New Start Treaty
-
BGFalcons82
ptown - I realize you know far more about this than I, so I respect your knowledge and appreciate your insights. I'm just not sure how we are stronger militarily by reducing our weapons. We certainly have to trust the Russians as well. I hope there is some verification language, but even so, Russia is a very large country to try to catch it all.
I'm more concerned with the rest of the world than I am with Mother Russia. I'm afraid we will subjugate ourselves to the whims and desires of the Russians, while we take our eyes off of China, Kim Jong Nutjob, Makemore Acmedinejihad, Crazy Quaddafi, and the #1 villain-in-hiding, Obama Bin Laden. I'm afraid measuring our military might against Russia is the wrong target. Regarding China, I believe they would hide anything to keep us away. We owe them so much as it is, all they would have to do is threaten to ruin us economically to get us to look the other way as they build stockpiles of weapons. -
ptown_trojans_1
1. We can verify with the Ruskies, both with very intrusive on-site inspections and National Technical Means of Verification, meaning satellites and intelligence sources. We can effectively monitor and we know facilities and bases. We have known Russians positions of weapons for the last 20 years. This is pretty much the same concept that drive the first START agreement in 1991.
Having the treaty ensures the old Reagan doctrine, "Trust but verify"
On the greater issue of less nukes makes us safer, it is the world we live in now. More nukes makes us less safe for two reasons. 1. It creates instability with other states and creates an arms race as countries, mainly Russia ramp up production to counter the perceived more nukes of the U.S. This leads into a vicious cycle that lead to the dangers of the 1960s. The Nixon administration's rational for SALT I was to create stability by limited the number of nukes. No treaty=more nukes=more instability.
2. More nukes leads to more chances for a terrorist to obtain a nuclear device, especially in Russia. If we can lower the number of nukes with Russia, this can lead to a decrease in the chances for a terrorist to obtain a nuke.
BTW, Senator Isakason R of Georgia is making this point right now in the Senate. It is imperative to have the ability to ensure the Russians are secure and cannot fall into the wrong hands. No treaty leads to no security of knowing if all Russian nukes are secure.
On Iran, North Korea, etc. The treaty is one piece in a larger piece toward working on those issues. We need Russia to work with us on those issues, and this helps along in that process. No treaty=no cooperation on Iran, China, North Korea, etc. It also can help lead to a treaty in the future that will include limiting Chinese nuclear forces. -
Ty Webb
Biden had the best statement on this I've heard....
He told the opponents of this to get the hell out of the way,this is vital to our national security and need to be ratified ASAP -
ptown_trojans_1
My favorite was said this morning by General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"All the joint chiefs are very much behind the treaty," Cartwright said. He added: "We need START, and we need it badly."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/134059-gen-cartwright-we-need-start-and-we-need-it-badly
Oh, and Kerry has been awesome today. -
Ty Webb
ptown_trojans_1;603214 wrote:My favorite was said this morning by General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
All the joint chiefs are very much behind the treaty," Cartwright said. He added: "We need START, and we need it badly."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/134059-gen-cartwright-we-need-start-and-we-need-it-badly
My question ptown is...why is anyone againist this? -
ptown_trojans_1
Politics (no victory for Obama), lack of knowledge (many Senators have not studied or know much about nukes), lobbying (Heritage Foundation), missile defense limits (none though over the life of the treaty) falling on false ideas and talking points, and lack of modernization of weapons complex funding (even with $85 billion increase of 10 years).
The arguments of any real substance have already been answered by the Foreign Relations Committee. -
I Wear PantsBG, what's the difference between 1,550 nukes and 3000 (I don't know what the actual current number is) practically?
How are we less safe with 1,550 nukes vs whatever we have now? -
Belly35
Why the rush ..... everything is a rush and pulls with this Obama and his administration Screw this and what till after Jan 4th
This was a slam dunk deal that Bush hammered out and now Obama screwed it up…..
World will not end and anyways this is a shit deal for American -
ptown_trojans_1
I Wear Pants;603262 wrote:BG, what's the difference between 1,550 nukes and 3000 (I don't know what the actual current number is) practically?
How are we less safe with 1,550 nukes vs whatever we have now?
Current deployed is 1,968. -
ptown_trojans_1
Belly35;603270 wrote:Why the rush ..... everything is a rush and pulls with this Obama and his administration Screw this and what till after Jan 4th
This was a slam dunk deal that Bush hammered out and now Obama screwed it up…..
World will not end and anyways this is a shit deal for American
Why the rush? Senate has had the treaty since May, had 20 hearing, answered 1,000 questions and held off the debate till after the election to eliminate political influence from the election. Also, why should new Senators, who have not been included whatsoever on the debate vote on the treaty?
Besides, the previous arms control agreements took 3 or so days of debate. -
CenterBHSFan
Nothing to do with the treaty or anything else about this thread, but Kerry has NEVER been awesome LOL!!!ptown_trojans_1;603214 wrote:Oh, and Kerry has been awesome today.
-
I Wear Pants
What rush and how is it a shit deal? You keep saying that it makes us less safe but then never answer why. They've debated this from every angle and anyone relevant to the discussion has basically said it's a good deal.Belly35;603270 wrote:Why the rush ..... everything is a rush and pulls with this Obama and his administration Screw this and what till after Jan 4th
This was a slam dunk deal that Bush hammered out and now Obama screwed it up…..
World will not end and anyways this is a shit deal for American -
Belly35
I Wear Pants;603348 wrote:What rush and how is it a shit deal? You keep saying that it makes us less safe but then never answer why. They've debated this from every angle and anyone relevant to the discussion has basically said it's a good deal.
See and read article below;
Given Obama's glaring domestic policy missteps, it is understandable that the public has largely been blinded to his foreign policy failings. In fact, these may have been even more damaging to America's future. He fought to reinstate Honduras's pro-Chávez president while stalling Colombia's favored-trade status. He castigated Israel at the United Nations but was silent about Hamas having launched 7,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip. His policy of "engagement" with rogue nations has been met with North Korean nuclear tests, missile launches and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, while Iran has accelerated its nuclear program, funded terrorists and armed Hezbollah with long-range missiles. He acceded to Russia's No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.
Despite all of this, the president's New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratified.
New-START impedes missile defense, our protection from nuclear-proliferating rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Its preamble links strategic defense with strategic arsenal. It explicitly forbids the United States from converting intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos into missile defense sites. And Russia has expressly reserved the right to walk away from the treaty if it believes that the United States has significantly increased its missile defense capability.
Hence, to preserve the treaty's restrictions on Russia, America must effectively get Russia's permission for any missile defense expansion. Moscow's vehemence over our modest plans in Eastern Europe demonstrate that such permission would be extremely unlikely.
The treaty empowers a Bilateral Consultative Commission with broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific reference to missile defense. New START does something the American public would never countenance and the Senate should never permit: It jeopardizes our missile defense system.
The treaty also gives far more to the Russians than to the United States. As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.
Under New START, the United States must drastically reduce our number of launchers but Russia will not -- it already has fewer launchers than the treaty limits. Put another way: We give, Russia gets. And more troubling, the treaty fails to apply the MIRV limits that were part of the prior START treaty. Again, it may not be coincidental that Russia is developing a new heavy-load -- meaning MIRV-capable -- ICBM.
New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1. Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured? Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the Obama administration bows to Russia's insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty's warhead and launcher limits.
By all indications, the Obama administration has been badly out-negotiated. Perhaps the president's eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia's demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.
Whatever the reason for the treaty's failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake. The only responsible course is for the Senate to demand and scrutinize the full diplomatic record underlying the treaty. Then it must insist that any linkage between the treaty and our missile defense system be eliminated. In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, America's missile defense shield must not be compromised. As currently drafted, New START is a non-starter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36250
http://www.redstate.com/ken_taylor/2010/04/11/barack-obama-i-remember-ronald-reagan-and-you-are-no-reagan/ -
believer
OK Ptown. Assuming at least some of this is true, how is this a good thing for the security of the United States? Is it a simple matter of "less nukes is good nukes" even if we - as usual in these types of negotiations - take it up the shorts?Belly35;603762 wrote:New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1. Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella.
And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured?
Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the Obama administration bows to Russia's insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty's warhead and launcher limits.
By all indications, the Obama administration has been badly out-negotiated. Perhaps the president's eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia's demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.
Whatever the reason for the treaty's failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake. The only responsible course is for the Senate to demand and scrutinize the full diplomatic record underlying the treaty. Then it must insist that any linkage between the treaty and our missile defense system be eliminated. In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, America's missile defense shield must not be compromised. As currently drafted, New START is a non-starter. -
ptown_trojans_1
Russia does not have a 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. They have around 2-3 thousand, and we have around 500-1,000 total. Plus, most of those are in storage near China or Siberia and are really not a huge deal.
The treaty does not cover them as no previous arms control has. This agreement is a bridge agreement, between START I, which expired last year, and a new treaty. The next treaty will cover tactical nuclear weapons, reserved and stored warheads as well as total number of nukes. But, that brings a host of other issues into play as Russia maintains tactical nukes weapons to compensate for the overwhelming NATO conventional superiority. So, any deal on tactical nukes will have to deal with probably a conventional force reduction in Europe. That is very difficult to agree on so the administration pushed it off to the next treaty. Plus, Russia did not and would not agree to anything now.
So, if you want a deal on tactical weapons, you must have New START in place so we can get to that next treaty.
If the tactical nukes was a big deal, our allies in Eastern Europe would say so. They are not and all support the New START Treaty.
Oh, and the Romney op-ed was a joke. The thought that the Russians could place an ICBM on a bomber is insane.
Point by point rebuttal:
http://www.slate.com/id/2259779/ -
Belly35
Seems the Democrat Majority and the incompetent Obama Administration is the cause of the delay …. Procrastinate you wait … don’t try a rush some half ass idea and solution because of others incompetency. Why settle for less ... "STANDARDS" ... I don't want second best deal I want the best deal for my country and the protection of my people and allies....ptown_trojans_1;603296 wrote:Why the rush? Senate has had the treaty since May, had 20 hearing, answered 1,000 questions and held off the debate till after the election to eliminate political influence from the election. Also, why should new Senators, who have not been included whatsoever on the debate vote on the treaty?
Besides, the previous arms control agreements took 3 or so days of debate.
Famous quote: Put you foot on thier neck....
We have the advantage why give part of it away ? -
ptown_trojans_1
Belly35;604265 wrote:Seems the Democrat Majority and the incompetent Obama Administration is the cause of the delay …. Procrastinate you wait … don’t try a rush some half ass idea and solution because of others incompetency. Why settle for less ... "STANDARDS" ... I don't want second best deal I want the best deal for my country and the protection of my people and allies....
Famous quote: Put you foot on thier neck....
We have the advantage why give part of it away ?
You are not getting it.
They have been waiting to bring it to the floor in order to answer all the questions the Republicans had, specifically Senator Kyl. Senator Lugar and Kerry waited till Kyl and other R's questions were answered by the administration and military.
Also, the DoD and missile commanders support the treaty and call for the immediate execution of the treaty.
I would also say this was a very good treaty, a very modest treaty that both countries made.
We are not giving anyway an advantage. We are already at level numbers with the Russians, this just lowers the numbers of both, reducing the risk.
I would also say that this allows us to verify the Russian nuclear stockpile, which we do not have right now.
Finally, there is no way you are going to get a better deal with the Russians right now. -
Thread Bomber
ptown_trojans_1;604288 wrote: Finally, there is no way you are going to get a better deal with the Russians right now.
Or next year. -
believer
Or never.Thread Bomber;604638 wrote:Or next year. -
ptown_trojans_1
Some updates:
Yesterday Senator McCain offered an amendment that would change the preamble of the treaty, striking language on the interelationship between offensive and defensive weapons. It failed to pass, and rightfully so.
Why McCain efforts are solid that there should not be a link between offensive and defensive systems, the reality is there is a relationship between the two. If the Russians feel the U.S. is building advanced long range missile defense systems, they will try and pull out of the treaty for national interest as they will see it as a direct threat to their arsenal. All the preamble mentioned was that there is this relationship. It does not limit the U.S. on missile defense, just says the Russians see missile defense as a target to their arsenal. We can get around this by working with the Russians on missile defense, which we are in NATO.
Also, the McCain amendment would have forced the treaty back to the negotiating table with the Russians, which would have no idea what would happen and could collapse the treaty.
Today, the Senate is back in session, with Sen. Risch of Idaho introducing an amendment that the treaty should address tactical nuclear weapons.
This is not a good idea as the Russians will not agree on tactical nuclear weapon reductions in this treaty. This is a Strategic nuclear weapons treaty, not sub-strategic. That is the next treaty, and would include conventional weapon reductions and assurances from NATO. Those negotiations will take years.
Vote on the amendment is at 3pm today.
There will also be a closed, Senate, session to go over classified sections of the treaty tomorrow. -
derek bomar
ptown_trojans_1;603296 wrote:Why the rush? Senate has had the treaty since May, had 20 hearing, answered 1,000 questions and held off the debate till after the election to eliminate political influence from the election. Also, why should new Senators, who have not been included whatsoever on the debate vote on the treaty?
Besides, the previous arms control agreements took 3 or so days of debate.
this cannot be said enough...it is nothing short of a lie when people like McConnel come out and say they feel rushed or need more time. It is disgusting. -
ptown_trojans_1
Risch amendment was defeated, 32-60.
Senate will take up the Treaty tomorrow, in closed session, and in open. -
ptown_trojans_1
Apparently, the closed session answered and assured several R's to where ratification seems likely tomorrow night.
Iskason R-Geo and Alexander R-Tenn joining Scott Brown R-Ma, Judd Gregg (R-NH) Voinovich (R-OH), Richard Lugar (R-ID), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) which is 1 short of ratification if all 58 D's support it, which will happen.
Those R's that probably will end up supporting it are Bob Corker (R-TN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Mark Kirk (R-IL) and maybe John McCain (R-AZ).
Kyl, Graham, and McConnel have all voiced opposition for it. But,looks like it won't matter. Some around here say even 75 votes for the treaty.
http://csis.org/blog/new-start-and-road-ratification-live-updates-0 -
ptown_trojans_1
Corker on the floor saying he supports the treaty, pretty much assuring ratification.
Sweet. -
I Wear PantsGood, it's about time.