• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • START and Beyond: Obama Abandons US Power

    The New START Treaty that Presidents Obama and Medvedev are going to sign tomorrow in Prague sets the stage for the big show, the April 12-13 non-proliferation summit in Washington.

    Both events are deeply flawed. Both are theater productions for Obama to push through his unrealistic agenda of “getting to zero”, i.e. attempting to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

    The New START is a déjà vu: in the 1980s, the Soviets threatened to withdraw from existing arms control treaties if US deployed missile defense. Now they are doing it again. Foreign Minister Lavrov is putting caveats on the New START. Lavrov clearly stated that the Kremlin reserves the right to withdraw from the Treaty if they deem missile defense deployment in Romania threatening.

    Why should the US Senate ratify a “conditional” Treaty? If the Treaty is ratified, the US under Obama will not withdraw from it “only” if the Russians do, thus US would be committing to unilateral Treaty compliance, which may be against its national security interests.

    Moreover, the new Nuclear Posture Review announces that the US will not develop new nuclear weapons. But Russia is doing so, and so are China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

    Will they stop only because Obama promised not to modernize? Hardly.

    And what about missile defense? If the US deploys a more robust missile shield in Europe, as noted above, per Lavrov, Russia may abandon the New START. Experts say that Obama will be unlikely to upgrade missile defenses.

    Is keeping the Russians in the New START a good enough reason not to do what is necessary to protect our NATO allies?

    Beyond START, the Obama policy has more than a whiff of unreality. It is ambition enveloped in naïveté, wrapped in inexperience.

    On April 12, over 40 heads of state will be extras in the Getting to Zero show, featuring Mr. Obama himself. However, the “getting to zero” nuclear policy naively and dangerously ignores the real nature of the world in which we live: Russian and Chinese nuclear modernizations, Iranian and North Korean atomic ambition, Pakistan’s instability, and the threat of nuclear terrorism.

    Those who can’t deter, can be attacked.

    The strategically flawed Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is only one Lego block in Obama’s non-proliferation agenda. In the future, his Administration will attempt to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and limit defense deployments in outer space, giving up a clear US technological edge.

    The START and NPR make US allies worry. Offending US allies from Poland to Britain; from Canada to Azerbaijan to Israel; and placating Moscow, Beijing and Teheran, is a dangerous policy which will take years to set straight.

    Voluntary abandonment of US power, nuclear and otherwise, may come back to haunt the US – and should not be allowed.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to START and Beyond: Obama Abandons US Power

    1. Dave Cearley, Houston TX says:

      The Russians are giving up antiquated weapons systems they can’t afford to replace, in other words, nothing, while the US is actually cutting back on active and needed systems. A very bad deal all around. Obama then informs the world they can attack us with chemical or biological weapons, and we won’t retaliate with nuclear. What’s Obama doing to our security, and where’s all the money going?” It’s like saying he backs nuclear power the same day he cancels the Yucca Flats disposal site. It’s a head fake. I don’t think the public reaction to appeasing the Russians is going to sit well in November

    2. Don, Bisbee, Az says:

      From the picture you can see our national status, looks like we are garbage. I see no respect, just Obama being ingratiating to the Russians, like a little kid, trying to making friends(?) with the local tough guy.

    3. Drew Page, IL says:

      To Don in Bisbee, AZ — I must agree with you. That picture speaks a thousand words and I'm sad to say your statement sums them all up.

    4. Pingback: 33 Minutes

    5. Lloyd Scallan - New Orleans area says:

      Don’t we get it yet? Obama is deliberately putting the U.S., and our allies, in danger. This is not “incompetance” or “lack of experence”. It is a DELIBERATE attempt to destroy America.

    6. Bilie says:

      Many are seeing the true colors of Obama. Seems the result of these intentional government set-ups will be quick and soon. God Bless America and be prepared…

    7. victor ciccone cheye says:

      as the picture shows it reminds me of a picture from history 1938 chamberllan . peace in our time. it makes me wonder how this so called smart person got elected . I think we should rebuild the peacekeeper missile system with the latest improved upgrades, because every time the russians came to the u.s. to verify compliance with the salt ii treaty, they checked on the peacekeeper because , it was so accurate ,as test shots proved, they were afraid of it.

    8. Michael Buratovich says:

      I am old enough to remember SALT I and II treaties and how the Russians broke them and the Bioweapons treaty. I have not seen any evidence that drawing down our nuclear weapons stocks decreases arming in other countries. My recollections and reading have told me again and again that countries arm in response to our weakness. Libya decided to abandon their nuclear weapons program after Saddam Hussein was pulled from a spider hole in Iraq. Our strength is the best deterrent to rogue states. Obama’s START treaty is based on utopian thinking that has no basis in data, reality or even common sense.

    9. Mark, OK says:

      A couple things from the article I'm confused about:

      1) What indication do we have from US allies (Poland, Britain, etc) that they're "offended," or even concerned, about these steps? So far I've seen nothing but shows of support from these countries.

      2) Where do you get the idea that the US isn't going to "modernize" its weapons? No new warheads isn't the same as not modernizing. Obama is investing billions in the nuclear weapons infrastructure and Life Extension Programs – far more than Bush ever did – to ensure that our existing arsenal remains reliable.

      3) Why should statements from the Russians that are in no way legally binding affect whether or not we ratify this treaty? The Russians attached similar "conditions" to the last START treaty and never withdrew from the treaty, even when the US left the ABM treaty. With or without a unilateral statement, the Russians can leave the treaty if they feel their security is threatened, but that hardly seems like a reason to scrap the whole process. And I've seen no indication that the US would consider itself still bound by the treaty of the Russians unilaterally left it.

      4) What "experts" are saying that Obama will not continue to pursue missile defense? All sources I've seen suggest that he plans to go forward with the current plans for a European missile defense shield, regardless of Russian objections.

      Also, as a factual note, next week's summit has nothing to do with "getting to zero," but is instead focused on securing vulnerable nuclear materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, a goal which I imagine that most readers here would agree on.

    10. gourmet coffee tea says:

      I dont verily have knowledge of what you talking about propriety here. This humbug be the only forward movement to suppose about this can it? It appears like you recognize a lot, so why not inquire it more? Make peace it more reachable to everybody else who ascendancy not harmonize with you? Youd bring back a lot more individuals behind this should you well-deserved stopped making garden-variety statements.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.