Obama doesn't deserve all the credit for this flawed treaty--most of the work was done by the Bush administration.
From The Patriot Word:
Thursday, November 11, 2010Obama's bad START (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty)
While there's still some debate over what actually caused the sensational missile-like contrails filmed on filmed on Tuesday November 9, 2010, I am fairly certain that the space aliens that this Californian informs us shot down the missile are the closest thing that the United States will have to a missile defense if the Senate ratifies the current Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Russia.
The Treaty that Obama signed and is pushing to get ratified before the newly elected Senators are seated is a very bad idea. It treats missile defense as if Russia was the only other country in the world, and leaves us open to attacks from countries like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela which are much more likely to carry out an attack.
The treaty's antiquated view that the US and Russia are the only two countries of interest works well for Russia and is a huge mistake for the US. On 31 July 1991, when the START I agreement was signed, the situation was substantially different from today.
"The treaty prohibited deployment of more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. Unlike the original START, New START leaves whole classes of delivery vehicles, from rail-launched ICBMs to nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, undefined and thus uncontrolled by the treaty. An "understanding" included in the U.S. ratification document presumes that rail-based missiles are covered under the treaty, but such presumptions lack the force of international law. Worse, the Russians are already threatening to back out if the rail-launched "understanding" is not matched by similar language that would prevent us from expanding anti-ballistic capabilities." [1]
While turning a blind eye to rail-launched ICBM's and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles is a serious defect, the worst aspect of the Obama Bad Start Proposal limitation on Anti-Ballistic Missile defenses that ignore the reality of our world today.
Iran is developing ICBMs and North Korea already has submarines capable of bringing cruise missiles to within sight of the US coast today and is pursuing submarine launched ballistic missile capability not to mention the host others that would love to launch a missile at the US. "Russia recently started selling the Club-K missile attack system "aka missile in shipping containers", as an off the shelf anti-ship weapon, that could easily be converted to a land attack missile."[2] Not suprisingly Iran and Venezuela were reportedly interested in the weapon. With a range of ~200 miles the missile in a shipping container provides an off the shelf terrorist weapon easily modified to attack coastal cities. This is just the a sampling of the publicly available information about missile threats from groups that would love to have been the author of the contrail seen to be apparently rising from the ocean north of Santa Catalina Island.
Today, the US has no anti-ballistic missile or cruise missile protection and if we ratify the Obama bad START agreement, we will establish prohibitions against building any in the future as well. A video describing space aliens as responsible for shooting down the alleged missile may seem humorous at first glance but less so when the reality sinks in that space aliens may be our only chance of shooting down incoming missiles if the Senate ratifies the Obama START agreement. Trusting President Obama with our missile defense is roughly equivalent to trusting space aliens, a leap that I am not prepared to make now or ever.
I encourage you to take a few minutes and contact your Senators regarding this issue. Tell them that you are opposed to ratification of the START agreement in its current form because it leaves us open to missile attack by prohibiting development of anti-ballistic missile defense systems. Here is the letter I sent to my Senators:
Dear Senator,
Supporting the proposed START agreement with Russia in its current form is a big mistake. I served for 8 years in the United States Navy as a Submarine Officer and have more than passing familiarity with this topic.
The flaws in the proposed agreement have been widely discussed and are not limited to prohibitions against developing ABM protection at a time that Russia is not the most likely aggressor. Agreeing to ABM limitations considering only Russia is a big mistake, considering that many rogue governments Iran, North Korea, Venezuela either have or are pursuing ICBM's and or Submarines that could threaten the US with missiles. Russia and China are not the problem today, their aggression is held in check with the time tested unfortunate but necessary policy of mutual assured destruction a policy which hold no sway over terrorist type attacks.
This is not an agreement that you want to be seen supporting as it will reveal a level of ignorance on National Defense issues that will be hard to run away from during your next election cycle and expose all of us to real missile risks that no one can run away from.
Adamantly Yours,
Walter L. Brown Jr.
Ex-USN Officer and Submarine Warfare Instructor.
References:
[1] National Review: Off To A Lame START, by The Editors, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131090962
[2] The Telegraph: A cruise missile in a shipping box on sale to rogue bidders, by Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html
[3] 2010 Strategic Arms Redution Treaty between Russia and the United States, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf
Posted by Walter L. Brown Jr. at 9:22 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment