START is facing problems? No one could have predicted that (updated)
This guy really loves nuclear weapons
Well it appears that the new START treaty is going to face serious opposition in the Senate from, among other people, Joe Lieberman. No one could have predicted this! My personal view is that this demonstrates rather clearly that the United States’ governing institutions are badly rotted and broken. People like Glenn Reynolds snicker when they hear this argument (I think the good professor actually once responded to it by writing “they weren’t broken when Bush was president, were they? Heh”) but if your “evidence” that America’s political system in its current arrangement isn’t fatally flawed is the unblemished record of fiscal rectitude and good governance of George W. Bush…[insert suitably outraged Matt Taibbi or Glenn Greenwald tirade about the corruption, mendacity, hackishness, and general loathsomeness of contemporary Republicans].
Anyway, returning to the issue of START I’ve caught heat from some people for not being enthusiastic enough about the treaty. Perhaps they’re right, perhaps I ought to have been more excited. But I certainly don’t have any objection to reducing the still incredibly inflated nuclear stockpiles left over from the Cold War, or engaging in some minimal level of collaboration with the Russians. I even described the treaty as a “no-brainer:” it seems to me to be completely and utterly unoffensive, it has virtually no downsides whatsoever, and is entirely in keeping with a comprehensive and rational pursuit of America’s national security interests.
Yet not even a week after Obama declared success in Prague we have a major American political figure openly stating to the press that he is going to do his level best to scuttle a treaty of significant international importance. Why? Because…Because… Because it makes him feel bad? I honestly don’t know, Lieberman’s statements don’t make any sense whatsoever. But don’t take my word for it, here is the main gist of his complaint, taken from the Huffington Post article I linked to above:
“I don’t believe that there will be 67 votes to ratify the treaty unless the administration does two things,” Lieberman said. “First: commit to modernize our nuclear stockpile, so as we have less nuclear weapons we know that they are capable if, God forbid, we need them. And secondly, to make absolutely clear that the statements by Russian president [Dmitry] Medvedev at the signing in program, that seemed to suggest that if we continue to build ballistic missile defense in Europe they may pull out of this treaty, is just not acceptable to us. We need that defense to protect our allies and ourselves from Iran.”
Is there a single rational person in the entire world who thinks that America’s current nuclear arsenal (built at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and refined over the span of several decades) isn’t “capable.” What does Liberman propose we do, start detonating hydrogen bombs over some God-forsaken atoll in the Pacific like we did in the 50’s? Or begin incinerating random parts of Nevada to make sure that all of our fancy toys actually work, just like the good old days? Hey, why don’t we kill two birds with one stone and just “test” one of our ICBMs on Tehran? Wouldn’t that work to everyone’s benefit? Seriously though, there are literally thousands of people in the American armed forces, with great gobs of taxpayer money at their disposal, who are tasked with ensuring the integrity of our nuclear stockpile. Is Lieberman suggesting that they are not doing their jobs? That they are incompetent? Or untrustworthy? That we aren’t spending enough money on our nukes? Jeeze, sure seems like pretty sleazy stuff coming from a guy who bases so much of his political persona on “supporting the troops.”
The second part of Lieberman’s complaint is even more illogical and crazy. We’re going to “make absolutely clear” to the Russians that their leaving the treaty would be unacceptable to us? What? What are we going to do, sit Vlad and Dima down in the West Wing and make them pinky-swear that they will never leave this new treaty? Threaten them with an unending series of Joe Biden speeches unless they legally swear to forever abide by START, regardless of how many missile interceptors we build to shoot down the hordes of (non-existent) Iranian missiles? My head hurts just thinking about this. If our missile defense activity convinces the Russians that it is in their national interest to unilaterally leave this new treaty, that is what they are going to do because that is what any state does when it thinks a treaty is no longer in keeping with its vital interests. That is what the United States did when it unilaterally abrogated the ABM treaty in December of 2001. That is what the Russians will do if they become convinced that our madcap schemes at missile defense are a serious danger to them. And how does another arms race sound to everyone? Fun, right? Sort of like one of those theme parties where everyone dresses like a 60’s hippie, only instead of costumes it involves weapons which can, in a moment, end human civilization!
A clear-headed and rational person who agreed with the general goals of START would make every effort to reassure the Russians that our missile defenses (“targeted at Iran”) pose no threat to them and will be kept within very strictly delineated bounds. They would absolutely not vacuously posture and impotently chest-beat about how certain courses of action are “unacceptable.” The Russians could really care less what is “acceptable” to us, they care about maximizing their security. Apparently, after a lot of difficult back and forth negotiating that stretched out over many months, we were able to convince them that an agreement that significantly reduces nuclear stockpiles on both sides is in keeping with their interests. I usually stay away from making specific predictions and verifiable hypotheses, but I will state without equivocation or evasion that the United States will never, in a million years, get the Russians to agree to abide by a treaty of the sort that Lieberman is proposing, a treaty whose terms amount to: “America gets to do whatever it wants, Russia can do nothing. Oh, and by the way, Russia is never allowed to modify the treaty or leave it.” No country, not even the most obsequiously democracy-loving bandwagoner, would agree to such a deal. Ever.
So to summarize: Joe Lieberman won’t agree to a completely unobjectionable and positive-sum deal that makes the world a marginally safer place, and will actually work hard to scuttle it, because 1) the US needs to do something it already does at great cost and 2) the US needs to do something that is impossible. Sounds completely reasonable to me!
CRITICAL UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds did not like my characterization of his position about the United States now being “ungovernable.” He helpfully provided a link to the article I was trying to reference. As you can clearly see, my description of his position was 100% off base and inaccurate. For that, and for my rank leftism, I sincerely apologize.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Yes, Holy Joe is truly a piece of work. The cloud of sanctimony that follows him has long since caused the mass death of the brain cells involved in looking at things from the perspective of others.
Unfortunately, we’re stuck with him.
However, the treaty itself would be no great loss, though its defeat or withdrawl from consideration by the Senate would demonstrate that the true “rogue nation” in the world is none other than the US.
I expect the effects of this would be significant. Sane “Old Europe” might even pull in the financial leash on “New Europe” to minimize the dangerous influence of the US in Europe.
I am really proud of this President and the Job he is doing for the American people. The last few weeks has been stellar and has been about the most productive time in Washington I can remember in many many years. From The Jobs bill to the Education Reform to the Health Care legislation to a really good treaty with Russia that also specifies N Korea and Iran in some REAL talk vs just calling them names like ‘Axis of Evil’. A really good Treaty that tells nations who refuse to participate in it, that they have no immunity from a nuclear response even if they don’t use nuclear weapons first.
Quite proud of the job this guy is doing. Must suck to have to continually fight upstream against the grizzly’s who sit upstream waiting to sink their claws into any advancements you make..
This President is a fighter, glad he is on my side.
My understanding is that the new treaty is more advantageous to Russia — it imposes some new restrictions on America and lifts some old restrictions on Russia. But when I tried to understand the specifics I promptly fell asleep. You are right, none of it matters. We are not likely to have a nuclear war with Russia. And even if we have a nuclear war with them, none of it matters either.
But of course, there are people for whom such things matter a great deal.
(By the way, you misunderstand the snark about things working under Bush. It’s just that when a Democratic President doesn’t get his way in Congress we start hearing a great hue and cry about American institutions being rotten, broken, etc. But when a Republican President doesn’t get his way in Congress there are no such complaints. On the contrary, such cases are presented as examples how the things are supposed to work.)
“(By the way, you misunderstand the snark about things working under Bush. It’s just that when a Democratic President doesn’t get his way in Congress we start hearing a great hue and cry about American institutions being rotten, broken, etc. But when a Republican President doesn’t get his way in Congress there are no such complaints. On the contrary, such cases are presented as examples how the things are supposed to work.)”
Whine, whine, whine…
Democrats were willing to support much of the Bush II agenda. There were Democratic votes available to him in substantial number.
There have been very-low-single-digit numbers of Republicans willing on rare occasion to reciprocate.
So the “Party of No” is in no position to complain when folks point out that they’re uselessly partisan and obstructive.
All a leftie has to do is say Americ’s governmental system is “fatally flawed” and that alone justifies ignoring the Constitution and any other action they want to take.
Hey Ross,
Joe Lieberman (and I assume, you) thinks that we can’t afford healthcare reform but that we CAN afford a bunch of new nuclear weapons. You know what other country didn’t provide quality healthcare but DID produce loads of nuclear weapons? The Soviet Union. Just sayin’.
In response to another comment. See in context »One of the great things the US does for the world is function as a benign military hegemon. There are zero countries that have a pathway to challenge the US in a great power war. So long as we stay the overwhelming military hegemon and mind our invasions, the rest of the world doesn’t arm up for a great power war. As the old saying goes, the US can win 20 simultaneous wars so long as 18 of them are nuclear. This is good for the US but is also good for the world as it frees up resources everywhere but the US for other priorities.
The nuclear arsenal is a major reason we can do this and afford the cost. For the bang, nuclear weapons are cheaper than any other force option. If we want to save money, we cut conventional forces more than nuke forces. They’re much more expensive.
So to say that the arsenals are inflated and not be a poser, a dangerous amateur, we would need to be able to calculate how much military power does it take to maintain this hegemony and figure out whether we’re flirting with giving the worst leaders in the world the hope that they can get away with great power war again after decades of living without it.
If you don’t make the calculation, you’re gambling the peace of the world that you won’t get this wrong as you blindly cut. That’s incredibly dangerous and naive and if you get it wrong, you will have blood on your hands, a lot of it. So Sen Lieberman’s objection seem clear and simple. He’s implying that the Obama administration hasn’t made the calculation either.
If the Obama administration hasn’t seriously thought out what it takes to maintain military hegemony, we are in deep trouble. If it is even generally understood that this has happened, a lot of bad actors are going to get more active as they sense opportunity. So Lieberman speaks in code and leaves open the possibility that he’s a tool and that Obama’s made the calc in some secret report that’s going to see the light of day in 75 years. You can legitimately believe in Lieberman or Obama’s calculation to maintain military hegemony but at least let’s not ignore what’s at stake. The article does.
What are you even talking about? Do you honestly think that it is America’s nuclear arsenal that gives it world-wide reach and power projection? Um, OK, but what about Russia? Last I checked their nuclear arsenal is equally destructive (fewer launch vehicles, more warheads) but they were very, very, very, far from being a “superpower.” Is your suggestion that “democratic” (American) nuclear weapons embue their owner with undisputed mastery of the whole globe whereasy “authoritarian” (Russian) ones have no efficacy whatsoever? China is clearly the world’s rising power but they have less than 10% of the world’s nuclear weapons. Would you argue that China is not, in fact, a rising superpower because they don’t have enough nukes? And if your argument of “Nuclear weapons = undisputed world dominance!” is correct, doesn’t that mean that the Chinese should, right this minute, start feverishly building nuclear weapons in the largest quantities possible?
In response to another comment. See in context »Nuclear weapons are good at deterring other large countries from attacking you. They are lousy at pretty much everything else. For evidence of this, see the past half century of Russian history.
I think I called the Lieberman resistance last week. But Lugar is firmly on board. I don’t know for a fact, and find it impossible to follow much of the GOP’s reasoning, but it seems the GOP may be more inclined to follow Lugar’s lead than Lieberman’s? Plus, that party has a long tradition of supporting these things. Plus, you can run on economic issues, but do most people care about START? Moreover, it seems a lot of the opposition is actually to the Nuclear Posture Review, not START. Or am I reading this wrong?
p.s. You know, the heat was not aimed entirely at you. You just had the poor fortune of belonging to a list of people I’d seen similar -if not worse- reactions from AND you had a blog I could point a finger at.
[...] Senate and the Duma for ratification. Right-wing Senators have indicated that they’re considering challenging the treaty, or at the very least hoping to delay ratification by up to a year. Suddenly, the conservative [...]