Putin and President Obama believe that New START is a great deal for our national security. But not everyone agrees. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman have all argued that New START actually weakens our defenses. The Heritage Foundation has identified twelve flaws of New START, including the following:

Unacceptable Limits to Missile Defense. The Obama Administration claims that New START contains no limits or constraints on our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense. This is false. There are at least five sections that limit missile defense: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.

Inadequate Verification Regime. Edelman and Joseph warn: Those who are pushing a rush to judgment appear willing to ignore the long-held standard “trust but verify” by overlooking the monitoring gaps created by the treaty. While the on-site visits and data exchanges allowed under the treaty are valuable, New START abandons on-the-ground monitoring of Russia’s missile-manufacturing facility and permits Russia to withhold telemetry of some of its missile tests, undermining our ability to know both what is being produced and what is being developed.

Tactical Nukes Ignored. While the exact numbers are not public, Russia reportedly has a several-fold numerical advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons like the ones moved close to our NATO allies this spring. Proponents of the treaty argue that New START is essential for keeping nukes away from terrorists. There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!

Rail-Mobile ICBMs Exempted. The definitions of rail-mobile ICBMs and rail-mobile ICBM launchers established in the expired START, which applied to the associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in New START. The Obama Administration asserts that rail-mobile ICBMs and launchers are captured by the treaty under generic definitions of deployed ICBMs. But Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee, has stated the opposite.

New START is great deal for Russia. But while Vladimir Putin can be sanguine about the threats posed to the U.S. by Iran and North Korea, U.S. Senators cannot. As Woolsey explains, rushing this treaty to appease Russia is just a bad deal for U.S. security:

A number of years negotiating arms-control agreements with the Soviets taught me that, when dealing with Russian counterparts, don’t appear eager—friendly yes, eager never. Regrettably, the Obama administration seems to have become eager for a deal in its negotiations on the follow-on treaty to the recently expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start). Hopes for a boost in efforts to “reset” relations with Russia, and for progress toward the president’s dream of a world without nuclear weapons, apparently combined to trump prudent negotiating strategy. As a result, concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty, known as New Start, as it currently stands.

What I find amazing is that if this is such a good treaty, then why is Putin threatening us is we choose not to do it. No need for threats if the treaty is a good thing. And yet, Putin threaten us when he said this,

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, threatened the U.S. with a new arms race unless Senators acquiesce to President Barack Obama’s New START treaty. Putin tells
CNN it would take “a very dumb nature” for the Senate not to pass the treaty and that if they don’t give in, “then we’ll have to react somehow,” including the deployment of new nuclear missile technology.

Just because a whole bunch of people tell me something is good/right, doesn’t make it so, especially when we are talking about our ability to protect America. I take that very seriously. I’m tired of seeing our country ravaged by ideas that do not benefit our country first and foremost. This is a treaty that we should NOT be a part of.

Here is the link.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/01/morning-bell-this-new-start-is-a-bad-deal-at-any-time/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

“I support the New START treaty and believe that it will enhance United States national security. It would reduce strategic nuclear launchers and warheads and replace the 1991 START I treaty that expired last year. Equally important, it will provide forward momentum to our relationship with Moscow, which is vital to United States policy goals related to Iran’s nuclear program, nuclear nonproliferation, global energy security and to stability in Eurasia. Further….it’s essential that a verification system be in place so that we have a sufficient understanding of Russian nuclear forces and achieve a level of transparency that prevents miscalculations.””

What will be different when Lugar becomes the Majority Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee in January? Will he all the sudden change his mind when faced with the awesomeness of new GOP Senators on the Hill who haven’t even found the bathroom yet, let alone EVER recieved a national security briefing? Or is Dick Lugar just a loony in the woodpile who should be disregarded, as one of the few people in the Senate who has not only read the treaty but actually been a party to these issues for decades?

What will be “different” in a few weeks is that the GOP will be able to take this as a victory for themselves. This is politics, plain and simple. and those playing it are willing to sacrifice our country’s international standing for “NoBama”. How patriotic.

I have read that some of those aliens who fought in World War II were in the country illegally, but this isn’t the source.

“Though the Army had never gone abroad to hire foreign mercenaries, it had long filled out its ranks with aliens living in the U.S. (In World War II, an honorable service record gave aliens citizenship in three years instead of five.

There is, indeed, a precedent.

And, not for nothing, but how crazy is it that I can find a Time Magazine article from 1951 at the touch of button?

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,814485,00.html#ixzz16oK10eQu

You may not like it, but you disagree with not only the military/national security experts above but Ronald Reagan, as well. The current START Treaty is very much in keeping with what he started.