I have some concerns over Russia's unconstrained shorter range nukes, but I didn't know if that should be a deal breaker. Russia may have difficulty affording them and in theory, French, British, and Chinese nukes could counter those shorter range systems. Plus, we have some shorter range nukes in Europe for use by our forces or for our allies that aren't counted. We never counted those in past agreements, but back then we had so many strategic nukes in play that so-called "tactical" nukes would just bounce the rubble anyway. As we get down to lower numbers of strategic weapons, the shorter range nukes become more relevant.
My main concern is with the missile defense issue, which I think Obama gave away. Russia has a veto on our deployment, it seems, or they walk away from the treaty. Administration claims that the treaty doesn't halt development is meaningless if we can't then deploy what we develop.
So I'm worried and on balance, think it would be best for the Senate to reject the treaty. Still, it could be salvagable with some work. All this is without seeing the details, of course, and relying on press reports.
But if this article by Mitt Romney is even half right on the particulars, the proposed treaty is downright dangerous for us at even the strategic level where I had the fewest worries until now.
And it poses more dangers to our missile defenses with this death panel:
The treaty empowers a Bilateral Consultative Commission with broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific reference to missile defense.
So pass the treaty once and the Senate deems future amendments as ratified, too?
John Kerry, on the other hand, dismisses Romney's critique. Since this is Kerry, I should probably just disregard his analysis. But to be fair, what does he say?
No threat to our national security is greater than the danger from nuclear weapons. Responsible political figures across the spectrum need to support every step possible to control the spread of nuclear weapons. New START is one of those steps. This view is shared by most who have taken the time to understand the treaty and the international context in which it was negotiated. Rather than pander to politics, we need to ratify this agreement quickly. Every day without its verification regime is a day without a clear view of Russia's nuclear arsenal.Huh? I'm sorry, but unless you think Russia is a danger for sending nuclear warheads abroad, how is this treaty related to proliferation? It is an arms control agreement. Unless the senator is convinced that countries like Iran and North Korea are only going nuclear because we haven't elminated our nuclear arsenals, this is nonsense. One, with thousands of warheads left in the American and Russian arsenals, not to mention Chinese, French, British, Pakistani, Indian, and Israeli nukes, does Kerry really believe that North Korea and Iran will say they don't need nukes because sufficient progress has been made in eliminating nuclear arsenals? Does Senator Kerry believe that even actual denuclearization by everyone would convince North Korea and Iran to forego nukes?
Further, the idea that we need to ratify this treaty ("quickly!) to find out what Russia's nuclear arsenal is, is bizarre. Don't we have a CIA and satellites for this?
On the missile defense issue:
Let's examine the key objections: Romney says that New START impedes our ability to build missile defenses against attack from rogue countries. This is a myth. The treaty will have no impact on our ability to build ballistic missile defenses against Iran, North Korea or other threats from other regions. The Obama administration is free to proceed with missile defense plans it announced last year.
Really? The Russians sure seem to think they have some sort of hand on limiting our missile defense options in the treaty. I must note that Kerry conflates the Obama plan in Europe with the ability to build ballistic missile defenses that protect America. Sure, Obama's plan for shorter-range missiles in Eastern Europe can defend Europe from Iranian missiles. But only the Bush plan would have protected America from missiles launched from Iran flying over Europe to American targets. That is what I'm worried about. In the Obama plan, our missiles defenses will be able to watch and track the Iranian missiles but be unable to shoot at them. And I trust Russia's impression more than Kerry's.
I'll grant Kerry some points on the issue of whether Russia can gain an advantage on us in strategic weapons. But this is so only because of my belief that Russia can't afford what they have now, anyway, even if those loop holes are there.
Which is why I see no rush for any agreement. We have the edge--use it to get concessions from them. I take no comfort from the idea that the Obama administration or the Pelosi-Reid Congress will, if Russia cheats, build the weapons that Russia has identified as loop holes to evade the treaty. Why not take the time to close those loop holes?
I might retract this credit on future information from a non-political source, but until then, point to Kerry. But given the heavy dose of political attack in Kerry's piece, I count him worse than Romney as a political source overall.
I'm willing to revisit this when I see more details of the treaty, and I suppose I should go looking for information on this to see for myself, but right now this treaty seems like a very bad idea.
