BO and S.T.A.R.T

[Warph]

President Obama stated tonight in his SOTU, "I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them.  To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."   

BO.... the U.S. has several nuclear arms containment options, so, like Henry Sokolski askes, why rush to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and allow Russia to dictate our missile defense policy?

Last month, the U.S. and Russia agreed to honor the spirit of the expired START, as they continue to negotiate a replacement under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to roughly 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600.  Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200.

Russia blamed our plans to continue developing a comprehensive missile defense system for the renewal delay.  Henry Sokolski, writing at National Review Online: "The odds of START's being ratified before November's elections are hardly on the rise. The next round of negotiations begins today in Geneva... As it is, 41 Senators (all 40 Republicans plus one independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman) have warned President Obama that they are in no mood to approve START unless the White House supports a 'significant' nuclear-weapons-modernization program. The Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review, which details U.S. nuclear-weapons requirements for Congress every five years, was due in December. The administration is divided and has asked for two extensions; the review is now due in March and may be delayed again. Complicating matters even further, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin is pushing to link missile defenses with offensive missiles in START, a potential killer provision for most pro-missile-defense Republicans."

"America can fight nuclear proliferation," says Sokolski, "without waiting for Russia to reset START. For example, senior officials can resubmit a Bush-era nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, whose approval would 'pretty much be a slam dunk.' If Obama stops pushing START, and the U.S. diversifies 'arms-control portfolio to address nuclear threats outside' Russia , whose deployed nuclear capabilities have diminished in the last 25 years, we might make some headway, without letting Russia call the shots."

Okay.... the question is... will Obama be proactive and take the initiative in containing Russia , or will appeasement policies prevail? 

I'm betting on the latter.  If you remember.... last spring Obama approved a cut of about 15 percent of the Pentagon's budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe.  In addition, the White House downplayed the U.S. response to provocative missile launches by Iran and North Korea, as well as failing to obtain a serious U.N. Security Council response to either incident.  Despite the advance of the North Korean and Iranian long-range missile programs, his Administration justified its decision by declaring it was more important to focus on "regional missile threats."

The rationale for this decision is not easily understood.  The ballistic missile threat has not diminished, for Gods sakes, in fact it is growing.  The need to defend the United States and Western Europe has not changed.  Abrupt changes in missile defense programs (that have been under development for over a decade) make no sense.... but again, Obama makes no sense!  ....Warph

Sokolski's article at: 
http://article.nationalreview.com/422552/stop-rushing-start/henry-sokolski