Lame Duck Session Advances START

[T-Rock]

It appears our options will be limited for Missile Defense. Another liberal wet-dream fulfilled…who cares about Iranian Missiles on Venezuelan soil…

“I will slow our development of future combat systems”
~Hussein Obama~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COl4soeox6Y

:munchin

START Treaty Clears Last Senate Hurdle Before Ratification

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Tuesday voted to limit debate on ratification of a major arms control accord with Russia, setting the stage for a final vote on the so-called START treaty.

The Senate voted 67-28 to advance the legislation, easily exceeding the 60 votes required.

The Senate is expected to ratify the treaty some time on Wednesday in what would be the latest in a string of legislative victories for President Obama after his party was soundly beaten in the midterm elections last month.

Earlier, Republicans senators expressed outrage as Obama secured enough votes for ratification.

At least 10 Republicans publicly announced their support for the accord, including Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, putting it on a virtual glidepath to ratification by Wednesday night.



The Constitution requires two-thirds of those voting in the Senate to ratify the pact. Democrats needed at least nine Republican votes.

At a GOP news conference, Republicans who oppose the treaty warned of the consequences.

"Well this is a joke," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., adding that he believes the administration gave up too much to the Russians to negotiate the treaty.

"When you want zero nukes in the world, you're not an effective negotiator," he said.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said it's clear the administration is checking the box on many issues without any substance behind the box.

"We join millions of Americans who are outraged," he said, adding that it is being crammed under the cover of Christmas.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, also oppose the START agreement.

Treaty backers were heartened as several Republicans broke ranks, voting against three Republican amendments that would have effectively killed the treaty.

Alexander said he is "convinced that the plan's implementation will make giant steps toward modernization of those facilities so that we -- and our allies and adversaries -- can be assured that the weapons will work if needed."

"The president's statement that he will ask for these funds and the support of senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee means that the plan is more likely to become a reality," he said on the Senate floor. "This will make sure the United States is not left with a collection of wet matches."

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., said: "Only through setting the example, without giving in or capitulating a thing, do we give hope to the future that my grandchildren and yours can live in a world that will not be free of nukes but will be secure; that loose nukes are not in the hands of bad people; and we have transparency and accountability while still having the capability to secure ourselves both offensively and defensively to ensure the security of the people of the United States of America."

Senior Democrats were pushing for a decisive vote Tuesday to cut off debate and set the stage for the final vote. Republicans and Democrats were discussing amendments to the accompanying resolution, not the treaty, that would deal with Republican problems with missile defense and build support for the agreement.

The United States and Russia negotiated the New START pact to cap nuclear weapons and restart weapons inspections in the spirit of U.S. efforts to reset the relationship between the former Cold War foes.

Obama, who delayed his holiday vacation, lobbied senators by phone as he pressed to complete the treaty before January. Vice President Biden also called lawmakers.

Bolstering Obama's argument for quick action, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a letter to lawmakers reiterating support for the accord.

"This treaty enhances our ability to do that which we in the military have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I am confident in its success as I am in its safeguards. The sooner it is ratified, the better," Mullen wrote.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, a Democrat, read parts of Mullen's letter at a closed briefing.

Despite the letter, several conservative Republicans insist the treaty would restrict U.S. options on a missile defense system to protect America and its allies and argue that the accord has insufficient procedures to verify Russia's adherence.

Politics coursed through the debate Monday as Republicans were still peeved by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to interrupt the six days of treaty consideration for votes on repealing the ban of gays serving openly in the military and an unsuccessful immigration
measure, legislation they considered sops to the Democratic Party's liberal base.

"No senator should be forced to make decisions like this so we can tick off another item on someone's political checklist before the end of the year," McConnell said.

Obama suffered a self-described "shellacking" in the Nov. 2 midterm elections as his party lost control of the House and suffered an erosion in its Senate majority. Yet he has scored two major political wins in Congress' postelection session -- overwhelming bipartisan passage of the tax deal he cut with Republicans and repeal of the ban on gays serving openly.

The treaty specifically would limit each country's strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current ceiling of 2,200. It also would establish a system for monitoring and verification. U.S. weapons inspections ended a year ago with the expiration of a 1991 treaty.



Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/senate-democrats-prepare-vote-start-obama-sells-nuke-reduction-treaty/

[T-Rock]

:munchin

■Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense?

Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable.

■Is the treaty’s compliance verification program inadequate?

Yes. In a break from prior treaties, we would no longer be allowed to witness the destruction of Russian mobile ICBMs and launchers. Further, the prior provision for continuous on-site inspection of the principal Russian missile factory would be eliminated. And our verification inspectors would only be permitted to view Russia’s officially declared facilities — undeclared sites are available for treaty violations.

■Is Russia’s substantial nuclear missile advantage over the United States exacerbated?

Yes. The treaty excludes tactical nuclear weapons where Russia has a more than five-to-one advantage. But these weapons are a threat to our forces abroad, and to our allies. Moreover, they could be re-deployed on Russia’s submarines to threaten us at home.

■Under the treaty limits, is the United States the only country that must reduce its launchers and strategic nuclear weapons?

Yes. Russia has negotiated the treaty limits to conform to the weapon levels it has already planned. Thus, the United States must make what are effectively unilateral reductions.

■Does the treaty provide gaping loopholes that Russia could use to escape nuclear weapon limits entirely?

Yes. For example, multiple warhead missile bombers are counted under the treaty as only one warhead. While we currently have more bombers than the Russians, they have embarked on new programs for long-range bombers and for air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Thus, it is no surprise that Russia is happy to undercount missiles on bombers.

■Does the treaty restrict not only our strategic nuclear program but also our conventional weapons program?

Yes. Any of our existing land-based or submarine-based launchers that are fitted with conventional weapons would be counted toward the treaty’s launchers limits.

■Does the treaty fail to limit Russia’s submarine-launched, long-range cruise missiles?

Yes. As former CIA Director R. James Woolsey observes, given Russia’s planned deployment of a new 5,000 kilometer sub-launched cruise missile, “It is inexplicable that the administration would seek no limitations over systems such as these.’’


Source: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/12/03/stop_start/

[Dusty]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110114/pl_nm/us_russia_usa_start

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia's parliament moved closer to approving a landmark arms reduction treaty with Washington Friday by amending domestic legislation to stress that Moscow could withdraw from the pact if it felt threatened by the West.

The amendments required for Russia to ratify the New START treaty do not change the pact itself and were introduced before the second of three ratification votes in the State Duma, the lower house of parliament.

The U.S. Senate included its own interpretations of the treaty -- the centrepiece of a "reset" that has improved long-strained relations between Moscow and Washington -- when it voted to ratify it last month.


New START will commit each side to ceilings of 1,550 warheads on deployed strategic missiles and bombers within seven years and establish verification rules to replace those that expired in 2009 with the 1991 START I treaty.

Analysts say rejection of the treaty by Russia's parliament, dominated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's ruling United Russia party, is out of the question. The amendments enabled Russia to underscore how it views the pact.

Duma international affairs committee chairman Konstantin Kosachyov said the amendments would "restore balance" after the U.S. Senate irked Russia with its interpretations of the treaty.

The amendments stipulate that Russia could withdraw if military deployments or even plans by the United States or NATO jeopardize its security.

They highlight lingering rifts over U.S. plans for a European anti-missile shield and Russian concerns over other weapons it fears the United States or NATO could deploy.

A missile system that weakens Russia's nuclear arsenal would "force us to use the article of the treaty that provides for the withdrawal of a state that feels violated in terms of security," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Duma, Interfax reported.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW

The Duma's warnings of a possible withdrawal are largely a matter of emphasis, because the treaty itself includes broad language allowing either side to pull out if it decides its "supreme interests" are threatened.

Russia stressed its right to withdraw because of concerns over the U.S. anti-missile shield in a statement it adopted when Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama signed the treaty last April.

"The Russians are using their law on ratification to reflect their concerns, and it really is an answer to some of the language in the U.S. Senate ratification resolution," said Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The U.S. Senate stressed that a clause in the pact's preamble acknowledging an "interrelationship" between strategic offensive and defensive arms placed no legal constraint on U.S. missile defense plans.

The Duma ratification law says the points in the preamble are "indisputable" and must not be ignored.

"The most important thing is, the treaty is being ratified without a requirement for amendment," Pifer said.

But disputes over interpretation suggest the United States will have to work hard to keep a wary Russia satisfied, particularly if it is to secure further cuts.

In approving the treaty, the U.S. Senate ordered Obama to seek talks with Moscow within a year on cutting the former Cold War foes' arsenals of shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons, whose numbers are lopsided in Russia's favor.

Lavrov cast a shadow over those hopes by signaling for the second straight day that cuts beyond those to be made under New START cannot be expected in the near term.

Further negotiations should include a range of different weapons and "can be held after the START treaty is executed," Lavrov told lawmakers, according to Interfax.

The Duma is expected to give the treaty its final backing on January 25. Approval by the upper parliament house -- the last step before Russia and the United States exchange documents putting the pact into force -- could come this month.