The START treaty is irredeemably flawed
Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 17, 2010
I’m not sure why AT Associate Editor Rick Moran defended the New START treaty is a blogpost three days ago, titled “Senate has votes to ratify START treaty”. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/senate_has_votes_to_ratify_sta.html) Whatever the reason is, he’s wrong.
“Call it the “Let’s not be beastly to the Russians” treaty. Flawed as it is, not approving the treaty will have serious repercussions in our relations with Putin.”
The job of the federal government, including the White House and the Pentagon, is to defend the US against all enemies, not appease Putin or try not to be beastly to the Russians. (What is beastly about refusing a treaty unfavorable to the US, BTW?) As for “repercussions with Putin”, what is the old KGB thug going to do if the Senate rejects this treaty? Start a new arms race? Be my guest, Vladimir: America’s GDP ($15 trillion) is 7.5 times Russia’s GDP. Impose an oil embargo against the US? Yeah, I’m sure it will work, the US imports about 7% of the oil it consumes from Russia.
The most silly claim he has made, however, was that “With the Joint Chiefs behind it and most of the foreign policy establishment, you either have to make the argument that these people want the US to approve a bad treaty, or that it is as good as we can get and won’t damage national security.”
Admiral Mullen is a bureaucrat who has never seen war. Neither has SECDEF Robert Gates, despite talking about his “lifetime of experience in the national security arena”. I don’t recall the service chiefs endorsing the treaty.
It’s ridiculous to claim that this treaty “won’t damage national security”. It would severely reduce both warhead numbers and delivery system numbers down to totally inadequate levels (1,550 deployed warheads , 700 delivery systems, 800 deployed and nondeployed delivery systems). The Vice Chairman of the JCS, Gen. Cartwright, says that the absolute minimum number of needed delivery systems is 870. The treaty would oblige the US to reduce its fleet of delivery systems while allowing Russia to add such weapons and encouraging China to reach nuclear parity status with the US.
All of these reductions would be implemented while the White House and the Gates Pentagon refuse to modernize or replace the existing delivery systems, except SSBNs.
The endorsement of this treaty by “most of the foreign policy establishment” is an argument against ratifying this treaty. The utterly discredited, corrupt, liberal foreign policy establishment in Washington wants what is bad for the US, good for their beloved pacifist ideology, and good for their dreamed up “international order”. For them, disarmament, arms reduction, the appeasement of America’s enemies (which they wrongly call “realism”) and the supremacy of “international law” are dogmas, just like the perpetual virginity of the Holy Virgin Mary is a dogma for the Catholic Church. This establishment (the so-called Best and Brightest) is responsible for the foreign policy mistakes and disasters of the last 50 years, including detente, their model for present-day Russian-American and Sino-American relations. They also opposed all of the conservative policies Reagan and Bush II implemented, including the SDI, the 1980s’ defense buildup, the deployment of Pershing-II missiles to Europe, and withdrawal from the ABM treaty. And these establishment guys are supposed to be smart people? Please. They are no foreign policy experts, merely establishment figures who believe they know better than anyone else. By the way, several officials of the Reagan Administration, as well as credible experts of the Heritage Foundation, have spoken out against this treaty and have explained why it is bad for the US. They are:
Hon. Edwin Meese, III, Former Counselor the President; Former Attorney General of the United States
• Amb. John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs;
• Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union;
• Hon. Paula DeSutter, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation;
• Judge William P. Clark, Former National Security Advisor to the President;
• Hon. Kathleen Bailey, Former Assistant Director, U.S. ACDA;
(Please read: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40551)
It is no coincidence that the Obama Admin and the foreign policy establishment want this treaty ratified during the lame-duck session, quickly, before a new Congress gathers. If the Senate had been allowed sufficient time to study and consider this treaty, it would’ve likely discovered the many irredeemable flaws it contains and most Republicans would’ve voted against it – probably enough of them to stop this treaty. So the WH, which knows that this treaty is very bad for the US, wants the Senate to ratify the treaty quickly, and not consider the consequences of this worthless piece of paper. If the treaty was good for the US, Obama would’ve simply allowed the Senate to take enough time to study it, confident that the Senate would ratify it anyway.
Aren’t you curious, dear readers, why the Obama Administration has refused to provide the negotiations’ record to the Senate (let alone to the American public)? Because it knows that this treaty is disastrous, that it’s a capitulation act, and that the Senate would reject it if it knew the truth about how it was negotiated. This treaty is the biggest scam ever perpetrated against the US.
Moran wrote that he believes the DOD could detect if the Russians are cheating or not. Maybe. He can bet, however, that they will cheat if this treaty is ratified. They violated the SALT-I and SALT-II treaties (so egregiously that the Reagan Admin withdrew the US from SALT-II) and the LTBT (ground nuclear tests at Semipalatinsk continued until 1989). There’s no reason to believe they would comply with this treaty. A treaty signed with Putinist Russia isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
He also said “So I’m not going to be too hard on Republicans who vote for it.” Actually, any Senator, Republican or Democrat, who votes for it should be voted out of office. This is the worst scam ever perpetrated against the US, engineered by KGB thugs and perpetually-adolescent Democrat peaceniks (useful idiots who are still dreaming of a nuclear-weapon-free world). Moran may not be “too hard” on Republicans who might vote for it, but he can bet that many Americans will be. (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/13/still-a-non-starter)
He closed his blogpost with a derisive remark that “It won’t sit well with the missile defense crowd but there is nothing specific in the treaty that precludes us from deploying our own missile defense.” Again, wrong. Vide Article V, which forbids the use of ex-ICBM siloes as missile interceptor siloes. Look also at the statements of the Russian President and the Russian FM, both of whom have correctly said any development, qualitative or quantitative, of missile defense would constitute a violation of the treaty and that should this happen, Russia will withdraw from the treaty.
Moran has not, however, corrected his factual errors.
Voting for the New START treaty would be a heinous betrayal of the conservative principle of a strong defense, a betrayal of conservative ideals, an anti-American action. Any Republican who might vote for it should be voted out of office.