Defense technology has always been a great interest to me. I sleep well at night because the US is the pre-eminant technological military on earth. But that is a very fragile thing. Technology moves so rapidly it has been estimated that without proper investment the US could fall behind on many military technologies in as little as a half a generation.
The Russians and the Chinese are concerned/worried/scared by our ability to produce the "weapons of tomorrow" so always try to prevent us obtaining any defensive advantage. While it started decades ago the most recent example is the elimination of the Polish ground based interceptor. These weapons were "given away" on the alter of diplomacy. Let me be clear - to coin an Obama often used phrase - these were purely defensive weapons that were absolutely no threat to Russia. Yet Russia told Obama they were destabalizing and one Russian general said the "US might secretly put nuclear warheads on them and surprise attack the Russians", really? The end result as we all know is that the weapons won't be deployed and the US and it's allies are less safe because of this decision.
Now onto stage two of the continued "weakening of a superpower program". Some background. Back in the 80's and 90's as ballistic missiles became more accurate it was speculated that the "Holy Grail" of technology would be the ability to mount conventional, not nuclear, warheads on Submarine Launched and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. The advantages are obvious. The theory was, what if Iran or North Korea was fueling s missile with a nuclear warhead aimed at Tel Aviv or Tokyo. The President's only response to the threat - that would get there is time - was a "nuclear" armed missile. It was a choice nobody wanted to have as their only choice.
Therefore the US began to work in earnest on what it termed "Conventional Prompt Global Strike" weapons. Basically you could take out the North Korean missile without using a nuke. Also, if you were wrong and the enemy missile was only conventional, well the US only used a conventional response, again, much better than a nuke.
So now from today's Global Security Newswire we find out that the Russians want to include this very promising defensive technology in the latest "dangerously rushed" disarmament treaty (link here - http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20091103_3088.php ). The Russians also have said that "We really want Obama to have this treaty before he gives his Nobel Prize speech."
So I ask the readers at Redstate, "Do you think Obama would trade US security for the chance to look good on the world stage"?