An Iowan Calls out Heritage Action on its Deception

“it
is important that Blog for Iowa be a voice to counter the claims of a
group that would Stop START without regard for the dangers such an
action would present to our country.”

If we read the Heritage Action for America Issue Brief for the New START Treaty, one finds it filled with misleading information. As citizens who care about the nuclear disarmament and United States national security, it is important that Blog for Iowa be a voice to counter the claims of a group that would Stop START without regard for the dangers such an action would present to our country.

Point by point:

HA: “Russian President Medvedev seems to believe the treaty will limit future improvements in our missile defense systems. If so, the treaty will have negotiated away America’s ability to protect itself by handing the Russians veto authority over our national security policy.”

PD: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and other spokespeople throughout the administration have indicated that there is no restriction on missile defense systems. The source of HA's belief about what Russian President Medvedev “seems to believe” in unclear.

HA: “The treaty ignores the dual threats of Iran and North Korea; gives Russia nuclear superiority over the U.S., potentially fostering a Russia-China arms race; and ignores deterrence of future proliferation.”

PD: The New START treaty is by and between the United States and the Russian Federation. Of course it does not address Iran and North Korea, nor should it. The issue of Iran is being dealt with through its non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty with use of diplomacy and sanctions. With every step the world takes towards nuclear non-proliferation, North Korea becomes increasingly isolated.

Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has had nuclear superiority over the United States, in terms of total weapons, all along. The START Treaty specifies the quantity of deployed weapons to be at parity. The treaty changes nothing here.

As far as a Russia-China arms race, the idea of further escalation in Russia is ludicrous as they are having financial trouble in maintaining the nuclear arsenal they have. China is all about China. There would be no benefit to China to grow their nuclear arsenal, as they are party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. What is especially true is that the United States and its allies are tied to China as trade partners and this too serves to encourage nuclear non-proliferation.

HA:”Now, (President Obama's) administration is refusing to share key negotiating records with Senators, who want to make certain the treaty protects American security and sovereignty.”

PD: I have negotiated many contracts, and regardless of what was said during the negotiations, the final, signed document is what matters, should a contract be pulled out for enforcement of the terms. Now that the Russian and United States Presidents have signed the treaty, that document becomes binding and what went on in the negotiations becomes moot.

HA: “The Administration must address concerns over language embedded in the treaty that may prevent essential modernization activities, which would produce a more safe, reliable and appropriate nuclear deterrence in the 21st century.”

PD: The defense establishment, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have both indicated that the needs of modernization of our nuclear complex are met by the Administration's budget proposal. Truth is that many in the peace activism community are stunned that President Obama has proven to be such a hawk regarding modernization of the nuclear complex. The concerns to which HA refers are concerns of a small minority of Senators.

HA: “The treaty may unintentionally limit our conventional weapons capability.”

PD: This comment is about pork. Some senators have inquired about changing out some of the nuclear warheads in missile silos for conventional weapons. In the first place, people who understand operation of missile silos also understand that the preference of the military would be to replace antiquated missile silos rather than re-furbish them. Secondly, it is unclear where such a new weapons systems would fit into our strategic defense. Senators don't want to lose jobs in their state should nuclear weapons be phased out completely. There is nothing unintentional in the terms and conditions of the New START Treaty. If jobs are lost with the phasing out of nuclear weapons, then the government should enjoy the savings.

HA: “What's the rush?”

PD: Every day that goes by since START expired on December 9 represents another day where the United States has not had visibility into the Russian nuclear complex. This is a matter of national security insofar as maintaining a reliable deterrence. A more appropriate question is why wait on national security?   HA would rather delay, and obfuscate.

As a blogger in Iowa, the author can't compete with the well financed minions of Heritage Action. For every hour I spend writing about this, they have a person at the ready with talking points. At the same time, these points need vetting and that is something the corporate media is wont to do.

~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul
Deaton