This START treaty is bad bad bad….for one very important reason. It reduces our ability to defend ourselves.
Ariel Cohen, a Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at The Heritage Foundation, notes that the Russians have repeatedly stated they have to right to back out of the treaty if the U.S. missile defense systems is deemed a threat to them.
When has it not been a threat?
This constraint on our missile defense system was the main reason this treaty should never have happened:
Washington has agreed to limitations on its ballistic-missile-defense options (something the administration’s representatives vehemently deny); ambiguous language on rail-mobile ballistic missiles; vague limitations on conventional global-strike systems and a significant degradation of the START verification regime from 1991. All these measures limit U.S. defense options not vis-à-vis Russia, but North Korea, China, and in the future, Iran; and provide the Russian Federation’s Strategic Rocket Forces with unfair advantages.
Furthermore, the treaty’s preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense and remarks by senior Russian officials suggest an attempt by Russia to limit or constrain current and future U.S. missile-defense capabilities by threatening to withdraw from the treaty should the U.S. expand its missile defenses “qualitatively” or “quantitatively.” Apparently, it will be up to Russia to define these quantitative and/or qualitative criteria, forcing U.S. decision-makers to look to Moscow every time a significant missile defense decision has to be made.
And they all fell for it hook line and sinker.
Some background on the naive thinking of Obama and company:
Though President Obama has announced that Russia is no longer the enemy, Russia still considers the U.S. its “principal adversary,” despite the Administration’s attempts to “reset” bilateral relations. U.S. policymakers need to examine Russia’s views on nuclear weapons and understand Russian nuclear doctrine as it is—not as U.S. arms control advocates wish it to be.
The Russian Approach to Nuclear Arms Control
At the signing of the START follow-on treaty, Medvedev reiterated the Russian position that “the treaty can only be viable” if does not “jeopardize the strategic offensive weapons on the Russian side.”[1]Medvedev essentially created a caveat that makes the Russian commitment to the treaty questionable at best, illustrating that Russia and the U.S. perceive nuclear arms control and doctrine very differently.
Though the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago, Russian national leaders, generals, and experts are still captive to a deeply suspicious worldview that hearkens back to hundreds of years of Russian imperial policy.
Announcing the modernization of Russian nuclear forces in 2007, then-President Putin illustrated the Russian worldview by linking nuclear modernization to the U.S. war in Iraq: “Russia, thank God, isn’t Iraq [and] has enough strength and power to defend itself and its interests, both on its territory and in other parts of the world.”[2] For many in Russia, the U.S. is still glavny protivnik (principal adversary), and nuclear arms control does not mean any limits on its ability to maintain modern nuclear weapons. Yet Moscow strives to limit U.S. missile defense and strategic conventional capabilities.
As the Russian military doctrine published this spring illustrates, Russian elites view nuclear weapons not only as a way to protect Russia but as strategic tools used to escalate and end local and regional wars. Nor is Russia interested in President Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons. In 2006, Putin emphasized the importance of Russia’s nuclear arsenal: “When looking at today’s international situation … Russia is compelled to realize that nuclear deterrence is a key element in guaranteeing the country’s security.”[3] The product of Soviet and post-Soviet strategy, current Russian policy is aimed at maximizing deterrence and offensive capability at minimal cost.
~~~The Obama Administration’s arms control strategy to date has been rooted in an outdated 1970s arms control model and the idealism of the 1960s, both of which embrace a “getting to zero” approach of full nuclear disarmament while weakening missile defense in Eastern Europe.
In a world of global proliferation, and in the context of a Russian nuclear strategy premised on nuclear parity and mutually assured destruction, coupled with scaling down of U.S. defensive systems, this approach to arms control is doomed to fail.
While a conflict with Russia is not likely, and hasn’t been likely in decades…a conflict with Iran, China or North Korea is not out of the question. With our missile defense ability greatly diminished, if not completely destroyed, there is now a greater chance of a nuclear war occurring:
The world, meanwhile, will become a more dangerous place. By simultaneously pursuing a strategy of minimalist missile defense and allowing the U.S. nuclear deterrent to atrophy, the president is lowering the bar for other states to become significant actors. As that trend accelerates, there could well be fewer nuclear weapons in the world — because they’ll have been used in nuclear war. “Pursuing a policy of nuclear disarmament in a proliferated setting actually leads to instability,” our research finds. “When confronted with a crisis, countries rely on nuclear weapons more, not less.”
To make matters worse, the White House will likely follow up New START with an even more ambitious arms-control agenda — one that will likely accelerate our journey down this troubling path.
And to make my point, what happened today?
North Korea threatened nuclear war:
Leader Kim Jong-il and his ministers say they are fully prepared to launch a “sacred war”.
They warn that even the smallest intrusion on its territory would bring a devastating response.
Defence chief Kim Yong Chun said the South’s show of strength with tanks and fighter jets near the border was a “grave military provocation” indicating it was planning to invade.
Kim told a national meeting in Pyongyang that the North would not hesitate to push the button.
He said: “To counter the enemy’s intentional drive to push the situation to the brink of war, our revolutionary forces are making preparations to begin a sacred war at any moment necessary based on nuclear deterrent.” North Korea has threatened nuclear attack before but many analysts say it does not have the technology to launch a nuclear weapon.
Many analysts say? The same analysts that said both North Korea and Iran were nowhere close to gaining a nuclear weapon? Those analysts?
Whether they have the ability to launch one yet matters not. They will. Iran will.
Thanks to Obama and some weak kneed cowardly Republicans we are up sh*t creek without a paddle.
See author page
The world gets smaller and more dangerous everyday, and Obama , the idiotic left, and a hand full of progressive Republicans have destroyed our chances to protect ourselves. A firing squad would be an appropriate finish for these traitors, but alas they will be hailed as peacemakers for this dirty deed. We heard the GOP leadership tell us they have heard the American voters, seems like some listen with deaf ears.
This is part of his plan. His hatred of the United States is evident and slowly but surely he is handing over our country to be ripe for his muslim brothers to attack and we have no way to retaliate.
God Bless America
Disenchanted #2 That statement is just plain CRAZY.Nuf Said
Semper Fi
Look up SALT I and II treaties and then look at the START treaties, they are basically the same thing. We gave up development of most of our missile interceptor programs simply because the Russians were scared of the US being able to shoot their systems before they reached their targets. The geniuses of the Carter admin let another country dictate how we protected our citizens. Only Regan realized that by playing on the Russians fears and insecurities can you be successful. He managed to topple the Russian military with Star Wars, a program that was basically a hoax, and the Russians were so paranoid that they fell right in line.
Russia is now on a level playing field in strategic nukes, way ahead on tactical nukes, and doesn’t have to worry that much about a missile defense. Obama was outmanuevered and outdone by Putin. Has anyone noticed if those threatened Wikileaks about Russia a few weeks ago ever materialized? Again, outdone by Putin. Seems that there maybe a new world leader in the making and it’s not an American president.
Don’t need a massive barrage of nukes…just one
E. M. P.
The majority of recognized authorities on nuclear arms and arms treaty negotiations–both past and present, republican and democrat–have strongly supported ratification of START. There’s also support from recognized military experts. When did all of these people suddenly become idiots? When did they become traitors to the nation, intent on selling out the security of the United States?
The last thing we need is another nuclear arms race with the Chinese and Russians. The best outcome to the nuclear game is maintaining a permanent state of stalemate. Any sane leader always moves toward that end, understanding that a clear win isn’t really possible. The best moves are those that maintain balance, not those that attempt to gain advantage. Both players must understand that and openly acknowledge it.
This seems to be a point that some people just don’t get. Those who don’t get it must be kept from moving any playing pieces.
—–
In the spirit of the season, I’m swearing off political discussion for a few days. A safe journey to anyone traveling. Merry Christmas!
Timothy , that’s what I was thinking also, one is enough, bye
GREG , MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALSO, AND GIVING THEM AN EDGE IS NOT QUITE
BALANCING ONCE YOU KNOW THEIR INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF TOTAL POWER AT ANY COST,
THERE IS A LIMIT TO LIMITLESS TOLERANCE,AND OUR ELECTED CONSERVATIVES KNOW WHO PUT THEM THERE AND THEY WILL SHUFFLE THE ACES AS THEY ENTER THE STAGE.
Curt,
Thanks for a well done and critical post.
The Senate ratified this Strategic Nuclear Arms Treaty between the United States and Russia this week with a 71-26 vote, and Biden and the White House proudly assured America that they had made a bold move in further securing the protection of the American people.
This treaty will supposedly limit both countries to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads each, down from previously ignored agreement of 2,200. Apparently the best part of the treaty is its establishment of “limited” monitoring and verification parameters. Sounds so impressive on the surface, surely the Administration wouldn’t “toy” with such a significant element of National Security, World Peace and International Affairs, just for a pre Christmas chest thumping photo op. The Obama White House wouldn’t do that, would it?
START applies only to strategic nukes, the expensive ones, and the ones on which the United States maintains the “advantage.” Russia has no interest in spending billions on more strategic nuclear warheads and facilities. Those it has have long fallen into disrepair. America has the upper hand, however, that is not the case on tactical weapons.
Russia apparently has at best guest at least 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons, not covered by the treaty. That is much more than the U.S., and it can use such “tactical” nuclear weapons on rockets, subs and aircraft.
Verification could be appealing, however, when you are limited as to the number of inspections (18 per year), what is the real accomplishment? Remember the missile defense shield that Obama “concession without quid pro quo” this past year? . . . Democrats now pretend that one of the bennies of this new START is that it doesn’t restrict the U.S. from deploying one. Oh, good then. . . . And the Treaty is shredded? Yup.
We should note in passing that the Framers very presciently provided for the Constitution to invests in the Senate the power of “advice and consent” over treaties. That means, reading all treaty negotiating documents, questioning, investigating, holding hearings. This “Treaty” has been ratified without review by the Senate of the negotiating documents, since Obama and Clinton would have none of it.
So here we have Rose Gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance and chief U.S. negotiator of the New START Treaty, negotiating with whom? Mr. KGB-I’m-ruthless-and-assassinate-journalists Putin? Yup, him. Between Gottemoeller, Obama, and Clinton, there’s not much spine or real insight between any of them, and Putin is having himself one hell of a Christmas. These three incompetents can flout national security success all they want, but this treaty accomplishes nothing which the Russians didn’t want.
Where’s Reagan when you need him? . . . . “On March 23, 1983, Reagan committed to the creation of an elaborate umbrella of space-based missile destroying long-range strategic nuclear ballistic missiles in flight, deployed from satellites, and X-ray lasers also shot from satellites. The brain center of this program may have been the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, East of San Francisco, California, but its heart was Ronald Reagan. His strategy was a dramatic shift from the long assumed doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), and it sought a leap in weapons systems unlike any ever conceived in military history.
Far from being an “intellectual”, or ever pretending to be one, Reagan’s genius was his knowing what he didn’t know, and embracing a deep seeded conviction that American ingenuity could achieve the near impossible. His Lawrence Livermore Labs would deliver. He did not question whether SDI would be “workable”. The very fact that he set Lawrence Livermore Labs on track to realize his dream, would make it so. He convinced America of it, but more importantly, he convinced the world of it, particularly the Soviets and Gorbachev.”
How much more contrast do we need?
As the Obama Administration settles into the Christmas Holidays, it will dream in Technicolor of what Santa filled its stockings with. Its dreams, through to the New Year, will fantasize with high expectations, all launched by headlines that the struggling indecisive Presidency had just experienced a sudden turnaround. . . . Headlines of its own creation panderingly replicated by the MSM, but headlines nonetheless, even if only about fairytales in sky.
Hey Rich, call me crazy, but remember my words. I follow all of this ‘stuff’, and lay it out. it may not be logical however I do not trust that man, not one bit. If you don’t think that barack, barry, steve or whatever his name is, is not trying to debase our country you have not been paying close enough attention.
I am no newbie either having been ‘around’ the military since 1978.
——-
However today is now a day of peace. Merry Christmas!!!
And just in case you missed it, . . . President Medvedev congratulated Obama on the Senate’s approval of START, and credited Obama for securing the pact’s ratification.
“He did a great job, succeeding in his push for the ratification of this very important document, the New START in quite difficult conditions,” Medvedev said. “I told him: Barack, you have a rest now.”
. . . . You just can’t make this stuff up. Just what you want to hear from the other side of the table, as you arrive home from negotiating a deal.
Putin and Medvedev are just rubbing salt in the wound. Yup, they’re having a good Christmas.
Disenchanted, your not alone in your convictions,
and MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALSO
@ rich wheeler…If You knew half of what you are shooting off at the keyboard about you would have already read the Agreement. Since You have not You are just fooling yourself.
Talk the Talk. But know that better informed will not agree with you. Read the Agreement.
Otherwise You are the One who was fooled here.
Russian parliament tentatively approves arms pact
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_us_nuclear
You mean the Russian parliment reads stuff before they vote on it not like this Congress?
@Greg: You said:
And we do this by allowing the other side to dictate what we can and cannot build??!!??
Really?
OLD TROOPER 2, HI, SO they can add statements countering the SENATE LEGISLATION ,
SO they will if this will delay the KREMLIN WILL TURN IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE surely,
to show their people that they are the one on top of the situation and in control,
they wont take the advice of the PRESIDENT, JUST BY THE ANSWER THEY GAVE HIM
TO GO TAKE A REST. BYE