Killing New START Is Crazy so of Course the Trump Admin Is Doing It

And saying it has to be killed because China is not in it is the dumbest thing yet

Pompeo just reconfirmed that the Trump administration is going to let New START die:

So with that – with that as the central core principle, we – the President has spoken deeply about how the world has changed since New START was originally created. We now have an expanded threat from the Chinese Communist Party. The President’s made clear that any time we begin to have a conversation about how to create a strategic – a strategic structure that secures America, it’s no longer the case that it can only be the United States and Russia. And so we will – we will work to make sure that as we move these conversations forward, these dialogues about what’s the right way to ensure American national security, whether that’s in arms control or, frankly, for that matter, in any other space, we will have the protection of the American people and the stability for the free peoples of the world foremost front and center in how we think about that problem set.

China has a small fraction of the number of nuclear weapons that the U.S. and Russia have, and Beijing has been adamant that they have no intention of joining an arms control treaty with the other two. The New START restrictions limit the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons. China only has a few hundred. Feigning concern about a much smaller Chinese arsenal while letting the major treaty that limits Russia’s arsenal lapse is unfathomably dumb. Every administration for the last thirty years has worked with their Soviet and Russian counterparts to reduce the size of our countries’ nuclear arsenals, and the U.S. and Russia have made great strides on this front. This administration will be the first to cast aside every remaining arms control treaty without regard for the consequences.

Pointing to China as a reason not to extend New START is nothing more than a lame excuse for killing the treaty, and it doesn’t even make sense on Pompeo’s own terms. New START negotiations concluded in 2009, and the treaty was ratified in 2010. The world has not changed so much in ten years that the U.S. should be willing to throw away its most significant arms control agreement. An “expanded threat” from China may or may not exist in some sense, but it has nothing to do with the merits of keeping New START. Vipin Narang comments on Pompeo’s statement:

Both parties to New START have complied with the treaty’s requirements. Complaining that the current treaty doesn’t cover all types of Russian nuclear weapons is silly, since allowing the treaty to expire will mean that no Russian nuclear weapons will be limited by any agreement. Pranay Vaddi, Nicholas Blanchette, and Garrett Hinck addressed this earlier this year:

Letting New START expire is a surefire way to leave Russia’s most threatening long-range nuclear weapons unconstrained, while failing to set any limits on other Russian weapons either.

The treaty’s verification measures provide the U.S. extremely valuable information about Russia’s nuclear arsenal, and when the treaty goes away our access to all of that disappears. Vaddi, Blanchette, and Hinck explain why that matters:

If New START expires, it would be difficult—if not impossible—for the U.S. intelligence community to compensate for the loss of insight that U.S. inspectors now have into Russian nuclear weapons bases and storage facilities, and the resulting up-to-date information on the whereabouts of Russian nuclear weapons.

Letting New START die means giving up all of the advantages that the U.S. gains from the treaty while getting nothing else. It is a huge loss for the U.S., and it is going to happen for no good reason.

The U.S. and Russia ought to have been working on additional arms control agreements that could have built on the success of New START, but between Trump’s antipathy to arms control and to anything related to Obama and the general anti-Russian hysteria over the last few years there has been absolutely no interest on the U.S. side in doing this. Now New START is running dangerously short on time, and all indications are that it will be gone in a little over a year. Once New START is gone, it will be the first time in more than forty years that there is no major arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia. The world will be less stable and the U.S. will be less secure as a result.

Source: The American Conservative

  1. Vish says

    The world’s preeminent threat–America–pathetically tries to peddle its anti-China vitriol to rationalize its killing of the START treaty.

    Too bad even pro-American shills like Vipin Narang above have a hard time swallowing this American pretext, given that America has 1500 ICBM strategic nukes while China has a few hundred.

    In reality, America wants to kill the START treaty so that it can advance the Pentagon’s totalitarian vision of American Full Spectrum Dominance of the world.

    Expanding its strategic nuclear arsenal is a fundamental part of this insane American vision. Hence, the *real* reason why the USA wants to end START–just like it ended the ABM Treaty or the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

    At base, America is a very paranoid empire that squeals about this or that threat … to disguise the true threat is the United States itself.

    You have only to look at America’s serial wars of aggression around the world from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya to Syria to Somalia to find who the true threat is:

    US Reprehensibly Inciting New Global Arms Race

  2. thomas malthaus says

    Lately, Russia and Japan meetings are probably indicative of going through the diplomatic motions: They know each other all too well.

    Moscow realizes that returning the Kuril Islands to Japan denies Washington a key location in its Russia encirclement strategy.

    Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and one or two suffix-ending -stan countries may be more vulnerable to American influence. This isn’t news to Russia’s Foreign Ministry and intelligence services, but a few US ambassadors serving in Russia’s vicinity have deep attachments to Langley.

    “Former” employees might be an accurate description.

    Sergei Lavrov also realizes the state of Japan’s economy means capital flow from Tokyo to eastern Russia doesn’t have to be negotiated. The country’s yearly economic conferences, such as one held in Vladivostok, ensures investors are well acquainted with all things Russia business.

    Russia is calling.

  3. Jesus says

    New Start treaty allowed US to stay in the detterance equation with a
    decrepit ICBM force and an unreliable air delIvery platforms.
    They will need to spend large sums of money to develop a 21st century ICBM, something I personally do not think they can do. Also the development of the B21 bomber will be another MIC fiasco.
    Having to compete with Russia and China’s increasingly military innovative deployments of new weapon systems, US MIC is ill equipped to innovate and produce reliable weapon systems, lacking funds and brain power to stay relevant in the long run.

    1. David Bedford says

      The MIC will soak up as many new funds for pet projects that they can but the world’s eyes were opened when Russia intervened to backup Assad in Syria and now that that war is pretty much finished America will be moving onto the next much harder to win near peer power.

  4. JustPassingThrough says

    The US being less secure is like a dog chasing its tail.

    The US is the major cause of insecurity in this world and therefore the author of its own insecurity.

    Dropping the treaty is a ploy to get the MIC moar and moar.
    RU and CN have the US covered a number of times over.
    The US is generations behind in defensive and offensive weaponry.
    Dropping the treaty isn’t going to solve that problem.
    All it’s going to do is give the DOD easier access to more $$.
    For as long as that lasts.

    The rush for winning-weapons contest has been lost.
    The rush out of the $ is enroute.

    A new 3rd world s**t-hole is in the making.

    1. David Bedford says

      I love this response (just wanted to say).

    2. Canosin says

      the “new” old s*ithole is there already since 40 plus years in the making….. slums are growing in the cities….. crime rate spikes through the roof. … almost 45 million people living below poor standards……

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.