  Is there an argument to be had those should be made law to make sure that is the case? Perhaps but it doesn’t seem particularly relevant.  The modernization debate, however, is a bit more interesting.  Kyl’s article in the National Ledger is far from a solo cry for modernization.  He writes:

That’s why I offered an amendment that requires the President to deliver a plan to modernize our nuclear deterrent. My amendment, as well as a letter to the President signed by Senators Byrd, Levin, McCain, Kerry, Lugar and me, makes clear that modernization of the nuclear deterrent must accompany START ratification.

Those are some pretty heavy hitters, particularly on national security issues, from both sides of the aisle to agree on modernization measures as a necessary condition for START 2.0.  Kyl’s “demand for a report on enhancing the safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile and modernizing the complex within 30 days” also seems like a prudent move if the Obama administration wants to have START 2.0 ratified by December 5, which doesn’t include the substantial time needed on the Hill to get a formal treaty ratified.  The amount of expertise on nuclear weapons and modernization in many levels of government, particularly on the Hill, has shrunk a great deal in the past two decades and so trying get people thinking seriously about what are the variety of modernization options possible seems like a worthwhile endeavor that can help inform the START follow-on process in a positive manner given modernization conditions may be inevitable.  The Strategic Posture Commission did not explicitly connect START follow-on and modernization but they likely were not asked to analyze such a linkage.  They did agree there is a complex crisis facing the United States that needs to be addressed quickly.  Punting modernization efforts (which many would argue constitute administration policy under the ’safe, secure, and effective’ clause of the Prague speech) until after the Review Conference, for example, throws them into the next fall’s budget cycle which means when they come to fruition is even further delayed.  Should the United States wait that long to start modernization efforts?  Some very influential voices from different parties and government agencies would answer in the negative.