Is START good for us?

[Praxeas]

Without even reading this new START treaty I was against it. Here is why

Russia vs the US? Our biggest concern internationally is Iran, Pakistan and North Korea it seems not Russia. Supposedly the Cold War was over..so why are we pressing the START issue as if we are back in the Cold War?

The Economy Stupid...START just seems like a distraction

In the past these treaties were always all one sided with the US bearing the brunt of disposing of their arsenal leaving Russia with superior numbers. The only ones that truly benefit is Russia and other Nuclear powers

From Fox news:

With a strong assist from an Obama administration determined to validate its embrace of Russia’s government, the Washington foreign policy establishment has successfully advanced a U.S-Russia treaty that at best could be irrelevant to today’s world, but in fact will make the threats we face more dangerous. This stems from the treaty’s flaws, which include:
• Moscow’s belief that the U.S. has agreed to limit our deployment of missile defenses, despite denials from the Obama administration. Our foreign policy establishment will now be further emboldened to block enhancements to our still-poor ability to stop incoming nuclear missiles from places like Iran and North Korea because they may cause Moscow to walk away from the treaty;
• Weak verification mechanisms that give cheating-inclined Moscow a further advantage;

• The treaty’s failure to address tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia holds a large advantage over the U.S. (Incidentally, thanks to a separate decision by President Obama, the U.S. now has no effective seaborne tactical nuclear systems with which to counter North Korea and Iran.)
• The prioritization of signing and ratifying a feel-good treaty over more urgent steps to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal, which is losing its deterrent quality as its reliability and safety decline after decades without testing and modernization.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...#ixzz18yexKdhL



Because of it and a president who telegraphs profound weakness, America begins 2011 facing several foreign problems with the potential to become outright crises. Among them:
• The Iranian government, the central advocate of Islamism and terrorism, charging ahead with its world-changing nuclear weapons program.
• The North Korean government, which already has a nuclear capability, coming closer to starting a war it promises “will not be confined to the Korean Peninsula.”
• China declaring more and more of the Pacific as its own domain as it continues a rapid military modernization financed unwittingly by consumers in the free world; and
• An Islamist movement and its terrorist vanguard undaunted by President Obama’s simplistic “Muslim world” outreach, apologetic diplomacy and lawyerly treatment of unlawful combatants.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...#ixzz18yfF0S1U

[Cindy]

You know it does seem to me that this Administration is sometimes all about other governments, not ours.

[Walks_in_islam]

Prax I think we share mutual interests in the region and I recall that they were in fact our allies in (2) world wars.

The greater threat to both countries is south of Russia and directionally I can see from the foreign news coverage that the US and Russia are viewed as allies against this common threat.

In addition, Russia has now exceed Saudi in oil production, and it might be good to start moving away from the Middle East as a source of joint ventures and development in that area.

Just sayin'

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Without even reading this new START treaty I was against it. Here is why

Russia vs the US? Our biggest concern internationally is Iran, Pakistan and North Korea it seems not Russia. Supposedly the Cold War was over..so why are we pressing the START issue as if we are back in the Cold War?

The Economy Stupid...START just seems like a distraction

In the past these treaties were always all one sided with the US bearing the brunt of disposing of their arsenal leaving Russia with superior numbers. The only ones that truly benefit is Russia and other Nuclear powers

From Fox news:

With a strong assist from an Obama administration determined to validate its embrace of Russia’s government, the Washington foreign policy establishment has successfully advanced a U.S-Russia treaty that at best could be irrelevant to today’s world, but in fact will make the threats we face more dangerous. This stems from the treaty’s flaws, which include:
• Moscow’s belief that the U.S. has agreed to limit our deployment of missile defenses, despite denials from the Obama administration. Our foreign policy establishment will now be further emboldened to block enhancements to our still-poor ability to stop incoming nuclear missiles from places like Iran and North Korea because they may cause Moscow to walk away from the treaty;
• Weak verification mechanisms that give cheating-inclined Moscow a further advantage;

• The treaty’s failure to address tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia holds a large advantage over the U.S. (Incidentally, thanks to a separate decision by President Obama, the U.S. now has no effective seaborne tactical nuclear systems with which to counter North Korea and Iran.)
• The prioritization of signing and ratifying a feel-good treaty over more urgent steps to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal, which is losing its deterrent quality as its reliability and safety decline after decades without testing and modernization.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...#ixzz18yexKdhL



Because of it and a president who telegraphs profound weakness, America begins 2011 facing several foreign problems with the potential to become outright crises. Among them:
• The Iranian government, the central advocate of Islamism and terrorism, charging ahead with its world-changing nuclear weapons program.
• The North Korean government, which already has a nuclear capability, coming closer to starting a war it promises “will not be confined to the Korean Peninsula.”
• China declaring more and more of the Pacific as its own domain as it continues a rapid military modernization financed unwittingly by consumers in the free world; and
• An Islamist movement and its terrorist vanguard undaunted by President Obama’s simplistic “Muslim world” outreach, apologetic diplomacy and lawyerly treatment of unlawful combatants.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...#ixzz18yfF0S1U

[Sam]

I don't know enough about the START to even say anything about it.

I do feel some fear about it for two reasons:
1. BHO favored it
2. It was pushed through by the lame ducks

[Light]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't know enough about the START to even say anything about it.

I do feel some fear about it for two reasons:
1. BHO favored it
2. It was pushed through by the lame ducks

Let see now Powell, Kissinger, H. Bush, and more in the know republicans who have no political ambitions said it must be done this year.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Light

Let see now Powell, Kissinger, H. Bush, and more in the know republicans who have no political ambitions said it must be done this year.

What is the significance of this year? ... with one week left?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Light

Let see now Powell, Kissinger, H. Bush, and more in the know republicans who have no political ambitions said it must be done this year.

The GOP'ers making excuses to attack this Reagan initiated treaty between the 2 countries who today still hold 95% of the world's nuclear weapons prove that they are only interested in being on the opposite side of Obama on whatever issue they can politicize.


Truth of the matter is that, just like you have plainly stated, most knowledgable Republicans insisted on the new START Treaty being passed.


Oh well.



People complain if the lame duck Congress is a lame duck and does nothing of importance.

People complain if Congress actually earns their pay and perfomrs their duties, fighting the lame duck idea that their last days should be spent twiddling their thumbs.

Whatever....

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The GOP'ers making excuses to attack this Reagan initiated treaty between the 2 countries who today still hold 95% of the world's nuclear weapons prove that they are only interested in being on the opposite side of Obama on whatever issue they can politicize.


Truth of the matter is that, just like you have plainly stated, most knowledgable Republicans insisted on the new START Treaty being passed.


Oh well.



People complain if the lame duck Congress is a lame duck and does nothing of importance.

People complain if Congress actually earns their pay and perfomrs their duties, fighting the lame duck idea that their last days should be spent twiddling their thumbs.

Whatever....

This lame duck congress got in what it could while they had the majority. We're not all so easily fooled. just saying....

[sandie]

New Start: Russia warns US Senate over nuclear treaty Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the treaty could not be renegotiated Continue

Russia has warned US lawmakers that any change to the new nuclear arms disarmament treaty between the two countries could destroy the pact.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the New Start treaty "cannot be reopened, becoming the subject of new negotiations" according to remarks reported by Interfax news agency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12042584


Since when does Russia get to dictate whether we can renegotiate?

[Sam]

Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

U.S. Naval Institute - December 23, 2010

President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

After meeting resistance from several Republicans, the US. Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by a vote of 71-26 on Wednesday.

“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”

Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is often credited with bankrupting the U.S.S.R. because the Soviets were unable to keep pace with the technology being developed by the United States. “We have always been superior in quality..of our nuclear force, so we did not have to negotiate with a party we do not trust,” said Miller. “If Obama wanted to save some money and improve national defense, he should have gotten out of the nuke negations and acted unilaterally. START is simply a political victory for Obama.”

Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”