Any opinions on the START treaty being pushed by Obambi??

#26
#26
BigPapaVol said:
In an era of potential intercepts, it do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's a valid point. Thank goodness we're still far from that era :). OK, that's me not being nice to the technology again. It's also about your confidence in your countermeasures.

Also, the unspoken here is that the modernization to the weapons complex to allow for this disassembly also provides the infrastructure to put it back together again if we want it. It's still a safer proposition since they're in a dormant state and securely held in one location in parts, but the prospect of redeployment if the game changes is still looming there.
 
#27
#27
TennTradition said:
That's a valid point. Thank goodness we're still far from that era :). OK, that's me not being nice to the technology again. It's also about your confidence in your countermeasures.

Also, the unspoken here is that the modernization to the weapons complex to allow for this disassembly also provides the infrastructure to put it back together again if we want it. It's still a safer proposition since they're in a dormant state and securely held in one location in parts, but the prospect of redeployment if the game changes is still looming there.
Click to expand...

Generally agree. It's all window dressing. Nobody with the capability to utterly destroy everyone else is going to relinquish it. Diminishing it some is a waste of time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
It is more important for the GOP to paint Obama as a peacenik than it is for them to vote for rational policy.

But that has pretty much always been the case.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
It is more important for the GOP to paint Obama as a peacenik than it is for them to vote for rational policy.

But that has pretty much always been the case.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

name a single thing that republicans woudl have voted for under obama if obama had been a republican. i'll hang up and listen.
 
#30
#30
BigPapaVol said:
Generally agree. It's all window dressing. Nobody with the capability to utterly destroy everyone else is going to relinquish it. Diminishing it some is a waste of time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It is also cheaper to maintain a smaller deployed arsenal. Treaties like this provide a framework to step away from numbers we don't want in our actively deployed stockpile. A world with less nuclear weapons does sound better, but while we both maintain capability to reassemble and deploy it means less. There is, however, an added level of security from less deployed weapons (somewhat, particularly so for less well-guarded stockpiles) and a much-desired cost savings.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
droski said:
name a single thing that republicans woudl have voted for under obama if obama had been a republican. i'll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...

This.

If McCain were prez he'd sign it and the GOP would proclaim it part of their plan to minimize opportunities for terrorists to get ahold of nuclear weapons.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
This.

If McCain were prez he'd sign it and the GOP would proclaim it part of their plan to minimize opportunities for terrorists to get ahold of nuclear weapons.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i don't agree, but say you are right. so this is your only example? i thought this was a pattern according to you?
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
This.

If McCain were prez he'd sign it and the GOP would proclaim it part of their plan to minimize opportunities for terrorists to get ahold of nuclear weapons.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There is a reason why he's not.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
This.

If McCain were prez he'd sign it and the GOP would proclaim it part of their plan to minimize opportunities for terrorists to get ahold of nuclear weapons.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Trust me. A republican signs this piece of crap a republican is looking for a new job.

You ever heard of trust but verify?

I don't think Obama has either.

In his little world we're the enemy and if we stop they stop. News flash. They're not going to stop. They are also using Iran and North Korea against us.
 
#35
#35
I don't understand how anyone could oppose this. I read Romney's and it's absurd.
 
#36
#36
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
Trust me. A republican signs this piece of crap a republican is looking for a new job.

You ever heard of trust but verify?

I don't think Obama has either.

In his little world we're the enemy and if we stop they stop. News flash. They're not going to stop. They are also using Iran and North Korea against us.
Click to expand...
Is this why Bush didn't get re-elected?
 
#38
#38
My opinion, better yet my fear is that we would abide by this treaty knowing Russia was(is) not. Whoever it was that said earlier that the US was getting the short end of the stick in this treaty was right and thats on top the fact that Russia already has more warheads than we do. If Obama wants to make some gesture to history that he did his part to rid the world of wmd's I would personally have no problem with coming out and getting rid of all of our chem/bio weapons unilaterally and then challenging the world to do the same. But for the time being i'd prefer our nuclear posture to stay where it is.
 
#40
#40
Us losing human verification of Russia's nuclear arms is the only bad result. There needs to be a treaty in place.
 
#41
#41
Weezy I agree with the idea of treaty being in place- but a treaty becomes a danger to the world if one side follows it and the other does not.
 
#42
#42
Losing official human verification doesn't necessarily mean that we are losing human verification. However, I agree that this is an unattractive result if that is what happens. In glancing at the provisions, on-site inspections are still discussed. Could you give me a synopsis of the argument?
 
#43
#43
Is there any argument or support behind the idea of Russia not following it? If anything I believe they were pushing for stricter enforcement of the treaty. Not surprising since this will mostly involve US reductions since Russia is already under the requirements stipulated by this treaty.

I attended a group discussion with Ambassador Brooks who negotiated the first START treaty several months back at the Howard Baker Center. I believe I remember him being in support of this treaty while acknowledging that future negotiations will still need to be held. The main idea though is maintaining verification and knowledge of Russian systems.

Again, I'm not an expert, and I have trouble recalling everything.
 
#44
#44
rmsmith said:
Is this why Bush didn't get re-elected?
Click to expand...

Did I ever even hint that this is why Bush did not get re-elected? Even hint?

No. Bush did not get re-elected because he was a weak President that should never have been there in the first place. Trust but verify is a Reagan statement.
 
#46
#46
I think this is START III...or at least that we're currently under START II....no?

I'll take a look at the link...thanks.
 
#47
#47
I think this is technically New START... START II, and START III, never made it. From what I understand this treaty is basically START I with new oversight methods and more reductions.

Also, from what I understand, Russia and the US will never agree on missile defense, being that Russia is incredibly paranoid.
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
Weezy said:
I think this is technically New START... START II, and START III, never made it. From what I understand this treaty is basically START I with new oversight methods and more reductions.

Also, from what I understand, Russia and the US will never agree on missile defense, being that Russia is incredibly paranoid.
Click to expand...

Weezy - you're right. START II was signed and ratified, but never activated, apparently. I didn't realize Clinton had a START III until I read the article linked above. It does appear that this is just New START.

The Russians have some basis for being paranoid about our missile defense efforts, seeing as how we misled them about the capabilities of the European MD shield. But, I agree, they really are a paranoid bunch.
 
#49
#49
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
Did I ever even hint that this is why Bush did not get re-elected? Even hint?

No. Bush did not get re-elected because he was a weak President that should never have been there in the first place. Trust but verify is a Reagan statement.
Click to expand...

I wasn't even insenuating that you were saying that. You're a little too paranoid to be reasoning with though. Laters.

So much for asking a genuine question.
 
Last edited:
#50
#50
After reading the Heritage link, I think I'm going to look up some more on the verification process. I hadn't heard that it's becoming lax, I thought it was going to be slightly improved (more technology) than the previous START treaty.

I will say it seems like they are painting this treaty with disarmament as the focal point, but in reality it's just a reduction. Yes, mostly on the US side, but it really doesn't weaken us. And verification of nuclear material is the best thing the US has going for it in preventing proliferation to terrorists or rogue states. And we aren't abandoning defenses either, just the Polish one that keeps Russia a little less paranoid (missile defenses are not addressed in this treaty at all such that it can move forward). So in reality, it seems like Obama's policy is on track with the Heritage Foundation's recommendations of "Protect and Defend".

But if the article is correct on the verification being insufficient, then that's not a good thing. But given the slant of the Heritage Foundation, it's probably worth a look.

edit: After a little reading, it's safe to say that hardly anyone agrees with the Heritage Foundation.

Support-Graph.png
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top