Start Treaty Hypocrisy - by Stephen Lendman
Hyped support reveals gross hypocrisy about a deeply flawed process and outrageous price for it. More on that below. Yet a September 14 New York Times editorial headlined, "Ratify the New Start Treaty," saying;
"Failure to ratify this treaty would be hugely costly for American credibility and security....The Senate needs to ratify New Start now." In fact, endorsing ratification undermines The Times credibility. More why below.
A more recent Washington Post November 19 editorial headlined, "The New START pact should be passed, not politicized," saying:
"....the treaty ought to be approved. But no calamity will befall the United States if the Senate does not act this year....In reality, Mr. Obama's urgency (has) less to do with national security than with the upcoming shift in Senate seats" next year.
The Los Angeles Times said ratifying Start could "be a defining moment for Obama. Failure might be regarded abroad as confirmation that the administration is too weak to put its stamp on world affairs."
Most major media reports endorse ratification. None explain key facts about a deeply flawed treaty or what's ahead when implemented. An earlier article on Obama's Nuclear Posture Review explained why, accessed through the following link:
Calling it old wine in new bottles, it explained that nuclear disarmament or serious reductions aren't envisioned or planned. New and upgraded weapons will replace outdated ones. Dangerous testing will continue, and billions of dollars will be committed to proliferate a first-strike capability with overwhelming destructive power, including from space.
Obama's Nuclear Posture Review was more about war making than prevention. Also unchanged is the 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, removing the distinction between defensive and offensive deterrents. It includes the most modern triad of land and sea-based strategic bombers, land-based missiles, and ballistic missile submarines as well as robust research development and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain unchallengeable offensive and defensive systems.
It exceeds deterrent, calling for preemption with nuclear or non-nuclear weapons against named adversaries, whether or not true. In other words, aggressive wars for unchallengeable global dominance are planned, especially against nations in resource-rich areas.
Missile defense is also misnamed. It's, in fact, for offensive first-strike, notably against Russia and China in case confrontations erupt for resource control. Whether ratified or not, America's permanent war agenda is unchanged, falsely justified to seek peace, democracy and world stability. It's about power threatening global survival to assure America has more than anyone and keeps it.
Start is a smoke screen, more hypocrisy than substance. Disingenuous media hype suppresses the truth without explaining what's needed - full nuclear disarmament without which world safety is impossible.
The Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF) on Start
WSLF "monitors and analyzes US nuclear weapons programs and policies and related high technology energy and weapons programs, with a focus on the national nuclear weapons laboratories." It believes that "nuclear weapons threaten our fundamental human security" and must be abolished.
WSLF's Andrew Lichterman headlined a commentary, "The START Treaty and Disarmament: a Dilemma in Search of a Debate," saying: