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

#1

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
9
#1
David Limbaugh

5168673316_629f3b3c27_b.jpg
 
#3
#3
I think that continued arms reductions makes sense in a lot of ways. Of course, monitoring and compliance are always concerns. However, both Russia and the US have way too many weapons. They are a financial burden and a security risk from a proliferation standpoint. So, if we can do it evenly, let's do it.
 
#4
#4
I think that continued arms reductions makes sense in a lot of ways. Of course, monitoring and compliance are always concerns. However, both Russia and the US have way too many weapons. They are a financial burden and a security risk from a proliferation standpoint. So, if we can do it evenly, let's do it.

I have to agree somewhat but then there is the problem of North Korea, China, probably Iran now or in the near future and possibly Venezuela at some point, not to mention Pakistan and India.

The treaty as written doesn't favor America at all.
 
#5
#5
I have to agree somewhat but then there is the problem of North Korea, China, probably Iran now or in the near future and possibly Venezuela at some point, not to mention Pakistan and India.

The treaty as written doesn't favor America at all.

These countries do not have the number of weapons that would make us need to keep our current arsenal. START isn't about a nuclear-free world (right now)...it is about a reasonable stockpile for today's threat (and not even that, really...we would still have more than enough). What is the current reduction target...to 1500 or so? That is still A LOT.
 
#7
#7
This may or may not be true. We allow inspections, but we also have the right to rope off or restrict a lot of areas. The basic point is that we really want to create an atmosphere of trust in the spirit of the treaty. There are a lot of good reasons to make the reductions, and we want to make sure they feel comfortable making their reductions as much as (or probably more than) we want to feel comfortable in making our reductions. Unfortunately, subterfuge or skirting around the spirit of the treaty is always a concern.
 
#8
#8
Why would they do any different than we would? And let's be honest, wed keep some under wraps.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
I don't know about the current economy of Russia (and it seems to be much better than the recent past), but these things are very expensive to maintain. We both want to believe that the other is honoring its obligation. Based on the monitoring that is allowed under the treaty, we can get a rough idea of the stockpile. Reducing to numbers where the uncertainty in the number in the other's stockpile is on the order of our own stockpile is a very difficult proposition. This is why a reduction to zero weapons is fantasy, IMO. However, a reduction to 1500 should not be.
 
#10
#10
What does it matter if one has twice enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over, or only once over?

Reduction make sense. Nobody need two worlds worth of nukes.
 
#11
#11
I think it makes plenty of sense to disarm, but this isn't entirely realistic for obvious geopolitical reasons. In theory I think it would work excellently. Nukes were once vitally important to the United States' national strategic interest during the Cold War. In a sense, nukes were the 'equalizer' because our conventional forces were outmatched in a lot of circumstances. Times have changed and our conventional arms are unmatched, but nations have nukes as their 'equalizer'. Aspin always said "The United States is no longer the equalizer but the equalizee."
 
#13
#13
What does it matter if one has twice enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over, or only once over?

Reduction make sense. Nobody need two worlds worth of nukes.

Agreed. Save money and still have enough of a nuclear deterrent (enough to wipe out the world). IMO loose nukes from Russia falling into terrorists' hands or just enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb are our biggest threats. This could help take some of these devices out of play. We would still have our# 1 deterrent, nukes on boomer subs, that are incapable of being taken out by conventional ICBM attacks.
Plus, we could spin down decommissioned material into fuel rods for nuclear power production, if our leaders would embrace nuclear power. Someday there may be no other choice than going to nuclear. I know of a plant in NE TN that does this. It created a significant number of high paying quality jobs that I would hope our leaders would agree that could never be exported for obvious security reasons.
In short, nuclear arms reductions, not to the point of jeapardizing security, makes sense economically, politically, and militarily. Of course, these are just my views, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14
if you guys think russia is going to abide by this treaty, then i have some beach property to sell you in knoxville.
 
#15
#15
let's disarm completely, it'll be fun watching the anti-war types celebrating in the streets until they realize the scope of the environmental catastrophe they could then exploit.
 
#16
#16
START began a long time ago. Obama is simply following up on what was begun several presidents ago.

Given that there are legitimate worries about whether the former Soviet Union was able to keep control over all of their nukes, and worries that terrorist groups might get ahold of rogue nukes, I would think that the terrorist fear mongers here -- like gsvol, for example -- would be all for reducing the potential for mischief.

Sorry, but mindless Republican efforts to make Obama look bad at every turn are pretty stupid on this score.
 
#17
#17
START began a long time ago. Obama is simply following up on what was begun several presidents ago.

Given that there are legitimate worries about whether the former Soviet Union was able to keep control over all of their nukes, and worries that terrorist groups might get ahold of rogue nukes, I would think that the terrorist fear mongers here -- like gsvol, for example -- would be all for reducing the potential for mischief.

Sorry, but mindless Republican efforts to make Obama look bad at every turn are pretty stupid on this score.

These could be "half hearted" to non existent and it wouldn't matter.
 
#21
#21
It couldn't have really happened under the climate that existed when Reagan was President. But, he called for and envisioned an effort that took shape as the official treaty.
 
#22
#22
These countries do not have the number of weapons that would make us need to keep our current arsenal. START isn't about a nuclear-free world (right now)...it is about a reasonable stockpile for today's threat (and not even that, really...we would still have more than enough). What is the current reduction target...to 1500 or so? That is still A LOT.

Why even have the treaty??


Why would they do any different than we would? And let's be honest, wed keep some under wraps.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

We wouldn't be able to inspect any site the Russians didn't designate as a nuclear site and submarine launched nuclear vehicles don't come under the treaty.



if you guys think russia is going to abide by this treaty, then i have some beach property to sell you in knoxville.

Treaties with communists are like treaties with moslems, we may keep the treaty but they have no intention of keeping the treaty from the beginning.
 
#23
#23
if you guys think russia is going to abide by this treaty, then i have some beach property to sell you in knoxville.

I don't think you understand: having more nuclear devices than what it takes to depopulate the Earth is useless. There is no strategic value in it. They'll abide to at least some extent as we will, because there is no good reason not to.
 
#24
#24
The treaty does have some provisions for inspecting. We can at least have some idea of how many are being disassembled. We also have a good idea of how many the have. The end of the cold war was a boon to our intelligence assets in Russia. While the KGB became less of a priority for recruitment, the nuclear program was still an active target.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
I don't think you understand: having more nuclear devices than what it takes to depopulate the Earth is useless. There is no strategic value in it. They'll abide to at least some extent as we will, because there is no good reason not to.

In an era of potential intercepts, it do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 

VN Store



Back
Top