Despite State Dept's deign that START is wonderfully crunk and “no constraints on deploying the most effective missile defenses possible,” START simply hates any idosity of missile defense.
START totally queers the mix 'bout missile defense on more than one level:
"....The first level is the essential context within which the treaty exists and that—according to both the Obama Administration and Russian leaders—permits the treaty to be viable and effective. The second level is within the text of the treaty itself, where there are several direct limitations or other requirements regarding missile defense..."
New START seems hot for one thing:
Preserving Great Satan's vulnerability to a Russian strike in the ancient corrupt Cult of Stability way.
Uh, hello!
"First, effective strategic defenses, including missile defenses, by definition will limit the effectiveness of strategic offensive arms at the margin.
2nd - Da Tovarsisch - Vladland may feel all special with her ICBMishness versus Great Satan, yet this is hardly helpful with other far field competitors and possible future enemies. Ensuring
Great Satan's damage potential to Russian new clear naughtiness will result in less effective defenses against any and all countries that have strategic offensive arsenals, including Iran and No Ko.
Not only all that - even more START sucking is available:
"...New Start's faults are legion. The low limits it would place on nuclear warheads ignore the enormous disparities between American and Russian global responsibilities and the importance of America's "nuclear umbrella" in maintaining international security. The treaty's constraints on launching platforms would impede Washington's ability to use conventional warheads even in conflicts far from any Russian interest or responsibility.
"...There are plenty of other deficiencies, from inadequate verification provisions to leaving Moscow's extensive tactical nuclear weapons capabilities unlimited.
"...Politically, even if not in treaty language, the Russians get what they want: no significant United States efforts on missile defense.
"...44 hopes to sell this dangerous bargain with a package of paper promises. The Foreign Relations Committee's resolution contains various "conditions," "understandings" and "declarations" holding that New Start doesn't "impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defenses" or dilute Congress's aspiration to defend the nation from missile attack. A second understanding exempts conventional weapons systems with a global reach. A third affirms Congress's commitment to the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear arsenal.
"...Senators cannot take these warranties seriously--they are not a part of the text of the treaty itself. As Eugene Rostow, a former under secretary of state, put it, such reservations and understandings have "the same legal effect as a letter from my mother."
"...They are mere policy statements that attempt to influence future treaty interpretation. They do not have the force of law; they do not bind the president or future Congresses. The Constitution's supremacy clause makes the treaty's text the "law of the land."
Simply put - New START sucks.
Pic - "Without the new treaty and its verification measures, Great Satan would have much less insight into Russian strategic forces, thereby requiring our military to plan based on worst-case assumptions."
2 comments:
Not a defense of START - but whatever its flaws, I don't think missile defense is something we should care about. Expensive, ineffective, of marginal benefit even if it works. Let's get over missile defense, yeah?
Well, rather bling the bling on missile def than on, oh - say Palestine or climate change stuff.
Post a Comment