Senate Republicans have surrendered to Obama and Reid


Once again, Senate Republicans have disappointed and shown a middle finger to their party, its grassroots fans, and conservative principles, by voting to end the debate on the disastrous New START treaty.

Mitch McConnell didn’t even try to force GOP Senators to vote “no”, so 10 RINO Senators (Richard Lugar, Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, Bob Bennett and George Voinovich) voted to end the debate.

Corker and Alexander are easy-to-buy Senators; Reid probably promised them some pork projects. Bennett is a RINO rejected this year by the people of his own state; Murkowski is a RINO rejected by the Alaskan GOP who won by a plurality of votes and by blocking legal appeals by Joe Miller; the other Senators are unpricipled RINOs.

Credit is due to the 28 Republican Senators who voted not to end the debate, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who voted to began the debate in the first instance. Some of these 28 Senators offered various amendments that were aimed to ensure the Russians would not cheat and the US would not be disadvantaged by the treaty, but the Dems and the RINOs rejected these amendments, because they want what is bad for the US. They don’t want America to be adequately protected or to know if the Russians are cheating.

There is one final chance to stop this disastrous treaty. Please call your Senators and tell them that if they vote to ratify this treaty, you will never vote for them again. (UPDATE: The Senate has ratified the treaty by a vote of 71:26.)

A number of credible defense experts have written articles which nicely explain why this disastrous treaty should not be ratified. Among the must-read articles are:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31315
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/generals-diplomats-warn-of-new
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Factsheets/The-START-Treaty-Undermining-National-Security
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/why_america_needs_nuclear_arms.html

The fourth article, written by my fellow AT contributor John Griffing, cites one of my articles (the one that explains why the New START treaty should not be ratified) as one of its sources.

These articles, however, except Griffing’s work, do not categorically question/refute Obama’s goal of a “world without nuclear weapons”, which is nothing more than a childish fantasy.

It’s a childish fantasy because there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons. China, North Korea and Pakistan will NEVER surrender nor dismantle their nuclear weapons, under any conditions.

Nor is a world without nuclear weapons desirable.

America’s nuclear weapons have been shielding the US and dozens of its allies for 65 years, thus preventing any aggressor from ever attacking them. The New START treaty would end this historically-proven policy and replace it with childish assumptions.

American nuclear weapons don’t threaten anyone except rogue states. They are well guarded and cannot be stolen easily. They actually prevent nuclear proliferation by discouraging America’s allies from developing their own nuclear weapons. The US will ALWAYS need a large nuclear arsenal.

Griffing rightly mentioned the 3000 targets that the US military would need to eliminate to conduct a biting retaliatory strike, but even he assumed that nuclear weapons could become irrelevant and unnecessary one day – if the US developed a giant missile defense system. Not only would such a system be very expensive to build, it would not make nuclear weapons unneeded, because the US would still need to be able to eliminate those 3000 targets that Mr Griffing mentioned.

There is no alternative to a large US nuclear arsenal. And this arsenal is not a threat to the US nor to the world. It’s a crucial defensive shield which has protected the US for the last 65 years. As VADM Robert Munroe (ret.) rightly wrote, this is a historically proven policy that should not be ended.

———-
Other defense news:
1) The Russians are working on plasma stealth technology and aircraft that could use that technology.
2) Yesterday, India signed a $30 bn contract to purchase hundreds of 5th generation Russian fighterplanes. That’s a huge deal for the Russian defense industry.
3) The conservative Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA), AKA Buck, is running for Chairman of the House Armed Services Cmte. If elected, Buck would ensure that the US military would be properly funded and equipped, and would attempt to prevent defense spending cuts. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) is running for Chairperson of the House Foreign Relations Cmte. IRL is a critic of Russia, Cuba and Venezuela and would try to limit the influence of the Kremlin in the Western Hemisphere.
4) According to the Pentagon, America’s GDP, as of 2010, is $15 trillion. This would mean that the FY2010 DOD budget ($534 bn) constituted just 3.56% of GDP, not 3.65% of GDP that I calculated assuming that America’s GDP is still $14.61 trillion.
5) There are still 7 decommissioned Tu-160 bombers in Ukraine. The DOD should buy them and study them.

2 thoughts on “Senate Republicans have surrendered to Obama and Reid”

  1. Thank you Mr. Mazurak for your kind words. In regards to my views on missile defense, I echo the late President Reagan, who also believed that missile defense, when perfected, would render nuclear weapons obsolete. Current US missile defense systems are almost completely foolproof. [See the link to the MDA report in my article.] US ground-based interceptors can distinguish between dummy warheads and the real thing. US missile defense technology is the most advanced in the world, but deployment is lacking.

    I meant not that the US should ever disarm in the event that such a system were in place, only that arsenals might one day fall into disuse if and when both sides possess adequate means of defense. President Bush even proposed sharing US missile defense technology with the Russians,an option President Obama conveniently forgets. I personally favor the United States as the sole purveyor and possessor of missile defense technology, which would ensure that American technology cannot be undermined or exploited.

    I hope this clarifies my feelings on missile defense. It is a pleasure to write at American Thinker with such a collection of great minds.

    1. Thank you for your comment and your praise, Mr Griffing. (You can call me Ziggy if you want to.)

      It’s true that the late President Reagan believed that missile defense, if perfected, would make nuclear weapons obsolete. However, I do not. I believe that even under such a scenario, nuclear weapons would be useful (e.g. as deterrents or as weapons that could be used against countries which don’t have BMD systems). I believe the best policy to proect the US and its allies to provide both a sizeable nuclear deterrent and a missile defense system. America’s European allies, such as France and Turkey, believe that nuclear weapons are still needed, even though BMD systems already exist. France wishes to retain its nuclear deterrent, while Turkey has asked the US to keep American tactical nukes on Turkish territory.

      Moreover, the cost of building the kind of huge BMD system that would be required to intercept all Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles, would be prohibitively high, and indeed, too high. Even a system designed to intercept “only” all Russian and Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs would be very expensive (though maybe not too expensive), and given current economic and budgetary conditions, the DOD cannot afford such a system. The DOD’s annual budget amonts to only 3.65% of GDP, and the Pentagon has established priorities other than BMD.

      There is no foolproof or “almost completely foolproof” weapon system. MDA’s interceptors have passed most, but not all, of their tests. GBIs and ship-launched SM-3 missiles have failed a number of tests, although they’ve passed most of the ests they’ve been subjected to.

      America’s nuclear arsenal will never “fall into disuse”. It will always be needed to deter Russia, China and NK.

      Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, Mr Griffing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s