Blog

– Aviation Week reports that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is preparing to launch billions of dollars worth of missile defense projects, even as the MDA deals with contractors building parts that don’t hold up.

– The MDA awarded U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin awarded a $69.8 million contract to develop land-based version of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

– India seeks to develop laser-guided anti-ballistic missiles to combat incoming missiles. Earlier this year, India tested a missile interceptor defense shield, designed to detect and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, but the test failed after radar lost track of the Prithvi 2 target missile.

– Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly shared her opposition to the new START. An excerpt:

“The Russians are salivating at the thought that the New START proclaims their victory in their long-running battle to kill U.S. missile defenses. For decades, Russia’s primary goal was to stop the United States from building any anti-missile capability.

“Ronald Reagan’s adamant refusal to give up his Strategic Defense Initiative was the principal reason he won the Cold War (without firing a shot, as Margaret Thatcher said). But now Barack Obama is casually willing to abandon our right to build defensive weapons…New START doesn’t make nukes obsolete, it just tries to ensure that the U.S. and Russia have an equal capacity to destroy each other. Most important, New START does nothing whatever to protect us from a nuclear Iran or North Korea or Syria or even China.”

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.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling blogs at The Foundry about support and opposition for the new START, lame duck session voting, the negotiating record, and other related issues. An excerpt:

“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduling a vote for mid-September on the treaty. Lugar told C-SPAN that “on the 15th and 16th of September we will have a markup of the Treaty in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. My prediction is that the markup will lead to the Senate committee sending to the floor the New START treaty.” The votes are present in the committee to discharge the treaty.

“Democrats plan to pass the treaty in committee and then await possible consideration after the November elections for a vote during the expected lame duck session of Congress before a new Congress is sworn in. When asked by Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers if he believed that the treaty would pass, Lugar responded that ‘I am not predicting anything.’ This treaty does not have the confident support of many in the Senate because of the missile defense issue.

“As Baker Spring has written for The Foundry, New START may increase the possibility of a nuclear exchange with Russia, and the Russians have conditioned support for the treaty on the U.S. agreeing to degrade missile defense capabilities.”

Darling points out the unfortunate fact that Russia got the U.S. to capitulate on missile defense, and even threatened to withdraw from START if we don’t reduce our capabilities. Additionally, Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have requested the negoitating record, and the Obama administration has denied the request.

“Missile defense is going to be a big issue in the debate on the New START treaty, and any prediction as to the possibility of this treaty passing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then the full Senate is premature. Until Senators have a full grasp of the ramifications of the treaty for missile defense.”

Robert Monroe, a retired vice admiral in the U.S. Navy and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on why the U.S. Senate should block START ratification.

“It is the first major step in the implementation of Mr. Obama’s broader nuclear strategy. This strategy would gravely weaken American national security.

“The Obama administration’s nuclear policy is set out in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was released in April, two days before the signing of New Start. The NPR is joined at the hip with New Start, and together they take this country down a dangerous path. For 65 years, the very existence of our nation has depended upon a strong nuclear deterrent. The new NPR wipes out this proven policy, substituting one of weakness in its place.

“Mr. Obama’s NPR treats nuclear weapons as an evil to be eliminated, rather than as the ultimate foundation of America’s security in a dangerous world. The review opens with Mr. Obama’s pledge to ’seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons’ and ‘to take concrete steps toward that goal, including by reducing the number of nuclear weapons and their role in national security policy.’”

In an ideal world, there’d be no need for nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we live in this world. Nuclear weapons provide the necessary leverage we need to limit global conflicts. As Monroe points out, such a weapon ended World War II. We must maintain an up-to-date arsenal of nuclear weapons to “encourage” countries like Iran and North Korea to think twice about unleashing their enmity on the world. But our president doesn’t see it that way.

“Mr. Obama’s NPR amounts to a road map for achieving a position of strategic inferiority. As other states improve their nuclear arsenals, we will be carrying out unilateral nuclear disarmament…How have we come to this?”

Former assistant secretary of state Stephen G. Rademaker wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post about a third voting option available to senators as they deliberate on the new START.

Rather than voting a straight yes, senators may vote yes, contingent on certain conditions. If treaty supporters have the required two-thirds vote, however, they can try to deny this option to senators who request more information before voting.

Rademaker illustrates the point by reminding us how the Senate voted on the 1999 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

“In that case, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) threatened to obstruct all work in the Senate unless the Republican leadership agreed to schedule a yes-or-no vote. The Republican leadership acquiesced. With senators forced to choose between just two options, 48 voted yes — while 51 voted no.

“Many arms-control supporters realized afterward that they had made a huge mistake. They came to compare their approach on the test-ban treaty unfavorably to the tack they had taken two years earlier on the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“When that convention was under consideration, they recognized from the outset that many senators had reservations. So supporters engaged in a formal process with potential opponents over a period of months, identifying their individual concerns and negotiating language to address those concerns in the resolution of approval. The convention was approved 74 to 26.”

According to Rademaker, Republican senators asked the administration to share the negotiating record for the new START, and the administration has refused. They asked Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair John Kerry to call a list of nine witnesses to testify, and only one of the nine was invited.

“[I]f treaty critics aren’t going to be accommodated on questions of process, they almost certainly aren’t going to be accommodated on substance. This is regrettable, because while the critics have raised serious substantive concerns, most of those concerns could be addressed in a properly crafted resolution of approval.”

Whatever concerns Republicans have about the treaty can be addressed with resolutions that limit restrictions. But the majority is playing hard politics, with little inclination to achieve a strong bipartisan vote on START.

During START negotiations, missile defense experts were concerned about a rumored link between offensive and defensive missile strategy. As it turns out, those concerns were warranted. The preamble to the new START includes language that reads as experts suspected.

The Heritage Foundation’s Kim Holmes discusses this issue in a Washington Times op-ed. An excerpt:

“Treaty supporters in the U.S. say this language is merely rhetorical; it won’t restrict our ability to defend against missiles from Iran, North Korea or elsewhere. It’s stunning how easily they dismiss Russia’s interpretation. They should review a little history. The Russians may know something they don’t.

“For example, under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union, the U.S. consistently placed limitations on ‘theater’ (shorter-range) air and missile defense systems the treaty did not officially cover. Why? Because Pentagon attorneys feared controversy with the Soviets. Their guidance led the U.S. to ‘dumb down’ the Patriot missile so that it could intercept only ’slow and low’ missiles, though nothing in the ABM Treaty required such design and testing limits. As a result, former Strategic Defense Initiative Director Henry F. Cooper confirmed later, ‘In the 1970s, no ballistic missile defense capability was given to [the developmental] SAM-D, now called Patriot.’

“So what’s wrong with shaving a little capability? … It ultimately costs lives.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of appeasing Russia when it comes to missile defense. Holmes provides several examples of our country intentionally downscaling missile defense capacity. The new START is a repeat of earlier restrictions on U.S. missile defense. While Russia is being honest about those restrictions, President Barack Obama and his administration deny them.

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.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Marion Smith wrote a Backgrounder titled, Remember the Jay Treaty: START Behaving Like Senators. Missile defense experts and others are concerned whether President Barack Obama compromised away our security when the U.S. and Russia negotiated the treaty. Several have called for the START negotiating record, which would set the record straight.

“There are well-founded concerns over the provisions in the New START Treaty and their implications for U.S. security.[2] Some Senators were surprised by reference to defensive anti-missile weapons in the treaty, since New START is supposed to address only offensive nuclear weapons. The implications of this treaty could affect the ability of the U.S. to deploy defensive missile systems and points to larger security issues that also involve potential threats emanating from Iran and North Korea. In an effort to better understand the provisions of this bilateral agreement, six Republican Senators formally requested the negotiating record of the New START Treaty from the Obama Administration on May 6, 2010.[3]

“At present, however, the Obama Administration and the Democrat Members of the Foreign Relations Committee have withheld access to this vital information. This denial is tantamount to refusing the Senate an honest debate and undermines the Senate’s role in providing advice and consent. For many on the Left, however, the lack of debate is not a problem since the virtues of arms control are assumed and any debate is viewed as divisive partisanship. But Senators and the American people should not accept this misunderstanding of the Senate’s function. Policy arguments are not disruptive to the legislative process; informed debate is essential to deliberation.”

Smith compares the present dilemma facing the Senate with that facing the Senate after the Revolutionary War. The Jay Treaty of 1794 addressed territorial disputes between the U.S. and Britain.

“The ratification of the Jay Treaty was an early test of separation of powers and of the Senate’s constitutionally mandated role in U.S. foreign policy…Although the Constitution grants the President the power to negotiate treaties and possess privileged diplomatic information, Jay also acknowledged that sometimes ‘useful intelligence’ pertaining to a treaty under consideration could be vital to the Senate’s function.[10] In keeping with this understanding, Washington had submitted to the Senate ‘all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great Britain” when Jay’s Treaty was ‘communicated for their consideration and advice.‘ [11] This privileged information provided the facts for the congressional debate that preceded a vote.”

From The Foundry blog:

“The New START Treaty, a treaty signed between the United States and Russia is promoted by the Obama Administration as a means toward a reduction of nuclear weapons between the nations. The problem is that President Obama was a terrible negotiator and made concessions that will harm American national security.  The most important factor in assessing whether a Senator should support the idea of a treaty is whether the treaty will increase or decrease the national security of the United States. Sadly, this treaty would devastate missile defense and provide a strategic victory to a traditional strategic enemy – Russia. Some Senators are sounding the alarm that this treaty, pending before the United States Senate, may do irreparable harm to the national security of all Americans.

“Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) authored an Op Ed in U.S. News & World Report arguing that ‘the concessions President Obama made to Russia to get the New START signed are precisely why the Senate should not ratify it.’ Sen. DeMint made four great points regarding the failings of the New START Treaty:

“1. Russia locks in an advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. ’The treaty mandates strategic nuclear weapons parity with the progeny of an old Cold War foe, yet allows the Russians to maintain a 10-to-1 tactical nuclear-weapons advantage. Whether in warhead and launcher limits, verification, or missile defense, America loses.’ A Treaty has the force of law and would allow Russia to force the United States into a position where the Russians would have less of a deterrent to nuclear hostilities.”

Read the full post.

Cross-posted at Heritage.org:

The current regime in Russia has a terrible record as a reliable partner, yet President Obama wants the nuclear treaty he negotiated with the Kremlin fast-tracked for Senate approval. That makes no sense. Here are 10 reasons why.

1. A Long History of Arms Control Violations:Russia repeatedly violated the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) all the way to its expiration in December 2009, as clearly stated in 2005 and 2010 State Department compliance reports. Specifically, Russia tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with Multiple Individually Targeted Re-entry Vehicles (warheads) while START was in force. Such activities, however, were explicitly banned.

2. The West Is Still Their #1 Threat: Russia regards the U.S. and NATO as its principal adversaries and configures its forces for large-scale conventional theater operations with them. The recent discovery of the Russian spy network inside the U.S. and their celebration upon return to Russia, courtesy of President Obama, indicates that Russia is set in a Cold War mentality.

3. Helping Iran and North Korea: According to U.S. intelligence, Russia violated nonproliferation agreements by providing ballistic missile technology to Iran and North Korea, which have continually threatened America and its allies.

4. Still Building a Nuclear Arsenal: Nearly 20 years after the end of the Cold War, Russia still designs, builds, and modernizes nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Russia’s new military doctrine maintains a low threshold for nuclear first strikes. In fact, Moscow plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in Europe if ever confronted with a conventional threat. In 2009, Russia conducted a military exercise that simulated a nuclear attack on Poland.

5. Not in Compliance on Other Treaties: The U.S. believes Russia to be in non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. In 2009, the Strategic Posture Commission told Congress: “Russia is no longer in compliance with its PNI [Presidential Nuclear Initiatives] commitments.” Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal may be 10 times larger than that of the U.S.

6. No Regard for Georgia Independence: Russia has repeatedly broken its promises to withdraw military forces from Georgia and Moldova. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, it rewrote the rules of post–World War II European security. It repudiated the Helsinki Pact of 1975, which recognized the security of European borders, and violated the sovereignty of a NATO aspirant and member of the Council of Europe.

7. Responds Offensively to Defensive Measures: In response to U.S. plans for a defensive missile shield in Europe to protect against Iranian missile threats, Moscow has repeatedly threatened to deploy Iskander short-range and nuclear-capable missiles to target U.S. allies in Eastern Europe. Reports show that the Baltic Fleet is armed with nuclear weapons that can be used against Europe.

8. Ties to Terrorist Organizations: Russia cultivates ties with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah and provides military and diplomatic support for anti-American “rogue states” such as Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Russia voted with the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council to pass sanctions on Iran—but only after working hard to water them down to practically nothing.

9. Natural Gas as a Political Weapon: The Kremlin uses its neighbors and Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas as a foreign policy tool to pressure states. In 2009, Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine and to Europe by extension, causing the International Energy Agency to deem them an unreliable supplier.

10. An Authoritarian Regime: The current model of leadership under President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has become increasingly authoritarian. Despite numerous commitments under international law, the government has tightened controls on political life, civil society, and the media. Disruption of political opposition’s activities, restricting access to state-controlled TV, human right violations (such as the beating of demonstrators who “support” the Russian constitution), murder of journalists and anti-corruption activists, disappearance and torture, abuse of the legal system for monetary and political gain—all illustrate this negative trend.