• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Questions CNN Did Not Ask on New START

    News Flash: “Nearly three out of four Americans say lawmakers should ratify a nuclear treaty with Russia that’s stalled in the Senate, according to a new national poll.” Or so says CNN. But does this poll really show Americans really support the treaty or that they don’t actually understand the treaty? There is a reason that national leaders like Sarah Palin, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and former CIA Director James Woolsey have all come out against considering the NEW START nuclear agreement during lame duck. Here are five questions CNN did not ask:

    Question #1. Would you support a treaty that requires the U.S. to cut more weapons and launchers than the Russians; allows them to actually build more launchers; allows Russia to modernize when Obama has already said he will not build modern nuclear weapons; and leaves Russia with many times more nuclear weapons than the U.S.? (hint: Russia has an estimated 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons that is not covered by the treaty)

    Question #2. Would you support a treaty that requires the U.S. to share sensitive missile defense information with Russia, information that might be passed to Iran to help them plan how to defeat U.S. missile defenses? (hint: the treaty could require sharing telemetry test data with Russia)

    Question #3. Do you think an independent commission not accountable to the U.S. government should be able to dictate limits to missile defense? (hint: that is in the treaty too)

    Question #4. Would you vote for a treaty with 12 major flaws in it? (hint: want to guess how many major flaws there are in New START?)

    Question #5. Would you want a treaty that, despite White House claims to the opposite, could actually result in more nuclear states and an increased likelihood of nuclear war?

    If CNN had included these questions, Americans who are interested in protecting and defending America and understand the importance of missile defense might well have voted differently.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Questions CNN Did Not Ask on New START

    1. Pingback: 33 Minutes

    2. Bob Farquhar, Bonair says:

      If I didn't think you were serious, I'd be laughing out loud. Once again, Heritage is clouding the reality of New START with obfuscation.

      1. New START has nothing to do with tactical nuclear weapons. No START treaty ever addressed tactical weapons. That's why it's called a strategic treaty. New START will lead to treaties on tactical weapons. But you know that.

      2. Russia must also share telemetry data. btw: Russia is cooperating with the U.S. on Iran by refusing to deliver the S300 missile system.

      3. Why would the head of the Missile Defense Agency say otherwise? Should we instead use the Rumsfeld Commision's thoughts that brought us missile defense that has yet to be proven effective? (Read the FY2008 Operational Test and Evaluation report on Misile Defense.)

      4. Then why would everyone in the DoD & State DEp[artment support New START with all of these major faults?

      5. Well, unless we continue to cooperate with Russia and work towards our obligations on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I'd say other countries see us both as hyprocrites and will work on their own programs. And, quite frankly, I don't see that terrorists are deterred by our having all these weapons.

      All in all, I just can't accept your positions. You continue to use fear as a motivating factor to ask people to continue sanctioning having nuclear weapons.

      The bottom line is that 75% of those polled want the treaty ratified.

    3. Bob Farquhar, Bonair says:

      I didn't expect you would post my comments.

    4. Robert, Edmonton Alb says:

      Bob – the right believes in debate so no surprise your missive was posted.

    5. Robert, Edmonton Alb says:

      Bob on your points

      1) Heritage has never said START in of itself should address tactical nukes but only that it is very dangerous to continue to focus on strategic weapons when Russia has a ten to one advantage in tactical nukes.

      Question to you; Are you comfortable with Russia's tactical nuke advantage? If so you are not very serious about arms control

      2) Totally irrelevant point you are making. Russia is not at risk that its secrets will be shared with rogue regimes and sworn enemies.

      3) Gee because they answer to the President and want to keep their jobs. Last time a couple of people spoke up (i.e. the F-22) they quickly joined the ranks of the unemployed.

      4) See 3) above. But also the State Department is full of left wing disarm America first, no nukes is good nukes, "career" diplomats that are totally lacking in the ability to understand strategic and extended deterrence theory. They all love to travel to Geneva and elsewhere and talk and talk and talk as North Korea and Iran build and build and build.

      5) You are making the same error you claim Heritage is making. NPT is not New Start. But I ask the pro-disarmament crowd the same question over and over. The US has decreased its' strategic arsenal from 12000 deployed warheads to around 2200, yet it has not caused any other country bent on developing nuclear weapons from not doing so. Just how low should we go before people like you realize Iran or North Korea do not give one wit about New Start.

      Do you think Iranian leaders believe they can continue to say to the world "look how many weapons the US has to beat up poor little Iran, we need to defend ourselves" Besides the North Koreans also have said they need nukes to overcome our conventional superiority. So maybe we should totally disarm to appease them, nuclear and conventional forces.

    6. Bob Farquhar, Bonair says:

      Why, thank you very much. All good things take time. I retract my 8:12 post.
      http://www.ajc.com/opinion/ratify-disarmament-tre

    7. Mike Monsale, Chula says:

      If New START is so flawed, why is the Secretary of Defense, and the nation's top military officers urging that it get ratified? Are they being pushed by the Obama administration to support it? I'm confused with this and don't know why they would support it if they know it would put our national security at risk, which they are responsible for ensuring. Since this treaty was negotiated by this administration, I don't have faith and confidence that it has been done right. I don't want the senate to ratify it.

    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.

    ×