Since April, many news stories in the media has left little attention to the flawed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The consideration of this treaty by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was delayed in early August before the recess but will be brought up for vote this Thursday. Like any other treaty, START will requires the approval of 67 senators for ratification. Hopefully when discussion resumes, the details will come to light how this treaty will unilaterally reduce our defense capabilities while allowing Russia and other countries to increase theirs.
Some of the most troubling part of this treaty involves the negative effects it will have on reducing our missile defenses and other means of deterrent to rogue regimes. Last year, President Obama's administration while trying to appease the Russians, scrapped plans for a missile defense sites in Eastern Europe to the surprise of allies who some of which were victims of Russian oppression before and still fear it. It was hoped by the administration that in return Russia would help with sanctions to convince Iran to drop its nuclear program, only to have the Russians still supplying help to Iran's nuclear reactors and supplying weapons. President Reagan realized the deterrent missile defense was in the 1980s because the Russians tried very hard to convince him to drop it. There are reasons not to trust Russia as depicted in a Heritage Foundations report. At the same time, Iran has tested the capability to launch satellites in outer space which uses the same delivery systems which could launch intercontinental missiles.
The Heritage Foundation has been very dedicated in researching the details of this treaty and some of its experts such as Peter Brookes has written articles such as this one on the treaty since it was signed. Last year the Heritage Foundation launched a film '33 Minutes' which highlighted that it only takes 33 minutes for a intercontinental missile launched from areas such as Iran or North Korea to hit a major U.S city such as New York. A preview of the film '33 Minutes" can seen here, and screenings for this film has been shown all over the country by The Heritage Foundation. There are also short films such as this one on the START treaty and links to research on this topic and others relating to missile defense
Like President Reagan, President Obama hopes for a world without Nuclear weapons. The difference is that President Reagan believed in peace through strength and having a strong deterrent mechanisms such as missile defense, while President Obama and other liberals believe that if we set the example of reducing our capabilities others will follow. The increase in defense arsenals in Russia , China, India, North Korea, Iran and others dispels that myth. French President Sarkozy commenting on President Obama goals for nuclear disarmament was correct when he said " We live in real world not a virtual world". While we currently fight a unconventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan, should we have to face a rogue nation in the future with advanced conventional or nuclear weapons we will have to be ready.
Heritage Action for America has been very instrumental in getting the attention of senators regarding the effects of this treaty and has been credited in convincing the delay of he ratification vote. Hopefully this week senators will vote against this flawed treaty.
There have also been interesting articles written on the subject by Arthur Herman in the New York Post and by former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton in the Wall Street Journal which gives some other insights on this treaty and can be seen on the links highlighting the newspapers they wrote in.
Comments
We let the nuclear genie out of the bottle ourselves. It will never, ever go back in. Not in the remaining history of the world anyway.
The only thing that will ever replace a nuclear bomb is something just as devastating but without the atomic residue. Particle beam weapons, etc.
Then, maybe these worthless talks can finally go away.
Because even if we allowed ourselves and others to only havea single nuclear weapon, we have still left the door open for our own destruction.
x
Even if we didn't let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, someone else would have. It is a fact that the Japanese government was working on a nuclear weapon as well during World War II, and they were very close to producing one.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!