Obama's START Treaty Based on Silly Video's He Watched in High School?

Recently I have been critical of President Barack Obama's New START Treaty. My criticism is relevant because one of the most important roles of a President is negotiating treaties and this treaty is the most important one that Obama has negotiated. It is also relevant because this treaty was ratified in the Senate by Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and she is up for re-election, and should be held to account for her vote on this important issue. And my criticism of this treaty is relevant because it critiques a larger viewpoint held by many on the liberal and left of the spectrum that reductions in weapons are always a good thing. Let's not forget about this issue just because in the meantime Obama has messed up on several others (Egypt, gasoline prices, etc).

In My Thoughts on the New START Treaty I wrote:

President Change and his party in Congress continue to cause trouble, even though most of us have turned our attention to happier things during this holiday season. For the first time ever in our nation's history, a lame-duck Senate confirmed a major arms treaty, defying convention and tradition and the historical role of the Senate to give due deliberation to treaties of this sort in favor of a quick ratification in recognition of the fact that the treaty is a bad one and the next Senate would never ratify it because it is bad....

....Well, to be correct, it isn't a bad treaty, it just is one that my six-year old daughter could have negotiated, if she did a bad job. It is a treaty that gives everything away with getting little in return, and a fair and honest assessment of the treaty leads one to lead to a 'no' vote on it and to be critical of Obama. Of course, politics and scoring wins are very important to Democrats, so they don't really care about the reality of the treaty, but I do, and so I think Obama did a bad job with this treaty, 71 Senators voted incorrectly to confirm it, and those who celebrate its passage are weak-minded fools....

....Let's look at what this treaty does in the wider scope of international affairs. Under this treaty, the US becomes a weaker nuclear power, less able to defend itself from attacks, less able to keep tabs on its main nuclear rival, and less able to attack other nations using nuclear weapons. Of course no one wants to ever attack anyone using nuclear weapons, but the main way this is done is to be just crazy enough to threaten overwhelming nuclear attacks (for evidence see the continued existence of the world after US adopted this policy). Russia knows this is the best way to get things done too, and is letting its conventional forces weaken while it strengthens its nuclear weapons (at lower numbers) (under Obama's watch), because then it will continue to wield international power without having to maintain all those conventional forces. Iran and North Korea both also see that the US is weaker and less able to check their advances and so will continue building up their nuclear forces (under Obama's watch) free from the threat of nuclear annihilation (although we all know it never would have happened, the possibility was always there)....

I also wasn't surprised to find out that Obama Sold Out British to Russians in Deal to get New START Treaty, since I knew it was a bad treaty I figured there was a lot of bad stuff in it, although I was a bit surprised about the audacity of Obama to give the Russians information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain as part of the deal.

So if the New START treaty was such a poor treaty, why did Obama negotiate it and many Senators vote to ratify it? Because of their mistaken belief that the best way to achieve lasting peace is through unilateral disarmament.

In one of our International Relations classes here at my high school, students watch a video called Disarmament: The Quest for Lasting Peace. This video confronts the major issues of disarmament by clarifying the terminology and describing the most recently developed weapons and their effect on world disarmament negotiations. It explores the past attempts, the problems of present negotiations, and future trends of arms control, with a goal of convincing students that the best way to achieve lasting peace for the world is through disarmament of world powers. But students don't watch a video on Peace Through Strength and about how disarmament is just silly unless it is from a position of strength and done in such a way so not to jeopardize the security of America and its allies.

Nope, in our school, like most schools around the nation, students only hear one point of view in their International Relations class and then the teacher leads discussion on this one point of view asking students to talk about disarmament and talk about lasting peace and talk about how disarmament can lead to lasting peace. And then these students grow up and vote or run for political office or become President, and their silly ideas about disarmament leading to world peace get put into policy, and America signs bad treaties like the New START Treaty, and the world is a less safe place because of it. It all fits together.

UPDATE: