Mitt Romney: Obama’s Biggest Uh-Oh

I’m admittedly not all that well read on foreign policy (that’s why we keep Dacia Nichol around), and I try to find cats who have more to say than “stop apologizing for America” as the one’s who I do read, or at least have a better understand of the issues even if they use the catchphrase to get a cheap pop from the audience. Enter Mitt Romney.

Romney has been spending his 2010 off the radar somewhat, working more behind the scenes than out in public. What I find most interesting is when, he decides to go public, it’s usually on foreign policy. It makes sense when you think of it. His economic experience is outmatched by most of his 2012 rivals. While they try to out tax cut the other, he can focus on global affairs.

Take missile defense, for example…

The treaty also gives far more to the Russians than to the United States. As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses — presumably carefully crafted by Moscow — provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers — including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads — without tripping the treaty’s limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia’s plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.

Under New START, the United States must drastically reduce our number of launchers but Russia will not — it already has fewer launchers than the treaty limits. Put another way: We give, Russia gets. And more troubling, the treaty fails to apply the MIRV limits that were part of the prior START treaty. Again, it may not be coincidental that Russia is developing a new heavy-load — meaning MIRV-capable — ICBM.

New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1. Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured? Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the Obama administration bows to Russia’s insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty’s warhead and launcher limits.

Give the whole thing a read.

Advertisements

One thought on “Mitt Romney: Obama’s Biggest Uh-Oh”

  1. Okay, I agree that Barry’s admins were idiots; however, I disagree that this was their “biggest” foreign policy mistake. That little speech in Cairo and the new objective assignment for the NASA administrator – I’d stick those on the poo poo list before this one. Maybe just because they embarassed me….

    See, the United States is superior to Russia in every aspect that was negotiated. Yes, they outnumber us 10 to 1 with certain “tactial” nuke heads; however, the treaty allows as many ICBMs as either country wants as long as they’re attached to bombers. Maybe I’m partial because my husband was a B-2 tech and his BFF helped invent the damn thing but – yeah, our bombers are pretty sick. Russia is simply in development for a new handy dandy one that will never be as f’ing awesome as ours. We already have the sickest thing on the planet, and if future prez’s are stuck on compliance with New START, they just need to invest in bomber upgrades. In fact, we can totally meet the requirements for this new BS by moving our men aroud the map. For all you RISK players, it’s like saying that we’ll reinforce in Africa and build deep troop levels in Eastern Europe instead of Western Europe where the attention seems to be focused.

    Romster says it didn’t touch rail (who cares?) – we (and the Germans) tried rail-based systems in WWI and WWII…they suck. If Russia needs to get through teenage rebellion and try it for themselves…whatever. It also didn’t touch Star Wars…I know, I know…how are we gonna get that kooky Reagan idea to work while we’re siphoning space money to pay for global warming…but humor me. We still have the capability to intercept missiles from practically anywhere AND it didn’t touch sub missiles either.

    I say we’re okay…for now. But Barry did get bullied in this one. If we make no changes to our defense systems…we will slowly screw ourselves. HOWEVER…barry will be gone in approx. 2 years and somebody with a sturdier set of panties will take over and see that we can still kick some Russian azz. Peace.

    – Maj. Dacia Nichol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s