Analyst's note: Absolutely must read. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) bill discussed here now moves to the full senate for ratification. This bill has extremely severe national security consequences for the U.S. We hear that our lawmakers are pushing for a vote with minimum debate. One must ask, "Why?" This is a situation that must be considered most carefully. The stability of the entire world hangs in the balance. We recommend a search on "nuclear" within this CSIA Report. You will stunned at what you learn.
The Wall Street Journal reports "Senate Foreign Relations committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) has said he does not expect a full Senate vote until after the Nov. 2 election when the lame-duck Congress reconvenes." Lets hope in this case he is right." Further, that the American people understand the importance of their votes.
"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the new START arms-control treaty with Russia early Thursday afternoon. [....]
The Heritage Foundation clearly indicates that, "There are few issues that require greater scrutiny, serious discussion, informed analysis, and non-partisan debate than the role of nuclear weapons in national security. The Administration and the leadership of the Senate couldn’t have been more cavalier in their treatment of the treaty." Once the missiles are launched we have no more than 33 minutes and then all the talking is over.
We certainly want our readers to be aware of this situation as well. Please note that the "Heritage Action is taking this debate directly to the American people. Washington’s self-anointed foreign policy czars do not believe you should have a voice in this debate. They prefer the old days, when disarmament groups “lobbied quietly behind the scenes.”
We certainly don't support such a fatally flawed treaty -- see the bullet points below -- and we must NOT let our elected representatives consider it as "acceptable." Please consider joining 42,809 Americans who have signed their petition thus far calling on the Senate to reject the proposed treaty as it now stands.
Just for the record, I want to share a number of comments shared with me by friends.
“To Reduce the Nuclear Weapons Inventory is not Smart”
As a military retiree having served in the U.S. Marine Corps, I find it appalling that my commander in chief (POTUS) is purposely weakening our national defense for ideological reasons. I would consider the decision to be misguided.
On April 8, 2010, presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev for Russia signed the new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which addresses a bilateral nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia.
These obligations must be met within seven years from the date the new treaty enters into force. The treaty will last ten years, with an option to renew it for up to five years upon agreement of both parties.
The treaty, first, has to be ratified by the United States Senate and the Federation Council of the Russian Federation. Once that is done, the treaty will then enter into force on the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification.
The number of operationally inactive stockpiled nuclear warheads will remain in the high thousands in both Russian and United States inventories. The number of nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. And a new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the mechanism defined by the earlier treaty.
It is surprising to note that according to the press the reduction contained in the treaty for the United States is considered “substantial.” It is axiomatic that the U.S. has had a proven “deterrent program” based on its existing nuclear weapons inventory. Why fix something that is not broken? Why are we intentionally weakening our nation’s defenses?
The new START will limit the number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty and is 30% lower than deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
Further, it will limit to 800 the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. Additionally, it will limit the number of ICBMs, SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armament to 700.
Strategically and tactically, should we be concern? Of course, our “enemy” NOW knows what we have because our commander in chief decided to be transparent by publicly announcing when the U.S. will or will not use the single most effective weapon in our inventory.
And that a new doctrine was announced in which the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, even if attacked with deadly biological or chemical weapons, or by debilitating EMP cyber attack.
The administration did make it clear; however, that North Korea and Iran were still subject to be nuked if they were to launch an attack with nuclear weapons against the U.S.
Both countries can expect a U.S. nuclear weapons attack because they are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nonetheless, “rogue nations” that are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will not fear that the U.S. would retaliate with its devastating nuclear power.
It is always understood that information on nuclear weapons doctrine was always classified. And that our leaders would only speak about the subject in generalities. Now we find that these type of informations are readily available through open source...scary.
Overall, it is obvious that the Russian "...cunningly let Obama bamboozle himself into a gotta-have-it-now Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that damages US conventional capabilities while Russia gives up only old junk it needed to dump anyway."
Adolf Peter Sgambelluri
U.S. Marine Corps (Ret)
Fmr Guam Chief of Police
President, Guam Chapter, National Association for Uniformed Servicesolyman@gmail.
WEBSITE www.guamiai.com
Comments from another friend on this subject is quoted below
"Most of the younger generations know nothing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They do not understand that America can be destroyed by radical countries hell ben on killing Americans and destroying America. That's why we must always have the upper hand...not to startr a war but to protect us should one break out....
It was used in the above two cities to stop a war that Japan refused to end and to save the lives of perhaps hundreds of thousands of American fighting men should we have had to invade Japay to end the war."
