Blog

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano responds on The Daily Caller to an article written by Josh Rogin on the new START. An excerpt of his response:

“Josh Rogin took note when a major Tea Party group rallied against New START, the arms control treaty Obama signed with the Russians.

“He was right to pay attention. The Tea Parties have said little on defense issues. Some on the Left had high hopes, even as they trashed the Tea Parties, that the latter might actually join them in an effort to cut defense spending; bail on Afghanistan; and scale back on America’s overseas footprint.

“The arms-control Left was also probably hoping that Tea Party followers would become part of a bipartisan “anti-military” arms-control coalition.

“This hope appears dashed. Indeed, Liberty Central’s decision to oppose New START suggests that the Tea Partiers are part of the “peace through strength” coalition. In a related development, the First Coast Tea Party in Florida is hosting a screening of the pro-missile defense documentary “33 Minutes” on Sept. 7. These developments are big news.

“If Rogin had stuck to the story, rather than try to play arms-control expert, his piece may have been more accurate. He went on, however, to ridicule the anti-New Start argument, suggesting that the Tea Parties are out of their league and don’t know what they are talking about. The problem is, most of his “gotchas” are either misleading or just plain wrong.

“The Tea Parties are more right than Rogin…Rogin asserts that missile defense was never about defeating a Soviet/Russian nuclear strike. This is not quite right. The Reagan administration sought to couple missile defense and arms control in order to end the U.S.’s vulnerability to such a strike. While missile defense alone would not end this vulnerability, it was an essential part of Reagan’s ‘peace through strength’ policy. New START seeks to minimize the importance of missile defense and resurrect the old ‘Mutual Assured Destruction,’ or MAD, balance of terror — a policy that leaves the U.S. intentionally vulnerable to Russian missile strikes.”

An excerpt of James Carafano’s article on Security Debrief:

“As Matthew Harwood’s August 5, 2010 article in Security Management reminds us, Homeland Security has not ‘taken seriously the threat that a high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon could fry the nation’s power grid[.]‘

“As the article notes, Dr. Michael J. Frankel ‘warned the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security that a terrorist organization or a rogue state could detonate a nuclear weapon either above the United States or close to its shores, creating an electromagnetic pulse attack that could severely damage the country’s electronic infrastructure.’

“Frankel is executive director of the EMP Commission, which was created in 2001 to study the national security threat an EMP attack could pose to the United States.

“While most of its work is classified, the commission has released two unclassified reports: one in 2004 and another in 2008. According to the article ‘Frankel believes DHS has the expertise in-house to tackle EMP preparedness but needs a Senate-confirmed leader to lead the charge. Already DHS has taken action against nuclear terrorist attack scenarios but continues to ignore the threat of an EMP attack, he said, even though the commission provided the department with 75 unclassified recommendations to mitigate vulnerabilities and promote resiliency in U.S. critical infrastructures.’”

An excerpt of James Carafano’s post on new START verification from The Daily Caller:

“With concern over the arms control agreement President Obama signed with Russia growing, those pushing for ratification are devising increasingly far-fetched reasons why the Senate should rubber-stamp New START rather than give the treaty the serious and deliberate scrutiny a nuclear arms deal deserves. From the beginning, arguments for the treaty have sounded like scare tactics, an impression only reinforced by the recent allegations that New START will compromise national security.

“In his most recent effort to drum up support for the treaty, William Hartung asserted in the Daily Caller that, ‘without New START, there will be no verification system to help monitor what Russia is doing in the nuclear sphere. It doesn’t make sense to deprive our military of that critical information.’

“Hartung’s argument for the treaty of course runs completely counter to the narrative advanced by New START’s chief cheerleader Sen. John Kerry (D–MA) who chairs the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Kerry argues that the treaty should be signed because ‘relations with Moscow are far better‘ than they were during the Cold War. Well, time out: Which is it? We need the treaty because we trust the Russians? Or do we have to sign the treaty because we can’t trust the Russians?

“Hartung and Kerry need to get their stories straight.

“I would actually agree with Hartung that we ought to worry about what the Russians are doing. We have lots of reasons not to trust them—particularly regarding nuclear issues. The Russians primary interests in pursuing New START are to limit U.S. missile defenses and solidify their position as domineering nuclear power. How does trying to help them achieve their ends improve our national security? In fact, helping Russia become a more domineering nuclear power is a much more significant national security threat than a temporary lapse in the verification regime.”

In his latest Washington Examiner column, missile defense expert James Carafano compares a solar-induced power surge with the man-made electromagnetic pulse (EMP), caused by the detonation of a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere.

“Last week we were attacked by the sun,” Carafano writes. “For real. Huge solar eruptions sent a blast of radiation toward Earth. Thankfully, the planet’s natural magnetic shield warded off the worst effects. Life went on uninterrupted.

“That won’t always be the case. In 1859, Richard Carrington recorded what is now called the ‘Carrington Effect’ — intense solar activity that can disrupt modern life dramatically….In Carrington’s day, there were few electromechanical systems for intense solar radiation to mess with. The new fangled telegraph systems suffered the most. Solar-induced power surges knocked some operators from their chairs and set fire to the paper rolls used to record dashes and dots.

“Fortunately, no Carrington Effect has occurred since the whole world became electrified. But scientists worry about what might happen when a real solar tsunami hits.”

Preparing for a solar power surge will also prepare us for an EMP attack, says Carafano. Such an explosion would interact with the planet’s magnetic fields, creating a pulse, which in turn would cause widespread damage, devastate the economy, and result in millions of deaths.

If the U.S. experiences an EMP attack, most of “Canada would die, too. Its infrastructure is integrated with the U.S. power grid. Without the American economic engine, the world economy would quickly collapse. Much of the world’s intellectual property (half of it is in the United States) would be lost as well. The Earth would likely recede into the ‘new’ Dark Ages.”

Sounds like the plot of a science fiction novel, doesn’t it? But the possibility is all too real.

Cross posted from The Daily Caller:

William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, has come up with what he seems to think is a clincher argument for why the Senate should approve the New START treaty: Conservatives are against it.

“A strange debate is emerging in Congress over the links — or lack thereof — between missile defense and the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia,” he opines. “Treaty opponents like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and the Heritage Foundation have suggested that the agreement will spell the end of missile defense development as we know it, to the detriment of U.S. security.”

If dismissing concerns about the treaty as “strange” is the best argument proponents of the treaty can come up, maybe that fact alone hints that Senate approval would be a cause for major concern. As Heritage defense expert Baker Spring points out:

“New START’s preamble commits both sides to reducing missile defense capabilities as offensive strategic forces are reduced — whether under New START or in the future under additional agreements — in order to preserve ‘the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.’”

Hartung asserts that this language is not legally binding. But the Russians think otherwise, and international law appears to favor their view. Simply saying, “ignore the reality that the treaty places meaningful limits on missile defense” is a surprisingly weak argument.

In fact, the best argument that Hartung musters in defense of the treaty is that it’s a “modest step.” He’s certainly correct on that score.

The treaty would cut fewer weapons than the existing Moscow and original START agreements and it contains poorer verification agreements. There are no limits on Russian modernization or tactical nuclear weapons, and under the treaty Russia can actually add more nuclear delivery systems. In return for giving Russia all of this the U.S. gets: nothing.

Wait, Hartung says. This is only the first step.

The “next steps can and should include another round of U.S.-Russia talks that involve deeper reductions.” Let’s ask the logical question: Why didn’t the administration negotiate a better treaty to begin with?

That, after all, is what Reagan did in the 1980s. In short, Hartung wants the Senate to reward Obama for his effort. An “A” for trying.

Finally, Hartung argues that if the Senate doesn’t ratify the treaty this “would be a major setback for President Obama’s efforts to seek deep reductions in global nuclear arsenals, and his longer-term goal of getting rid of these devastating weapons altogether.” That’s just scare tactics. First, there are real alternatives for effective arms control. Second, research suggests that this treaty might actually result in more nuclear proliferation and increase the likelihood of nuclear conflict. A recent study organized by Heritage analyzed the Obama arms control strategy and found it wanting.

In the end, Hartung pretty much damns the treaty with faintest of praise. Admitting the treaty is mediocre and denouncing missile defense (which remains the only way to protect America if a missile is launched) aren’t decent arguments for the treaty. Instead, Hartung’s efforts ought to inspire the Senate to take a much closer and longer look at New START before it does anything else.

– James Jay Carafano is Deputy Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, heritage.org.

From James Carafano’s blog post at Big Peace:

“More pressure to just ’sign the treaty so we can purge the world of nuclear weapons’ will be fueled by the premiere this week in Washington and New York of ‘Countdown to Zero,’ a documentary on the threat of nuclear weapons. As one reviewer notes, the ‘film asserts that the United States and Russia, the entities with the most weapons by far, should lead the other nuclear countries toward a total disarmament initiative.’

“The sudden surge of concern over the treaty started with a blast from Mitt Romney, who declared the treaty ‘Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake.’ Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar have both been cheerleading the treaty, as the administration quickly counterattacked. They were later joined by Sen. Carl Levin. But rather allay the concerns, the exchange only raised more questions.

“The administration quickly dispatched Defense Secretary Robert Gates to calm Republican concerns. Apparently, that didn’t work. In the latest round of hearings, after U.S. officials stated they weren’t concerned that the Russians cheat on implementing arms control, Sen. John McCain declared, ‘Well, what this brings to the casual observer’s mind, general, is if it doesn’t have any consequences if they do any cheating, what’s the point in having a treaty?’

“In a further sign of panic, there are reports of furious backroom dealings, negotiations, and threats of retaliation from the administration to get enough Republicans to sign on to approving the treaty.”

Blogging at Big Peace, the Heritage Foundation ’s James Carafano writes:

“Conservatives too often form ‘circular firing squads,’ going after each other instead of standing together against the bad ideas of the Left.

“Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that with the latest issue sparking internal debate among the Right: the New START nuclear-arms pact between the U.S. and Russia. Opponents include Mitt Romney and others. Meanwhile, several conservative greybeards, including Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz, have come out for the treaty.

“Before the more conservatives reach for their guns and start circling, let’s ponder dispassionately ‘What should conservatives think, and how should we act?’

“Before answering that, let me first explain why I think New START should be a non-starter for conservatives.

“Strike 1:  New START would force the U.S. to reduce our strategic nuclear weaponry. Not so, with the Russians.  Moreover, the verification provisions intended to let us determine what Russia is actually doing with its nuclear arsenal are far weaker than those provided under either the original START or the currently prevailing Moscow Treaty.

“Strike 2:  By putting Russia on a more equal nuclear footing with the U.S., New START empowers Russia as a nuclear state. An emboldened nuclear Russia would be destabilizing — potentially leading to renewed nuclear competition between China and Russia and a more aggressive Russia in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.”

Read the rest at Big Peace.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano, blogging at Big Peace, writes about his skepticism over Defense Secretary Robert Gates supporting the new START. Missile defense experts and others are concerned that the president has compromised our nation’s security to obtain Russia’s cooperation in dealing with Iran.

“When Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney went off on the White House, the White House noticed,” Carafano writes. “In a withering column in the Washington Post, Romney labeled the New START arms control agreement ‘Obama’s Worst Foreign Policy Mistake.’ That did not sit well with Obama. The administration has been trying to fast-track Senate ratification of the treaty. The president’s concern over the Romney speed-bump is apparent. Mr. Obama quickly dispatched Defense Secretary Robert Gates to launch what The Hill dubbed  ‘a 2012 proxy fight with Mitt Romney.’”

The move had a limited pay-off, says Carafano. Republicans apparently are swayed by Gates’s support of START. The question is, “Why do Republicans trust Gates?”

Read the full post here.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano wrote a post about the new START at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace blog. Carafano references a Washington Post article we blogged about last week. Mitt Romney wrote that the new treaty “could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratified.”

Carafano makes the point that although other Republicans oppose START, Romney’s opposition to it is bold, considering he may decide to run for president.

“Even in the ranks of the Senate, most of the honorable gentlemen and gentlewomen are holding off rejecting the treaty outright. Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jim DeMint of South Carolina have expressed a pretty high degree of skepticism. At best, however, most of the legislators on the right have confined themselves to demanding the White House give up more background information, demanding “reports on Russia’s compliance with a nuclear arms control treaty that expired last December,” and requesting “the record of negotiations that led to the New START agreement in a letter to President Obama on May 6.”

“By coming out and saying the treaty is unacceptable as it is, Romney finds himself standing pretty much to the right of the Right.”

Read Carafano’s full post here.

An excerpt of James Carafano’s latest Washington Examiner column:

“John Forbes Nash Jr. had a beautiful mind. Ron Howard said so.

“Howard directed ‘A Beautiful Mind,’ the 2001 film about the prize-winning mathematician. The movie was artful. (Much of the story line was ‘cinematized,’ Howard explained, because ‘Nash is not particularly communicative about that sort of thing [his life].’ But what Nash can do with numbers is fine art indeed. The letter of recommendation a professor wrote to get Nash into graduate school was one sentence long — ‘This man is a genius.’

“What earned Nash notoriety and a place on the silver screen was his work on game theory. Game theories attempt to understand how competitions unfold. Here, ‘game’ is a metaphor for a structured model designed to evaluate how competitors make choices.

“During the Cold War, U.S. analysts used gaming exercises to evaluate the nuclear stand-off with the Evil Empire. Games let them examine — without risking real-world nuclear war — how nuclear deterrence might play out if one side or the other changed strategies.

“Cold War games involved only two players — us and them. Nash analyzed how to manage outcomes when several players were all operating independently: the Nash equilibrium. It earned him the Nobel Prize.

“My Heritage Foundation colleague Baker Spring built on this concept to game what might happen in a world with numerous independent nuclear powers. Many experts believe that, once North Korea and Iran become established nuclear weapons nations, other regional powers will go nuclear too. And fast.”