Who else thinks nuclear security is prudent?

Lots of people think that preventing the destruction of a nuclear detonation is a really good idea. Russia thinks so, the International Atomic Energy Association thinks so, NATO thinks so, the United States military thinks so, and so does the President. That's why they have been vocally supporting the ratification of the New START treaty, which recommits the United States and Russia to reigning in their cold war-era nuclear stockpiles, securing nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material, and closely supervising each countries' nuclear arsenal. Of course, Senate Republicans seemed to have decided that they want no part in nuclear security, holding out in favor of grand standing on tax cuts for the wealthy.

In time to assuage our fears that Republicans are the only people in the world against the START treaty and the principles it stands for, North Korea unveiled a new nuclear weapons facility. I'm not a big foreign policy blogger, but I'm sure there's a bunch of people who will tell you that it would be easier to compel the North Koreans to wind down their weapons programs if Russia and the United States presented a united front and if there were a binding legal model for controlling nuclear arms programs in operation. The Anti Defamation League and the National Jewish Democratic Council support New START because it will be an important tool in addressing Iranian nuclear ambitions.