START passes. But are we really safer?
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.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNAuFz4x-Q
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.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXKeZ4ns57I
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.
8 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Sounds like the thinking of the early 80s all over again.
The Dems knew it weakens us, the media was complicit and the GOP caved. Its time to get rid of the Republicrats like Dick Lugar who voted for the treaty and maybe its time for a third party.
This criticsim of START is too much nonsense. America is not in the habit of giving away any military hardware advantage. I'd like to know of a single instance since 1945? The professional Obama haters have lost all touch with reality when START supporters such as Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and James Baker lll (all Republicans) are being accused of caving in.
Is our government actually causing devolution? Is it really possible that our species, just since the 1980s, has lost the capability to function on a complex level and that we're actually turning into a degenerate form of our ancestors? Too many people are too wrapped up in this feel good crap and wanting to placate our enemies. If you're one of them, get the hell out of my White House and Congress. And for the record: I will always consider communist/socialist countries enemies of the United States, even as Obama is trying to imitate that which is known to fail.
Sorry I went long on this, Jim, but I've decided to be chafed over this rather than cry.
Sounds like we're not good at making friends. Pretty soon we'll just have enemies, then what? Nuke them all?
Making friends notwithstanding, we seem to be getting really good at losing friends. Ask Poland.
MAD (mutally assured destruction) has moved from the negotiating table to the Congressional pulpit and back rooms.
Unilaterally assured destruction seems to be the new theme when defensive weapons are considered acts of agression…
I base many of my opinions about the future on what's happened in the past. Small nations do not initiate attacks on the US. It has never happened, and perhaps never will. We do go to war with small nations when they have something we want: Iraq for example, but we are ordinanilly the instigator. What happens in relation to small nations can lead to war with larger nations when the larger nation's interests are threatened. Continued development of mutually beneficial relationships with Russia, China, India and Pakistan reduce the chances of going to war for untoward reasons. Re. millitary committment: we have the largest military budget in the world: more than the rest of the world combined by some counts. We have over 1000 military installations world wide in more than 150 countries. Only Russia has a nuclear arsenal approaching our own, and they are dismantling at the rate of about 1000 weapons per year. We are also the world's largest supplier of arms: more than the next nine suppliers combined. We are building the world's largest military installation on Iran's doorstep and have developed preventive strategies to contain Iran and N Korea with other major powers. In short, we are doing the right things, mostly, which is why both Republican and Dem statesmen support START. Heritage Foundation (an ideological think tank) has one opinion. Read other sources as well before you make up your mind.
I disagree with some of what David said. I won't go into Iraq as that is debatable and has been discussed years ago. I do think continued development will keep major powers from attacking us. While we do have the largest budget, we seem to always be there for the small powers (whether right or wrong). While we are developing strategies for Iran and N Korea, I am not convinced that those strategies will work. I have no problem reducing/limitting our selves with respect to Russia. I have a problem doing it in regards to these new powers. The feeling I get is that both us and Russia have two different translations of what this treaty means. I believe it is only a matter of time before one of us backs out or "breaks" the treaty.