Save Our State of Massachusetts
I’m not certain that the US had authorization to relinquish British secrets to the Russians in the 2010 START treaty…
Certainly not in this article:
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
“The U.S.-Russia deal was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, but the Telegraph says the classified messages sent to Washington show how details on Britain’s weaponry was ‘crucial’ to the New START deal.
The messages reportedly show Russia demanded more information on the UK Trident programme – and so Washington asked London for permission to hand over details about the UK missiles’ performance.
Following the UK refusal, the US agreed to give the serial numbers of missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers told the paper: ‘This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.'”
Additionally, if the British were not co-signers, so why would they willingly authorize another country to speak for them?
Especially after they refused to supply the US with more info themselves.
I am also unclear if Sen. John Kerry knew about this (probably), or Sen. Scott Brown knew that (maybe) prior to the vote. Let’s ask them.
And how about the rest of the Senate? All should be polled.
Would Congress have been so quick to potentially sell out an 120 year ally, by handing out all the missile serial numbers?
And is this why the START Treaty was signed by Obama in such secrecy?
Where even a supportive press were miffed about not being in on the big signing moment?
Apparently Wikileaks revelations can surprise & backfire sometimes. /Jim