From The Patriot Word:
Friday, November 19, 2010Strategic Missile Defense: Debunking Liberal Thinking
My Senator, Charles Schumer or one of his staff responded to my letter advising that the current START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bad idea. My views are similar to those expressed by many people familiar with this issue are summarized in an earlier post which also includes the letter that I emailed to my senator "Obama's bad START (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty)"
Here is the response from Senator Schumer's office and my thoughts:
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for your letter in support of efforts to limit nuclear weapons. I share your concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and I support the president’s efforts to reduce the number of, and one day eliminate, nuclear weapons.
My letter was not in support of limiting nuclear weapons, it was in opposition to the new START between the US and Russia. I in no way support elimination of nuclear weapons, they have been an incredibly stabilizing force in international relations. I am actually pondering why we don't give nuclear weapons to all of our allies instead of trying to eliminate them.
As you may know, both the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) would make great strides towards the goal of limiting nuclear weapons worldwide.
There is no way on earth that the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) will have any beneficial effect on our National Security which you are obligated to preserve or on International Stability. The CTBT only ensures that our allies will not be able to test, develop, or modernize their own defensive arsenals or our own for that matter. The START is a treaty between Russia and the United States only and has no effect on limiting nuclear weapons worldwide, as claimed. Neither China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, France, the UK, nor any other would-be nuclear club member will voluntarily stop development of nuclear weapons because of a treaty between the United States and Russia. The actual effect is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Today, would be aggressors don't attack because they understand that they could not survive the reprisal. If we reduce our nuclear arsenal sufficiently, and publicly divulge the level of armaments, a rogue nation can calculate at what point a nuclear attack on the United States is survivable. That is very destabilizing.
The CTBT would ban all nuclear explosions for military or civilian purposes. It was opened for signature in 1996. As of March 2008, 178 nations had signed it and 144 had ratified.
The CTBT has been completely ineffective, in essence countries that don't have the technological capability to conduct a nuclear detonation are in favor of CTBT as are those misguided nations that already have nuclear capability and think this will prevent others from obtaining similar capabilities. The specific countries or groups that are likely to use nuclear weapons if they obtain them, have and will continue to ignore this treaty even if they are signatories.
To enter into force, 44 specified nations must ratify it; 35 have done so. In October of 1999 I voted in favor of ratifying the CTBT in the Senate, however the measure was rejected by a vote 48 for, 51 against, and 1 present. Although the measure was rejected then, ratification is still possible. The treaty remains on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's calendar, and President Obama has said that "[his] administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty." I will closely monitor this issue, and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the CBTB should this issue again be considered by the Senate.
In that case, I'm glad that the balance of power shifted away from Democrats during the 2010 elections and hope that you take this opportunity to better inform yourself about the fallacy of "safety through disarmament" which has been disproven countless times and usual at great cost. What is wrong on a small scale is also wrong a larger scale, and removing an individual's right to defend his life doesn't make them safer, it just makes them an easier target for aggressors. In the same way, disarming a country doesn't make it safer, it just makes them an easier target for aggressors.
There is no evidence in the entire human existence that supports the position that a technology can be removed from the battlefield once it has been introduced, if it is effective and beneficial. Even chemical and biological weapons which present a great risk to both the target and the aggressor still exist. There is no more possibility that nuclear arms will be voluntarily abandoned, than there is that militaries will abandon firearms or artillery, both of which were shocking and horrific advances in technology when they appeared.
The reality of our world is that virtually all industrialized nations will possess nuclear arms in the future and once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back in.
On April 8, 2010, President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed a landmark disarmament treaty, a new START treaty, to limit the number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is a 30% decrease in stockpiles from the previous nuclear arms treaty signed in Moscow in 2002. Additionally, the new START treaty will place new limits on the number of launch platforms — like inter-continental ballistic missile launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments — that can be used to fire long distance nuclear weapons. The treaty must now be confirmed by the United States Senate and the Russian Parliament to go into effect. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ratify this treaty, as it will further limit the number of high yield nuclear weapons.
The problem with what you described is that rail-launched systems are excluded from the numbers and there is also a prohibition against developing anti-ballistic missile systems which are very important to defend against both nuclear and non-nuclear ballistic missiles. North Korea, and Iran are aggressively developing ballistic missiles not to mention cruise missiles all of which present a direct threat to the security of the people of the United States. It is hard to imagine how disarming ourselves and removing our defensive capabilities in any situation would be beneficial to our national security ever, let alone in a situation like we face today.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty and new START have many tangible benefits for U.S. national security. In particular, new START looks to create a powerful momentum for broader U.S.-Russian cooperation on other important issues ranging from cooperation in Afghanistan, to responding to Iran and North Korea, to facilitating trade investment.
While I don't doubt that the proposed Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty and new START have many tangible effects, what is certain is those effects will not be benefits. Furthermore our history of negotiations with Russia, give no reason to believe that concessions will lead to broader US -Russian cooperation. While this may have been true during Mikhail Gorbachev's extremely brief stint as Russian President, his predecessor Vladimir Putin is an old school soviet. You may recall that he was a KGB officer, during the failed KGB-supported coup against President Gorbachev. Dmitry Medvedev, the current President of Russia is a close associate of Vladimir Putin and has been involved in numerous illicit activities. Neither Putin nor Medvedev have continued the democratic reforms embraced by Gorbachev. Russia has shown disdain for the recently regained sovereignty of the soviet satellite states that were forced to join the USSR under military threat, and has opposed US efforts to advance peace and stability at virtually every turn. Thinking of Russia as an ally and partner is the height of folly.
I support these treaties because I believe that, as an important world power, the United States has a moral obligation to lead other nations toward de-legitimizing nuclear testing. The build-up of nuclear weapons throughout the world is one of the most serious dangers humanity faces. Thus, I strongly support our nation's efforts to diffuse the nuclear crises in North Korea and Iran.
The United States has no such moral obligation, you however a legal obligation to defend the United States against against foreign invasion and attack. You are ignoring your legal and real obligation for a non-existent and misguided obligation.
Furthermore, it is vital that China and other international neighbors support the United States' efforts to convince North Korea to discontinue nuclear weapons research and development. Only through a strong, unified message can we effectively bring this crisis on the Korean peninsula to a peaceful resolution. I can assure you that I will do everything in my power to see that the United States continues to fight the spread of nuclear weapons.
Again, this is a panacea thought process. North Korea has clearly demonstrated they will not stop missile or nuclear arms development independent of the opinions of outsiders. Self-disarmament is definitely, not a strong unified message, it is a weak disjointed message that will encourage the spread of nuclear arms. A strong unified message would be to enable all of our allies with nuclear weapons and sign a joint protective agreement for unified massive retaliation against any aggressor. The upshot of this would be a reluctance by would be aggressors to invest in a technology that they would be committing suicide to use.
Thank you for contacting me regarding this crucial matter. Please feel free to contact me in the future regarding this or any other issue.
Thank you for your detailed response. I may not agree with your positions but I appreciate receiving a prompt and detailed response.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
No comments:
Post a Comment