This whole article is why I won't vote for Romney. It makes no sense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html
1. Missile defense is not limited in any conceivable way. The only missile defense systems that would possibly be limited is the pie in the sky 100billion ones that is a decade away (when the treaty expires).
2. Regional missile defense against Iran and North Korea is not limited in any way shape or form. The Russians are not going to strongly object and pull out of the treaty for these systems as they pose no direct threat to them.
3. The BCC that he mentions is a mainstay in all Arms control treaties. It was in the 1st START and is just a continuation of the previous committee. (If he read the treaties he would see that)
4. Rail based ICBMs are covered as the language of the treaty is broad enough to include any launcher that can deliver an ICBM. If the Russians do decide to do this, it would be covered, head to the BCC and be under inspection by us.
5. The treaty does not favor the Russians. Yes, Russia is already near the 700 launcher limit, but they are far above the warhead limit and this treaty brings them from their 2,500 to 1,550. Yes tactical and MIRVs are not covered. But, that was not the focus of the treaty. It is a bridge to future treaties which will cover those areas.
6. Tactical weapons, I highly doubt Russia will launch tactical weapons as that would spark a thermonuclear war and thus far Russia has not been stupid enough to do that. Deterrence has held.
7. Finally, he mentions putting ICBMs on bombers? That is crazy. The warheads are completely different and would take years to engineer for a bomber. Besides, bombers are useless today as Russia's are large and slow, easily picked off by our radars. It makes no sense for the Russians to put all their eggs in bombers instead of mobile missiles.
This article is everything I don't like about Romney. It is partisan talking points without reading the treaty and its context.
