Frank Gaffney: "False START"

This is one time was hoping we were wrong. Had a feeling the United States would get the short end of this treaty and sure enough it is as the facts come out.

Sending Obama and Hillary to discuss nuclear weapons disarmament is like sending two little kids as neither one of them has a clue or seems to care about National Security. While Obama will go down in history as the worst President who kept trying to sell out America, Hillary, as Secretary of State, will be right there with him.

Do we know who negotiated this Obama treaty which favors the Russians or are we supposed to guess which members of the Administration sold out the United States?

When is the United States going to upgrade our nuclear weapons? From the article, it doesn't look like any time soon. Russians are upgrading theirs while we have a President who could care less if we fall behind in the nuclear race.

Fortunately for the United States, Obama needs 67 Senators to approve a treaty and we have 41 Senators on board saying NO! You are not going to ram a treaty through the Senate like they did healthcare and the House has no say. This treaty favoring the Russians will be going no where in the future.

National Security Brief: Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Frank Gaffney: "False START"

President Obama announced last Thusday that he had concluded a follow-on to the 1989 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. He characterized the cuts that it would make in the two nations’ nuclear arsenals as a major step towards his goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. In practice, however, the so-called “New START” accord will contribute primarily to the denuclearization of the United States and to making the world a more dangerous place. Accordingly, it would be more accurate to call it “False START.”

The first thing to note about the Obama treaty is that it confers real advantages on the Russians. For starters, the Kremlin will have to make essentially no cuts in the numbers of its deployed strategic launchers, whereas the United States will have to destroy several hundred of ours.

It is unclear at this writing whether such reductions by the U.S. will, as a practical matter, make it difficult – if not impossible – for America to preserve its strategic “Triad” of land- and sea-based ballistic missiles and long-range bombers. If so, there could be serious implications for strategic stability as the confidence of friends and foes alike in the robustness of our deterrent declines markedly.

What is clear, though, is that we will be obliged to cut back our arsenal to match the lower levels that the Russians can afford to maintain at the moment. The advisability of such a step would be debatable even if it produced a genuine equality between the two parties.

Unfortunately, the seeming equality thus established is deceptive in at least three respects.

Continue Reading...