As the U.S. military continues to waste an enormous amount of energy and resources patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities and digging goat herders out of the caves of Afghanistan, a very real threat to the national security of the United States is developing and very few people even seem concerned about it. It is called the START Treaty, and Barack Obama is desperately trying to ramrod it through the lame duck session of Congress. Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to the terms of the treaty back in April, and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate must vote for it in order for the treaty to become law. So what is so bad about the treaty? Well, for starters, it almost totally defangs the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal that has protected us for the past six decades, it puts serious restrictions on the ability of the United States to develop any kind of missile defense and it puts the U.S. military at a very significant strategic disadvantage.
But Barack Obama doesn’t care. Barack Obama believes that “the Cold War is over” and that we live in a post-nuclear world. Obama believes that we do not need nuclear weapons and that we don’t really need any kind of missile defense either.
In fact, when it comes to nuclear weapons Barack Obama’s primary motivation seems to be getting rid of as many of them as possible. As noble as that may sound, the truth is that the world is becoming a much more dangerous place and the threats that the U.S. is facing are only increasing.
Unfortunately, Obama does not see things that way. Shortly after he was elected, Barack Obama delivered a major foreign policy speech in Prague during which he called for a world that was free from nuclear weapons.
Apparently he was quite serious about this, and Obama has publicly stated time after time that he is convinced that America must lead the way when it comes to nuclear disarmament.
So exactly what would this START treaty do? Well, the following are 9 reasons why the START treaty must be stopped….
#1 The treaty restricts both the United States and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. For the U.S. military this would represent a decline of well over 90% from a peak of approximately 31,255 strategic nuclear warheads in 1967. The treaty would also limit the total number of deployed ballistic missiles or nuclear bombers to 700.
#2 As part of the treaty we would tell Russia exactly where our few remaining nuclear weapons are and allow the Russians to inspect those sites. So if the time ever came for the Russians to strike our emasculated nuclear arsenal, they would know exactly where to find our few remaining nuclear weapons.
#3 The treaty is so vague about some of the key issues that the two sides are already arguing about what it means. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that the restrictions on missile defense are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and that these restrictions are “legally binding”. But in a recent letter to U.S. Senators, Barack Obama stated that the treaty “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile-defense programs.”
#4 Nuclear weapons technology is rapidly spreading around the globe and the need for a missile defense system is greater than ever. If this treaty does restrict our ability to build a missile defense system (as the wording of the treaty clearly seems to indicate), that is a very serious threat to our national security. What is going to happen one day when a rogue nation or a rogue terror group launches a nuke at us? Excuses will not cut it at that point.
#5 The treaty completely ignores the very serious imbalance that exists between the U.S. and Russia when is comes to tactical nuclear weapons. Today it is estimated that the Russians have approximately 10,000 tactical nuclear warheads while the U.S. only has a few hundred. These tactical nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles, long-range artillery or aircraft. The treaty does nothing to change those numbers. This would put the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#6 The treaty does nothing to restrict the quality of long-range missiles. Currently, Russia is busy modernizing their strategic long-range missiles. The United States is not doing the same. Once again, this could leave the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#7 The Russian government has shown that they are not trustworthy. Of course, the same thing could be said about the Obama administration. Anyone who trusts anything that Barack Obama says at this point is an idiot.
#8 North Korea already has nukes, Iran is developing nuclear technology and a number of other important nations such as Venezuela are rumored to be interested in nukes. This is simply not a good time to be getting weaker.
#9 If World War III were to break out over the next decade, the United States would very likely find itself facing a Chinese/Russian alliance. The combined conventional military forces of China and Russia are far superior to those of the United States. The only major advantage that we had was our edge in strategic weaponry, and this treaty would greatly weaken that advantage.
Unfortunately, most of those that will read this article simply are not going to care. The vast majority of Americans believe that the Cold War is over and that war with either China or Russia is next to impossible.
But if this treaty is passed, and there is every indication that it will be, then it is going to make a nuclear first strike against the United States much, much more likely.
Previously, everyone knew that if they messed with America they could potentially face being nuked into oblivion. But if this treaty is passed, our nuclear arsenal would be slashed to the bone and our potential enemies would know precisely where to strike to take out most of our remaining nukes.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians do not even stop to think about such things. Let’s hope and pray that the foolishness of our leaders does not catch up with us any time soon.