Stop S.T.A.R.T.

Obama: Undermining Allies. by Thomas Sowell
Now he’s gone way beyond simple insults and snubs, and not just to an ally, but our best friend.
Russia's Upper House Unanimously OKs New START Treaty (CNSNews.com) - The pact was approved by the U.S. Senate last month after Obama pressed strongly
for its passage,telephoning a handful of hesitant Republicans to lock in their votes

...



Senate ratifies nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia
(though Obama and the Senate were warned, is dangerous to American Sovereignty and security, now what? We watch them like a hawk!)
http://email.foxnews.com/t?ctl=953F:CB2F3FC8DC49563DF6D72D5A7DD7EF1C

...

Thank You Regardless

Fellow American Patriot,   Earlier today, the United States Senate ratified the dangerously flawed New START Treaty. Never in the history of our nation has a major treaty been passed during a lame duck session, and it took every bit of political wrangling, horse-trading, and diplomatic favors the Obama administration could muster.   In short, you stood toe-to-toe against a vast political and diplomatic machine armed with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.   While I understand that is of little consequence, especially considering the serious security implications of the treaty – implications the Obama administration refused to acknowledge throughout the debate – we can still be proud of our valiant opposition.   The stakes going forward remain high. President Obama promised Senators and Americans the treaty would not undermine our national security. We are watching to ensure it does not.   As I said earlier today, all eyes are now on the administration. If the Russian government attempts to use the treaty to limit missile defense, refuses to negotiate in good faith regarding tactical nuclear weapons or continues to aid and abet Iran, the administration should immediately withdraw from the treaty.   You and your fellow conservatives made thousands of phone calls and sent thousands of letters. Those calls and letters moved some Senators and gave others the solid conservative backing they needed to take a tough stand.   Importantly, you also forced the Obama administration to take ownership of the flawed treaty. In the event of an unintended consequence, Americans should expect the administration to take ownership and withdraw from the treaty. If they do not, President Obama’s successor should.   New START’s ratification does not mean our work is over, it just adds another item on which we must hold the President accountable.   So thank you for everything that you’ve done and will continue to do as we stand, shoulder-to-shoulder, to fight to make America exceptional, prosperous and free.   Merry Christmas and I look forward to fighting side-by-side with you in the New Year to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.   Sincerely,   Michael A. Needham, Chief Executive Office Heritage Action for America .

Generals, Diplomats Warn of New START

More than 30 former defense or foreign policy government officials and related experts issued an open letter to the Senate Monday expressing their “professional judgment” that President Barack Obama’s proposed nuclear weapons reduction treaty with the Russians, called New START, “is not consistent with the national security interests of the United States,” and “should be rejected by the U.S. Senate,” which is considering it now.

They argue that Russia easily could cheat secretly to our detriment, that it would restrict deployment of new U.S. anti-missile defenses, that it would reduce the survivability and flexibility of our our strategic forces and could be militarily destabilizing, that it permits a continued large Russian superiority in overall nuclear weapons, and that resulting insecurity among our allies about continued extended deterrence could lead to intensified production and proliferation of nuclear weapons—all unintended, harmful consequences, the opposite of the Obama Administration’s announced goals for the agreement.

Among the many signers are: Ambassador Ed Rowny, former U.S. chief START negotiator; Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret), former director, Defense Nuclear Agency; Judge William Clark, former national security adviser to President Reagan; Honorable Paula DeSutter, former assistant secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation; Honorable Fred Ikle, former director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Ambassador Read Hammer, former deputy director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and former chief U.S. START Negotiator; Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerny, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former deputy chief of staff; Ambassador John Bolton, former undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.; Ambassador Henry Cooper, former director, Strategic Defense Initiative of the Department of Defense, and former U.S. chief negotiator, Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union; and Hon. Edwin Meese, III, fomer counselor to the president and former U.S. attorney general.

More specifically, despite Obama administration claims to the contrary, the former officials and experts say that the proposed New START treaty has the following major problems, among others:

  • It would effectively limit further U.S. anti-missile defenses for the American homeland in the face of growing rogue nation/terrorist nuclear threats, saying “it would be folly to limit, let alone preclude, available options to do so” in the future.
  • It "is simply not adequately verifiable,” and “the Russians could engage in militarily significant violations with little fear of detection by the US,” with years being needed before we could respond adequately.
  • It “would reduce the survivability and flexibility of our (strategic) forces.”
  • Its low limits on the number of nuclear launchers could end up being militarily and strategically destabilizing;
  • It would solidify a large Russian superiority in nuclear weapons when considering its 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, many of which have strategic capabilities and roles, and which have been termed an “urgent” problem by the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission.
  • It could force cuts in some of our vital conventional capabilities (i.e., heavy bombers) as well.
  • It would “create concerns” among our allies about America’s continuing extended deterrent capability to protect them, which could lead to “intensified proliferation” of nuclear weapons.
  • "It is unnecessary and ill-advised for the US to make these sorts of deep reductions in its strategic forces” so that the Russians are authorized/enabled to modernize and build up to our levels.

The statement closes by saying, “For all these reasons, we urge the members of the US Senate to resist pressure to consider the New START Treaty during the lame-duck session. The Senate should reject this accord and begin instead a long overdue and vitally needed process of modernization of the nuclear stockpile and refurbishment of the weapons complex that supports it. Only by taking such steps can we ensure that we will, in fact, have the 'safe, secure, and effective deterrent' that even President Obama says we will need for the foreseeable future.”

Following is the text of the letter and the signers:

OPEN LETTER TO THE U.S. SENATE on the New START Treaty

As you know, President Obama insists that the United States Senate advise and consent during the present lame-duck session to the bilateral U.S.-Russian strategic arms control treaty known as "New START" that he signed earlier this year in Prague. It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which its ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate.

Administration efforts to compel the Senate to vote under circumstances in which an informed and full debate are effectively precluded is inconsistent with your institution's precedents, its constitutionally mandated quality-control responsibilities with respect to treaties and, in particular, the critical deliberation New START requires in light of that accord's myriad defects, of which the following are especially problematic:

·         It is unnecessary and ill-advised for the United States to make these sorts of deep reductions in its strategic forces in order to achieve sharp cuts in those of the Russian Federation. After all, the Kremlin's strategic systems have not been designed for long service lives. Consequently, the number of deployed Russian strategic intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and long-range, nuclear-capable bombers will drop dramatically, with or without a new arms control agreement.

Russian sources indicate that, within eight-to-nine years, Russian Federation's inventory of strategic launchers will have shrunk from approximately 680 launchers today (some of which already are no longer operational) to approximately 270 launchers, simply as a result of the aging of their systems and the pace of their modernization program. By contrast, the service life of existing U.S. systems extends several decades. In other words, the Russians are going to undergo a substantial contraction in the size of its strategic nuclear arsenal, whether we do or not.

There are serious downsides for the United States in moving to the sorts of low numbers of strategic launchers called for in the New START Treaty. These include:

·         New START would encourage placing more warheads on the remaining launchers, i.e., "MIRVing" — which is precisely what the Russians are doing. Moving away from heavily MIRVed strategic launchers has long been considered a highly stabilizing approach to the deployment of strategic forces — and a key U.S. START goal.
·         New START would reduce the survivability and flexibility of our forces — which is exactly the wrong posture to be adopting in the uncertain and dynamic post-Cold War strategic environment. The bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission concluded that "preserving the resilience and survivability of U.S. forces" is essential. The very low launcher levels required by New START are at odds with both of those necessary conditions.
·         New START's low ceilings on launchers and warheads can only create concerns about America's extended deterrent. Allied nations have privately warned that the United States must not reduce its strategic force levels to numbers so low that they call into question the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella or encourage China to see an opportunity to achieve strategic parity with the United States. Some of those who have long looked to us for security may feel constrained to develop and field their own deterrents — a formula for intensified proliferation.
·         New START's limitations could result in the destruction of U.S. multi-purpose strategic bombers, affecting not only the robustness of our nuclear deterrent but cutting into our conventional capabilities, as well.
·         Were the United States to slash its strategic nuclear forces to match those the Russians can afford, it would ironically ensure that it has far fewer nuclear weapons — not parity with the Kremlin — when the latter's ten-to-one advantage in tactical weapons is taken into account. The Russians have consistently refused to limit their tactical nuclear arms, and will surely continue to do so in the future, especially since Moscow has little incentive to negotiate limitations on such weapons when the numbers are so asymmetrical.

This stance should not be surprising since it is this category of weaponry that makes up the bulk of Moscow's nuclear stockpile. Russian doctrine emphasizes the war-fighting utility of such weapons and their modernization and exercising remain a priority for the Kremlin. In fact, some of those weapons with an explosive power comparable to, if not greatly in excess of, that of the Hiroshima bomb are believed to be aboard submarines and routinely targeted at the United States. Others are targeted against our allies. These were among the reasons that prompted the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission to identify the Russian tactical nuclear arsenal as an "urgent" problem.

Such capabilities constitute a real asymmetric advantage for Moscow. What is more, given that these Russian tactical nuclear weapons are of greatest concern with regard to the potential for nuclear war and proliferation, we cannot safely ignore their presence in large numbers in Russia's arsenal. It is certainly ill-advised to make agreements reducing our nuclear deterrent that fail to take them into account.

·         New START imposes de facto or de jure limitations on such important U.S. non-nuclear capabilities as prompt global strike and missile defenses. In the future, the nation is likely to need the flexibility to field both in quantity. It would be folly to limit, let alone effectively preclude, available options to do so.
·         New START is simply not adequately verifiable. Lest assurances that the treaty will be "effectively" verifiable obscure that reality, the truth is that the Russians could engage in militarily significant violations with little fear of detection by the United States. And, for reasons discussed below, it could take years before we could respond appropriately.

These and other deficiencies of the New START treaty are seriously exacerbated by the context in which Senators are being asked to consent to its ratification. Specifically, the Senate's endorsement of this accord would amount to an affirmation of the disarmament agenda for which it is explicitly said to be a building block — namely, Mr. Obama's stated goal of "ridding the world of nuclear weapons."

This goal has shaped the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and would, if left unchanged, condemn the United States to a posture of unilateral nuclear disarmament. (See, in this regard, the attached essay by Vice Admiral Robert Monroe, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 25, 2010.) By precluding the development and production of new nuclear weapons and the realistic testing of those currently in the stockpile and by "devaluing" the role played by these weapons and the mission of those responsible for maintaining our deterrent, the NPR sets the stage for the continued obsolescence and atrophying of our arsenal. No other nuclear power is engaged in such behavior. And, given our global security responsibilities and the growing dangers from various quarters, neither should we.

For all these reasons, we urge you to resist pressure to consider the New START Treaty during the lame-duck session. The Senate should reject this accord and begin instead a long-overdue and vitally needed process of modernization of the nuclear stockpile and refurbishment of the weapons complex that supports it. Only by taking such steps can we ensure that we will, in fact, have the "safe, secure and effective deterrent" that even President Obama says we will need for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Judge William P. Clark, former national security advisor to the president

Hon. Edwin Meese III, former counselor the president; former U.S. attorney general

Hon. Kathleen Bailey, former assistant director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 

Norman Bailey, former senior director of International Economic Affairs 

Hon. Robert B. Barker, former assistant to the secretary of Defense (atomic energy) 

Amb. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, former undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, former assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs 

Brig. Gen. Jimmy L. Cash, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former vice commander, 7th Air Force 

Honorable Fred S. Celec, former assistant to thesecretary of Defense for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs 

Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, former director, Strategic Defense Initiative, former chief U.S. negotiator, defense and space talks with the Soviet Union 

Honorable Paula DeSutter, former assistant secretary of State for verification, compliance, and implementation

Honorable Fritz W. Ermarth, former chairman and national intelligence officer, National Intelligence Council; former member of the National Security Council staff 

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., former assistant secretary of Defense for international security policy (acting) 

Daniel J. Gallington, former secretary of Defense representative, defense and space talks; former general counsel, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and former special assistant to the secretary of Defense for policy

Honorable Bruce S. Gelb, former director, U.S. Information Agency, former ambassador to Belgium

Honorable William Graham, former chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, former science adviser to the president, former deputy administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ambassador Read Hammer, former U.S. chief START negotiator; former deputy director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 

Honorable Fred Iklé, former undersecretary of Defense for policy

Sven F. Kraemer, former arms control director, National Security Council 

Dr. John Lenczowksi, former director of European and Soviet affairs, National Security Council 

Admassador James "Ace" Lyons Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), former commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Tidal W. McCoy, former secretary of the Air Force (acting)

Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former deputy chief of staff

Honorable J. William Middendorf II, former secretary of the Navy, former ambassador to the European Union, the Netherlands, and the Organization of American States 

Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.), former director, Defense Nuclear Agency

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, former senior staff, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States; former senior staff, Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack 

Roger W. Robinson Jr., former senior director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, former executive secretary of the Cabinet-level Senior Inter-Governmental Group for International Economic Policy 

Ambassador Ed Rowny, former U.S. chief START negotiator; former special adviser to President Ronald Reagan on arms control 

Michael S. Swetnam, former program monitor, intelligence community staff with liaison responsibilities to INF and START Interagency Groups, and former member of the Technical Advisory Group to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.), former deputy commander, U.S. Army Pacific 

Honorable Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive 

Dr. William Van Cleave, former director, Department of Defense Transition Team 

Honorable Troy Wade, former director, Defense Programs, U.S. Department of Energy.

 _____________________________

Breaking News From Newsmax.com

Singlaub: New START Will Weaken America

Republican Objects to Russia Telling U.S. to Leave Arms-Reduction Treaty Alone
(CNSNews.com) 
– “Who is this guy telling us what we can do under our Constitution?” a Republican asked on the Senate floor Monday, after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that an arms-reduction treaty now under consideration cannot be amended. Another Republican, criticizing the Democrats’ rush to approve the treaty, said, “Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician’s desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year.” 

Bringing Clarity to the New START Debate

Peter Huessy

The debate over New START and its effect on missile defense has been disjointed, unclear and often beside the point. Here is what is really at stake.

From MAD To Madness

Karen McKay

It is shocking that the current administration is trying to rush ratification of New START through the Senate in unseemly haste, and even twisting the words of Ronald Reagan to validate this move.

  

Biden tells Republicans to get out of the way on START treaty. Says it’s too important to take time to read it.

Reagan Aide Perle: START 'Seriously Flawed'
Former Reagan deputy Defense Secretary and a key architect in helping to end the Cold War warns that the New START Treaty with Russia is 'seriously flawed' and should not be ratified by the Senate. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Perle says Reagan would never have approved of this treaty which undermines U.S. national security.
Read the Full Story and See the Video — Go Here Now.

Urgent: It's important to let your senator know how you feel about New START. The vote on the treaty will take place soon. Please call your senator in Washington today at 202-224-3121.

HUGE RED FLAG

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Socialists Debate "New START" Treaty in Moscow

The Communist Party USA, their "friend" President Barack Obama, the Democrats and some Republicans want to ratify the New START nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia. So to does the Socialist International;
Members of the SI Committee on Disarmament met in Moscow on 3 November 2010, with discussions centred on NATO strategy and missile defence. Addressing the participants at the opening of the meeting, Nikolay Levichev, Leader of A Just Russia faction in the State Duma, underlined the importance of dialogue between NATO and Russia on these important issues of disarmament, welcoming the SI initiative to bring the Committee to Moscow, where these discussions would have particular significance. He also highlighted the enhanced cooperation between A Just Russia Party and the International, and the satisfaction of his party in being able to once more host such a gathering of members of the common global political movement.

 

SI Secretary General Luis Ayala echoed the sentiment that the meeting was an invaluable opportunity to hear debate the issues of disarmament in a Russian context, and to hear different perspectives and points of view on these crucial themes. Stressing that peace and disarmament issues had always been at the heart of the SI agenda, he spoke of the importance in politics of seizing the moment and making use of the opportunities presented by current political conditions. Chair of the Committee Rolf Mützenich was likewise appreciative of the invitation to Moscow, referring to the need to search for common answers to current threats. The 10-point plan on disarmament adopted at an earlier meeting of the Committee in Berlin had been a comprehensive analysis of the steps towards joint security through disarmament, he added, whereas this meeting was a chance for the Committee to focus on specific issues of relevance in Russia...
The Committee adopted a resolution based on its discussions, under the title of NATO Strategy and Missile Defence, calling for ratification of the new START treaty, greater engagement between Russia and NATO on nuclear policy, a new arms control agreement, and the pursuit of binding agreements on the future of missile defence. This resolution will be presented at the forthcoming meeting of the SI Council.
 
 

   

Participants included S.I. Secretary General Luis Ayala, Rolf Mützenich (German Social Democratic Party), Yury Navoyan (Armenian Socialist Party), Paulina Lampsa, Konstantinos Foutzopoulos (Greek Panhellenic Socialist Movement), Nabil Borchally ("formerly" terrorist Palestinian Fatah movement), Nikolay Levichev, Genady Gudkov, Alexander Babakov, Semen Bagdasarov, Boris Guseletov (Just Russia Party)

President Barack Obama has a nearly 30 year association with the Socialist International's U.S. affiliate Democratic Socialists of America.

~
Obama's urgent treaty push called 'contempt of Congress'
Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions - described by critics as unverifiable.
Read the latest now on WND.com.  

Analysts fear START doc holds something prez wants concealed

Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell

This New START Is A Bad Deal At Any Time

Speaking to the French Minister of Defense this February, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates purportedly said that “Russian democracy has disappeared” and that “the government was an oligarchy run by the security services.” Fast forward to a CNN broadcast scheduled to air tonight, where the Batman of Russia’s oligarchy, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, threatened the U.S. with a new arms race unless Senators acquiesce to President Barack Obama’s New START treaty. Putin tells CNN it would take “a very dumb nature” for the Senate not to pass the treaty and that if they don’t give in, “then we’ll have to react somehow,” including the deployment of new nuclear missile technology.

Putin’s statements come on the back of news that, in defiance of pledges made to the U.S. in the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of the 1990s, Russia moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near NATO borders earlier this spring. And according to U.S. intelligence, Iran recently received 19 BM-25 missiles from North Korea that are capable of reaching European cities. Don’t worry though, Putin also tells CNN about Iran: “But such a threat, as of now, doesn’t exist.”

Putin and President Obama believe that New START is a great deal for our national security. But not everyone agrees. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman have all argued that New START actually weakens our defenses. The Heritage Foundation has identified twelve flaws of New START, including the following:

Unacceptable Limits to Missile Defense. The Obama Administration claims that New START contains no limits or constraints on our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense. This is false. There are at least five sections that limit missile defense: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.

Inadequate Verification Regime. Edelman and Joseph warn: Those who are pushing a rush to judgment appear willing to ignore the long-held standard “trust but verify” by overlooking the monitoring gaps created by the treaty. While the on-site visits and data exchanges allowed under the treaty are valuable, New START abandons on-the-ground monitoring of Russia’s missile-manufacturing facility and permits Russia to withhold telemetry of some of its missile tests, undermining our ability to know both what is being produced and what is being developed.

Tactical Nukes Ignored. While the exact numbers are not public, Russia reportedly has a several-fold numerical advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons like the ones moved close to our NATO allies this spring. Proponents of the treaty argue that New START is essential for keeping nukes away from terrorists. There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!

Rail-Mobile ICBMs Exempted. The definitions of rail-mobile ICBMs and rail-mobile ICBM launchers established in the expired START, which applied to the associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in New START. The Obama Administration asserts that rail-mobile ICBMs and launchers are captured by the treaty under generic definitions of deployed ICBMs. But Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee, has stated the opposite.

New START is great deal for Russia. But while Vladimir Putin can be sanguine about the threats posed to the U.S. by Iran and North Korea, U.S. Senators cannot. As Woolsey explains, rushing this treaty to appease Russia is just a bad deal for U.S. security:

A number of years negotiating arms-control agreements with the Soviets taught me that, when dealing with Russian counterparts, don’t appear eager—friendly yes, eager never. Regrettably, the Obama administration seems to have become eager for a deal in its negotiations on the follow-on treaty to the recently expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start). Hopes for a boost in efforts to “reset” relations with Russia, and for progress toward the president’s dream of a world without nuclear weapons, apparently combined to trump prudent negotiating strategy. As a result, concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty, known as New Start, as it currently stands.

‘Do it for Dmitry’ Is Poor Policy

 

Newsmax Editorial - Dec 16, 2010 - The START Treaty Must Be Opposed

Within days, maybe hours, the U.S. Senate will vote on ratifying the New START treaty.

If approved, it will be a dangerous and capricious move that will undermine our security for years to come.

Some Senate Republicans appear ready to cave in to the strong-arm tactics the Obama administration and Sen. Harry Reid are using in their effort to ram through a lame-duck Congress one of the most sweeping nuclear treaties the United States has ever signed, a treaty that has many problems that could jeopardize America's national security.

Make no mistake about it: Limiting nuclear weapons on all sides is a worthy call. As President Ronald Reagan said, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

But Reagan also understood that treaties with the Russians must be made deliberatively, be fair to both sides, be verifiable, and be linked to good behavior on the Russians’ part.

None of these attributes would be complied with fully if the United States signed New START today.

Indeed, many who played central roles in Reagan’s arms-control strategy that led to the end of the Cold War are warning that it would be a major mistake to sign and ratify New START.

Among those with sterling conservative credentials urging Senate Republicans to oppose the unprecedented move to pass a major international treaty during a lame-duck session of Congress: former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former national security adviser William P. Clark, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense and Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, and many more.

“We already know there is galactic disagreement between what Russia and the Obama administration say the treaty portends for missile defense,” columnist Andrew C. McCarthy writes on NationalReview.com.

So why the rush to ratify an agreement the meaning of which the principals already disagree on?

Especially when the treaty depends on the good faith of one Vladimir Putin, who ordered Soviet tanks to roll into Georgia as recently as 18 months ago in a reckless military adventure that cost hundreds of civilian lives.

In striking a deal that Russian leaders are delighted with, President Barack Obama conveniently overlooks the fact that his “strategic partner,” Vladimir Putin, is no Mikhail Gorbachev — tragically, far from it.

In fact, Putin has waved a big cudgel to get the Senate to go along with the treaty: If they don’t approve it, he threatens a new arms race and a buildup in Russian forces. And that’s the negotiating partner that the administration, desperate to counter the nuclear ambitions of Iran, has determined to be trustworthy.

When Republicans noted that the preamble of the treaty appears to hand the Russians the long-sought weapon they need to eviscerate the U.S. edge in development of a missile shield to guard against rogue nuclear attacks from Iran or elsewhere, the administration downplayed the significance of treaty language.

As Obama might say: Words matter!

When Senate Republicans offered an amendment to clarify the preamble to ensure the United States can develop missile defenses, Democrats blocked it.

A greater concern, however, is the Russian negotiators’ insistence that President Obama did in fact negotiate a de facto prohibition on further U.S. development of its missile defenses.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that the missile defense strictures are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and “legally binding.”

Understandably concerned over how such a drastic schism already could exist in the treaty’s interpretation, Republicans asked the administration to release the extensive diplomatic record of the negotiations. The administration has stonewalled that request — but insists it has nothing to hide.

Missouri’s Sen. Kit Bond, who has seen some of the documentation, is urging fellow senators to vote against the measure because he says it is virtually unverifiable.

Perhaps the most serious and immediate flaw is that the treaty ignores the vast imbalance between U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear forces.

By some estimates, Russia maintains 10,000 or more of these smaller tactical nuclear warheads, which can be delivered via artillery shells, cruise missile, short-range tactical missiles, and aircraft.

The post-Cold War U.S. inventory is in the hundreds by some estimates.

Yet the treaty, which would freeze missile launchers at 1,550 for each side, willfully ignores the massive Russian advantage in tactical weapons.

Despite these flaws, a host of Republican senators appear to be lining up to support a treaty that is being pushed through the Senate without proper deliberation, during a lame-duck Congress, no less.

Key senators said to favor New Start include Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John McCain of Arizona, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and George Voinovich of Ohio. Anyone who wonders why there is such a headlong rush to ratify a treaty that raises grave national-security issues should contact them and demand an answer.

Other shortcomings the treaty raises include:

  • Like any treaty, New START is only as solid as the inspection regime that backs it up. Critics say the verification measures in the treaty are far weaker than previous arms reduction deals.
  • Russia already is widely believed to be in violation of other international accords. It failed to abide by international agreements to withdraw all of its forces from South Ossetia following the war in Georgia, and the Strategic Posture Commission has declared that Russia “is no longer in compliance” with agreements to limit deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.
  • Russia has been loath to cooperate with international sanctions against Iran and has provided anti-aircraft missiles to Venezuela, a close ally of Iran.
  • Also, Russia continues to engage in Soviet-style espionage against the United States. The latest example was the discovery of a massive Russian “sleeper cell” network in the United States.
  • Washington Times columnist Bill Gertz recently revealed that a State Department memo extensively documents secret talks between the Russians and the administration on missile defense — despite assurances that no such deal was being discussed. McCarthy writes: “Obama not only is philosophically opposed to robust missile defense, but has actually reneged on missile-defense commitments the nation made to Poland and the Czech Republic.”
  • Because the new treaty would limit launchers, it encourages the Cold War-era practice of MIRVing, that is, placing multiple warheads on a single missile. The SS-18 of that period was called a “city-buster” because each launcher contained 10 missiles that could be independently targeted to rain death on U.S. cities.
  • The treaty does not constrain the quality of offensive missiles. Russia is embarking on an extensive modernization program. The administration has promised to do the same for U.S. missiles, but so far the funds have not been requested.

The greatest reason to suspect the true motivations behind the treaty is the inexplicable, headlong rush to ratify it.

Former U.N. Ambassador Bolton points out that, because the administration was unable to meet its Dec. 5 deadline to implement a new inspection regime for ongoing verification, there is no way to know what the Russian military may be doing to make verification more difficult. A simple bridging agreement on verification would be adequate to maintain the current level of security until New START could receive a more thorough review by the new, incoming Congress, he writes.

The Cold War has ended, but Russia continues to maintain a state-of-the-art strategic and tactical nuclear force. This fact, coupled with the questionable fate of democracy in Russia and moves toward authoritarianism there, should give the U.S. Senate pause about signing such a far reaching arms treaty.

Newsmax strongly urges the Senate to table New START for consideration before the new Congress that sits next month. Then, ample time should be given to examine the treaty and appropriate changes made to insure it complies with the Reagan model for such treaties: fair, verifiable, reliable.

Urgent: It's important to let your senator know how you feel about New START. The vote on the treaty will take place soon. Please call your senator in Washington today at 202-224-3121.

December 12, 2010

Russia's best spy in 30 years.

Phil Boehmke

Last week Liberal-Democrat Member of Parliament Mike Hancock’s research assistant Katia Katuliveter was arrested on charges that she was a Russian spy. Zatuliveter and Hancock maintained that the allegations were entirely false, Hancock said ‘She genuinely believes, and I back her 100 per cent, that she has nothing to hide and that she has done nothing wrong.” Even as British officials were preparing to deport the 25 year-old Russian, she maintained her innocence and vowed to fight the deportation order.
 
Now, the UK Daily Mail reports that:
 
Oleg Gordievsky - a double agent for Mi6 in the Seventies and Eighties - said Russian born Ekaterina Zatuliveter ‘caused more damage than all other KGB agents put together.’

‘She was the strongest and most useful KGB agent for 30 years,’ he said.

 
The former double agent maintains that Zatuliveter (as an undercover SVR agent) used her position and relationship with Hancock to gather ‘information about British naval bases around the world.’
 
‘She asked important military questions, passed them to the MP, who them pushed them up the chain. Once answers arrived, she read them, re-wrote them, copies, copied and passed copies to KGB agents.’
 
Gordievsky’s assertions were made during an interview with Russia’s Radio Svoboda, the Cold War spy has maintained close relations with the international intelligence community since his defection. He said that Zatuliveter had been recruited while studying at St. Petersburg University, like many other top Russian intelligence and security personnel including former KGB chief and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
 
Mr. Gordievsky warned that Miss Zatuliveter represented a new style of threat to the West from young Russians recruited to help their secret services out of a sense of patriotism, and who now enjoy freedom to travel abroad.
 
He added: ‘Zatuliveter’s case is a typical example of how the active, clever, well-educated agent gathers information. She is a huge loss to Russian intelligence.’
 
In light of the well respected Gordievsky’s assertions, Zatuliveter’s former boss and chief defender, 64 year-old MP Mike Hancock is now denying claims of an intimate relationship with the young Russian spy. The married father of two refused comment after The Daily Mail sent him a photograph showing the MP at a bar with his 25 year-old research assistant. Hancock did admit that Zatuliveter had access to his official email.
 
Mr. Hancock has also been accused of helping another blonde Russian, Ekaterina Paderina, stay in Britain after she ran into visa problems in the Nineties.
 
Mr. Hancock was chairman of the all-party Russia Group until he was ousted by Labour’s Chris Bryant because it was felt he was too lenient towards Moscow.
 
In October, Mr. Hancock was arrested on suspicion of indecent assault and released on bail until next month.
 
Of course we all know that the Cold War is over and the Russians are now our trustworthy friends, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. It was only two months ago that the RAF scrambled fighters to escort Russian Tupolev Tu95 bombers from NATO airspace on two separate occasions in one week.
 
Meanwhile Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, seemingly oblivious of Russian security breaches and encroachments continue to push the New START treaty on the U.S. Senate as Russian Prime Minister Putin maintains steady pressure amid the WikiLeaks revelations and his treats to pursue an aggressive arms race with America and our Western allies.
 
 
December 08, 2010

Why the Senate Should Reject the New START

ByZbigniew Mazurak

The new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) currently under consideration by Congress is irredeemably flawed.  Instead of accepting the "tax cuts for START" deal, Republican senators should reject the treaty for several reasons.

Firstly, the treaty will severely reduce America's nuclear stockpile (to just 1,550 warheads, down from 5,113) and the number of delivery systems (to no more than 700 deployed systems and 800 in total) -- i.e. to wholly insufficient levels.  Vice Chairman of the JCS Gen. Cartwright (a former leader of the Strategic Command) says that the minimum number of delivery systems needed is 860. The current number on the American side is 883 (336 Trident-II SLBMs, 450 ICBMs, and 97 nuclear-capable bombers).

START will gut the U.S. military by reducing the arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to insufficient levels because that is exactly its point.  The Russians have demanded that the American arsenal be reduced to the size of the Russian arsenal projected for the 2010s.  Currently, it is agreed that Russia has fewer delivery systems subject to START provisions than the U.S.: 369 ICBMs, 113 (89+24) bombers, and a few hundred SLBMs. Russia's 177 (84+93) Tu-22M intercontinental bombers do not count, even though most could easily have refueling equipment installed (and some already have it).

The treaty is clearly designed to bring the U.S. strategic arsenal down to the sorry state of the Russians'.  And Russia cannot afford to maintain its arsenal at its present size, let alone greatly increase it, as Putin has threatened to do.

Additionally, the treaty has unreliable, untrustworthy verification procedures, which will make it impossible for the U.S. to check that the Russians are complying.  Moscow has violated SALT-I, SALT-II, and START-I, so there is no reason to believe that it will voluntarily comply with the new treaty.  Nor does the new START address Russia's huge advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which could be used against American troops deployed abroad.

But the treaty does address an issue it should not interfere with: missile defense.  On Moscow's demand, the following clauses have been added to the treaty:

  1. An acknowledgment of a link between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense.  This implies that American missile defense systems must be limited and reduced lest they undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent (Paragraph 9 of the Preamble).
  2. A ban on the usage of ex-ICBM siloes for missile interceptor siloes, as well as a ban on using ex-ICBM launchers as missile interceptor launchers, and vice-versa (Article V).
  3. A provision creating a Bilateral Consultative Commission authorized to impose further restrictions on America's missile defense.

Furthermore, Russia has stated that it will withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. takes any steps to improve its missile defense -- whether qualitatively or quantitatively.  This raises the question: if Obama is really committed to missile defense (as he claims), why is he prodding the Senate to ratify a treaty that Russia will certainly withdraw from if Obama does build up America's missile defense?  The answer: Obama doesn't really intend to improve America's missile shield.  We know this because for years, Obama has been ideologically opposed to missile defense, speaking out against it and surrendering the European component of the Bush-planned system to Russia.  And in 1983, he wrote an article protesting Reagan's defense policies, including the SDI, and endorsing pacifist student groups.

Obama, Gates, and Clinton are promoting the treaty as a panacea to nuclear proliferation.  But the treaty will not convince, legally oblige, or technically cause China, North Korea, or Pakistan to reduce (let alone eliminate) their nuclear and delivery system arsenals.  Nor will it convince Iran to end its nuclear weapons program.  Quite the contrary -- it will only encourage all of them to build up their arsenals.

Supporters of the treaty claim that it will "boost America's credibility" on nonproliferation and thus convince other countries to cease pursuing nuclear weapons, as well as convince other actors to support the U.S. against proliferator countries such as Iran and North Korea.  Do these naïve people really believe that America's credibility counts for anything to Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and China?  It doesn't.  "Credibility on nonproliferation" means nothing to the dictators ruling those countries.

The treaty would be a huge reward to a dictatorship which has been uncooperative -- indeed, hostile -- towards the U.S. through the past decade.  Under Putin, Moscow has been hugging, aiding, and abetting proliferating, terrorist-supporting regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang.  The Russians have built a nuclear reactor in Iran over American objections and has delivered nuclear fuel to it.  They have repeatedly shielded Iran and North Korea from the UNSC, agreeing only to mild, symbolic, useless sanctions.  They have sold tons of weapons to Venezuela, enabling Chávez to stir up trouble on America's own turf. They (according to General Baluyevski) have threatened a preemptive nuclear attack against the West.  In 2007, Putin threatened to aim Russian missiles at Western Europe if the U.S. deployed missile defense systems in Central Europe.  In 2008, when Poland allowed the U.S. to deploy such systems on its soil, Russia threatened a preemptive nuclear attack against Poland.

What was the bone of contention?  Bush's plan to deploy just ten ground-based mid-course interceptors (no threat to Russia's arsenal of hundreds of delivery systems, including 369 ICBMs) in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, which is far from Russia's borders (even the Kaliningradskaya Oblast).

Most recently, Russia has agreed to build a nuclear reactor in Venezuela, and Putin has threatened America with a Russian nuclear weapons buildup if the U.S. refuses to ratify START.  Thus, Putin is both blackmailing the U.S. with nuclear weapons and dictating which treaties the U.S. should ratify.

Meanwhile, President Medvedev has threatened an arms race if the West doesn't sign a missile defense agreement with Russia -- an accord which, if the new START is any guide, would certainly be dictated on Russian terms and would likely be designed to constrain missile defense.

Both threats are bluffs, as Russia doesn't have the money to carry them out.  But they do show what sort of "partner" Putinist Russia is.

Clearly, the new START is untenable and ill-conceived.  If our senators have any sense, they will reject it.

 

Stop, Don't START!

By Michael Reagan (Archive) · Thursday, December 9, 2010

In 1976, I stood beside my father in Kansas City after he lost the Republican presidential nomination to Gerald Ford. I asked him why he wanted to be president of the United States.

His answer was a preview of the policies he would pursue when he finally won the presidency, recalling that for far too long he had watched American presidents inevitably cave in to the Soviets in every agreement reached with them. He said that he wanted to be the first president to say "NYET!" to their demands, loudly and clearly.

He got his chance in 1986 in Iceland, when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said he would only sign on to the original START agreement if my father would give up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or, as the left-wing media called it, "Star Wars." My father's answer was brief and to the point. He said "NYET!" and the rest is history.

I believe I was only person that knew what my father would say to Gorbachev, and I've never forgotten it.

At the time, the State Department and most of my father's inner circle wanted him to go ahead and give in to Gorbachev and sign the agreement despite his misgivings, just as you hear from the striped-pants guys in Foggy Bottom today. If my father had listened to the namby-pamby wing at State back in 1986, the chances are the Cold War would still be on and the Berlin Wall would still be standing.

A year ago, on November 11, 2009, I was a guest of the Polish president as his proud nation celebrated 20 years of freedom, thanks largely to my father, Pope John Paul II and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

His chief of staff, one of the members of the Polish government later killed in a horrific plane crash, asked me why President Obama took away their missile defense. Later, I would be asked the same question by the Czech Ambassador to Poland.

Their only hope of continuing to be free and safe is the United States of America, but it appears that Barack Obama is once again throwing our friends under the bus simply to make nice with Russia and Putin by pushing a new START treaty.

My father stuck to his guns, often against the vigorous opposition from some members of his staff and the striped-pants crowd over at the Department of State.

He once famously said his rule in dealing with the Soviets was always to "trust but verify," and he stuck to that policy, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But we then had the kind of real leadership sadly lacking today, and I don't trust Obama or Putin or Medvedev.

You might also remember that State was against the speech my father gave at the Berlin Wall calling on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." It had the Soviets quivering, and the people of East Germany hopeful that their long ordeal under the Soviets might soon be over.

The United States doesn't need a new START.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some other notes:

Although the treaty moves to reduce and limit U.S. strategic warheads, it does nothing to address the serious imbalances in tactical nuclear weapons that Russia enjoys now. It has been estimated that Russia enjoys a 10-to-1 to 20-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear warheads over the United States. Such weapons are extremely destructive, and their full weight makes Russia the world's nuclear superpower today.

Some senators are concerned that, with smaller reserves of nuclear armaments, the quality and reliability of the remaining weapons must be enhanced. Toward that end, GOP Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona has lobbied the administration to spend $84 billion to modernize U.S. nuclear warheads. 
The Obama administration says the treaty does not prevent the United States from developing and deploying missile defenses. But the preamble of the agreement, which the administration insists is nonbinding, clearly refers to an “interrelationship” between offense armaments and the development of antiballistic missile defenses.
Threats: Recently, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told CNN’s Larry King that, if Congress does not ratify the latest START agreement, Russia may have no choice but to arm itself against “new threats.” "If our proposals are met with only negative response and additional ABM threats emerge along our borders,” Putin told King, “Russia will be simply obligated to ensure its security with different means, including the deployment of new [strategic] complexes, new nuclear missiles." 
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday stating that she supports New START. But she added the caveat that the Senate should make it clear that there will be no link between offensive weapons and missile defenses. (see above). And she also added “I have personally witnessed Moscow’s tendency to interpret every utterance as a binding commitment,” Rice wrote.
 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

ACT: ACTION ALERT—Stop START!
Our Missile Defense will be compromised if this treaty passes

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 


We have watched the progression of the New START nuclear missile treaty with great interest, assuming that it would get a full and open hearing in the next session of Congress.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration is now trying to rush through, during the present lame duck session of Congress, what we consider a seriously flawed treaty that will endanger our national security.

 

The proposed New START will limit our future ability and right to build missile defense systems. This goes beyond any concerns regarding Russia.
We MUST continue to build a robust missile defense system to protect ourselves from countries like Iran and terrorist organizations that are working to acquire the technology to launch missiles with nuclear weapons from cargo ships. To allow a treaty with Russia to limit this right of self-defense is unacceptable.
 
 

 

 

 

  Please click here to send an urgent email to your two U.S. Senators today urging them to oppose ratification during this lame duck session. Once there, scroll down to the Action Alerts and click on “Opposition To The New START.” Please enter in your contact information and then click send.If you wish to call your U.S. Senators instead, please click here. Then scroll down below the Action Alerts section and click on “Elected Officials.” Please enter in your zip code and click search. This will bring up the contact information you need to make your call today!     

A treaty like this has NEVER been rushed through a lame duck Congress—and for good reason. Something this important to national security should not be rushed through or crammed down the throats of the American people.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated that limitations on missile defense are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and “legally binding.” Here’s why:

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

  • The preamble of the treaty gives the Russians a basis to claim a de facto veto of our missile defense options
  • There are explicit limits for using land- and sea-based offensive missile tubes for defensive missiles.

Earlier this year our grassroots efforts helped restore full missile defense funding in the House Armed Services Committee. Please help us continue to protect our present and future missile defense system. ACT today by either calling or sending an email to your U.S. Senators opposing ratification of the New START treaty during this lame duck session of Congress! Time is of the essence! It is especially important that the following Senators hear from their constituents:

  • John McCain (R – AZ)
  • Bob Corker (R – TN)
  • Jim Webb (D – VA)
  • Olympia Snowe (R- ME)
  • Susan Collins (R – ME)
  • Lindsay Graham (R – SC)
  • Ben Nelson (D – NE)
  • George Voinovich (R – OH)
  • Scott Brown (R – MA)

 www.actforamerica.org

.
Heritage Foundation: Congress should investigate.
Will the New START agreement with Russia damage the special relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain?
.
Watch - Report: New Russian Nuke Can Penetrate Missile Defense Systems Nuke Free World, "30 years ago such a system was discussed and labeled science fiction." Read More » .
Done Deal: Russian Prez Signs START Treaty World
Read More »

.

SURE THEY PASSED IT, AT BREAK NECK SPEED BY THE WAY. THIER HOUSE PASSED IN UNANIMOUSLY WITH LITTLE DEBATE AND WHY WOULD THAT BE? BECAUSE AS WE WARNED, THIS TREATY WAS TO THEIR BEST INTERESTS, NOT THE U.S.’s!

.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: