New Start Treaty

• Belly35

  

  Obama path to weaken America continues ..New Start Treaty
  
  Obama persistence to push for the signing of the New Start Treaty for nuclear program with Russia in a lame duck situation is a game of politics and not in the best interest of America. Public Servant Obama has not learned that America does not what pushing program through haphazardly.
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40268224/ns/politics-the_new_york_times
  
  Will this treaty strengthen or weaken America. Why is America strong? Because we can and do have the option to put our finger on the trigger…is this treaty a hindrance to America in time of need. What is Russia main reason for this treaty?
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/russia_moving_fast_before_arms.html
  
  Bottom line is a Lane Duck Senate or Congress should not be put in this rush situation without do cause
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  The Senate has had this treaty since May and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of it, 14-4 in October. They have had the time to look over the treaty.
  
  Belly, can you explain to me why this is a bad treaty?
  It is in the same model of the Reagan arms control measures of "Trust, but verify."
  It continues on-site inspections of Russian missiles and warheads. It caps the number of Russian warheads, 1,550 and prevents them from building new weapons.
  
  It also continues strategic stability, as SECDEF Gates said many times during testimony, with the Russians.
  
  More importantly, ratifying the treaty moves Russia away from Putin. If the Senate does not ratify the treaty, then Russia will become more hostile to the West, will not cooperate at all on anything related to Iran, will cease help in overflight and train transport to our forces in Afghanistan, will not cooperate with us on missile defense issues and will not cooperate with us on the CFE Treaty or reducing tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111003708.html
  
  Testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates back in May:
  http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GatesTestimony100518a.pdf

  The key question then and in the decades since has always been the same: is the United States better off with an agreement or without it? The answer for each successive president has always been: “with an agreement.” The U.S. Senate has always agreed, approving each treaty by lopsided, bipartisan margins.
  The same answer holds true for New START: the U.S. is far better off with this treaty than without it, and I am confident that it is the right agreement for today and for the future. It increases stability and predictability, allows us to sustain a strong nuclear Triad, and preserves our flexibility to deploy the nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities needed for effective deterrence and defense. In light of all of these factors, I urge the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of the New START Treaty.

• FatHobbit

  

  ptown_trojans_1;565319 wrote:Belly, can you explain to me why this is a bad treaty?

  
  I'd be curious to know that too. I like Belly, but sometimes I think he just hates anything because Obama supports it.
• derek bomar

  

  FatHobbit;565327 wrote:I'd be curious to know that too. I like Belly, but sometimes I think he just hates anything because Obama supports it.

  
  this
• Belly35

  

  My first dislike is that it now, do this now, rush, asap we have been down that road before with this administration and what have been the results? I see no harm in waiting till January and the new Senate and Congress in place. This to me is a Obama playing politics …. A pissing contest of parties…
  Within the treaty no prevision made for a program of modernization of US nuclear forces and equipment to ensure maximum safety, effectiveness, and reliability.
  There is no doctrine within this treaty that states that this is not a treaty limiting US missile defense efforts. No agreement program of continued development of missile defenses, including in Europe to cover the territory of all NATO allies.
  No agreement that there will be no unilateral US withdrawal of the small number of remaining US nuclear weapons from Europe and or the problem of the thousands of Russian tactical nuclear weapons based on the borders of Europe has not been addressed.
  
  The premise of the New Start Treaty is one of very good intention but good intention and total conclusion are two different things.
  I would rather have a new Senate and new Congress make the final approval with a more (three areas mention) conclusive treaty.
  
  You don’t support a treaty for goodwill reasons…..
  
  http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/57842
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Belly35;565456 wrote:My first dislike is that it now, do this now, rush, asap we have been down that road before with this administration and what have been the results? I see no harm in waiting till January and the new Senate and Congress in place. This to me is a Obama playing politics …. A pissing contest of parties…
  Within the treaty no prevision made for a program of modernization of US nuclear forces and equipment to ensure maximum safety, effectiveness, and reliability.
  There is no doctrine within this treaty that states that this is not a treaty limiting US missile defense efforts. No agreement program of continued development of missile defenses, including in Europe to cover the territory of all NATO allies.
  No agreement that there will be no unilateral US withdrawal of the small number of remaining US nuclear weapons from Europe and or the problem of the thousands of Russian tactical nuclear weapons based on the borders of Europe has not been addressed.
  
  The premise of the New Start Treaty is one of very good intention but good intention and total conclusion are two different things.
  I would rather have a new Senate and new Congress make the final approval with a more (three areas mention) conclusive treaty.
  
  You don’t support a treaty for goodwill reasons…..
  
  http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/57842

  
  I would say the opposite, the Republicans, mainly Senator Kyl are playing politics.
  He has had the treaty for over 7 months. He has been given over $84billion dollars in additional funds to modernize and maintain our current nuclear arsenal.
  
  There is no limit on current or planned missile defense plans, and in fact Russia in involved in future NATO missile defense plans to ensure that it is not worried about U.S. missile defense.
  
  Tactical weapons are not covered by the treaty as it is a strategic (long range nuclear weapons treaty). But, tactical weapons reductions by the Russia will never happen if this treaty is not ratified.
  
  The Senate has had plenty, plenty of time to look this thing over. They have had the same number of hearing as the START I Treaty in 1990 and that was way more controversial at the time. The Senate has had more time than the 2002 SORT or Moscow Treaty between the U.S. and Russia.
  
  Saying, the new Congress should look at this treaty makes no sense as they have already had plenty, plenty of time to overlook and ask and get answers on all the questions Senators have.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  There is also this: With no treaty, there is no on the ground verification presence, no on-site inspections to ensure Russia is not cheating.
  With that gone, the U.S. will have to rely on National Technical Means of Verification (NTM) meaning satellites.
  
  The problem, many of those satellites are used in our war on terror, so we are going to have to divert them to ensure that the Ruskies are not rebuilding their arsenal.
  Why take valuable assets that can help our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that Russia is not cheating, when we can have boots on the ground to verify that?
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/18/more-spy-satellites-sought-from-hill/print/
• Belly35

  

  ptown_trojans_1;565478 wrote:There is also this: With no treaty, there is no on the ground verification presence, no on-site inspections to ensure Russia is not cheating.
  With that gone, the U.S. will have to rely on National Technical Means of Verification (NTM) meaning satellites.
  
  The problem, many of those satellites are used in our war on terror, so we are going to have to divert them to ensure that the Ruskies are not rebuilding their arsenal.
  Why take valuable assets that can help our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that Russia is not cheating, when we can have boots on the ground to verify that?
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/18/more-spy-satellites-sought-from-hill/print/

  I agree there are some great reasons for this treaty…..Your point well taken but you still have not answered the first question:
  
  For a Public Servant that wants to work with the new senate and congress why the rush?
  
  This to me is more of an Obama pissing contest than a meaningful governmental objective.
  
  Why the hurry? What is the difference between now and January?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Belly35;565540 wrote:I agree there are some great reasons for this treaty…..Your point well taken but you still have not answered the first question:
  
  For a Public Servant that wants to work with the new senate and congress why the rush?
  
  This to me is more of an Obama pissing contest than a meaningful governmental objective.
  
  Why the hurry? What is the difference between now and January?

  Ohh about a few new Senators that will have to get fully briefed again and the treaty would have to go back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consent, meaning that it would probably not get ratified if at all until October or so of next year.
  
  Why wait that long if the thing is nearly a no-brainer?
  I mean Senator Lugar, who has spent his career on this issue, is basically saying the R's need to man up and vote for this thing.
  
  The original plan was to have this thing done by the election. But, the administration held off to answer all the questions the Senators have. Now, all the questions have been answered. There is no need to wait any longer.
• Belly35

  

  ptown_trojans_1;565546 wrote:Ohh about a few new Senators that will have to get fully briefed again and the treaty would have to go back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consent, meaning that it would probably not get ratified if at all until October or so of next year.
  
  Why wait that long if the thing is nearly a no-brainer?
  I mean Senator Lugar, who has spent his career on this issue, is basically saying the R's need to man up and vote for this thing.
  
  The original plan was to have this thing done by the election. But, the administration held off to answer all the questions the Senators have. Now, all the questions have been answered. There is no need to wait any longer.

  
  Not everyone is in agreement that this Treaty is right for America....
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/opinion/10bolton.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bolton%20yoo&st=cse
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Belly35;565766 wrote:Not everyone is in agreement that this Treaty is right for America....
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/opinion/10bolton.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bolton%20yoo&st=cse

  
  Words can't describe how bad that Op-ed was. Bolton and Yoo have no credibility in my mind.
  A nice response to it by Fred Kaplan, historian on the subject.
  http://www.slate.com/id/2274471/pagenum/all/#p2
• derek bomar

  

  Belly...just man up and admit you're wrong about this. This isn't an argument you're going to win.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't see any reason not to ratify this treaty.
• BoatShoes

  Most Americans and most republicans want the treaty ratified. If it is true that the democrats were wrong for passing Obamacare, etc. because "americans didn't want it" it seems we should expect the same disdain for Republicans who are failing to listen to the American people, if this is the standard we are going to use.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BoatShoes;566021 wrote:Most Americans and most republicans want the treaty ratified. If it is true that the democrats were wrong for passing Obamacare, etc. because "americans didn't want it" it seems we should expect the same disdain for Republicans who are failing to listen to the American people, if this is the standard we are going to use.

  Last poll I saw said something like 70% of Americans supported the treaty.
  Odd thing, most Americans either don't know or don't care about the New Treaty. The interest in arms control/ nuclear weapons really tailed off after the Cold War. As a result, eyes glaze over when someone goes into the details , because you have to given the complexities, concerning the New START Treaty (numbers, launchers, inspectors, etc.). It is not a knock on Americans, just the fact that nuclear weapons have receded into importance, which is good and bad. I know whenever I start to discuss the issue with people, I get glazed eyes pretty quickly.
  
  On another note, one of our allies and most concerned about constraining Russian power, Poland supports the treaty:
  http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sikorski1/English
  
  On a final note, the thread title is dead wrong.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Treaty looks to go to the floor sometime this afternoon. But, Sen. Demint is a awful political move is going to have the treaty be read, all 300 some pages, which will take 12 hours or so. There is no need to have it read as there has been ample time for everyone to read the treaty. It is an odd thing as the GOP called for time for floor debate and then when floor time for debate is there, they want to waste time and read the thing.
  
  Demint is such a political tool in this sense.
  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/133723-demint-will-force-readings-of-start-treaty-and-omnibus-bill
• queencitybuckeye

  Is it really any different or any worse than the Bernie Sanders stunt the other day?
  
  While I'm for the treaty, if he can effectively kill the spending package, good for him, and I don't much give a damn about the means to that end.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  queencitybuckeye;601968 wrote:Is it really any different or any worse than the Bernie Sanders stunt the other day?
  
  While I'm for the treaty, if he can effectively kill the spending package, good for him, and I don't much give a damn about the means to that end.

  
  Spending bill is one thing, but the treaty is another. There is no reason to read the treaty.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Treaty passed its first big hurdle on the floor, passed motion to officially consider the treaty, allow for debate and add amendments as necessary. Vote was 66-32 for consideration with R's being McCain, Graham, Bennett, Murkowski, Brown, Voinovich, Collins, Snowe, & Lugar. Just one more vote is needed for ratification. So, if that block of R's, plus Evan Bayh who didn't vote, but will probably be a yes, stay in the yes column the treaty will enter into force.
  
  Also, Demint did not get his wish to have the treaty read, as the Senate went into usual business and debate after the vote.
  It looks like it will get ratified, probably late next week.
  
  Interesting enough, the chief opponent of the treaty, Kyl seems to be irrelevant right now. But, we'll see what he does now.
• BGFalcons82

  

  As long as the USA is weaker militarily and the world is stronger, what's not to like? We have been such a horrible, rotten, evil, influence on the world I guess it's time to keep on apologizing with a weaker defense.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;602218 wrote:As long as the USA is weaker militarily and the world is stronger, what's not to like? We have been such a horrible, rotten, evil, influence on the world I guess it's time to keep on apologizing with a weaker defense.

  
  And this makes us weaker how?
• I Wear Pants

  How does this make us weaker?
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown & IWP - When looking at disarmament treaties, there are some basic questions to ask:
  
  1. Does it make us stronger or weaker? Does giving up nuclear weapons make us stronger or weaker?
  2. Does it make the USA safer or more dangerous?
  3. Does making our strategic position weaker make us stronger than our enemies?
  
  I'm not going to look at this treaty as how we can be more fair with the world. I expect our federal government to provide for the common defense, not hold hands and sing kumbaya with sworn enemies. If they can improve our standing and position, I'm 100% for it. If we give up our super power status and position, then I'm against it. I know I know...black and white...no shades of gray. But that's just how I see it.
  
  Seems to me our current POTUS is busy running around the globe apologizing for anything we've done in the past that has upset our enemies. Why shouldn't I be skeptical that he's putting action behind his words?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  1. Depends on how you assign metrics for stronger and weaker.
  I'll be brief, but the U.S. will still have 1,550 deployed strategic warheads based on Ohio class subs on patrol, land based Minuteman III missiles and B-2 and B-52 bombers. The Russians will also be limited to 1,550 warheads as well, ensuring they do not overtake the U.S. The next country with the largest arsenal is France, with 300, then China with 300 or so. So, the U.S. still will have enough forces to maintain credible deterrence against Russia as well as China. Our commanders at STRATCOM have stated that in testimony.
  
  Second part is the concept of strategic stability with Russia-something SECDEF Gates stressed in testimony. The very concept of arms control is to limit the other sides nuclear arms one, and two to foster an environment of known stability and establish predictability between the U.S. and Russians. Stability ensures that both countries do not climb the escalation ladder as Herman Khan used to say. Stategic stability ensures that the Russians do not take a U.S. action to mean ramp up their nuclear forces, bringing them closer to even thinking about nuclear war. Since the Ruskies are the only country that can really destroy the U.S., strategic stability is key in our discussions with them.
  
  2. Define dangerous? We will still have our full nuclear triad at full alert. We will still have 10-12 Ohio class subs with 24 nuclear missiles with 3-5 warheads each on them. We will still have 420-450 Missiles on full alert and we will still have nuclear armed B-2 bombers.
  
  3. It will actually make the enemy (Russia in this case) weaker, as it limits their nuclear arms. Without the treaty, the Russians could build up their stockpile surpassing the U.S. and creating strategic instability. In terms of China, we still have 5x the amount of nuclear weapons they have.
• FatHobbit

  

  ptown_trojans_1;602923 wrote:1. Depends on how you assign metrics for stronger and weaker.
  I'll be brief, but the U.S. will still have 1,550 deployed strategic warheads based on Ohio class subs on patrol, land based Minuteman III missiles and B-2 and B-52 bombers.

  
  Just curious, and not disagreeing at all, but is that not enough to seriously fuck up the world? If we had 2000 warheads, would we really be able to do any more damage?