When I worked as assistant secretary of defense for Ronald Reagan, the president demonstrated two particularly important characteristics.

While he was a strong advocate for national security and an unwavering opponent of communism, those values did not blind him to the opportunities that arose to negotiate with the Soviet Union and reduce the nuclear threat to the United States. And politically, while President Reagan was the leader of his party and a champion of Republican values, those positions never limited him from reaching across the aisle to work with Democratic leaders, like then-Sen. Sam Nunn, especially if doing so meant that U.S. national security could be improved as a result. These are values that would serve Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson well as they consider the New START treaty, which would reduce both American and Russian nuclear arsenals.

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START treaty in Prague on April 8, and the U.S. Senate has now begun deliberations. The treaty would verifiably reduce each country’s nuclear arsenals to 1,500 warheads and 700 launchers. There are clear security benefits to ratifying the treaty, and clear risks to failing to do so.

Verifiably reducing U.S. and Russian arsenals will increase U.S. security both by kick-starting the process of reducing redundant weapons that are a deadly legacy of the Cold War and by adjusting U.S. policy to meet the security challenges of the 21st century: proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism.

While reducing the number of nuclear weapons that can be aimed at the United States and improving verification procedures are valuable in and of themselves, the treaty has other strategic benefits. During the Cold War the United States’ greatest danger was the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union, but today the greater threat is the prospect of unchecked nuclear proliferation, which would, in turn, increase the potential for nuclear terrorism. To combat this new security landscape, the United States needs to play a leadership role working with Russia and other states whose cooperation will be essential. The threats of proliferation and nuclear terrorism can only be addressed by a multinational effort.

And this effort has already borne fruit. Improving relations with Russia by reviving the arms control agenda contributed to Russia’s recent twin decisions to join with the U.S. in passing sanctions against Iran and cancel planned missile sales to the Iranian state. This type of cooperation is exactly what we need to advance our own national security.

While some have alleged that the New START treaty will inhibit missile defense, this claim has been strongly refuted by Republican elder statesmen in their Senate testimony on the treaty. Former Secretary of State James Baker stated plainly, “There is, in fact, no restriction on the United States of America’s ability to move forward on missile defense in whatever way it wants.” Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft was equally direct, testifying, “The treaty is amply clear, it does not restrict us ... I don’t think there’s substance to this argument.”

In fact, Baker and Scowcroft are joined in supporting the treaty by almost every senior Republican national security leader from the past three decades, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Schlesinger, George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and the Senate’s foremost current expert on nuclear policy, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. They are joined by leading Democratic national security leaders, such as former Defense Secretary William Perry and former senator Nunn.

Unfortunately, in the poisonous partisan atmosphere that dominates Washington these days, it appears likely that some senators will oppose the New START Treaty either because they don’t want to give President Obama a “win” heading into the midterm elections or because of an illogical impulse to oppose or distrust something that the president supports simply because he supports it.

These impulses are bad for America and harmful to our national security interests. The New START Treaty would be a “win” for America’s efforts to combat the emerging threats of the 21st century, whether it happens on Obama’s watch or not. That is the type of thing Reagan had the wisdom to recognize, and these were the types of opportunities he seized.

I hope Chambliss and Isakson can follow in those footsteps.

Lawrence Korb, a part-time resident of Sugar Hill, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He served as assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration.

Lawrence (Larry) Korb

Lawrence (Larry) Korb is married to Lane Stone, former president of National WAND Education Fund. The Korbs split their time in Sugar Hill, Georgia and the DC metropolitan area where Larry currently works for the Center for American Progress as a Senior Fellow. Georgia WAND is extremely pleased that this article was accepted for publication. It represents the joint effort between Larry, American Forum, Rethink Media, and Georgia WAND to educate the public on the national security benefits of New START ratification.