Richie, If START is so disastrous for US missile defense
capabilities why did Gen. Patrick O' Reilly who heads the Missile Defense Agency
testify before congress that New START actually reduces constraints on the
development of the missile defense program [that were present in the 1991 START
agreement]?If START is so damaging to missile defense why is it
adamantly supported by the man in charge of the Missile Defense Agency?Senator Hatch should heed the advice of Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, the
Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and the Commander of Strategic Command by
supporting the prompt ratification of New START in the lame duck session.
This disastrous plan limits our own missile defense capabilities and severely
weakens our national security. President Obama claims START will reduce nuclear
weapons, in fact, it will only lead to more nuclear weapons in the hand of rogue
countries like Iran and North Korea, countries who want to destroy us. For that
matter, China and Russia are not our friends either.
There may be only one nation with a considerably dangerous arsenal of nukes
which threatens us today, but in the near future China will surely be in the
club. It would be folly to disarm thinking that somehow the future will present
no threats to us. China is becoming more aggressive and belligerent and wishes
to challenge the U.S. militarily.
This treaty should not be on the agenda of the lame duck session of congress.
It should be taken up and given proper scrutiny when the new congress begins in
The Deseret News needs to do more research before condoning this START treaty.
It is being "bought" by the Obama administration with money they have
no authority to promise. The Senate needs access to the negotiating record that
includes all draft versions of New START, memoranda, notes, and communications
between U.S. and Russian negotiators. This record is critical to clear up
questions on key provisions in the treaty and, specifically, how the Russians
interpret them. The Senate is constitutionally mandated to give due diligence in
its consideration of New START. This responsibility is not consistent with the
rushed process the White House is seeking.
The New START Treaty addresses strategic nuclear weapons, but it does not
address tactical nuclear weapons. Russia has at about 2,000 operation tactical
nuclear weapons and about 3,400 in reserve. The United States has about 400
operational tactical nuclear weapons and about 400 in reserve. Tactical nuclear weapons are small and less destructive than strategic nuclear
weapons, but it would only take one 'suitcase' nuclear weapon in the hands of
terrorists to cause great damage.Leaving tactical nuclear weapons
out of the treaty serves no purpose. There is enough destructive force in those
weapons to destroy entire countries. They must be included in the treaty before
any Senator can, in good conscience, vote to ratify the New START Treaty.