Ever notice how the backers of the Start treaty appear to be the same folks who, until recently, wanted gun control? Arms control and gun control are connected at the hip.
Biden says the Start treaty will pass. Mitch McConnell says he won't support it. And analysts say Senate rejection will be "a major blow to warming ties between the two countries," as if being liked is better than looking out for our own best interests. They probably teach this in diplomacy college -- the key to getting the people who control governments to like you is to give them whatever they want.
As N. Korea tools up its nuclear bombs and missile delivery system, Iran advances its own nuclear weaponry. Lay down your arms, y'all, and we can all live in peace, Obama seems to be telling them. All well and good. But an agreement with Russia which binds the U.S., doesn't provide for adequate verification, and gives the Russians an "opt out" provision is not good for the U.S. And it seems aimed at appeasing those among Mr. Obama's constituency who are repelled by U.S. supremacy and yearn to knock the U.S. down a notch.
Supporters say the Start treaty is better than nothing. Maybe. But if only one side is willing to abide by an agreement then it's more of a shackle than a truce. For more, see Top 10 reasons why Start is a non-starter
So we finally get to the link between arms control and gun control. Both rely on the good intentions of those who are expected to abide by them. It's trite but true, outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Same with the international bad boys. Ban nuclear weapons all you want, but countries like Iran and North Korea will yawn and keep going gang busters. And Putin sits back, hums a tune, and snickers at how he's got America falling all over itself to push that re-set button.
Comments