EDITORIAL: Nuclear treaty shouldn't be a political football

Reducing nuclear arsenals in the United States and Russia shouldn't be a pawn in Washington's interminable partisan chess match. National security, relations with Russia and controlling these doomsday devices are too important for that sort of gamesmanship. But that's apparently what's happening.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia appeared on track for Senate ratification in this lame-duck Congress. It has wide support in the upper reaches of the U.S. military. Obama has wisely backed spending the $84 billion to modernize the nation's nuclear weapons complex that some Republicans want in exchange for their support. The necessary votes seemed assured.

Then Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican point man on the issue, abruptly moved Tuesday to block a vote, insisting there wasn't enough time to resolve all the issues.

The treaty would allow each country to deploy no more than 1,550 strategic, nuclear warheads. And it would restore mutual inspections - our clearest window into Russia's nuclear arsenal - that lapsed last year.

This treaty should be ratified, whether this year or next.

It may be more difficult to gather the necessary 67 votes next year when Republicans have six additional Senate seats. But progress in the effort to control nuclear weapons shouldn't be contingent on the balance of partisan power in Washington. hN