Blog

During the 1964 presidential campaign, President Lyndon Johnson’s camp ran an ad that has become known as “Daisy Girl,” in which a child counts flower petals in a peaceful meadow, followed by an ominous voice counting down to a nuclear explosion. The campaign ran to counter candidate Barry Goldwater’s stance on nuclear weapons.

A group has produce a similar ad intended to invoke the same anti-nuclear fervor of the original ad, and to urge senators to ratify new START.

As we mentioned in the previous post, there are important questions raised in the treaty that must be answered before ratification, and no amount of “Daisy Girl” ads should deflect the Senate from their mission.

In contrast, we offer the Heritage Foundation’s START video. The treaty not only threatens the stability of the U.S., but the stability of the world. As National Review’s editors stated, the new START constrains our missile defense, and lawmakers who’ve vowed to uphold the Constitution should not vote for a treaty that weakens and undermines our defense strategies.

In a National Review editorial published on NPR, the editors argue why it’s important for the Senate not to ratify the new START.

“The president’s priorities on nuclear arms should be the pursuit of comprehensive missile defense, the modernization of America’s nuclear arsenal, and the prevention of rogue states from acquiring WMD. New START does nothing on the last two goals and is actively hostile to the first.

“Instead, what the treaty does is limit the number of deployed ‘delivery vehicles’ — missile silos, aircraft, submarines — to 700 per side, approximately the level the aging Russian nuclear infrastructure is already struggling to maintain. But it does nothing to limit the Russians’ massive stockpile of undeployed warheads — by one estimate, some 8,000 of them — or to cut into their advantage in tactical nuclear weapons designed for use on the field of battle. Meanwhile, it encourages the Russians to ‘MIRV’ their platforms, packing multiple warheads onto a single vehicle, at the same time the Obama administration has unilaterally discontinued that practice in an effort to ‘to increase stability.’”

Can’t be any more succinct than that. START’s problems are numerous; these include lack of verification, a linkage between missile defense and offense, and the Obama administration’s refusal to allow senators to see the negotiating record. As we mentioned earlier this week, Republican senators seek confirmation about a secret missile defense agreement between Russia and the U.S. So far, the State Department has denied the existence of such an agreement.

Senators would do well to refuse START ratification until they can be assured, without equivocation, that it won’t constrain our missile defense or weaken our national security.

What do America’s mid-term elections have to do with Russia’s cooperation on START? From Defense News:

“A Russian parliamentary committee may withdraw its recommendation to ratify a new nuclear disarmament treaty with the U.S. after the results of the mid-term polls, an official said Nov. 3. President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in April, but the accord has yet to be ratified by the Russian lower house, the State Duma, or the U.S. Senate.
…
“‘I think that today we are going to cancel our recommendation to ratify the agreement,’ said the chairman of the Russian Duma’s foreign affairs committee Konstantin Kosachev. ‘If the ‘lame duck’ senators from the old make-up cannot do this in the next weeks then the chances of ratification in the new Senate will be radically lower than they were until now,’ he told the Interfax news agency.”

Kosachev is probably correct. Among other things, Republican senators are concerned about the linkage in the treaty between offensive and defensive missile strategy. They’re also concerned about a rumored secret missile defense agreement between the U.S. and Russia. Republican senators have requested START negotiating records, and the Obama administration rebuffed them. They sent a letter to Secretary Hillary Clinton requesting documents related to the secret agreement, and the State Department has denied such an agreement took place.

The Senate Foreign Relations approved the treaty last month, and the full Senate will deliberate. Republicans have regained control of the House and increased their representation in the Senate. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who supports the new START, said he doubts the treaty will be ratified this year.

Last month we blogged about the upcoming NATO summit and secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s goal to expand NATO’s threater missile system in Europe. Among other things, NATO seeks Russia’s cooperation in the expansion.

In the New York Times, Rasmussen wrote: “Missiles pose an increasing threat to our populations, territory and deployed forces. Over 30 countries have or are acquiring missiles that could be used to carry not just conventional warheads, but also weapons of mass destruction. Some of those missiles can already reach European cities, and the problem will only get worse.”

According to RIA Novosti, Russia seems amenable to at least considering NATO’s proposal. During talks with NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Admiral James G. Stavridis, Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov said, “On the majority of problematic issues we found a common approach – there are certain disagreements, but I think these…will be very attentively studied and we will certainly come to a general understanding and a common opinion.”

Rasmussen also seeks Turkey’s support in missile defense expansion. (Sources also reported that the U.S. would expand missile defense in Turkey.) According to the Wall Street Journal, Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu (pictured) implied that his country wouldn’t oppose NATO’s plans.

“NATO can develop defense systems by taking into consideration security risks,” and his country’s opposition “is out of the question.” Rasmussen will meet with Russian officials ahead of the NATO member nations summit on November 19 and 20 is Portugal.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced the expansion of Patriot missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. The advantages to the U.S. and allies are obvious. A strong missile defense system in the Gulf would serve to protect and defend nations threatened by Iran and send a message that the U.S. and its allies are serious about stopping the rogue state.

At the time, missile defense experts expressed concern that the system would defend against short-range missiles, not the long-range missiles Iran seeks to build.

In September, sources reported that the U.S. intended to sell Saudi Arabia fighter aircraft and defense weapons worth billions. This week, a spokesman from U.S. defense contractor Raytheon confirmed that those plans are underway. An excerpt:

“The United States said last month Saudi Arabia wants to spend as much as $60 billion on aircraft, helicopters and other arms, kicking off a spending spree in the Gulf anticipating an escalation of the West’s row with Iran over its nuclear plans.
…
“Diplomats expect smaller Arab states in the world’s top oil producing region to follow with arms orders as they worry they might become targets for strikes. Kuwait was also interested in an upgrade of Patriots, while talks were also going on with Qatar, Culligan told reporters late on Saturday, declining to provide a price tag.

“Raytheon said it was in talks for another arms deal in the United Arab Emirates.

The firm was also hoping to sign homeland security and cyber security deals with Saudi Arabia, he added. ‘We’re working on proposals,’ he said.”

Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who supports the new START, said he doubts the treaty will be ratified this year. Although several of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have serious concerns about START, the committee approved the treaty last month. The full Senate is slated to deliberate, but if the midterm election results in fewer Senate seats for Democrats, START will have a tougher time passing.

Lugar criticized Republicans who oppose the treaty. An excerpt from CQ Today:

“Lugar did not mince words when it came to his own party’s role in obstructing progress on the treaty, known as New START.

“Asked why he has had such trouble persuading his GOP colleagues to join him in supporting the accord, Lugar observed that since the end of the Cold War, there has been considerable opposition in the Republican party, sometimes Democrats, but very frequently Republicans, who took the position back then that you just can’t deal with the Russians.’

“Lugar added that in the current political climate, ‘there is also a feeling that this is something that is not a high priority for many members of the Republican Party.’

Lugar does not believe START restricts U.S. missile defense plans, nor does he believe the U.S. and Russia are in secret negotiations to restrict missile defense. Last week, six Republican senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requesting that she turn over documents and transcripts related to secret missile defense talks. The State Department has denied such talks.

Lugar admitted that it’s “very hard to rebut secret negotiations…I would just say there aren’t any.”

If the talks are secret, how would the Senator know there aren’t any? I guess he takes it on faith, despite the Obama administration’s refusal to allow senators access to the START negotiating record.

(Source: The Hill and CQ Today)

USA Today takes on the topic of electromagnetic pulse (EMT), a consequence of a nuclear bomb detonation in the atmosphere. Such a blast could result in wide-spread electrical system outages. It may sound like science fiction, but the possibility is all too real. An excerpt:

“The threat has even become political fodder, drawing warnings from former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a likely presidential contender.

‘We are not today hardened against this,’ he told a Heritage Foundation audience last year. ‘It is an enormous catastrophic threat.’
…
“The electromagnetic pulse threat is a function of simple physics: Electromagnetic pulses and geomagnetic storms can alter Earth’s magnetic field. Changing magnetic fields in the atmosphere, in turn, can trigger surging currents in power lines.
…
“In the nuclear scenario, the detonation of an atomic bomb anywhere from 25 to 500 miles high electrifies, or ionizes, the atmosphere about 25 miles up, triggering a series of electromagnetic pulses. The pulse’s reach varies with the size of the bomb, the height of its blast and design.

“Gingrich last year cited the EMP Commission report in warning, ‘One weapon of this kind that went off over Omaha would eliminate most of the electrical production in the United States.’”

Naysayers say such a scenario would be suicide for the country that launched such an attack; nevertheless, an EMP scenario definitely is possible. Heritage missile defense experts, including James Carafano, have written about EMP. Browse the blog archives under the tag “EMP” for more information.

(Hat tip: Conn Carroll at The Foundry)

In an attempt to “reset” relations with the former Soviet Union, President Barack Obama scrapped Bush-era plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic that would have protected the region from Iranian attacks. The Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen makes the case that despite our concessions to Russia, the country has pursued policies harmful to our interests. Let’s start with START:

“According to the Administration, New START is a direct result of its ‘resetting’ of U.S.–Russian relations. The Administration views New START as a part of its ‘getting to zero’ nuclear disarmament agenda while relying on unverifiable treaties to ensure compliance with a comprehensive nuclear weapons ban.

“Additionally, the New START limits the U.S. ability to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the homeland as well as America’s allies. There are concerns about the inadequacy of the New START verification regime: The degree of verifiability is low and the treaty fails to account for Russia’s 3,800-strong tactical nuclear arsenal. Additionally, the treaty appears to exclude rail-based ICBMs and their launchers from coverage and could permit Russia to circumvent the limits the treaty imposes on such.[1]

‘The Near Abroad’

“Russia also increased its presence and pressure in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. As a result of the 2008 Russia–Georgia war, Russia recognized the independence of secessionist Abkhazia and South Ossetia, established five military bases there, and deployed long-range S-300 missile batteries, which allow aerial control over most of Georgia.

“In Armenia, Moscow recently extended the lease of the Gyumri military base until 2044 and made commitments to protect Armenia’s borders against Azerbaijan and Turkey. A recent Russian book on the Georgia war describes Gyumri as a staging area for an attack on Tbilisi, Georgia. The Russian–Armenian protocol makes Russia the dominant power in South Caucasus, as the U.S. and NATO are unwilling to commit to a long-term military presence there. This arrangement is similar to the renegotiated lease for the massive Sevastopol naval base in Ukraine as it, too, prevents the country’s future membership in NATO. Russia continues to keep a contingent in Transnistria on Moldovan soil.

“Russia is also expanding attacks on the authoritarian Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko in order to replace him with a more pliant, pro-Moscow (but not necessarily more democratic) president.

“To further strengthen its dominance in Central Asia, Moscow used its media muscle in Kyrgyzstan to facilitate the overthrow of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. The move was payback for his refusal to evict the U.S. airbase at Manas airport. Russia now demands to be allowed to deploy an ‘anti-narcotics’ military base in Osh in Fergana Valley, the scene of brutal violence in the summer of 2010.

“Winning in Afghanistan is a vital U.S. national interest; the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, a major NATO refueling and transportation hub, has been critical to this effort. Nevertheless, the U.S. and Kyrgyzstan may negotiate a deal that would make Russia’s Gazprom a key supplier of jet fuel for Manas.

“The U.S. and governments of Central Asia recognize that Russia and China will have clout in the heart of Eurasia. Nevertheless, they have a critical common interest in checking these nations’ influence in the region as well as denying terrorists and drug lords sanctuaries in Central Asia, especially after 2011. This has to be a part of a comprehensive, long-term strategy. The Obama Administration, however, is doing little to secure long-term U.S. presence in the region.”

Read the full web memo.

Last week we mentioned that NATO seeks Turkey’s support in its effort to expand missile defense in Europe. The Wall Street Journal reports that Turkey’s National Security Council will meet this week to discuss whether the country will support NATO’s goal to build missile shields against Iran and other rogue nations. Turkey’s hesitancy seems to stem from a possible backlash from rogue state Iran and Russia.

“For Turkey, however, the Obama administration’s scaled-back plan is proving a major diplomatic headache, forcing Ankara to choose between NATO and Iran. It is also triggering a fierce debate inside the country over where Turkey’s core interests lie. In recent days, Turkey’s religious conservative and pro-government media have argued that siding with NATO against Iran would end Turkey’s effort to build an independent foreign policy and damage its credibility in the Middle East.

“Both U.S. and Turkish leaders say no decision has yet been made as to which countries will host the system. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are in the frame, according to diplomats familiar with the matter. But Turkey, which shares a border with Iran, is the location of choice for the plan’s forward radar, according to military analysts and diplomats.

“So far, Turkish leaders have remained non-committal about the missile plan and have asked Washington for assurances and technical details. According to diplomats familiar with the matter, these include: not naming Iran or any other specific country as the source of the threat that the missile system is designed to counter; ensuring that all of Turkey’s territory is covered by the system; ensuring that Turkey has access to all data and a measure of control over the decision to fire; and guaranteeing that non-NATO members, and specifically Israel, wouldn’t gain access to the data.”

Next month, NATO member countries will vote on whether to expand missile defense in Europe to cover NATO territory. Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrote an op-ed that appeared in the New York Times, making the case for cooperation and why expanding missile defense is important.

Russia, which opposed U.S. plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, expressed concerns, on national security grounds, about expanding NATO’s protection reach.

Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney is optimistic about the Republicans’ chances in next month’s midterm elections. Republicans have serious yet unanswered questions about the new START, and if they regain a majority in Congress, President Barack Obama definitely won’t see a quick START ratification. An excerpt:

“There are 41 Republican senators today, and – thanks to the importance the framers attached to the Senate’s responsibility for providing quality control on international treaties – just 34 of them can prevent ratification. At least that many, and perhaps virtually all GOP senators, can be expected to object to hasty consideration of this particular treaty on three grounds:

“First, New START is unverifiable. The Republican vice chairman of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, has written a classified letter to that effect, and he summarized its findings in a conversation with me on “Secure Freedom Radio” last week: ‘I think the treaty is weak on verification, especially compared to previous treaties like START and the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty. We will have much greater trouble determining if Russia is cheating, and given Russia’s track record, that’s a real problem.’

“New START will afford the Russians a say over our anti-missile defenses. In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which had effectively given them a veto in such matters. A number of senators have expressed concern that the Kremlin is correct when it asserts that the new accord’s preamble and other provisions will effectively hobble America’s ability to protect its people and allies, even from threats emerging from North Korea and Iran – and that Russia will withdraw from the treaty if that proves not to be the case.

“For these reasons, Republican senators led by Jon Kyl of Arizona have been trying to extract from the Obama administration the New START negotiating record in the hope of clarifying exactly what U.S. diplomats have promised the Russians on missile defense. These requests have been stonewalled by Team Obama, which to date has deigned to provide only a classified summary – a far cry from the authoritative text.”

Gaffney mentions the “secret” missile defense agreement we blogged about earlier this week. Sources reported that the U.S. and Russia have met to discuss restricting missile defense outside START. Critics of START are concerned about the treaty’s lack of verification and a link between missile offense and defense. Senators would be well advised to hold off on ratification until these issues are addressed.