Don't Ratify START

Would you trust any arms agreement negotiated by Obama?

Unconfirmed reports of a secret side agreement to the New START nuclear arms treaty started circulating in mid-October. The side agreement supposedly restricts the U.S.’s ability to pursue a robust missile defense.

The reports drove a number of U.S. Senators to write Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, demanding that the administration make available all the documents and records regarding any side negotiations. Administration officials turned over “summary” documents only, vehemently denying that any side deals were in the works.

Yesterday, the State Department released a fact sheet admitting that the Obama administration has been negotiating with Russia on missile defense “cooperation.” Awkward!

The State Department insists the negotiations weren’t secret. It’s just that they never mentioned it publicly. So that explains THAT.

There's no reason to ratify any arms agreement with Russia. Why? Because when we do we restrict and reduce our own defense capabilities while the Russians just go on doing whatever they like. They lie. It's in their nature.

The concept of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) served us well when both sides had massive amounts of nuclear weapons. Nobody was going to start a war with the other guy knowing it could not possibly be survivable. The more we reduce our stockpiles the more the other guy begins to think that he might just be able to get away with something.

And, of course, if we negotiate away our ability to create a missile defense, we just play right into their hands.

No more treaties - they make politicians and diplomats feel good but they're meaningless in terms of our actual national security.