“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Stop Start




The New START Treaty: President Obama is pushing for a monumental surrender to Russia
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: December 14th, 2010
Telegraph

The Obama administration has an impeccable track record of caving in to Russian demands, as part of its controversial “reset” policy. Last year, it threw key US allies Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus, ditching plans for Third Site missile defences in deference to Russian opposition. It is now planning another surrender to Moscow, by pressing for Senate ratification of the new START Treaty in the lame duck session of Congress.

Instead of allowing the newly elected Congress to vote on the treaty, the Obama administration is trying to ram New START through without proper debate. No major treaty has ever been forced through Congress in a lame duck session.

There is mounting opposition in Washington to the New START Treaty, which would significantly weaken US security by undermining America’s ability to deploy an effective global missile defence system. Dozens of senators, as well as several leading likely Republican presidential candidates are opposed to the Treaty, including Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. As Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has warned:

The START Treaty could severely weaken America’s ability to defend our people and our allies against missile attacks from nations like Iran, and we need all of the facts on how this treaty was agreed to… The newly elected Republican senators have signed a letter asking our leadership to postpone debate on START until they take office in a few weeks and have ample time to review the details. Americans didn’t vote in November to ram through the Obama administration’s wish list this December.


As part of its campaign to woo opponents of the Treaty, the Democratic White House has claimed that Ronald Reagan would have backed it, a simply ludicrous assertion. As Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese, and Assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle noted in The Wall Street Journal, the Gipper would never have backed an arms control agreement that encumbered “the pursuit of advanced ballistic missile defense technology”:

There are many reasons why this treaty falls short of those negotiated by President Reagan. For one thing, its verification regime is inadequate. For another, it gives the Kremlin an unwarranted influence over the structure of our nuclear deterrent. Most important, it will almost certainly reduce our freedom to deploy vital defenses against ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the administration is asking a lame-duck Senate, dominated by a party that was rebuked at the polls by the electorate, to vote for this major arms-control treaty, in contravention of the settled traditions of our country—a tactic Reagan surely would have deplored.


Simply put, the New START Treaty is a staggeringly bad deal for the United States, and an extraordinarily good one for Vladimir Putin’s increasingly hostile and authoritarian Russia. President Obama needs to respect the will of the American electorate and allow the new Senate to vote on the Treaty, and fully scrutinise and debate the details of an agreement which, if ratified in its current form, will dramatically undercut America’s global missile defences. The White House is pressing for another monumental surrender to Moscow which will only strengthen the hand of a key US adversary.

29 comments:

  1. .

    I agree with Gardiner that the vote should not be rushed and decided without proper review.

    That being said it will be interesting to see if we get a review or just the typical sound bites from both sides.

    Looking at the WIKI article on the treaty, it appears on the surface that the US is giving up more than Russia. That being said how many nukes do you actually need?

    Gardiner and the GOP argue that the treaty limits deployment of defensive systems. Obama says the treaty does nothing to limit our ability to work on or deploy these systems.

    I suspect Gardiner knows about as much as the people of the EB about the actual wording of the treaty and its ramifications but still spouts the party line.

    I suspect Gardiner is probably a dick.

    I would investigate more into the details of the treaty but suspect that would be a waste of my time.

    It takes 67 votes to get the treaty approved in the Senate. Given the state of politics in D.C., I doubt the treaty has a chance.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Outer space sounds like a couple of Floyd albums.

    ReplyDelete
  3. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama made the nuclear treaty with Russia a top priority during the remaining session in part because he believes there are more than enough votes in the Senate to support ratification.

    "I don't know why you'd put off until next year what you can accomplish this year," Gibbs said.

    Obama signed the treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April. The treaty would allow each country 1,550 strategic warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.


    Arms Treaty

    ReplyDelete
  4. I want more nukes, not less.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The roosians have thousands.

    We are fools.

    They have never lived up to one of these "treaties".


    Quirk IS an idiot.

    That lives in Detroit.

    And there is no peace with Christmas.

    No matter how much Melody might try.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't want words.


    I want weapons.


    Words are for City Contracts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We do not need any more nukes. We need a more robust missile defense system. A moveable space platform with look down, shoot down capabilities sure would come in handy.

    It certainly would extend the life of aircraft carriers and is the only way to overcome the Chinese penchant for building and deploying multiple redundant layers of surface to surface missile.

    The best missile defense system always must have an offensive component, one that screams,"Don't even think about it."

    There has never been a president less qualified to determine the level of defense than Obama.

    My money says give peace a chance. Keep plenty of dry powder and leave no possible temptation for an adversary to think that they would even have a prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Russians share a 2700 mile border with China. Russia has just about everything China lusts for in the way of underpopulted land and vast natural resources.

    The Russians, unless they elect an Obama, will never disarm. Their offensive capabilities, advertised to being against any attacker has one potential foe in mind and it is not the US.

    The US gives the Russians convenient cover to let the Chinese to don't even think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mutual
    Assured
    Destruction.

    How many nukes does it take, to assure the destruction of the Russian culture?

    How many does it take to assure the destruction of ours?

    That, plus one, is all that is needed.

    The thousands of warheads that remain deployed do not need an increase in inventory.

    There will be no "missile defense" to counter the Chi-com threat to Formosa posed by the 1,000 to 1,600 ballistic missiles that Charlie has deployed.

    This does:

    TAIPEI, Taiwan, Dec. 14 (UPI) -- Taiwan has admitted that it is mass producing long-range cruise missiles capable of reaching mainland China.

    The announcement, made by Chao Shih-chang, Taiwan's deputy defense minister, confirms years of speculation by military analysts that the island was developing the Hsiung Feng 2E land attack cruise missile and the Hsiung Feng 3 anti-ship cruise missile.


    The Nationalists on Formosa cannot assure the destruction of Charlie, on the Mainland. While Charlie can assure the destruction of the Nationalists, if the US were to back away.

    Washington has tried to bolster Taiwan's defenses, including selling the Taiwanese $6 billion worth of missile defense systems in a deal announced last January ...
    Washington is required under the Taiwan Relations Act to ensure that Taiwan can defend itself. The United States remains the island's top arms supplier.

    A leading lawmaker and member of Taiwan's defense council said the missiles weren't intended to threaten China. Still, Lin Yu-fang said: "We have to be pragmatists. It will take time to persuade China to remove those missiles."

    "I think at long last Beijing will come to realize that to remove those missiles will be in their best interest, it will help promote their image as a major power in East Asia," Lin was quoted saying by The Wall Street Journal.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Japan Shifts Defense Strategy to Meet New Threats

    Japan has decided to shift its defense strategy for the first time in 40 years as it sees the main threat shifting from the former Soviet Union to China and North Korea. Tokyo is going to reorganize its military into mobile units capable of engaging in operations in the Pacific Ocean and countering North Korean missile threats.

    The Diet is expected to pass the revisions this week.
    ...
    The ramifications are expected to be huge. Ground forces will be downsized while naval power will be enhanced. The 600 tanks in service will be reduced to 390; 600 artillery pieces will shrink to around 400; and 1,000 troops will also be cut. The remaining ground forces will be deployed on an island in southern Japan. At present, they are equally distributed throughout the country.

    But capabilities will be bolstered to deal with potential threats from China and North Korea. Forces will be concentrated on defending Japan's southwestern island chains stretching from southern tip of Kyushu Island to Taiwan, as well as the country's Pacific flank. The number of operable submarines will rise from 18 to 22. The SDF will no longer retire one sub a year and replace it with a new one, but retain more subs as new ones are commissioned into service.

    Around 2,000 troops will be deployed on the islands to the southwest. Japan will also speed up the deployment of its next-generation FX fighter jets and boost its three Patriot (PAC3) missile bases to six. It will equip all six of its Aegis destroyers with SM-3 missiles. At present, only four have the anti-ballistic missiles.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice link. The best defense is a damn good defense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wikileaks and our rulers and masters from American Thinker

    ...The anger of the American people should not be directed at some Australian guy, but at our own government for what it has done. We should ask our government officials this: Why have you made the energy-richest nation on the planet dependent on unscrupulous foreigners for energy? Explain it to us, if you can!

    Do you see how we are being manipulated? The government uses the cover of national security to whip us in a frenzy over the non-revelations contained in the leaked documents to blind us to the obvious. We focus all our attention on the scapegoat while the government gets away with its misdeeds.

    Sad to say, this is the government's modus operandi. Politicians ruin things and then blame others for the messes they have themselves made. They have already made a woeful mess of America's energy, of America's health care, of America's currency, of America's finance, and of virtually everything they have ever touched. When things go sour, however, they never accept responsibility, but they feverishly look for scapegoats whom they then subject to public shaming and legal lynching.

    This time, they will use documents like the infamous "Critical Foreign Dependencies" cable to bring an Australian programmer up on the bogus charges of imperiling our national security by publishing non-secrets. This is a truly unfortunate situation, since it is the politicians who should be answering for the misdeeds revealed by those documents.

    It is our government officials who have deeply compromised our national security by making us dependent on unsavory foreign regimes for our energy needs."

    ReplyDelete
  14. How many of those nukes can get wiped out in a first hit?


    A lot.

    How much wheat rust does it take to wipe out a crop?

    Not much.

    I like nukes.

    And submarines.

    How many letters do I have to to write to Melody before getting a reply?

    Endless.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Outer space sounds like a couple of Floyd albums."


    In reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A first hit?
    Against an Ohio-class submarine armed with Trident II missiles?

    By whom?

    You fear things that are not, while allowing felons to infest your town.

    Never even reporting the crime committed.

    Little wonder you seem addled and confused.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually, that video replaced the norm as my meditation music for the night.

    It's hard to find anything that decent for any length of time.

    I guess I should invest in some real music CD's for meditation but being as frugal as I am why spend money when you can get it for free.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You were hit, you did not respond.

    All the nukes in the whirled would not have changed that.

    As in Tora Bora.

    It is the lack of will, not capability that hampers the pursuit of justice.

    Owning something is not the same as understanding its content or application.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tell us how anyone could get a "first hit" in n these bad boys of the sea

    * USS Alabama (SSBN-731)
    * USS Alaska (SSBN-732)
    * USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730)
    * USS Kentucky (SSBN-737)
    * USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)
    * USS Maine (SSBN-741)
    * USS Maryland (SSBN-738)
    * USS Nebraska (SSBN-739)
    * USS Nevada (SSBN-733)
    * USS Pennsylvania (SSBN-735)
    * USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740)
    * USS Tennessee (SSBN-734)
    * USS West Virginia (SSBN-736)
    * USS Wyoming (SSBN-742)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Each armed with up to 24 Trident II SLBMs.

    Which can each carry up to 8 warheads.

    14x24x8

    Plus the four nuclear-powered SSGNs (cruise missile submarines), each capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads

    That's another 616 nuke capable attack vehicles.

    Spread across 18 highly mobile launch systems.

    A "First Hit" that'd be decisive against retaliation, not a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 3,300 plus launch capacity, just in the Ohio class submarine fleet.

    We do not need any more than that.

    We would not even use a small nuke against Osama, in the middle of no-where.

    We won't use one any where, first.

    The Ohio class fleet is all the MAD we need, against anyone.

    With 3,300 nuclear warheads, fully deliverable.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Christian Science Monitor -

    The attack in southeastern Iran came as Shiites commemorated Ashura, one of the most important holidays of the year for Shiites. At least 38 were killed and more than 50 were wounded.


    A suicide attack, against Muslims, in Iran?

    How could that be !?!?

    The Iranians are suppose to represent the threat of terror against US, not become the mission objective of domestic or internationally sponsored terrorists.

    The contagion is spreading through out the Islamic Arc.

    No need for US nukes.
    The Islamoids are running in a self-destruct mode.

    Cannot defend their ground, let alone export a viable military threat.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Christ rat, she didn't want to talk about it.

    And you keep bringing it up.

    Serial bully...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bully?

    No, not at all.
    She does not read this, does she?

    It is a comment upon your relationship to the human condition, bob.

    bob, the Champion of Women's Rights, allows a rapist to go about his business, without nary a report to the police authorities.

    Leaving the perpetrator to become a serial rapist. Putting the empowerment of family before the general defense of the women in the community.

    Then bemoaning the general lack of citizenship displayed by the Town Bureaucrats as they fail to relate to your sense of irony as concerns the street names in your $50 million dollar real estate development project for Moscow, Idaho.

    The Town wants English, bob says "Screw You!"

    The Town Bureaucrats cite challenges with Police and Emergency response to foreign language street names, bob says "Screw You!"

    That seems to be your most common reaction to challenges to your authority, bob says "Screw You!"

    ReplyDelete
  25. bob, as a microcosm of the US.

    Doing the cost benefit analysis, between what is "right" and what feels "good".

    Usually choosing the "easy" way.

    We have enough nukes for MAD.

    And nothing to fear, they say,
    but fear itself.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Deuce and Whit,

    It was my understanding that we agreed that our "kids" were not topics for "conversation".

    Rat has described his sadistic delight in the entertainment he derives in hurting bob by bringing up the rape of bob's daughter.

    Please, purge these sadistic comments!

    Sadistic:
    A sadistic person obtains pleasure from hurting other people and making them suffer physically or mentally
    ____English Collins Dictionary


    Sadistic:
    'the tendency to derive sexual gratification or general pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others'
    ___Oxford Dictionary

    Sadistic:
    the activity of getting pleasure, sometimes sexual, from being cruel to or hurting another person
    ___Cambridge Dictionary

    Sadistic:
    2
    a : delight in cruelty
    b : excessive cruelty
    ___Webster’s Dictionary

    ReplyDelete