A Critical Look at the Arguments in Favor of START

There's a joint op-ed in today's Washington Post by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell called, "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Leaving aside the fact that at least one of these men, Colin Powell, is a shill for the Obama administration and a true Republican In Name Only, let's look at their reasons for supporting the treaty.  

The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons.

It's not a good idea to start off an argument with a baseless assertion. There's no evidence at all that the various arms control agreements have made the world one bit safer. We are safer from the threat of a massive nuclear war because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. But of course even that collapse has given rise to other potential nuclear threats. 

[The New START Treaty] is a modest and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that expired almost a year ago.

So what? We should continue it just to continue it?

It reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit.

You know what else preserves our flexibility? Not signing treaties that might hinder our options.

The commander of our nuclear forces has testified that the 1,550 warheads allowed under this treaty are sufficient for all our missions - and seven former nuclear commanders agree.

So by that logic, if 1,550 are sufficient, wouldn't it be better to have more?

The defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the Missile Defense Agency - all originally appointed by a Republican president - argue that New START is essential for our national defense.

What an utterly ridiculous assertion. This treaty has nothing to do with strengthening our national defense. It's a purely diplomatic maneuver that at best won't harm our national defense.

The most important thing is to have bipartisan support for the treaty, as previous nuclear arms treaties did.

If you want bipartisan support, then don't try to get a treaty through a lame-duck session of Congress.

Second, New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses. The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans.

Really? How about reading what you write next?

Although the treaty prohibits the conversion of existing launchers for intercontinental and submarine-based ballistic missiles, our military leaders say they do not want to do that because it is more expensive and less effective than building new ones for defense purposes.

So actually the treaty does in fact limit missile defense plans, just not the ones we happen to favor at the current time. But missile defense is a work in progress. We don't need to impose artificial limitations without good reason.

Finally, the Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal.

Well that's just great. But we could and should do that anyway. It has nothing to do with needing to sign a new treaty with Russia.

some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship.

Ok, that's a reasonable argument. But now let's ruin it by following it with this:

It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.

Oh come on. Does any of those men actually believe the nonsense they are spouting? I seriously doubt it. Russia has its own interests in securing loose nukes. Russia isn't going to be the slightest bit of help in Afghanistan or North Korea, and it's part of the problem with Iran. 

Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits.

That's not at all obvious. If you consider the treaty on just its merits, it makes little sense. You then have to ask, why are we imposing limitations on our defense capabilities for little return? 

But we have here an agreement that is clearly in our national interest, and we should consider the ramifications of not ratifying it.

If it was clearly in our national interest there wouldn't be any debate about it. My prior position on this treaty was that it was essentially harmless. But after reading such bad arguments in favor of it, I'm beginning to question that notion. The main reasons to sign this treaty are to stay on decent terms with Russia, avoid any sort of new nuclear arms race, and to have access to good intelligence on Russia's nuclear arsenal. These arguments are mentioned in the editorial, but are buried under the unfounded assertions, wishful thinking and hyperbolic nonsense about how supposedly important this treaty is to U.S. national security. If I'm a Republican lawmaker reading this editorial, it's going to make me take a harder look at the new START treaty. It certainly wouldn't push me toward speeding it into passage.

A Useless Arms Control Agreement

Like most such agreements, the latest arms control deal between the U.S. and Russia is virtually meaningless. Here's Obama spouting the usual nonsense.

“With this agreement, the United States and Russia, the two largest nuclear powers in the world, also send a clear signal that we intend to lead,” Mr. Obama said, appearing in front of reporters at the White House to announce the agreement. “By upholding our own commitments under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities.”

An arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia has exactly zero impact on the spread of nuclear weapons. The reduction in the number of deployed U.S. & Russian weapons doesn't have the slightest effect on the nuclear program and aspirations of countries such as Iran. The president's idiotic pronouncement is just another example of one of the main planks of Obamic foreign policy: wishful thinking. 

Here is the practical effect of the new agreement.

According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each. ...  the treaty does not limit the thousands of tactical nuclear bombs and stored strategic warheads each side has.

In other words, its almost completely meaningless. As one expert noted,

“What did we get out of the deal?” he asked. “Nothing that I can see, and I have been doing nuclear stuff, including arms control, since 1981.”

The good news is that at least at first glance, this treaty appears relatively harmless -- and that's always a plus with the dangerously incompetent Obama administration in charge of foreign policy. Politicians love things that they can trumpet as achievements, just to pretend they are actually doing something and making a difference. Much of the time such feel-good projects are actively harmful or have nasty unintended consequences.  If this agreement lets Obama pretend that he's advancing his pie-in-the-sky dreams of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, hopefully he'll be satisfied that's he's doing what he can, and abandon attempts at more dangerous efforts to feed his delusions.  

Obama Continues Bush Policy on Bioweapons

An op-ed in the LA Times sees that as a bad thing, when it is actually a sign that at least in this area, Obama has elected not to engage in his usual brand of wishful thinking and foolish internationalism. The Times is upset that the Obama administration has declined to "strengthen" the Biological Weapons Convention. Ellen Tauscher, the U.S. undersecretary of State for arms control, explained that,

monitoring doesn't work. "The ease with which a biological weapons program could be disguised within legitimate activities, and the rapid advances in biological research, make it very difficult to detect violations

This is pretty obvious, but the Times thinks it's the thought that counts.

A dedicated team of U.N. inspectors could stay abreast of technological advances and provide that threat. It wouldn't be 100% effective, but no monitoring program is.

Yeah, because UN inspectors are just so reliable. It won't actually be effective, but we should waste money funding another UN program in order to create the false impression that we are actually doing something about the proliferation of bioweapons.

there is no existing team of U.N. investigators nor funding to create one. With the United States ducking the issue, there won't be one any time soon, either.

And that's a good thing.

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of his strong efforts to combat nuclear proliferation -- yet biological weapons are potentially as serious a danger. He should put his prize-winning brain to use developing a smarter strategy.

Except that President Obama hasn't done a single thing to effectively combat nuclear proliferation, other than talk about it. In fact, by "engaging" with rogue regimes such as those in Iran & North Korea, and pretending that any agreement with such states would be worth anything, the president is, if anything, facilitating nuclear proliferation. We already have a naive strategy based on wishful thinking for nuclear weapons. We don't need one for bioweapons too.