Protecting Our national Sovereignty At The Expense of National Security?

U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty
In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

Not only has the Bush Administration come out against the verification program (probably the most important part of any arms control agreement) supported by the British, the EU and previously the United States under Bill Clinton, they have yet to really explain why. In the "U.S. Proposals to the Conference on Disarmament", American representative Jackie W. Sanders simply dismisses the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty because "effective verification of an FMCT is not achievable". Does that make any sense at all? They are opposing a policy because there is a chance it might not work! It would have been nice if they had used that logic when they considered invading Iraq...but at any rate these justifications are absurd. Can this Administration be so opposed to international cooperation that it would oppose an agreement that could add to the security of the United States simply out of dogmatic unilateralism or does it have more sinister motives? The NY Times' editorial on the State Department's decision cites concerns about protecting secret American nuclear technology as one reason for Bush's refusal to support the inspections component of the FMCT. I am curious by what they mean by that, perhaps the White House doesn't want to draw attention towards the US' newly invigorated nuclear program, an effort which seems to be geared towards creating weapons intended to be used preemptively.