Heritage Action’s Tim Chapman pens an op-ed for Politico on why John Kerry is clueless about START. Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, claimed there was “no substantive disagreement” between Republicans and Democrats on START. Even the most uninformed person knows that’s not true. Republican senators have publicly expressed their substantive disagreements with START. Chapman reports that newly elected senator Roy Blunt will reveal a letter from his fellow newly elected senators demanding to study and consider the treaty before a vote.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is hoping for another “victory” for his administration, pushing the Senate to ratify START now or next Congress. According to the LA Times, Obama called this treaty, with its numerous problems, a “national security imperative.”
Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican, sides with Democrats on START. According to Politico, he wants the Senate to vote on START now. Senator Jon Kyl, lead Republican negotiator on START ratification, holds a different view. He opposes lame-duck voting and prefers to wait until the new Congress.
The Heritage Foundation’s Owen Graham blogs about issues that must be addressed before senators vote on START at The Foundry. For example, although the Obama administration denies the treaty restricts our missile defense, Republican senators believe otherwise.
“Moreover, the lack of verification measures, supporters of the treaty argue, is increasing instability and uncertainty between the two major nuclear powers. Yet this is the result of the Administration’s own actions. The White House did not move to take advantage of a five-year extension clause under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At the time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon.”
The United States is vulnerable to Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks. Unfortunately, most Americans are unaware or ignore the threat. “Nuclear device detonated high in the atmosphere above the American mainland can easily disable the country’s electrical grid,” write James Carafano and Richard Weitz in their most recent Backgrounder.
An EMP occurs when a nuclear device is detonated high in the atmosphere. The electromagnetic discharge can permanently disable the electrical systems that run nearly all civilian and military infrastructures. At altitudes between 40 to 400 kilometers, these gamma rays produce high-energy free electrons that give rise to an oscillating electric current that destroys electronic equipment. In addition, an EMP can occur during massive solar eruptions which have the potential to send a blast of radiation toward Earth and impact functioning of electronic devices. We need to devote a lot more effort to building up resistance to solar tsunamis as well as manmade threats.
In recent years, the United States has seen the rapid growth in its dependence on electronics, telecommunications, and information technology. These technological innovations have brought great benefits, but also make the United States—and its component states and localities—vulnerable to an EMP attack. Many Americans have experienced the burdens of a short blackout (e.g. in the August 2003 Northeast blackout that affected Ohio, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and parts of Canada). Because of the riots that followed the disruption, it became apparent that the United States could not survive as a unified civil nation with the long-term loss of the electrical grid.
Fortunately, there are steps that can be taken to defend the United States and Canada against EMP attacks. Ensuring a resilient U.S.–Canadian power grid is one of them. You can protect the main electric transformers for $200 million. In addition, it is within the power of private companies and individuals to “harden” the vital infrastructure. Better yet, it is less expensive to manufacture devices that are already “hardened” rather than add EMP protection later. Other essential components of mitigating the threat include an early warning system, system-situational awareness, ballistic missile defenses, and robust command and control to ensure cooperation and effective coordination between government agencies and private companies during a crisis.
In 2004, the Commission to Assess the Threat of the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) reported that “EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences.” Yet, Congress has done next to nothing to protect the U.S. from an EMP attack.
Carafano asks whether the people polled really understand the treaty, and suggests five questions CNN didn’t ask but should have asked:
“Question #1. Would you support a treaty that requires the US to cut more weapons and launchers than the Russians; allows them to actually build more launchers, allows Russia to modernize when Obama has already said he will not build modern nuclear weapons, and leaves Russia with many times more nuclear ones than the US? (hint: Russia has an estimated 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons that is not covered by the treaty)
“Question #2. Would you support a treaty that requires the US to share sensitive missile defense information with Russia, information that might be passed to Iran to help them plan how to defeat US missile defenses? (hint the treaty could require sharing telemetry test data with Russia)
“Question #3 Do you think an independent commission not accountable to the US government should be able to dictate limits to missile defense? (hint that is in the treaty too)
“Question #4 Would you vote for a treaty with 12 major flaws in it? (hint-want to guess how many major flaws there are in New START?)
“If CNN had included these questions, Americans who are interested in protecting and defending America and understand the importance of Missile Defense might well have voted very differently.”
Did the Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives sound the death knell for START? Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said he would oppose a START vote, at least during the lame-duck session. From the Wall Street Journal:
“Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona said there wasn’t time to deal with his concerns over a treaty that would cut U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons deployments by about one third and restore weapons inspections that were halted nearly a year ago. Treaty ratification requires 67 votes in the Senate. Mr. Kyl’s decision likely pushes a vote to next year, when the Senate Democratic majority shrinks to 53 from 58.
“Mr. Kyl’s announcement took the White House by surprise. A White House official said that just last Friday, officials from the Defense Department, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the U.S. Strategic Command briefed the senator and offered an additional $4.1 billion over the next five years that he had demanded to modernize the remaining nuclear arsenal.”
The treaty would limit strategic warheads to 1,550 and launchers to 700 each. Republican senators have cited several concerns about START, including lack of verification and a link between missile defense and offense. These senators requested the treaty negotiating record, and the Obama administration has refused to turn it over. Republicans also suspect Russia and the U.S. entered into a secret agreement on missile defense, and the State Department has gone on record to deny it.
Earlier this week, we linked to the Heritage Foundation’s must-read START fact sheet. The treaty weakens our nation’s missile defense by reducing our stockpiles and imposing restrictions on our missile defense options. As the experts say, a lame-duck congressional session is not the time to ratify such a troubling treaty.
Roundtable Luncheon Discussion at The Heritage Foundation
What to Look For at the NATO Summit in Lisbon
President Obama will join other NATO leaders in Lisbon on Nov. 19 for a formal summit of heads of state. Their agenda will include: adoption of NATO’s new Strategic Concept; how to share the burden of common defense more equitably; shoring up the alliance’s Article 5 security guarantees to Central and Eastern Europe; the mission in Afghanistan , including President Obama’s pledge to draw down U.S. troops next July; and missile defense as a potential NATO responsibility. NATO-Russian relations also will be a topic, as Moscow continues to oppose enlarging the alliance and U.S. missile defense plans for Europe
Please join foreign policy and national security experts from Heritage and our distinguished guest, Ian Brzezinski, for a discussion of what news reporters should look for during the NATO summit.
Washington – Late last week, the Obama administration submitted a new offer to Senate Republicans in a last-minute attempt to gain Republican support for ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) during the Senate’s Lame Duck session.
“America’s security cannot be viewed as some chit for nuclear modernization,” Heritage Action’s CEO Michael A. Needham said. “No amount of money can obscure the treaty’s fatal flaws, including inadequate verification measures and limits on missile defense.”
The deal would provide an addition $4 billion for modernizing America’s nuclear arsenal; however, reports also suggest the administration is prepared to withhold all such funding if the Senate blocks the treaty.
“The administration’s reported threat to withhold all modernization funding is reckless,” Needham continued. “Senators who support New START in its current form will find themselves on the wrong side of their constituents and America will find itself on the losing end of a dangerous treaty.”
Heritage Action for America’s opposition to ratification stems from serious, substantive policy concerns. Earlier this month, Heritage Action targeted 10 states, including Arizona, Kentucky and Tennessee, with direct mail pieces. The mailer urged constituents to call their Senators and tell them to oppose the treaty, which “put Russia’s military interests ahead of our own.”
With more than 700,000 members across the country, The Heritage Foundation and its sister organization, Heritage Action for America, are committed to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and a civil society flourish. To that end, Heritage Action will continue to oppose ratification of the New START Treaty.
Sources report that NATO allies may be close to agreeing to expand missile shields in Europe. On Friday, members will meet at a two-day summit to vote on the issue and to discuss related matters.
Among other things, NATO seeks Russia’s cooperation in expanding missile defense in Europe. Russia strongly disapproved of Bush-era plans to deploy missiles shields to Poland and the Czech Republic. President Barack Obama scrapped those plans and said the new plan would entail shorter-range missiles.
“The Obama administration canceled the original plan in September 2009, proposing instead a reconfigured missile shield that would begin with ship-based interceptors and radars, followed by more advanced land-based interceptors to be deployed in Romania by 2015 and Poland by 2018. This is to be the core U.S. contribution to NATO’s European missile defense system.
“The U.S. has asked Turkey, also a member of NATO, to host some of the radar defenses and to approve the proposal for a Europe-wide defense network. Turkey has hesitated, saying it does not want the system explicitly to target its neighbor, Iran.
“U.S. officials close to pre-summit talks were optimistic that the proposed European missile shield’s remaining obstacles could be overcome. They said Russia seems to be seriously considering NATO’s plan, while Turkey’s concerns could be finessed.”
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is optimistic about Russia’s cooperation. “I think we are witnessing a fresh start in the relationship between NATO and Russia, and maybe I could go further and say a fresh start in the relationship between Russia and the West. I think this is of huge strategic importance.” (Source)
Russia claimed Bush-era missile shield plans were a threat to its national security. It’s difficult to believe Russia would now approve the more widespread missile shield plan NATO proposes. Locations include countries like Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey. The purpose of these shields is to defend against Iran, but Turkey said it won’t agree if NATO names Iran as a threat.
Politico reports that the Senate Republican Policy Committee sent a memo to Republican Senate staffers urging them to delay voting on the new START. An excerpt from the memo:
“The fact sheet then asserts that the treaty provides ‘effective verification and inspection systems leaving Russia unable to achieve militarily significant cheating or breakout.’ Member offices should review the assessment of the treaty’s verification regime by Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Bond, available in Senate Security. That assessment is consistent with the testimony of Former Secretary of State James Baker that the New START verification program ‘does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one that verified the numerous and diverse treaty obligations and prohibitions under START I.’
“The fact sheet then asserts that the treaty provides no constraints on deploying conventional prompt global strike capabilities. This does not answer the question of whether the Administration is committed to developing those capabilities. If the Administration were to pursue those capabilities by loading a conventional payload onto either an ICBM or SLBM, then the treaty very much limits the deployment of conventional prompt global strike capabilities. This is because every one of these weapons deployed in such a configuration counts towards the treaty’s central limits on delivery vehicles and warheads, and thus one ICBM, SLBM, or bomber may potentially have to be removed from deployed service in order to remain within the treaty’s central limits. To be fair, the Administration claims it is developing conventional prompt global strike capabilities that do not count towards the treaty’s central limits, but information on the state of those programs is very much lacking, and deployment of a converted ICBM or SLBM would be much quicker in comparison.”
Naturally, the president wants the Senate to ratify the treaty during the lame-duck session, despite Republican senators’ legitimate questions about whether the treaty undermines America’s security.
The Heritage Foundation has published a fact sheet about why the new START is bad for missile defense. An excerpt:
New START Leaves America Vulnerable
New START Treaty Weakens America’s Defense: It is evident that Russia seeks to curtail U.S. missile defense programs. New START is one of the tools to achieve this.
New START Restrictions: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options through Article V of the treaty and additional provisions in the Protocol and Annexes. The Preamble also applies the logic that U.S. missile defenses must be reduced in accordance with the reduction of the strategic offensive arms of Russia because otherwise the defenses will “undermine the viability and effectiveness” of Russia’s offensive force.
Limiting U.S. Options and Sovereignty: The treaty restricts certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests. The treaty also gives the Bilateral Consultative Commission, the treaty’s implementing body, a broad mandate that could permit it to impose additional restrictions on missile defenses.
Lame Duck Not the Time to Ratify Treaties: If the Administration and current Senate majority leadership push for a vote on New START during the “lame duck” session, the Senate will not have time to adequately evaluate it, especially newly seated Senators who need time to become educated on the treaty, exacerbating an already biased process in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
White House Should Release Treaty Negotiating Record The Administration has refused to give the Senate access to the record that includes all draft versions of the treaty, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. The record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and how the Russians interpret them.
Other Bad Deals in the Works? Recent comments by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicate that Russia and the U.S. are negotiating a separate side agreement that will limit U.S. missile defense and space options even further.
***
Heritage reiterates that rogue state Iran could have a nuclear weapon in two years and an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015, and North Korea has conducted nuclear tests. Both countries have continued these developments, despite global condemnation.
Update (11/10/10) – The Department of Defense said the mystery missile seen in the sky over the Pacific Ocean on Monday wasn’t a missile, although it doesn’t know what the flying object was. If that makes sense to you, kudos!
Sources are reported that a mysterious missile appeared over the Pacific Ocean Monday night, and no one knows who launched it. From CBS News:
“Magnificent images were captured by the KCBS news helicopter in L.A. around sunset Monday evening. The location of the missile was about 35 miles out to sea, west of L.A. and north of Catalina Island.
“A Navy spokesperson told KFMB it wasn’t their missile. He said there was no Navy activity reported in the area Monday evening.
“On Friday night, Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, launched a Delta II rocket, carrying an Italian satellite into orbit, but a sergeant at the base told KFMB there had been no launches since then.
“Ellsworth urged American to wait for definitive answers to come from the military.
“When asked, however, what he thought it might be, the former ambassador said it could possibly have been a missile test timed as a demonstration of American military might as President Obama tours Asia.
“‘It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine … to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that,” speculated Ellsworth.’”
