I was one of many who were critical of the decision to award President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize less than a year into his presidency for his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Sadly, now that Obama has a chance to make tangible progress on this front, his efforts are being stymied.

You’d think that everyone would agree on the imperative to reduce nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms control treaties have been signed by JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.

So why is there so much opposition to the proposed New START treaty?

The treaty would reduce American and Russian battlefield nuclear weapons from 2,200 each to 1,550 and would restart the verification process, allowing for inspection of Russian nuclear facilities and increased dialogue between Washington and Moscow.

The treaty is not a strategic policy change in the slightest. The New START treaty is only one in line of arms reductions treaties between us two former Cold War foes; George H.W. Bush signed the START I and Bill Clinton the START II treaties. And, with 1,550 deployed battlefield nukes, we could still destroy the world many times over after New START is approved.

Nevertheless, the treaty is central to achieving several foreign policy goals. First, by restoring the verification process, we can make sure that none of Russia’s nuclear warheads end up in the hands of a terrorist organization.

Second, if the treaty is blocked, our efforts to improve relations with Russia could fall through. Not only are better relations with a Russia a virtue itself, but we need Russia to counter China and Russia’s support to maintain sanctions against Iran.

Third, fewer redundant nuclear weapons means reduced costs maintaining our arsenal. We don’t need 2,000 nukes that are ready to be fired at five minute’s notice; we probably don’t even need 1,500. Reducing this government waste is an easy way to make a dent, if a tiny one, in our deficit.

Those opposed to the treaty argue that they have not been given enough time to review its terms. President Obama, however, signed New START seven months ago. On top of that, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry has held 21 hearings on the treaty and postponed debate six weeks to give senators time to review the treaty.

Obama has even thrown opponents a bone, promising $84 billion over the next ten years to modernize the nuclear arsenal. While this is of questionable necessity, it is unquestionably a tactic made in the spirit of compromise.

Securing this modest advance in arms control will not doom the United States to nuclear holocaust. It will instead secure the foreign policy of the country in several significant ways. What more do opponents want?