Too big to see 0

A shift of power from the United States to its enemies – chief among them China, Iran, and Russia – is being deliberately carried out by Obama and his gang.

China now wields economic power over America. Iran is being allowed to develop a nuclear arms capability. Obama has concluded a treaty with Russia whereby America will weaken itself while Russia will strengthen itself militarily.

What’s more, America will pay Russia to do it.

Why is there no protest, no outcry about this?

Is it too dreadful for most Americans to notice, so they turn their eyes away from it?

Is it too big to see?

Frank Gaffney at Canada Free press explains just how the new START treaty is to Russia’s advantage and America’s detriment:

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:

First, the Russians are aggressively modernizing their strategic forces with both new missiles and warheads. They claim that by 2015 roughly 80% of their long-range arsenal will have been upgraded – an activity we are subsidizing by paying to dismantle their old weapon systems, freeing up funds for Moscow’s modernization programs.

By contrast, the United States has not introduced a new nuclear weapon in over fifteen years. Its missiles, submarines and bombers are, by and large, even older, with some dating back to the 1950s and ’60s. Today, the Nation has no capability to produce new nuclear weapons and could not manufacture them in quantity for many years – the only nuclear power of whom that can be said.

Second, the Russians are reintroducing multiple, independently-targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on their land-based ballistic missiles. This step could enable a break-out capacity that would allow Moscow rapidly to deploy far more weapons than its forces are allowed to have under the new START treaty. By contrast, the United States decided back in the 1980s that such a capability was “destabilizing”; it has systematically de-MIRVed its underground silo-launched intercontinental-range ballistic missiles ever since.

Third, the newly unveiled START accord fails to take into account or otherwise limit several thousand Russian “tactical” nuclear weapons. The Kremlin has focused for twenty years on such low-yield devices; some with the explosive power of the Hiroshima weapon and fitted on submarine-launched cruise missiles are deployed off our coasts today. While the administration says such armaments could be the subject of a future, bilateral treaty that makes still deeper reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear stocks, don’t count on it. In any event, they will constitute a real, asymmetric advantage for Russia for many years to come. This is a particularly worrisome prospect to American allies in Europe who have long relied on America’s “extended deterrence” to counteract such threatening Kremlin capabilities.

Then, there is the matter of missile defense. The Obama administration tried to finesse Russian insistence on including in the new accord language that would capture American defenses against missile attack by confining to the preamble an acknowledgement of a “relationship” between such systems and offensive forces. The United States claims that, by its nature, such preambular language is not binding. Yet, a Kremlin spokesman has already served notice that Moscow will feel free to abrogate the START follow-on treaty if it believes that U.S. missile defenses in Europe are a threat to its deterrent.

The biggest problem of all with the New START treaty, however, is that it is a product of President Obama’s fixation with “devaluing nuclear weapons” and ridding the world of them. On these grounds, he refuses to take the steps necessary to modernize America’s deterrent. Even though he professes that a nuclear-free globe will not be realized any time soon, he is condemning the nation to unilateral disarmament by allowing the steady and unavoidable obsolescence of the U.S. stockpile, and the dissipation of the workforce and infrastructure needed to maintain it, to continue unabated.

The acuteness of this obsolescence has reached a point where the directors of the nation’s nuclear laboratories have felt compelled to express strong concerns about the continued reliability of the arsenal. …

These factors ensure that the New START treaty will contribute to U.S. nuclear disarmament alright, but do nothing to advance the ostensible purpose of the exercise – namely, enhancing the security of this country or the world.

A win for Russia 1

We and our commenters have noticed variously that Obama resembles Mussolini, Peron, and Mao. Lately he has seemed to us to be more like Kim Jong Il, the arrogant twerp who tyrannizes over North Korea.

We think it highly likely that he, “the Dictator” as we now frequently call him, will try to ensure a permanent Democratic majority in Congress –  increasing the number of people employed by and dependent on the government, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and enfranchising felons. We also suspect that if he could he would extend his period in office indefinitely.

We are pretty well convinced that the Dictator has a deeply-rooted, fanatical desire to destroy America as a nation embodying the idea of liberty, and change it into a collectivist state subject to his arbitrary will.

He does not want America to be a superpower.

He has said that he does not want America to be nuclear armed.

How far has he got towards realizing his vision of a collectivized and disarmed nation?

He has taken a giant step towards collectivization with his health care legislation.

Disarming America will take longer, but he has begun to weaken it. One of the steps he has taken is to give the Russians what they want with the new US-Russia arms-reduction treaty.

Paul Mirengoff discusses the treaty at Power Line:

The text of the agreement has not been released, which is reason enough not to get carried away praising it  … In essence, though, Obama and the Russians have agreed to a mutual reduction in nuclear weapons deployed for long-range missions, from a ceiling of 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675. The two militaries would also make relatively small cuts in the number of jets and land- or submarine-based missiles that carry nuclear warheads and bombs.

This arrangement is clearly in Russia’s interest… the deal would enable the Russians to maintain strategic parity with the U.S. while retiring large numbers of weapons they cannot afford to replace. Indeed … the Russians, unable to pay for their current nuclear forces, have already of their own volition cut the number of launchers to the treaty’s new level.

But what does the U.S. gain from the agreement? The administration claims that the deal is a significant step towards curbing the nuclear ambitions of other nations. But … a minor reduction in Russian and American nukes (or even a major reduction, for that matter) isn’t going to cause Iran and North Korea to set aside those ambitions.

Perhaps the administration believes that the deal will enable us to enlist Russia in a quest to stop Iran from going nuclear. But such a view seems hopelessly optimistic. More likely, the Russians will demand more deals that serve their interests, such as explicit agreements limiting our ability to develop a missile defense, in exchange for small, meaningless measures directed at Iran.

But does Obama’s agreement hurt U.S. interests? Without knowing what the agreement says, this question is difficult to assess…

For me, the key point is the agreement’s impact on missile defense. We will not be able to sweet talk rogue nations out of developing nukes, not even with the help of our “friends” the Russians. And we cannot be confident in our ability to deter some of these states from attacking the U.S. and our allies. Hence, the central role of missile defense.

Obama, it seems clear, has no interest in developing such a system. But Obama won’t be around forever. The key, then, is not to enter into agreements that will tie his successors’ hands.

Reportedly, the agreement contains only non-binding language on defensive missiles. It will be up to the Senate to make sure of this when it considers whether to ratify what looks like a very good deal for Russia and not such a good deal for us.

We share the writer’s apprehension, and see one sentence of his as a ray of light in a political atmosphere thickening with anxiety: “Obama won’t be around forever”.

Posted under Commentary, Russia, United States by Jillian Becker on Sunday, March 28, 2010

Tagged with ,

This post has 1 comment.