By Semperpapa
President Obama is making a extraordinary push to gain the support of the U.S. Senate for the START accord with Russia. According to the provisions of this latest treaty for the reduction of nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia, there would be a drastic reduction of nuclear weapons and verification. At least that is the intention of the treaty.
Proponents for the deal can be found on the Democrat side of the Senate, for the simple reason that they want to support Obama’s agenda or because they are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of nuclear weaponry.
Obama wants this treaty for the same reasons. Personally it would be considered by the Left as a victory scored by a President that has so far very little to show for his international policy efforts. Ideologically, it would satisfy Obama’s desire for a drastic reduction of the American nuclear capability.
The President does have some supporters in this matter among the Republican senators too. One of those who the administration targeted to support the ratification and to be able to bring additional Republicans with him was Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl.
When during his visit to Korea last week Obama met with Russian President Medvedev behind close doors, the discussions also included START.
The importance of Sen. Kyl’s support was underlined by White House officials traveling to Arizona at the time that the meeting with the Russians was taking place, to brief the senator about the discussions.
The chances of success for the President are today even more remote. The major loss of the November elections in the Senate translates in the need for Obama to get the treaty ratified during the lame duck session. The President has until January to even consider the possibility of gaining support from enough Republicans to achieve the 2/3 majority necessary. Once the newly elected Republican Senators are sworn in, that possibility will become that much harder to achieve.
Senatorial position over START had not been generally guided by party affiliations, until the President had signed the treaty last summer. At that time, Russia placed a condition on Obama upon its ratification. The condition was that the United States would have to desist from installing a missile defense system in Europe. The contention was that with such systems in place, America would in fact have a protective umbrella that would allow it, America, to do what ever they wanted. Such was the opinion of Vladmir Putin.
The Obama administration caved in the Russian pressure, and the President scrapped the missile defense initiative slated to be positioned in Poland.
In an op-ed last August, Sen. Jim DeMint explained why he and others were opposed to START. The provisions of the treaty allowed for the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons to a 1,550 level for both countries.
The problem, though, is that no provision has been designed to address the tactical nukes level and some other details that will still maintain a 10:1 Russian advantage over the US in number of nuclear armament.
In the first place, says DeMint, while the US missiles are armed with single warhead, the Russians have multiple re-entry deliverable warheads. Much more difficult to handle technically, but still available for Putin and company to use.
Also mentioned in the treaty is the reduction of delivery systems, beyond missiles. Many of our delivery vehicles, like bombers, are used also in the conventional arena of warfare, although they can be quickly adapted to carry nuclear weapons. The treaty would also address such vehicles, greatly undermining our conventional readiness.
On the same day that Sen. DeMint wrote his article against START, Sen. John Kerry wrote one in support of it.
Personally, just the alone fact that Kerry is a fan of the treaty lends me to believe that START is not good for America, but in the name of fairness, an a little bit of self-amusement, I read the words of the Mass. Senator.
Kerry mentions that every President has signed treaties with the former Soviet Union and today’s Russia directed at the reduction of the nuclear threat. Failure to mention that in each instance the Kremlin has notoriously cheated on the treaties is to be expected from Kerry.
The treaty, according to the senator, will improve relations between the two countries and stifle the chances for rogue regimes and terrorist cell to acquire the weapons. But the past treaties have really not worked out that well in the case of North Korea and especially Iran, as the world is today facing a nuclear threat from these regimes.
Iran is just a short time away from having nuclear weapons capability, technology that the Russians have greatly facilitated the Teheran theocracy in acquiring, and if anyone believes that reducing our capability is the right way to go, I would suggest you start digging your personal nuclear shelter soon.
The latest on the ratification is that Sen. Kyl is now, as a consequence of the elections, more inclined to defer the process until the new Congress is seated in January, citing that with so many new Republicans joining the Senate, it is necessary that the issue be re-evaluated. Obama and Kerry are instead pushing hard to go for a vote before the end of 2010.
VP Joe Biden also has recently stated that the ratification vote should take place this year, declaring that a failure to do so will endanger National security. Reading between the lines, Biden’s statement is designed to give the impression that those who will be sworn in as senators in January are opposed to the safety of the Nation. Which brings me to another question.
If START is so good for America, why all the rush? The powers to be should be more than capable to present the case to the new Senate in January and win the support of the necessary Republicans for its ratification.
If START is so good for America, it should have been a point of pressure for Obama on the Republicans well before the mid-term elections, when the chance of winning support was greater. Now that such chance has turned sour, the danger of cataclysmic consequences became much more important for the current regime.
In reality, the whole thing rests on the need for Obama to score some perceived big diplomatic victory for his foreign policy. The treaty has no real value in reducing the threat of a rogue nuclear attack against the United States, nor to reduce the threat of an attack from Russia. What it does have, instead, is all the markings of a political move aimed at sacrificing our ability to defend ourselves against our old foe. The sacrifice of an entire Nation to the altar of Obama.
Just my thoughts!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment