"Obama, gop showdown russia nuke pact"

WillypHD · Nov 19, 2010

"Obama, gop showdown russia nuke pact"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/19/obama-gop-showdown-russia-nuke-pact/

Should congress ratify the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia?

What say you?

David · Nov 23, 2010

WillypHD said:
"Obama, gop showdown russia nuke pact"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/19/obama-gop-showdown-russia-nuke-pact/

Should congress ratify the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia?

What say you?

I say, "Duh."

Seriously, how is letting Russia keep it's nukes a good thing?

WillypHD · Nov 24, 2010

Have you read the treaty?

According to the treaty, there are set amounts that Russia and the US will be allowed to have.

David · Nov 24, 2010

WillypHD said:
Have you read the treaty?

According to the treaty, there are set amounts that Russia and the US will be allowed to have.

Fewer nukes is a bad thing how? Seriously, even veteran Repubs are wondering what's up with the RNC all of a sudden. I mean the TP couldn't have driven the party to be this crazy.

WillypHD · Nov 24, 2010

No one is saying that fewer nukes is a bad thing, republicans simply want to be sure on all of the details of the treaty, namely verification of the progress of these requirments by Russia. Republicans want to work out the fine details on this sensitive issue rather than ramming it through congress and allowing mistakes to be made. What is wrong with that?

David · Nov 24, 2010

WillypHD said:
No one is saying that fewer nukes is a bad thing, republicans simply want to be sure on all of the details of the treaty, namely verification of the progress of these requirments by Russia. Republicans want to work out the fine details on this sensitive issue rather than ramming it through congress and allowing mistakes to be made. What is wrong with that?

It's the same treaty it's always been. A few numbers have been updated but this is a renewal, not some new agreement.

This should be a rubber stamp issue but the Repubs seem to want to make everything partisan.

WillypHD · Nov 24, 2010

I have not read any old versions of the treaty so I cannot comment of the differences in the old and the new, but I do not trust Russia and I would like to know before it is agreed upon that we will be able to do everything we need to, to verify Russia is in constant compliance with the treaty.

obtuseobserver · Nov 24, 2010

The treaty is a bad deal. It permits Russia to dump outdated weapons and update their arsenal while requiring us to reduce ours. They gain from the deal and we give.

greatar4 · Nov 28, 2010

My question is can Russia be trusted with that treaty?

David · Nov 28, 2010

greatar4 said:
My question is can Russia be trusted with that treaty?

They've followed the treaty just fine so far.

obtuseobserver · Nov 28, 2010

David said:
They've followed the treaty just fine so far.

On what basis do you assert this as fact?

WillypHD · Nov 29, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
The treaty is a bad deal. It permits Russia to dump outdated weapons and update their arsenal while requiring us to reduce ours. They gain from the deal and we give.

This is interesting, I had not seen this point made until now, it is a good one.

This reminds me of another movement I see happening in the world. The mission to equalize the world, which means bringing down the great to the level of the not so great in more ways than just militarily, like economically.

David · Nov 29, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
On what basis do you assert this as fact?

Have they reduced their stockpile? Yes. Have they allowed inspectors to prove this? Yes. Have they stopped testing? Yes. Have they stopped building new nukes? Yes.

obtuseobserver · Nov 29, 2010

David said:
Have they reduced their stockpile? Yes. Have they allowed inspectors to prove this? Yes. Have they stopped testing? Yes. Have they stopped building new nukes? Yes.

And how have you verified those facts?

Inspectors see what inspectors are allowed to see.

Russia takes up nearly 20% of the planet's entire land mass. Think you could hide something like.... say... Vermont in there?

David · Nov 29, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
And how have you verified those facts?

Inspectors see what inspectors are allowed to see.

Russia takes up nearly 20% of the planet's entire land mass. Think you could hide something like.... say... Vermont in there?

By that logic the Russians should be opposing START as well. Thankfully they're not trying to look for every possible reason, no matter how unlikely, to do so in order to score political points against their president.

obtuseobserver · Nov 29, 2010

David said:
By that logic the Russians should be opposing START as well. Thankfully they're not trying to look for every possible reason, no matter how unlikely, to do so in order to score political points against their president.

You're switching topics.

On what basis do you make your claims?

The Russians like this notion because it is a PR win for them if the US walks or if the US stays. It is a win for the Russians because they will be able, under the guidelines of the treaty, to eliminate old junk and replace it with newer weapons. While only the US would have to reduce our stockpile.

http://buzz.nationalreview.com/articles/253245/threat-new-start-keith-b-payne

The treaty’s force limits leave enormous opportunity for Russian circumvention, and, according to the open Russian press, they require only the United States to make reductions — not Russia as well. The treaty omits any limitation whatsoever on nuclear cruise missiles deployed on ships or submarines at a time when Russia apparently is moving forward with such weapons. And the Russian Duma committee responsible for treaties has just indicated that New START’s force ceilings do not apply to future Russian rail-mobile ICBMs. These are large loopholes indeed.

link to the centrer for non-proliferation's overview: http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/newstart.pdf
link to heritage foundation article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/03/the-new-start-treaty-under-fire/

the short version is that counting methods are liquid and given differing preferences in either will result in a disparate impact... with us losing

WillypHD · Nov 30, 2010

David said:
Have they reduced their stockpile? Yes. Have they allowed inspectors to prove this? Yes. Have they stopped testing? Yes. Have they stopped building new nukes? Yes.

David if you are going to continue making these claims you need to provide facts to support them. If you cannot, do not post, do not waste everyone else's time switching back and forth and dodging questions.

"Obama, gop showdown russia nuke pact"

Similar threads