DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

Damn those republicans for trying to hold this up!

I don't know if Miller has an agenda, but maybe rushing into this for a political victory wasn't such a good idea?


US Naval Institute

U.S. Naval Institute - December 23, 2010

President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

After meeting resistance from several Republicans, the U.S. Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by a vote of 71-26 on Wednesday.

“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”

Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is often credited with bankrupting the U.S.S.R. because the Soviets were unable to keep pace with the technology being developed by the United States.

“We have always been superior in quality of our nuclear force, so we did not have to negotiate with a party we do not trust,” said Miller. “If Obama wanted to save some money and improve national defense, he should have gotten out of the nuke negations and acted unilaterally. START is simply a political victory for Obama.”

Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”

We gave up missle defense in this treaty.

That makes me feel a lot safer.

I heard this treaty described as the Russians giving up everything they don't want in exchange for the US giving up everything the Russians wanted us to give up. Yea. Way to go lame ducks for ratifying this crappy treaty.

Hey, we've only had it since April... but it HAD to get done before the lameass ducks left otherwise Obama would have been denied another chance to weaken us...

Keep in mind, I'm not mad at the democrats, I fully expect them to suck real bad and sell us out every chance they get, however, I expect the republicans to suck less yet they seem to be intent on sucking just as bad. Seems like they gave away the farm just to get those tax rates extended...

So we got... extended current tax rates..

They got.... a bad nuclear treaty, billions of dollars worth of extended unemployment benefits, Jon Stewarts first responder benefits, don't ask don't tell.. anything else?

Oh yea, and we still don't have a federal budget yet, they punted on that one. Welcome to compromise...

More old Cold Warrior mentality. Russia could be an invaluable potential ally in containing Iran and China. With the first slight thaw in relations that Medvedev's tenure has brought, pushing Russia away (and thus closer to China) in my opinion is the worst possible thing we could do right now. We need to stop viewing them as the "Evil Empire"--though I admit they've been doing their best to act the part lately with their strong-arming Georgia and Ukraine.

And while this was hardly the point of the article, Gorbachev's political reforms through Perestroika combined with decades of deterioration of the centrally-planned command economy "did the Soviets in," not our spending on a missile defense program. The overly simplistic "Reagan won the Cold War" theory always bugs me.

In 30 years the missle defense concept has not had 1 sucessful implementation.

It was a strategic move, it has not been demonstrated as a technically viable solution.

This is something that Russia is aware of now, as well.

Quote:

---

We gave up missle defense in this treaty.

---

If you look up all the real stats of missile defense testing you will see that more or less , its all hopes and dreams more than any kind of reliable system. Perhaps us giving up something that costs more than its worth in its current formation is us getting one over on them.

Gotta pass it now...goes awrx once again

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/24/russia-puts-start-treaty-january-early-approval/

This Obama guy is so Carter-esque it is not funny

you bring up a good point except that Russia cannot afford to align with China. China is too big a power and too close in proximity with Russia. I fully expect Russia will oppose China when they eventually make their move and they will be asking/begging us to help them.

Obama like Reagan?

Oh yeah...I forgot...they are all the same.

You and I will just agree to disagree.

Phil believes that anyone truly on the right is a fascist and anyone on the left is a socialist the likes of which have never yet been seen. That is the scale he uses, and so, by that scale, every person who has ever been remotely involved in politics in the US has been a "moderate".

What really then is the point of the presidential term limits since the last 8 presidents have been indistinguishable?

How anyone - in a thread about our relationship with Russia - can call Obama and Reagan "the same" is beyond me.

The only thing broad and sweeping is the generalizations in your post...

Quote:

---

They are both beholden to corporate interests

---

Just as an example, you think any candidate who takes a campaign contribution or passes legislation that actually promotes business is like that..

Top U.S. Officials Agree: We Need New START Now


December 15, 2010

The support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, in the United States is broad and deep. It has overwhelming bipartisan support from a who’s who of former high-level foreign policy officials. It has the unanimous support of the top brass of the U.S. military. It has the backing of the directors of the nuclear weapons laboratories. More than 80 percent of the American people support ratification of New START.


A who’s who of former high level foreign policy officials from both parties support the treaty.


Six former secretaries of state: Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Shultz, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger

Five former secretaries of defense: James R. Schlesinger, William J. Perry, Harold Brown, Frank Carlucci, and William Cohen

Five former national security advisors: Henry Kissinger, Colin L. Powell, Samuel Berger, Brent Scowcroft, and James L. Jones

No former secretaries of state or defense, or former national security advisors oppose the treaty.



The New START agreement boasts the unanimous backing of the top brass of the U.S. military.


Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice Chairman General James Cartwright; and the heads of each branch of the military and the commander of U.S. Strategic Command all support New START.

General Patrick O’Reilly, the head of the Missile Defense Agency, supports New START and says it “reduces the constraints” on U.S. missile defense.

Eight U.S. strategic commanders support New START: General Larry Welch, General John Chain, General Lee Butler, Admiral Henry Chiles, General Eugene Habiger, Admiral James Ellis, General Bennie Davis, and General Kevin P. Chilton.

No former U.S. strategic commanders oppose New START. • Retired Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, who was head of Central Command and Pacific Command: “this is an absolute no-brainer."

Retired Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, the former deputy commander of U.S. nuclear forces: "[It is] quite puzzling to me why all of this support [for New START] … is ignored. I don't know what that says about the trust that people have and the confidence they have in our military."


Nuclear lab directors back New START.


The directors of three national nuclear labs—Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia—wrote a letter on December 1, saying they were “very pleased” with the Obama administration’s plan for modernizing the nuclear complex and that they believed the United States could lower its strategic forces to 1,550 under the New START treaty.

Tom D’Agostino, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, wrote, “Both the New START treaty and modernization are in the national security interest. The Senate should approve both.”

Linton Brooks, the former head of the National Nuclear Security Administration under the Bush administration, said he would have “killed for” Obama’s nuclear budget and he urged ratification of the New START treaty.


The American people overwhelmingly support New START.


CBS News Poll: 82 percent of Americans said they support the New START treaty.

CNN Poll: 73 percent of Americans believe that the United States should ratify the treaty.

web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Who is the Vice Admiral that is not happy with this treaty?

VICE ADMIRAL GERALD E. MILLER, USN (RET.), CLASS OF 1942.
YOB...1919
Retired from the Navy in 1980

I seriously doubt that he knows the details of what is in the START. That information would have the highest security classification and it's not likely available to a Retired Vice Admiral.

It is true that some GOP Senators were very bitter about the passage of START, wanting to deny Obama such an accomplishment, regardless if it was good for America.

It is not surprising that a 91 yr old, Retired Vice Admiral wrote an opinion...
...which was picked up by the Anti-Obama website, Drudge..
...then spread like wildfire, down the Radical RW's chain of command of websites..
...picked up by the Anti-Obama, Fox News channel..
... and of coarse, posted here by one of the Anti-Obama board members.

None of this surprises me..it's kind of standard operating procedure for the GOP these days. We have seen these tactics used by the Radical Right Wing over and over. It kind of amusing to see the sheep follow.

BTW, I forgot to mention that the United States Secretary of Defense also supported this START treaty, saying the following...

"I strongly support the Senate voting to give its advice and consent to ratification of the New START treaty this week," said Gates, a Bush administration holdover who has credibility with Capitol Hill Republicans.

Gates said the treaty will enhance strategic stability at lower numbers of nuclear weapons, provide a rigorous inspection regime including on-site access to Russian missile silos, strengthen the United States' leadership role in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and provide the necessary flexibility to structure our strategic nuclear forces to best meet U.S. national security interests.

"This treaty stands on its merits, and its prompt ratification will strengthen U.S. national security," Gates said.


web page

imo, jmho

Why didn't they pass it last spring? Why rush it now? Why isn't Russia signing it?

Agree to a pact and sign it into law some 6-8 months later?

Maybe now Obama can get to work on the country's budget for the year that started 3 months ago.