The lead Republican Senate negotiator for ratification of the new START treaty has signaled his unwillingness to take up debate during the coming lame duck session in Congress, thus dealing what could be a mortal blow to the arms control measure.
Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said in a statement that “given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization,” it would be impossible to consider the treaty at this time.
Kyl is absolutely correct. While the treaty is backed by our entire military establishment, and is, on its surface, generally favorable to our national security interests, there are several unanswered questions relating to verification, missile defense, and modernization that all senators should want to weigh in the balance before casting a final vote on the treaty.
The New START treaty would reduce the number of allowed warheads to 1500 while limiting launchers and long range bombers to 800. The treaty is flexible in that it allows both sides to determine the mix of ICBMs, sub-launched missiles, and bombers to suit their security needs.
The problem isn’t so much with the treaty itself, but with the politics being played by Democrats and the Obama administration. The president wants to ram the treaty through the Senate before the new congress is seated in January, fearing the influx of 10 new GOP senators will make ratification more difficult. He is willing to do this while questions regarding the president’s commitment to modernizing our nuclear force, pursuing a robust missile defense program, and ensuring the Russians don’t renege are being raised even by the treaty’s GOP supporters.
On top of all this, the administration has made the strategic blunder of overselling the importance of the treaty, speaking in apocalyptic terms about the failure to ratify the document in the lame duck session. Vice President Biden, not known for his rhetorical restraint, said on Wednesday, “Failure to pass the New Start treaty this year would endanger our national security,” adding that failure to ratify the treaty would mean there would be, “no verification regime to track Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal,” and that it might affect our relations with Russia on other, strategically vital matters such as imposing sanctions on Iran and the war in Afghanistan.
There are questions about the treaty’s verification standards, which the Obama administration has so far failed to address to the satisfaction of Kyl and other Republican senators. Some of the more robust verification procedures in the old START treaty have been scrapped while others have been altered. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy, there are major flaws in the treaty’s verification regime:
- A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry on missile tests,
- A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections,
- Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs),
- Abolition of the START verification regime governing mobile ICBMs, and
- A weakening of the verification standards governing the elimination of delivery vehicles.
The monitoring of missile telemetry would now be limited to 5 missile tests. As John C. Wohlstetter points out in Human Events, the Russians could test fire 5 older missiles, allowing the US to view the telemetry on models for which we already have flight profiles, while encrypting any data from missile tests of new or modernized birds. Wohlstetter calls this “swiss cheese verification.”
The abolition of the regime for monitoring mobile ICBMs is extremely troubling. The Russians have been known to place their most accurate ICBMs – the SS-18 – on railroad cars. While the strictures against mobile ICBMs were in place, the Russians were prevented from moving those missiles. That provision is now gone and we will have to rely on Russia’s word to determine where the missles are if they decide to move them.
Consequence if USA doesn't ratify new START:
In the world:
Other countries will consider that US doesn't follow the policy of non-proliferation. For such countries like Iran and North Korea it is a good reason for nuclear weapons development.
World leaders will doubt in Obama's ability to be an effective president. Obama will become a limp duck so any serious diplomacy deals will be impossible till next president elections.
In Russia:
Russia will consider that US cheated it. This will raise antiamerican emotions through common people and lower their support of Medvedev and his team who are for good relations with US on the contrary "Siloviki" will gain more support from people because they will say: "We told you that Americans cannot be trusted". So those republicans who are against this treaty are useful idiot for our "Siloviki" party.
Do not forget that this treaty is much more a symbol than a real treaty. Nobody truly believes that the war is possible between our countries. I don't know the technical side of new START very good, but all your former ministers of defense and other military support it. Those republicans who are against this treaty just want more money, it is a simple trade.
Thanks for your input, but Russia is the last country that needs to be lecturing the USA on proliferation. Yall are helping the mad mullahs and hugo develop nukes, and the prk already has them. World leaders already doubt hussein’s ability to be an effective president, and bad diplomacy deals are far worse than no diplomacy deals.
What the “common people” think doesn’t matter much in Russia because putin has anybody who disagrees too strongly beaten or assassinated. The commies are running Russia again, and when they aren’t, US conservatives will reflect that. Hussein’s picture would be next to useful idiot in the dictionary (finally displacing carter’s), if he didn’t happen to be a closet commie.
Continued…
So, if war between the US and Russia is possible (and it isn't- MAD Mutually Assurred Destruction dictates this reality), why bother with a treaty at all?
Moreover, why even worry about the newcomers? They would be more than Mutually Assurred of Destruction….
I say, let them rattle their little sabers… and if they are stupid enough to launch an attack, we vaporize their idiot asses. Let God sort 'em out. Or Allah, depending on their beliefs…
They (Iran, N. Korea, et. al.) also know this. Just ignore their huffing and puffing… and be ready to protect the USA and quash them for good if they go too far and attack us.
Reagan never talked about appeasement. But when Quadaffi went too far, we read about it in the papers the day after. Last we heard from that idiot too, wasn't it?
Coerrectio- if war between US and Russia *ISN'T* possible…
This treaty contains ABM limitations, and should be rejected by the Senate. Hussein should be forced to go back and negotiate a treaty that is in US interests, rather than Russian interests. In fact, we shouldn't ratify anything until Russia ceases all aid to the mad mullahs' and hugo's nuke programs.
Rifleman is correct about the Iranians and Chavez getting Russian support and these facts dovetail with issue of missile defense. Most important is that Yeltsin modernized Russia's nuclear forces with the Topol missile deployment and Putin followed on with deployment of a mobile version of Topol precisely the area where verfication procedures have been watered down. The presumed equality of forces is misleading due to the completion of landbased Russian modernization and the lack of any plan for as noted in the article for US landbased modernization. Sea based modernization is good as Russia has been only in process of developing new sea forces but it isn't enough and the giant SS-18 as noted have also undergone modernization; but again key is fact of two new sets (one mobile) of deployed nuclear ICBMs by Russia. It makes sense for Russia to sign treaty just at the point of their completed landbased modernization while we have no plans and to include efforts to slow down or stop our missile defense efforts. But it makes no sense for the US especially given China's rising nuclear development and its current alliance with Moscow.
Lets keep this simple, Obama would rather climb in a time machine and pretend its 1978 instead of solve any real problems. Will they dig up Leonid Brezhnev to co-sign for the Russians?
The reality is that whether aging or modern, Russia and the US's nukes are little more than dusty chess pieces left over from the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction is a pretty simple concept to anyone that ISN'T living in N. Korea or dreaming of 72 virgins.
All this "New START" treaty will do is provide the president with a photo op, fuel about 6 months of college campus lectures and hamstring the REAL national security interest of the US – developing cutting edge missle defense. We sign this treaty and Putin will feel emboldened in further ignoring the US and solidifying his growing
thug-o-cratic "diplomacy" with old Soviet states and freedom-loving people around the world.
What a waste that our leaders would rather play "Back to the Future" instead of actually doing something meaningful. Jan. 20, 2013 can't get here fast enough.
~ Preacher Billy
China’s nuclear weapons stockpile is expected to continue to grow over the next decade as new multi warhead ballistic missile systems reach operational status and China achieves sufficient weapon-grade fissile material to meet the immediate needs of its military nukes, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said in a report outlining current and future threats to American interests.
Ahhh..err…. and we are disarming 20% our nuclear capabilities?
This is a terrible treaty on many levels. The Senate should outright reject it and send Obama's team back to the negotiating table. Vlad the Invader might throw a temper tantrum, but who cares? We all know that Putin knows the U.S. conceded too much in the proposed treaty and he has room to negotiate a more equitable settlement.
Pretty much anything that Obama proposes is rarely in America's interest or favor. He has dedicated himself to making sure that the country he feels he HAS to apologize for, is fully punished. Whatever he wants for the US should always be under close scrutiny.
As for Russia, has there ever, at any time, been an exception to their suspicions and lack of trust? That is a state of mind Russia has never waivered from. And probably never will, no matter what one does.
to Rifleman.
I am tired of guys that tell stories about Evel Putin, Russian Mindless Slaves who mean nothing and other fairytales. About real situation in Russia see my previous posts. As I alredy said new START is much more a symbol, than a real treaty. It doesn't matter much if you have 2000 warhead or 10000 both this amounts are enough to destroy the world several times. So do not think that Russia is in urgent need of this treaty (as well as USA). Actually things are simple: ratification of START will be a good start for good relations between our countries, otherwise so called Perezagruzka may ends. We supported US with Iran and provided supply route to Afganistan. Now we a waiting something in exchange. WTO and Jackson-Vanik amendment.
Go lay some wolf bait and sit in it Vlad.
If the murders and beatings benefit putin or his sock puppets, I give putin the 'credit' for them. He certainly could have and can put an end to them, but he doesn't. His helping the mad mullahs and hugo develop nukes is flat out evil.
Who said anything about mindless? Powerless would be accurate to what I said. Russia is being run by the old KGB, and rather than build Russia to the country it should be (one where the smart people don't flee), putin tries to make Russia great by spreading WMD and reconquering his neighbors. When he can't do that, he attempts to get his sock puppets into his neighbor's governments. I don't blame the Russian people for all that, like I didn't blame them in the Cold War, because they have little to no choice.
Again, if it's such a minor symbolic thing, fixing it so it's in both of our interests should be no problem.
Obama is wirking to the direct detriment of the nations security. The US. has not produced a nuclear weapon since 1989. We currently have no capability to produce new weapons and very limited capability to upgrade the existing weapons. Meanwhile the Russia forges ahead with new weapons and dilivery systems. China is upgrading its capability and soon will be on par iwth the US. Russia and CHina enable it's proxies to develop and threaten the US with nuclear weapons and our CIC dithers and twiddles his thumbs. Obama has effectively stopped any missle defense projects in the wings. I can only pray that 2012 brings a new attitude on strategic defense otherwise we are in for a pasting that we have never imagined.
To hell with all treaties concerning our National Defense, no one should
know what we have nor what we are capable of doing, let fear guide
their inaction towards America. Obama would put our defense in a fish
bowl and destroy it like our economy, capatalism and National identity.
We can trust no foreign power with our safety, least of all the Russian
government which is as trecherous as it gets……………….William
FPM is bad for America
How so?
the system is about to shot its foot off but that is what obama wants, see it for what it is.