That article is complete crap. Here's why. It's nice to try and turn around the whole "Trust but Verify" quote...but that's exactly what naysayers are stopping. Furthermore, arms control DOES enhance security. The author is retarded. The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet.
And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot.
And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there.
The article addresses this complaint. Indeed the "Naysayers" main question regarding the 'urgency' needed in ratifying this treaty, without precedent during a lame duck Congress, is: If so urgently needed, why didn't the Obama Administration at least attempt an extension of old START back in December of last year when
it expired? Also, why wasn't the treaty, now in question, submitted immediately for Senate ratification back in last April shortly after it was signed?
Further, Senator Kyle and others have in the past voiced real concerns about the efficacy of present U.S. nuclear weaponry that have gone, until recently, ignored. Sure the administration has promised a 4 billion USD update but GOP Senators and others remember Obama's deals and promises to Health Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, Progressives for the 'Public Option', and even citizens regarding the urgency and necessity of passing Obamacare that never materialized in the end. The article is correct in counseling caution regarding promises from the Obama administration.
Your statement that "arms control DOES enhance security" is too simplistic. This statement applies only to a limited number of state actors such as the U.S., Britain, France, and India. An "Arms Treaty" with Russia should more properly be concerned with that country's ability to keep its nuclear material out of the hands of terrorist and rogue nations. Honestly, the U.S. might be better off paying the Russians to just secure that material (like they did following the fall of the U.S.S.R) or just buy it outright. However, those Russians, like Putin, still long for the veneer of international relevance that this treaty provides. Actors such as DPRK, Iran, and even a radicalized Pakistan do not necessarily share our concern for world peace and, additionally, it is not at all clear that they will not use these weapons against us, both figuratively and literally. The only deterrent with these entities will be a U.S. response that will make their "rubble bounce" but even this might not be enough for a theologically driven Tehran.
As for:
" The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet."
This sounds hopeful but before efforts to curb the world's nukes history has witnessed efforst to reduce the size and number of battleships, before that artillery, and before that the Long Bow (actually, to outlaw it altogether). We should focus on those who would use the weapons and not on the weapons themselves.
What better way to prevent nuclear proliferation than to prevent new nations or rogue ones from joining the nuclear club? Wikileaks has just provided us with a Bahrain, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordon that beg the U.S. to Bomb Iranian nuclear facilities so that they won't feel forced to counter a Persian hegemony with their own Bomb. Additionally we probably have a South Korea and, almost certainly, a Japan that is only a "screw turn" away from the Bomb; the reason being a hostile nuclear DPRK. In fairness we have come to this state of affairs due to the failure of both the Bush and Obama administrations to seriously address both these rogue nations' efforts to have a nuclear Bomb.
"And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot."
Until you provide evidence that, going back to just after the demise of the U.S.S.R , "Conservatives LOVE[ed] to throw them [Russians] up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serve[ed] them." in the context of a purposeful
Russian nuclear intended threat This will properly remain a strawman.
However, the author didn't use the word "enemy" he used "adversary" and, in the context of being actively so, the author is correct. This is especially true when viewed regarding Tehran and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, its client Syria, and its support of radical Islamists. Less an immediate threat is DPRK but still more a threat to world peace than, as Sec. of Defense Gates has said of Russia: "[an] oligarchy run by the security services" (courtesy of Wikileaks). That the Russians can't be trusted is simply a statement of fact that can be equally applied to our current President (Yes that is an unnerving thing to say).
Germaine to this debate about START is Russia's relative irrelevance when compared to the security interests of the U.S. and, just as importantly, its allies and trading partners. The U.S. has worldwide responsibilities in this regard that Russia simply does not have. Whole regions along with nations depend on the U.S.'s security umbrella: Europe, Asian 'Tigers' and even the Levant and the Middle East in general. Indeed it has been argued that this U.S. security umbrella has made it financially possible for Europe's experiment in socialism, up until now anyway. This Treaty attempts to reduce "launchers" to a certain level but a lot of these are termed "dual use"
and are necessary to maintain "conventional prompt global strike." capabilities that the U.S. needs to sustain its security umbrella. You see the term "launcher" doesn't just refer to a trailer carrying a rocket on a rail. It also refers to Submarines and Heavy Bombers like the B-2. A reduction of these will hamper future flexible delivery systems to carry conventional payloads necessary for conflicts such as Afghanistan or the Balkans.
" And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there."
You almost got it right. First the author, throughout the piece, rightly points out that the purpose of any agreement should first and foremost deal with and have the utmost concern for U.S. security interests. Secondary concerns may be used to compromise in order to reach agreement but only if they do not conflict with the first and primary effort of U.S. security. The author is "rougher on Obama" because it is the U.S. President's Raison d'être to look out for America first during the construction of such treaties and that such treaties must be judged on their merits regarding America's interests and security and not on some flimsy hope that giving favorable treatment to one's interlocutor for this or that will result in some future 'favorable' finding by that signatory on an unrelated matter somewhere down the diplomatic road (i.e. 'help' to prevent a nuclear Iran). Given all the facts and past actions of the President it is logical to conclude that if there is any political gamesmanship here the first place to look would be at an administration who brings a treaty to a lame duck Senate that was signed almost eight months ago, demands it be ratified immediately, and then tries to demonize those Senators who have concerns about American security while in the process of fullfilling their constitutional responsibility.
JM
