| Its not "putting the world back" to anything, at worst its a failure to improve the situation.|
At best the treaty would allow for a marginal reduction in cost, and an even more marginal increase in safety. There will still be plenty of nuclear weapons, its not a ground shacking change. If it was, that would allow for a possible greater benefit, but would come with some serious risk as well.
At worst it makes the world more dangerous as arguably (depending on whose interpretation of the treaty you go by) it could harm anti-missile efforts, and possibly efforts to use dual capable weapons systems for conventional attacks. Also while the treaty covers the US and Russia, it doesn't cover other countries, so it brings us down to a level closer to them (but not IMO enough to be a very serious concern for now)
Even if your going to give no benefit of any doubt, and take the most extreme position about someone else's ideas and their reasons for them, "traitor" still doesn't make any sense. Positive or negative the treaty's effects will likely be so small that its not very sensible to consider either side to be in any way a traitor or near traitor just because of their position on this, even if the stated position is dishonest, and entirely for self serving reasons, while the holder of the position really believes the national interest would be the opposite position.
And of course you haven't provided any argument for your contention that the position of your opponents is even wrong, other than an argument from authority, and no argument at all for the idea that they actually believe the treaty would be of great benefit to the US, but they oppose it anyway. I suppose their might be a few (on both sides) of the issue who are acting like that, but it seems to me that generally both sides think their own position actually is in the general interest of the United States.