At the NRO corner, Sarah Palin (or her ghostwriter) takes a moment to rally the Republican Senators against the evil that is New START. "It's a trap!" she screams. "Run away!"

New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons – a position the Russians have sought for years.  Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses.  This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty.  The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty?  At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union.  That position was right in the 1980’s, and it is still right today.  We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population – whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies.

It would be too easy to rebut her many incorrect assumptions and faulty logic, especially about the actions she may or may not have taken during her half-term as governor. It's not as bad as Romney's tirade against New START, but it's damned close in the level of stupidity and backwardness. Fortunately, there's a writer who has presented a counter-argument in The American Conservative magazine, of all places.

This is one thing in the treaty debate that has never made much sense. Treaty opponents are overwhelmingly drawn from the ranks of people who viscerally dislike and distrust the Russian government, but they ought to be among the first to want to put Russia under a verification regime. As it stands, they are working very hard to prevent the re-establishment of any verification regime. Whether or not they claim to want some ideally superior means of verification, they are taking the position that the regime established by this treaty should not be implemented.

Despite the best efforts of some hawkish interventionists to pretend that arms control is a relic of the past and irrelevant to today’s problems, they are the ones most likely to portray Russia as an existing or emerging threat to its neighbors. They should be the ones most eager to limit and constrain Russia through treaty obligations. Even if they don’t believe that Russia will comply with the treaty, it is hawks who should want to impose obligations and limits on Russia’s arsenal. Instead, it is the most anti-Russian and hawkish figures who are effectively enabling Russian power. What is remarkable about this is that these are the same people who could not stop haranguing the administration for betraying Poland and the Czech Republic when there was no betrayal, and they are the ones who remain convinced that it is the administration that is giving in to Russian demands when Russia has obtained virtually nothing tangible from the “reset.” Now that they are presented with an opportunity to side with European allies in support of greater U.S. and European security, they have opted instead for a rejectionist position that would keep the U.S. largely blind to Russian activities, increase uncertainty about Russia’s arsenal, and add to allied anxieties about potential Russian threats.

It's a no-brainer. Moderate Republicans should support New START because it does in fact limit Russian nuclear weapons and it sets up the opportunity to re-engage them on other issues, such as tactical nuclear missiles. The hard-right Republicans just want Russia to portray a symbol of unending threat, so it justifies spending lots of money on defense programs. The latter don't need arms control treaties to make their argument; the former recognize the need, but have to drum up the courage to stand up to their colleagues. We'll see who wins this round, sanity or madness.

Sarah Palin should stick to issues she understands, like shooting moose or wolves from planes, rather than addressing serious national security issues of which she has no comprehension. At the least, reflexively going against an arms control initiative because the Bush-initiated agreement might be completed under Obama's term, while every former Secretary of State and all of the active duty general officer is for it, is really not a great idea.

It's official now - all living Secretary of States, including six Republicans and two Democrats, are in favor of ratifying New START. The one hold out was, until this week, Condoleezza Rice.  Laura Rozen spilled the beans. Rice's statement of support - with caveats - is behind the WSJ subscription wall, but reprinted in part here.

First, smaller forces make the modernization of our nuclear infrastructure even more urgent. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona has led a valiant effort in this regard. Thanks to his efforts, roughly $84 billion is being allocated to the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex. Ratifying the treaty will help cement these commitments, and Congress should fully fund the president's program. Congress should also support the Defense Department in modernizing our launchers as suggested in the recent defense strategy study coauthored by former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Second, the Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this treaty, the U.S. is not re-establishing the Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New Start's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it recognizes the "interrelationship" of the two. Administration officials have testified that there is no link, and that the treaty will not limit U.S. missile defenses. But Congress should ensure that future Defense Department budgets reflect this.

Moscow contends that only current U.S. missile-defense plans are acceptable under the treaty. But the U.S. must remain fully free to explore and then deploy the best defenses—not just those imagined today. That includes pursuing both potential qualitative breakthroughs and quantitative increases.

Now Sen. Kyl isn't going to budge just because GWB's main squeeze says the treaty's good, but now she can sleep easier at night, knowing she's (finally) joined the greybeards of her party in doing the right thing. It's interesting that she draws this artificial condition, that US missile defense should be protected from any treaty agreements. For one, it's already been established by numerous civilian and military experts that US missile defense isn't constrained by this treaty. For another, you may remember her testimony in the summer of 2001 was that the Bush administration's top priority was the national missile defense program, not terrorism.

So how did eight years of spending $7-10 billion a year on missile defense turn out?  Not so good by 2005, not good in 2008, and still not so good today. I guess the US missile defense program needs all the breaks it can get. Way to go, Condi! You've really nailed the important issue here.

Just after the discovery that North Korea is moving ahead with uranium enrichment, bombs rain on the island of Yeonpyeong, courtesy of Kim Jong Il and his mighty military, resulting in the death of at least one South Korean marine and several injuries.

That particular border has been the scene of other skirmishes over the past few years. When tensions rise between the two countries, that area tends to be the target. Given current US pressure on North Korea over their uranium enrichment program, it seems that we're in for another round of North Korean saber-rattling. To further exacerbate things, South Korea has been conducting drills near the border, according to The Guardian's live blog of events as they unfold.

Kim Hee-jung told reporters that officials were looking into the North's motive, adding: "Our Navy was conducting a maritime exercise near the western sea border today. North Korea has sent a letter of protest over the drill. We're examining a possible link between the protest and the artillery attack."

South Korea's president Lee Myung-bak has told senior officials that the government must "carefully manage the situation to prevent the escalation of the clash," another spokesperson said.

Kim Jong Il's anointing of his son Kim Jong Un sent a clear signal: there would be no end to aggression, nor a clear path to peace. A show of force not only reinforces that message to the world, it also reinforces its hold on North Koreans.

While there's an argument to be made that South Korea's military exercises in the region are provocative, it certainly doesn't suggest permission to shell the region, either.

It is a volatile region, and one which Fox News is not afraid to exploit. In an op-ed written by Christian Whiton, special envoy to North Korea under the Bush administration, Whiton uses North Korea's recalcitrance as an argument for why the START treaty should not be ratified. He doesn't stop there, however. As our president presses for international nuclear non-proliferation and a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons, this is Whiton's suggestion:

The way to do that is for the U.S. to possess a modern and reliable nuclear arsenal. Another key element would be improving systems to shoot down enemy missiles.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is stumbling. The last time America tested a nuclear warhead was in 1992. Would you defend your home and family with ammunition that has not been tested in two decades—and might be decades older still? Such is the case with our nuclear defense.

Two words. Star Wars. Three words. National Missile Defense.

Whiton draws upon the ghost of Saint Ronnie in order to revive and restart the cold war, a tactic not all that different from North Korea's and Iran. This is just exploitation of an already-dangerous situation in order to: a) undermine President Obama; and b) advance the love of warmongering long associated with the right wing; and c) make a right-wing argument for even MORE defense spending. Never let it be said that Fox News isn't ballsy. If fear were traded on the US Stock Exchange instead of money, Murdoch would own the world.

There are better, peaceful, and more productive policy options than a nuclear buildup, no matter what the right-wing defense cabal thinks.

More as it develops.

Update: A Chinese official has called for both sides to "calm down" and "disengage". China is the right voice to call for this right now. Chances are that call will be heard.

Sorry, I know it's adolescent, but it wasn't Star Wars, it was this scene from Austin Powers I couldn't stop thinking about while I read this article in USA Today:

Are we finally witnessing the dawn of the "death ray"?

Five decades after the creation of the laser, the ubiquitous technology of the modern era may be ready to serve up that Star Wars science-fiction staple: the laser blaster. Advances in the technology have made it possible for military testers to shoot down incoming mortar rounds with land-based lasers, and military commanders are on the verge of being able to fire laser blasts from the air that could be aimed at tanks or mines.

"We literally are the invisible death ray, let me tell you," says Mike Rinn of Boeing's Airborne Laser Program in Seattle, a missile- defense effort, one among dozens of Defense Department-supported "directed energy" programs run by military contractors such as Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.

"This beam is invisible to the naked eye; you can't see it."[..]

Lasers increasingly are being used by the military, says Sharon Weinberger, author of Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld. Gun sights use lasers, targets are "painted" with lasers to help guide bombs dropped from aircraft, and secure lines of communication rely on the technology.

"That's where lasers are really making a difference," she says. "We just take it for granted now."

One of the main obstacles to developing lasers as weapons has been generating enough power for the kinds of laser blasts that battlefield planners have envisioned. But designers recently passed the 100-kilowatt (100,000 watts) benchmark (enough energy to power about six U.S. homes for a month), which was seen as a key milestone for their development. Engineers have improved lens coatings, laser cooling and miniaturized electronics to keep a bigger laser punch from burning up weapons in mid-operation.

So years of research finally have produced lasers that could be effective on the battlefield, with one possible exception — ballistic missile defense — the area of defense in which the notion of using lasers has attracted the most publicity.

Why?

Cost is one reason. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last year canceled plans to buy a laser-equipped 747, saving taxpayers $214 million this year. The program was eight years behind schedule and $4 billion over cost. Gates also questioned the practicality of a laser that needed to be within about 80 miles of a missile to knock it down, meaning it would have to fly over hostile anti-aircraft defenses — probably a suicide mission. "It's one thing to get a laser working aboard something as big as a 747. It's another to field something that makes sense as a weapon," says former Air Force chief scientist Mark Lewis, now at the University of Maryland.[..]

This year, the Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency announced that a 100-kilowatt laser aboard the research 747 had shot down Scud missiles in two tests, the first since a weaker laser knocked down smaller Sidewinder missiles in the 1980s. But Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, who called the demonstration "a magnificent technical achievement," said the type of chemical lasers used for the system were too heavy and unreliable for wartime use. Electronic solid-state lasers, an approach pursued by the U.S. Navy, seem more practical, because of their smaller size, power needs, easier cooling and insensitivity to vibrations.[..]

Says Imaginary Weapons author Weinberger: "In the military world, one real question is: Why do we need them? What can lasers do that we can't do with bullets and missiles? Given their costs and the fact that they weigh too much and are unreliable, I don't see them as too useful."

This has been another episode of military boys and their outrageously expensive toys. Did you catch the part where scientists have only recently surpassed the 100KW threshold for lasers, which is enough to power six homes for a month? Well then, why the hell aren't we looking into doing this???

Do we really need yet another expensive weapons program that looks like it's being pursued only because it appeals to the science fiction geeks in the Pentagon over alternative forms of energy?

I love Eastern European politicians. They haven't seen the need to be disingenuous about the real purpose of political decisions. They can be blunt and open about their intentions and desires. That's why we find out, from the Polish foreign minister, that the proposed United States missile defense site for his country really isn't about Iranian or Russian ballistic missiles at all.

When George W. Bush's administration announced its plans to deploy missile defense interceptors in Poland, the system was advertised as needed to counter Iranian missiles headed toward the United States or Europe. The problem was, Bush's plan was designed to counter long-range missiles and actually had little chance of hitting a missile headed from Iran to Europe.

The Obama administration came in and changed the plan, replacing the interceptors with a "phased adaptive approach" that will use smaller, more mobile systems to counter short and medium-range missiles. They advertised that as better suited to protect Europe.

But Sikorski admitted that Poland's real interest in the system is to be an active player in the new emerging security infrastructure in Europe, which includes NATO's endorsement of missile defense.

"Our part of Europe has so far very few NATO installations," he said. "This is the game that seems to be the next project, so we decided to get involved."

Ah, yes, the great game of military power building. So when you hear politicians or defense analysts stressing the need for the US government to spend billions for European missile defense sites because of the Iranian "threat" of a ballistic missile attack, tell them that they're full of crap. Europe doesn't need us to defend it from Iran, and we don't need this site to protect the United States from an Iranian nuke. Poland just wants a US military installation so that it can feel as important as Germany or Italy in playing its part for NATO (but let's not talk about NATO's role in defense issues outside of Europe, it's pretty vague).

I'm hoping that the Obama administration wises up about this half-baked concept, but as long as Obama remains fixated on Iran's nuclear weapons program as a national security threat, he'll probably consider this missile defense site as "leverage" against Iran. But my impression is that Iran's really not going to care, because its ballistic missiles are more for protection against its neighbors than for aggressive, suicidal moves like ballistic missile shots at Europe or America. It's going to single-mindedly keep pursuing the dream, not because it wants to attack anyone or expand its borders, but because it's part of a nationalist agenda to be accepted as a significant player. After all, that's what Poland wants, too.

Of course something this ludicrous had to appear on Breitbart's site written by Frank Gaffney: Can This Possibly Be True? New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

The Obama administration’s determined effort to reduce America’s missile defense capabilities initially seemed to be just standard Leftist fare — of a piece with the Democratic base’s visceral hostility to the idea of protecting us against ballistic missile threats. A just-unveiled symbolic action suggests, however, that something even more nefarious is afoot.

Gaffney later had to issue an apology of sorts.

And as Digby observes: Teabaggers Aren't The Only Kooks.

They are part of the same pie. The war against symbols has been going on ever since Bush took office. Remember how insane the right wing went over the red crescent design that won the memorial of the Flight 93 back in 2005?

And FOX News had to get in on it too.

On Wednesday, Iran announced it had tested what it said was a new missile. But Iran has a history of exaggerating its accomplishments in weapons development, variously claiming stealth aircraft that aren't and missiles that don't exist. Western experts reckon there was actually nothing new this time either - and in fact there may not even have been a "this time":

Andrew Brookes of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said: "I think the Iranians just keeping on rejigging the same missile and putting a new logo on it. It's basically the Shahab 3 with a different name, and the purpose of the test firing is to tell the world, 'don't forget us', we have missiles that can reach 2,000 kilometres."

"However, the launching of these missiles is not that meaningful because the Iranians have not developed an advanced minituarised warhead to fit into the front end, unless they are getting help from North Korea or Russia, and Moscow says it is not supporting Iran's missile programme.

... Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane's Strategic Weapons, said:.. "What is not clear is whether the test firing took place today or whether it's a photograph taken out of the archives but from the pictures it looks like a two-stage missile with a range of 1,900-2,000 kilometres."

And Dr. Jeffrey Lewis also notes that there's even scepticism over whether this rebranded missile, by either name, is actually solid fuelled - which makes a vast difference to its military usefulness as liquid fuelled missiles need a long time sitting on their launchers while they're filled with fuel (which can easily explode anyway) during which time they are sitting ducks for airstrikes.

Even such a missile is capable of hitting Tel Aviv, however - and the Israelis are supremely confident they could shoot it down before it did. It cannot reach Rome, Athens or Prague from Iran, and as such doesn't constitute any kind of threat to Europe. (Although it could reach Tbilisi, Georgia - but then again, so could earlier, far less sophisticated Iranian missiles, it's only 500 or so miles.) Even if Iran had missiles that could target Europe - and ever has warheads worth doing that with - as Dr. Lewis has previously noted, the Aegis cruiser platform would be a better alternative to the multi-billion boondoggle the Bush administration has proposed in Eastern Europe, both more effective and more sensitive to Russian concerns.

So what's going on? Well, Spencer Ackerman recently spoke to a bunch of Pentagon officials and military experts for a piece in the Washington Independent about Obama's relationship with the military and its supporters. Their unanimous advice was: "Consult, don’t steamroll — and don’t capitulate." and to make it clear there's only one Commander in Chief. In an adjunct piece at his FDL home, Spencer directly tackles the military budget and attitudes to "big ticket" procurement:

One of my sources for the piece is a Pentagon official who requested anonymity. He made a really interesting point that, alas, had to fall out of the piece. Despite the unsustainability of half-trillion-dollar military budgets during this period of dire financial hardship, the services will cling to their favorite big-ticket programs with an icy death-grip. If Obama's really going to make painful cuts to unnecessary defense programs, he's got to go all-out, making it clear that he's in charge and the cuts are happening no matter what. If he doesn't do that, he's going to get rolled throughout his presidency.

And he specifically links that to missile defense and Gen. Oberling, who told the AP:

The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's missile defense projects said Wednesday that American interests would be "severely hurt" if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by the Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

Oberling is due to retire in a couple of weeks. Does anyone doubt that his next job will be for either one of the contractors who stand to gain big-time from the ABM program or one of the neocon think tanks who have pushed it so hard as part of their "New American Century" plans? Those think tanks - themselves heavily funded by the very same arms manufacturers - have made explicit that missile defense should eventually include space-based weapons and be aimed at Russia too (thus Russia's consternation at the current plans) and intend a January push to sway the Obama administration and public opinion in an attempt to prevent Obama cancelling the program, as he has previously indicated he might.

These vested interests intend trying to steamroller Obama from word one, and Oberling is willing to bend the truth all out of shape in their service. He's pushing, as one ex-military writer puts it, "a ballistic missile defense system that doesn't work to defend it from ballistic missiles that don't work either." And the Cheneyites of the Right are willing to start Cold War II to get it, and the money for their arms-making allies that it represents.

However, Obama has said he'll cancel the program if it doesn't work as advertised - and the interceptors to be used at the European sites haven't even been tested yet. European leaders, too, are beginning to sound sceptical notes:

>

France's U.S.-friendly president sent a clear message Friday to the next American administration: Plans for a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe are misguided, and won't make the continent a safer place.

... "Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward," Sarkozy said at a news conference with Medvedev. Medvedev smiled and pointed his finger at Sarkozy in approval.

...Sarkozy said he was worried about Russia's threat to deploy short-range Iskander missiles near Poland in response to the U.S. move.

"We could continue between Europe and Russia to threaten each other with shields, with missiles, with navies," he said. "It would do Russia no good, Georgia no good and Europe no good."

Sarkozy said he would discuss the missile issue with NATO counterparts at a summit early next year and proposed a pan-European security conference after that, to include Russia. Medvedev welcomed the idea.

All the more remarkable because:

1) Sarko wasn't just speaking for France - he was meeting with Medvedev as part of an EU-Russia summit and France currently holds the EU presidency.

2) His remarks came just days after the US missile defense supremo said that US interests would be "severely hurt" if the program was cancelled. Obviously, Sarkozy doesn't think that French or European interests would be likewise negatively affected.

Previously posted in a different form at Newshoggers

The Moderate Voice thinks the death of the immigration bill spells the end of Bush's power and the monolithic Rove GOP machine.

Shadow of The Hegemon's Demosthenes on why Dick Cheney stinks like thousands of dead fish.

LastLeftB4Hooterville- "Why is Republican, partisan-owned proprietary software being used for public elections?"

Over at The Arms Control Wonk, they have an update on the My Plan, Your Plan poker game over US missile defense sites in Europe. The Russians are saying Bush has until Putin reaches Kennebunkport to make his mind up.

Zeno at Halfway There gets an invite to contribute to Bush's birthday present (and changes some links to protect

the innocent).

This is the last guest round-up by Cernig @ The Newshoggers. Thanks to everyone at C&L for making me feel so welcome. Simbaud from King of Zembla will be here all next week. Try the veal.

John Amato: Thanks so much Cernig for your help. MBR is an important part of C&L.

Story and video at The Raw Story:

On Monday, Fox News covered Vladimir Putin's threat that if the US government goes ahead with setting up a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, Russia will target its own missiles at European targets. The discussion led to an unlikely reversal of political positions, with conservative Fox political analyst Tammy Bruce describing the situation as "another glaring example of the growing incompetency of the Bush administration and his foreign policy," while Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded that "I support Bush on this ... and it's a strange day when I do that."

She then blew up about immigration and Iraq as well, saying, "I'm waiting to find the space aliens that kidnapped the president that I grew to admire after September 11 and left this tool behind. ... I'm furious." Read more...

An emailer sent these in from NiemanWatchdog: Questions the press should ask:

Larry Wilkerson: Dogging the Torture Story

Reporters should demand that the two men most responsible for acts of torture by U.S. forces explain themselves, writes Colin Powell’s formerchief of staff -- who says a paper trail clearly links the practice of prisoner abuse to the upper reaches of the Pentagon and Vice PresidentCheney's office.

Philip E. Coyle: Our missile defense system is an expensive bluff

Which is Bush’s position: A) Our missile defense system can now defend the U.S., or B) It’s too new to predict success, or C) It has a reasonable chance of knocking out anything North Korea shoots at us? If you chose all three you would be correct; those are the answers Bush gave on July 6 and 7. And if you said the system flat out doesn’t work, you’d also be correct.

Henry Banta : Speculators – not supply and demand – are to blame for skyrocketing gas prices

A bipartisan Senate report, largely ignored by the media, says that there's no oil shortage and none is expected. Rather, it's massive, unregulated speculation that is costing consumers billions of dollars – and vastly enriching people like T. Boone Pickens.