******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Guess What - We Agreed To Trade Nukes For Non-Nukes

So reports The New York Times regarding a new conventional weapons system under development.

In the recent arms control treaty signed with the Russians we agreed to count each of these new conventional weapons towards the nuclear weapons limits in the treaty, meaning that for each of these new non-nuclear weapons, we would have to eliminate a nuclear weapon.

As reported by The Times:

In coming years, President Obama will decide whether to deploy a new class of weapons capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour and with such accuracy and force that they would greatly diminish America’s reliance on its nuclear arsenal.

Yet even now, concerns about the technology are so strong that the Obama administration has acceded to a demand by Russia that the United States decommission one nuclear missile for every one of these conventional weapons fielded by the Pentagon. That provision, the White House said, is buried deep inside the New Start treaty that Mr. Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev signed in
two weeks ago.

The technology involved is a Hypersonic Cruise Missile, and it is a game changer.

According to the article in The Times, the Russians and Chinese have a concern that these weapons could have a destabilizing effect because it would not be known if they carried a nuclear or conventional weapon, so if it is deployed, steps would need to be taken to make clear that they were non-nuclear.

That is all well and good. Verification with the Russians and Chinese to prevent a destabilizing effect is one thing. Counting conventional weapons the same as nuclear weapons, however, is nonsensical.

Another document signed by Obama which cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Bookmark and Share


  1. Does he not have staff that vet this stuff well before he even shows up to sign it? This seems like shocking incompetence .... or is it unilateral disarmament?

  2. The Senate still has to ratify this treaty. Keep those "deeply hidden details" coming - give the Republicans and anyone with an ounce of sense the tools and information to stop this insane agreement.

    Great post! Thanks for the information!

  3. The NYT article is a virtually a wholesale lift from the book "The Seventh Decade" by Jonathan Schell. It's like they're daring us to call them out on their plagiarism at this point.

  4. I don't understand why this is news... SED Waverider has been around for 5+ years.