-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
On the op-ed pages of today’s New York Times and Washington Post, commentators who usually agree on foreign policy come out on opposite sides of the debate over ratification of New START, the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.
In the Times, John Bolton and John Yoo write that the Senate should “either reject the treaty or amend it so that it doesn’t weaken our national defense.” They argue, among other things, that the treaty
reflects the Obama administration’s lack of seriousness about national missile defense. Its preamble accepts an unspecified “interrelationship” between nuclear weapons and defensive systems. Politically, even if not in treaty language, the Russians get what they want: no significant United States efforts on missile defense.
The Obama administration hopes to sell this dangerous bargain with a package of paper promises. The Foreign Relations Committee’s resolution contains various “conditions,” “understandings” and “declarations” holding that New Start doesn’t “impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defenses” or dilute Congress’s aspiration to defend the nation from missile attack. A second understanding exempts conventional weapons systems with a global reach. A third affirms Congress’s commitment to the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
Senators cannot take these warranties seriously - they are not a part of the text of the treaty itself…
To prevent New Start from gravely impairing America’s nuclear capacity, the Senate must ignore the resolution of ratification and demand changes to the treaty itself. These should include deleting the preamble’s language linking nuclear arsenals to defense systems, and inserting new language distinguishing conventional strike capacities from nuclear launching systems or deleting limits on launchers entirely.
But Robert Kagan writes in the Post that
blocking the treaty will produce three unfortunate results: It will strengthen Vladimir Putin, let the Obama administration off the hook when Russia misbehaves and set up Republicans as the fall guy if and when U.S.-Russian relations go south.
Kagan does not address concerns about the effect that the treaty will have on missile defense, but he makes a compelling case that failing to ratify the treaty would have deleterious consequences. I’m inclined to split the difference: If the treaty can be ratified contingent on the changes that Bolton and Yoo suggest (they cite historical precedents for this), it should be, but if the only politically viable options are straight passage or straight defeat, passage is preferable.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/10/should-the-senate-ratify-new-s
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The (Real) Great Divide
- The Welfarians
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.11.10 @ 9:09AM
John,
I strongly reject that thinking.
"To whom much is given...much is required"
We have been given much responsibility across the globe. www.texassaidno.com
Margie| 11.11.10 @ 2:47PM
"Some people may take a different view, but if I had to choose the single most important reason, on the United States' side, for the historic breakthroughs that were to occur during the next five years in the quest for peace and a better relationship with the Soviet Union, I would say it was the Strategic Defense Initiative, along with the overall modernization of our military forces."
Ronald Reagan
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/sdi.html
Reading from this link, I came away with the impression that he was willing to negotiate, but not from a position of weakness, as this admin has been willing to do.
We shouldn't be allowing the Russians to strengthen themselves at the expense of our own military.
Always under the Democrats our military is degraded to the point where instead of inheriting a strong military, the Repub Presidents must spend in order to upgrade and strengthen it.
John Bolton ought to be trusted and his words heeded. He is NOT on the side of the Left~ our enemy.
PattyMor| 11.11.10 @ 4:28PM
This treaty must NOT be signed. It is a one way benefit to the Russian's at our expense. Barry is out to gut our currency, our industries, and our defense.
PattyMor| 11.11.10 @ 4:29PM
This treaty must NOT be signed. It is a one way benefit to the Russian's at our expense. Barry is out to gut our currency, our industries, and our defense.
KDW| 11.11.10 @ 6:46PM
This new start treaty should NOT be ratified.
Sadly, we're back to negotiating arms deals with
the Russians that mainly benefit the Russians.
Why? Because our current President is intent
on weakening America. Republicans should not
let him.
Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted. Period.
He is going to stick it to the U.S. whether the
Senate signs off on this treaty or not. Since Obama
forged this treaty Putin has stepped up his
support of Iran's nuclear program and has
committed to helping Hugo Chavez build his.
And the U.S. is going to reward Putin for this
behavior? Putin will only be emboldened.
In the end, whatever trouble Putin stirs up,
Obama will be held responsible, not the
Republicans. After all he is the President and
he never should have negotiated this deal
in the first place.
Dave| 11.20.10 @ 11:46AM
Of course the treaty should be ratified. We need to keep moving toward reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world – does the threat of terrorists getting their hands on such weapons not make that clear enough? Our national security will not be reduced by this treaty, but enhanced by it. The view of US national security pushed by radical neocons like John Yoo has only caused the USA terrible grief and expense and loss of prestige and credibility, and it's high time we rejected it outright.