The Most Important Thing I Have Ever Written

The Beginning Of The End - The New Novel About The Future Of America By Michael T. Snyder
Kindle Version Of The Beginning Of The End
Survive After Collapse
The Mystery Of The Shemitah
Blood Moons Mark Biltz
Soul Deceiver
Power Companies HATE This Man...
Power companies are scared that people will learn how to slash their bill and beat Obama's electricity monopoly using this 47-year-old patriot's "weird" trick. See how before they shut it down.
The End of Obama? Approaching Obama scandal could change the White House Administration and our country overnight... Click Here
Gold Buying Guide: Golden Eagle Coins

Recent Posts

Archives

9 Reasons Why The START Treaty Must Be Stopped

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.

Instantly Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments

comments

  • seven D

    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.

    Yes. And the next level of distraction still is not the real threat.

    The criminal cartel manufactures wars. First they sell you on Iraq and Afghanistan, then they sell you on this START bull. Then you will buy their Korea and their China and their continuous lines of scary enemies.

    At no point, do the people look up at the hands controlling the puppets.

    Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are distractions and huge wastes of money. But so is your puppet. It is just the new big distraction.

    Why do so many people allow themselves to be ruled over by a microscopic minority of the population? This is particularly unacceptable because this microscopic minority is psychopathic.

  • mondobeyondo

    “Speak softly, and carry a big stick of licorice”…

  • john

    So, we can look forward to being taken over by China and Russia?

  • P Riehl

    Wow – where to even start?

    I’ve been following your blog for a few weeks now, generally enjoying your insights, but here you’ve clearly gone off the deep end.

    Where to start….

    Do you seriously think that having tens of thousands of nuclear weapons has made the United States safer, or the lives of Americans better?

    Has the ability to incinerate anything anywhere at any time made America strong and safe? (If so, what’s the point of your blog?)

    “Nuclear weapons technology is rapidly spreading around the globe and the need for a missile defense system is greater than ever” – are you living in the 1970s? What nation or group would be stupid enough to launch a trackable ICBM at the US, when a nuclear weapon can be brought into the USA any number of ways? (And it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the rogue nuclear state of Israel has already planted devices and holds other governments hostage to its demands.)

    Missiles aren’t for defense in the US. They’re for retaliation.

    I agree that the Russians and Chinese are an order of magnitude more clever than the western dunderpates, and it doesn’t surprise me to think that BO is part of a plan to neuter the United States. So maybe there’s something to your argument that I’m missing.

    But Russia and China both have weapons (Sunburn missiles) that made the entire US Navy obsolete a dozen years ago. A Russian manufacturer offers a missile-launching system disguised as a freight container. China can bring down the United States overnight just by dumping T Bills.

    And does Stuxnet tell you anything about the future of war?

    “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.”

    Again, you absolutely don’t get it. What happens when a container aboard a Panamanian-flagged cargo ship opens a couple hundred miles off the east coast of the US, launches a missile with a nuclear device that explodes 100 miles above Washington DC, and every unshielded electrical device on the east coast instantly dies, including the power grid, cars, trucks, pumps, computers…?

    Who ya gonna nuke? Panamá?

    Likewise, when a super sophisticated virus like Stuxnet starts disabling power grids, pipelines, control systems, and telecommunications, with no one knowing who did it, is your answer to launch 25,000 nuclear missiles, obliterate life on earth, and ‘let God sort it out?’

    Kinda sounds that way….

  • Piglet

    “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.” That bit of political blather meant that the world should be free of others’ nuclear weapons, while the US will retain its own. Obama, like every other president, has no intention of getting rid of the US nuclear arsenal.

    Besides, no one has to shoot one or 10,000 nukes at us. At this rate we’re destroying ourselves quite well, thank you very much. The country is bleeding jobs, money, industries, etc., and can’t get by without a constant infusion of OPM (Other People’s Money) that can’t last forever. Soon there won’t be much left to blow up except gutted cities and rust belts.

  • Javik

    START is a good idea, because our weapons are so powerful that 1000 of them are enough to wipe out all life on the planet. They are actually multiple-warhead devices, each capable of dropping about 8 smaller warheads across multiple targets.

    We have so many bombs that we can actually destroy the entire Russian state several times over. Nuclear planners actually have cities sited as receiving 3 or more bombs, any one of which is enough to obliterate the target in one shot.

    START is basically a way from backing down from this utter insanity. We don’t need more than 1000 to wipe out Russia anyway, and neither do they. Both sides recognize the stupidity of the whole thing.

    Meanwhile there is a ridiculously huge expense that goes into maintaining all these bombs and keeping them from degrading and becoming unstable on the launchpad.

    It does us no good if the equipment gets rusty or gets moisture in it, it fails to launch, it launches but fails to detonate, or it blows up in the silo due to malfunction.

    START is just a way of saying “we both agree that we don’t need to spend billions on maintaining bombs that neither of us can afford to use anyway”.

  • Stray Cat

    If you read your Bible, you will find (if you’re willing to listen) that everything that happens on this Earth FIRST passes through Gods hands. So personally I don’t worry about this. America’s time is over (Read the 24th chapter of Matthew) and now the MOST important thing you need to do is decide; are you on Gods side….or not?

  • mondobeyondo

    Whew!

    Depends on what your idea of “safety” is.

    According to the U.S. military, “safety” is tens of thousands of nukes, all aimed at Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Syria (just pick a country… who knows, Norway next week?! – to protect us from Osama bin Laden and his terrorists.

    If you’re the Department of Homeland Security, “safety” means looking down your briefs or panties to see if there’s a chemical explosive or device hidden there. Remember that guy flying to Detroit on Christmas Day last year? The “Fruit of the Boom” guy? The Pantybomber?

    Besides, how are you going to defend yourself if you can’t retaliate? Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust, but verify”.

    In other words, we trust you, and we hope you trust us. But if you don’t trust us, and we discover you’ve betrayed our trust, we will not hesitate to kill you first.

  • rasyd

    IMHO,US is the biggest threat to the world

  • whoisbiggles

    #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.

    Are you seriously comparing a 1967 nuclear warhead to the current MIRV? How about comparing the destructive force of 1967 stockpile with what is carried by 1 nuclear armed “boomer”

    FFK sakes nobody is being neutered it is just another nail trimming, using big numbers to appease the peace movement – but no real reduction in the amount of damage that can be caused.

  • A Dodgy Bloke

    Sorry Bud but I’m with author on this one after Start One an acronym came into use called MAD Mutually Assured Destruction. That meant the Russians would think twice before attacking us because we would have enough nuclear force that the USSR would be a smoking crater. That’s what kept Earth from becoming a Post Apocalyptic Book of Eli, because the Russians could never be totally sure there would not be enough Fire Power left after a first strike to send them back into the Stone Age.
    This Guts MAD, yes you can make a pretty good argument MAD in the age in Islamic terror is obsolete, and yeah I would agree. It’s hard to threaten somebody becoming a smoking hole in the ground when he is convinced they have God on Speed Dial, and are hot for their one 72-year-old Virgin, or is 72 virgins I forget.
    The issue is we have an idealist in White House who is convinced good intentions are enough. This will weaken the US because the Russians will have an easier time making that first strike calculation. I don’t think the Chinese are the short-term threat most people think they are. The US is their major market to buy their crap, and they are more worried about keeping Chinese employed and fed than American leaders are about Americans.

  • kurt cobain

    I agree with the democrats a little more than republicans now a days but I must say those who are calling you names are most likely partisan hacks. The neocon right is one hundred percent right on this issue and thanks for not being afraid to bring this topic up. You are right and they are wrong. I watch a lot of msnbc and they are all for this treaty so the people complaining probably don’t think for themselves or something. I think your next article should be how the republicans are holding up the 9/11 responders health bill. It would balance it out.

  • Ich bin Ich

    Er, 1500 nuclear missiles is still quite sufficient to destroy most of civilization, you know. The USSR always had more nukes than the USA during the Cold War but who cares how many you have if you’re never going to use them?

    I believe it is imperative that Israel be disarmed of its nuclear arsenal before a dreidel-shaped nuke destroys Paris because the French government may be considered *gasp* “anti-Semitic” simply for criticizing Israel’s policies.

  • http://pathtoasia.com Rhea

    “Everything will work out soon.” Ahhhm…. Come on people, let’s face it, the evil mother of this mayhem comes from the government. And soon, US will be manipulated by the underdogs…
    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs/ for details.

  • BiBi

    I read your College article then read the posts pertaining to this article. Must be the fluoride… http://www.theamericansheeple.com

  • Mark

    {quote}#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.{/quote]

    I wonder how much of our current national debt came from building those 31,255 nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles, as defense contracting has historically been a lucrative business with little oversight when it comes to costs versus profits?

    Anyone who thinks that 1550 strategic nuclear missiles isn’t enough to knock either the US or Russia back into the Stone Age needs to have their head examined. Imagine the effect of every military base of ours, every power plant of ours, as well as our 500 largest cities completely destroyed for a 10 or 20 mile radius? Did anyone see the movie “The Road”? I think that it should be required viewing for anyone who thinks that we need more than a couple thousand strategic nuclear warheads to defend ourselves from anything.

  • Mark

    PS: I so enjoy your overlay of abandoned houses in Detroit over some lakeside scene. Remember that Detroit is part of America too, and one reason that those houses look that way is because we have historically spent so much of our national wealth on playing the world policeman game.

  • http://Finally, SiliconJon

    A subject I significantly disagree with you on! I must say I haven’t given the matter sufficient thought as I must choose my battles in a world filled with fight. I won’t call you names, though I will give more thought to the matter even though the argument presented here gave me no new angles or facts to consider.

    Ultimately I both agree that a nuclear free world may well be an impossibility and that the possession of [so many] nuclear weapons serves no positive point absent some extraterrestrial threat (not attempting a Straw Man, just the only possibility I can fathom). How do we handle this paradox?