• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Old or New, It’s a Bad START for Missile Defense

    Obama and Medvedev

    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held the first of two committee hearings this Tuesday on the New START Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation.  Attended by Acting Chair Ted Kauffman (D-DE), Ranking Member Dick Lugar (R-IN), and briefly by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) the three senators pressed the Honorable Rose Gottemoeller and the Honorable Edward L Warner, III, two key negotiators for the START Treaty, on a number of key issues.

    In a blog post earlier this week, Steven Groves listed four questions that should be addressed at the hearings, two of which were addressed today.  In response to a question relating to special deals allegedly made between the Obama Administration and the Russian Federation, Mrs. Gottemoeller stated “unequivocally” that no backroom deals were made between the United States and Russia regarding missile defense.  Furthermore, Senator DeMint asked the two witnesses why the negotiating record would not be released, which would ultimately allow the senators greater access into the details of the negotiating process.  Mrs. Gottemoeller responded that there was no historical precedent for releasing the records (properly challenged by Senator DeMint) and went on to state that doing so has the potential to weaken the stance of negotiators in the future.

    In an otherwise tame hearing, Senator Jim DeMint launched into an impassioned appeal for missile defense.  Sen. DeMint went on to assert that this treaty is nothing but an extension of the Cold War-era Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy, which he believes should be considered unacceptable by the American public.  Mr. Warner responded to Sen. DeMint, stating that while the United States was committed to protect the homeland against a missile attack, a comprehensive missile shield is not practical.  Finishing his remarks in response to Sen. Lugar, Mr. Warner claimed it was the conclusion of “all” that Reagan’s aspirations for a multi-layered defense system that could work at any point in the missile launch from the boost phase to terminal phase is not an achievable outcome.  Such a position from a key negotiator on one of the most important treaties dealing with strategic weapons in recent history is nothing short of frightening.  As mentioned by Senator Lugar it is time this country got serious about a real national debate on the issue of missile defense.

    Ricky Trotman is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Old or New, It’s a Bad START for Missile Defense

    1. G-Man, Chesapeake, V says:

      Based on facts from 1) our Founding, and 2) History America is more trusted to possess nuclear weapons than the former Soviets. Because of the Christian values that America was founded upon a case can be made that America places a high/er value on human life than Russia. It is possible to cite examples where America has gone astray [E.g. Roe v. Wade], but in that case the sanctity of life was denigrated by an un-elected, activist Court – NOT – by the majority of Americans! Compare our founding and history to Russia's where contained in their historical record one can point to genocide (I.e. Stalin’s) greater than the Holocaust! Even though I don’t trust the Obama Administration, and even though America is the only country to employ nuclear weapons in war, this we know from history – the former Soviets cannot be trusted!

      If we continue to reduce our numbers to a point that we cannot guarantee Mutually Assured Destruction, then we lose a strategy that has proven to work for over half a century and put our country at greater risk – NOT – strengthen our security. Giving the former Soviets advantages by removing the constricting language of START I, and volunteering Missile Defense limits we enter into a lop-sided agreement with a country with a terrible human rights record. The former Soviets understand one thing and one thing alone; STRENGTH!

      Another major concern is this International oversight committee, the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC). If this doesn't smack of Globalism I don't know what does. Just think of it, an International Oversight Union with the credibility of the U. N…you have got to be kidding me! We are NOT safer by New START, we are more vulnerable and weaker. No one would argue that this a good deal.

      American Senators, you vote to weaken American nuclear arsenals and anti-ballistic missile defenses at your own political peril! Get it? No deal. Is it November yet?

      America, it is time to do all we can to stop this liberal-progressive takeover of our country. Contact your Senators and tell them NOT to ratify this bad deal!

      "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth (America), or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done." – Ronald Reagan

    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.

    ×