I posted yesterday about a recent incident in which fifty intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) went offline, taking with them a good chunk of America’s nuclear deterrence. The White House is downplaying the incident, of course, but missile experts like John Noonan have been sounding the alarm. Bottom line? It was actually a big deal. A very big deal.

And yet it may have done us a favor in killing the disastrous START II treaty the Obama Administration wants the U.S. Senate to ratify. The treaty would reduce our…well, let’s have Marc Ambinder explain:

There are about 450 ICBMs in America’s nuclear arsenal, some of them bearing multiple warheads. 150 are based at Minot and about 150 are housed at Malmstrom AFB in Montana. The chessboard of nuclear deterrence, a game-theory-like intellectual contraption that dates from the Cold War, is predicated upon those missiles being able to target specific threat locations across the world. If a squadron goes down, that means other missiles have to pick up the slack. The new START treaty would reduce the number of these missiles by 30 percent, but the cuts are predicated upon the health of the current nuclear stockpile, from warhead to delivery system to command and control.

You can understand the caution in seriously reducing our nuclear stockpile shortly after a major event caused a chunk of America’s nuclear deterrence to go offline. You don’t want to further reduce our ability to respond to a nuclear attack when, frankly, it can’t be trusted that all of our missiles can be accessed when needed.

And that’s not the only concern with the START II treaty.

Conservative lawmakers have raised red flags in response to worrisome language on ballistic missile defense, low technical confidence in the aging warhead stockpile, and the speed in which the treaty was rushed into committee.

This treaty isn’t what America needs at this point in time. The Senate should reject the requested ratification.