New START is, to borrow from Winston Churchill, not quite the beginning of the end but perhaps the end of the beginning. But what is this is the beginning of? Well, there the White House sees things different from us New START skeptics.
Obama would have you believe this will lead to more cooperation with the Russians and more arms-control agreements — that nuclear weapons will be devalued and the threat of nuclear terrorism reduced. Sadly, none of that is in the cards. Likely as not, this is the beginning of something really bad.
Russia will agree to reductions in tactical nuclear arms only if they wind up with a significant asymmetrical advantage. They might say, for example, “We’ll cut 1,000, if you cut 1,000.” That would take our side to about zero, and their side to about 9,000. Russia believes nuclear weapons are the cornerstone of their national-security strategy. They have zero interest in devaluing the importance of their nuclear force.
Moscow will not be more cooperative. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that “reset” has already failed. Meanwhile, anti-Americanism in Russia and the suppression of freedoms in Russia have never been higher. All this has to led to circular logic from administration officials: “We need New START to reset Russian relations.” You ask, “What did we get from reset?” Their answer is, “New START!”
The world, meanwhile, will become a more dangerous place. By simultaneously pursuing a strategy of minimalist missile defense and allowing the U.S. nuclear deterrent to atrophy, the president is lowering the bar for other states to become significant actors. As that trend accelerates, there could well be fewer nuclear weapons in the world — because they’ll have been used in nuclear war. “Pursuing a policy of nuclear disarmament in a proliferated setting actually leads to instability,” our research finds. “When confronted with a crisis, countries rely on nuclear weapons more, not less.”
To make matters worse, the White House will likely follow up New START with an even more ambitious arms-control agenda — one that will likely accelerate our journey down this troubling path.
— James Jay Carafano is director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
Since the left views the United States as the cause of a lot of world's problems, I would imagine that Obama sees Mr. Carafino's concerns as a feature, not a bug.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell here's the answer to Russia's tactical nuke advantage and at the same time a way to re-invigorate the US's crumbling nuclear enterprise. Research, develop, test and deploy a whole new range of tactical nukes that have variable yields able to be up-yielded to strategic weapons with additional tritium, etc. like the canceled W89, W90 and W91 warheads.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBarry, this treaty attracted major support from all across the foreign policy establishment. You can say that George W Bush, George H W Bush, and Condi Rice are all "leftists who view the United States as the cause of a lot of the world's problems", but at that point you've devalued the term so far that it has little meaning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTeleV - why don't you think for yourself. It is so intellectually lazy to say, "so and so if for it so it must be good." Why do YOU THINK it is a good treaty? What analysis have you done to make you agree with the people you list?
I have followed both sides of the debate and balanced that against about 30 years of studying and reading some of the preeminent thinkers of deterrence and game theory, including the brilliant people at the Heritage Foundation, to conclude, in short, that this treaty sucks, now that is analysis :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause the expected effects look so very different from the symbolism, I would like to know the reasons for the "phalanx" of former GOP illuminary (Colin Powell? Didn't he switch sides and buy into the hopey changey symbolism?) support. Rice's support was with caveats, meaning it's a dangerous thing and she knows it.
Is Russia so much more out of control than they care to publicly admit that we need to just look like we tried? I wonder what we don't know that would cause them to think that simultaeously lowering both US deterrent and defense while building a tactical nuclear advantage for Russia while Russia also insures and supports Iran's efforts to proliferate is a great idea.
Maybe Kissinger is just engaging in Realpolitic, recognizing that Obama is unilaterlally allowing our strategic deterrent and missile defense programs to degrade on their own anyway.
New START seems to require proliferation and promote actual use of tactical nukes. The only way it makes sense is if it is only symbolic in terms of US v Russia while getting some kind of leverage in stopping Russian support for Iranian and total mid-East proliferation. But Russia can't stop Iran now and China is playing the same game with North Korea.
Meanwhile, Venezuela awaits. These issues are increasingly grave and the US has a hopey changey attitude.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse