Not really. Reducing nukes I imagine makes a nation safer, if the two who sign on are the only countries with nukes. Inspections make sense, except the Russians have exceptions to some inspections, namely their ground launchers. Swell. But most of all, this is a bad treaty because the Russians believe we must stop development of our missile defense. And that my friends is the rub in this one.The Senate went ahead and approved the START treaty just a few hours ago and it wasn’t even close. It is, as I will show, a raw deal.
The Senate, on the last major action of the session, has passed the START treaty. The vote was 71 to 26, meeting the 2/3 required vote to pass.
The measure calls for reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.
“The question is whether we move the world a little out of the dark shadow of nuclear nightmare,” Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry asked his colleagues moments before the tally.
Thirteen Republicans broke ranks to vote for the treaty.
I can assure you, based on my research this is just a bad Treaty for us, but good for Russia. A few of the exemptions will make you tear your hair out. Based on a Heritage analysis (sections cited):
Tactical Nukes Ignored. While the exact numbers are not public, Russia reportedly has a several-fold numerical advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons like the ones moved close to our NATO allies this spring. Proponents of the treaty argue that New START is essential for keeping nukes away from terrorists. There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!
Rail-Mobile ICBMs Exempted. The definitions of rail-mobile ICBMs and rail-mobile ICBM launchers established in the expired START, which applied to the associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in New START. The Obama Administration asserts that rail-mobile ICBMs and launchers are captured by the treaty under generic definitions of deployed ICBMs. But Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee,has stated the opposite.
Then there are the limitations to our missile defense system and development and its not just the preamble.
There are at least five sections that limit missile defense: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.
I can assure you that the Democrats know the weaknesses here and the truth. Just listen to John Kerry push the START treaty on This Week on Sunday. When pushed … he concedes there might be some small letter of agreement but the US only did that to get the Russians to sign.
Oh, it’s just some little side agreement, says Kerry. Last night Senator Casey (D, PA) in as much admitted, the treaty specifies missile defense limitations when he said he didn’t care what the Russians think is in there. If the Dems can get by the Main Stream Media that easily, no wonder poor Lindsey Graham was a voice crying in the wilderness.
As I point out in this previous post, it’s not surprising Obama would be willing to negotiate away missile defense. He wants it gone. In that sense apparently, the Russians and Obama are in complete agreement. You’ve been had. The Democrats know it and the media is complicate.