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

#51
#51
I agree about the slant of the Heritage Foundation. It has its place, but you have to recognize that when reading it.
 
#52
#52
Here are some of the latest events.

North Korea revealed on Nov. 12, 2010 a new nuclear facility with over 1,000 modern centerfuges.

Russia is now agreeable to a European missile defense system to counter possible launches from Iran.
 
#53
#53
I'm surprised they are agreeable to the European shield. Does said agreement spell out limits on the number of kill vehicles we can deploy?
 
#54
#54
in 2007, Candidate Obama said that as President, he wouldn't waste money on unproven missile defense technology. Amazing how the view changes once you're privy to actual information.
 
#55
#55
TennTradition said:
I'm surprised they are agreeable to the European shield. Does said agreement spell out limits on the number of kill vehicles we can deploy?
Click to expand...

No agreement, just political posturing by O and the Russian pres in an attempt to get the necessary 67 votes to ratify the treaty imo.

I don't like the treaty at all for various reasons.

Funny story, I knew this guy who after serving in the US Navy signed on a 'research vessel' that was deployed in the North Pacific back when the Soviets were testing intercontinental missiles fired from Kapustinyar (or thereabouts) which landed in the Pacific.

Their job was, (in cooperation with other sites) to compile data on missile speed, trajectory and distance and thus deduce thrust and payload.

He was a radio operator and called in data which started with their exact position on Earth.

They accomplished this by using a device that shot a trajectory on three different stars of known positions in the universe and their respective angles from the ship.

My friend was next to the guy doing this and when he had the star in his sights he would push a button and then the device would rotate 360 degrees and the operator had to quickly move his head after pushing the button or be hit square in the cranium by some heavy metal.

So my friend, ever the pranster, was engaging this guy in conversation hoping to distract him enough so that he would get hit in the head by the device and at a very appropriate moment asked him what he thought was a very pithy question and the guy replied; "wouldn't that be intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers."

What do you think?? Did we ever really have neutron bombs?? Have they already been destroyed or not??
 
#56
#56
I suppose the new information on Iranian missiles has a lot to do with us demanding the missile defense system protecting Europe.
 
#57
#57
monds1123.jpg
 
#59
#59
Weezy said:
I suppose the new information on Iranian missiles has a lot to do with us demanding the missile defense system protecting Europe.
Click to expand...

Some if not all of the Iranian missiles are of Russian
design and were obtained and are being obtained
from North Korea.
 
#63
#63
Meh... I have no opinion on it one way or the other. Suitcase nukes or dirty bombs concern me more than anything else.
 
#64
#64
The three major problems with the new start treaty.

1. We can only inspect where Russia says we can.

2. It inhibits our development of anti-balistic missiles
and we do have to consider rogue states such as Iran
and NK. (Russia has also supplied 1,800 anti-aircraft
missiles to Venezuela which has a cozy relationship
with Iran btw)

3. No provision is made for us to update our own
aging ICBM and warhead stockpile.

4. Additionally Obama has refused to submit a record
of the negotiations to senators who might like to review
them.

There are more problems with the treaty, it shouldn't be
approved by 67 senators.

The Bear We Could Have Tamed

Working in tandem with Strobe Talbott, Russian Policy
Czar, they set about playing games with government
funds. Soros reveled in having so much access to the
Clintons and fancied himself part of the “Clinton team.”
Clinton squandered the opportunity to help the Russian
people form a healthy democracy and instead allowed
Soros and his team to profiteer, leaving the country in
shambles. (Horowitz, David and Poe, Richard. The
Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and
Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party)

According to journalist Anne Williamson, Soros appeared
before the House Banking Committee in September 1999
attempting to explain to stunned congressmen exactly
how so many US taxpayer dollars had evaporated in Russia.
The Clintons managed to shut that scandal down quickly,
thanks to their expertise in covering up turpitude.

Kyle-Anne Shriver in American Thinker:

“He [Soros] had already been widely proclaiming that it
was his own machinations that brought down the Soviet
Empire. When asked about his sphere of influence in the
Soviets’ demise for a New Republic interview in 1994,
Mr. Soros humbly replied that the author ought to report
that ‘the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros
Empire.’”

“When our House Banking Committee investigated the
Russia-gate scandal in 1999, trying to determine just
how $100 billion had been diverted out of Russia, forcing
the collapse of its currency and the default of its enormous
loans from the International Monetary Fund, Soros was
even called to testify. He denied involvement of course,
but finally admitted that he had used insider access in a
deal that was barred to foreign investors to acquire a
huge chunk of Sidanko Oil. “

“The Russia scandal was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach,
then head of the House Banking Committee to be ‘one
of the greatest social robberies in human history.’
(Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 96)”

“Of course, Russia-gate was quickly hushed up and
pushed aside in the public’s lurid, and quite insatiable,
interest in Monica-gate.”
Click to expand...

The Russian Agents, Obama, and the Cover-up

Our media do not seem to be interested in the
curious matter of why the Russian agents accused
of trying to acquire sensitive nuclear information
from the U.S. Government were so quickly released.
Why were they were sent back to Moscow less than
two weeks after they were arrested?

It is certainly the case that a continuing spy scandal
threatened to undermine U.S.-Russia business
“opportunities” and “cooperation.” It is also true that
there is evidence that the Russian agents targeted the
Obama Administration and former Clinton Administration
officials.
--------------------------------------

The exchange was hammered out so quickly and was
so advantageous to the Kremlin, however, that it should
have become apparent to some journalist somewhere that
there was much more to the story. But the issue was just
as quickly dropped by the media, liberal and conservative
alike.
-----------------------------------------

Has the possible penetration of the U.S. Government by
foreign spies become a laughing matter for the Obama
Administration? Are they fearful that a realistic review
of what the Russian agents were doing would lead to
the conclusion that Obama’s foreign policy plays into
the hands of the Russian government and has in fact
been manipulated by the Kremlin?
---------------------------------

So we quickly found out that top Obama and Democratic
Party officials had been targeted in this intelligence
operation. Is this why the scandal had to go away?

The hastily-arranged “spy swap” ended any chance of
finding out in detail in a public forum what kind of
information the Russian intelligence service had been
collecting and who in the U.S. Government had possibly
been recruited or used as assets and contacts.
-------------------------------------------

According to Earley, Tretyakov died “unexpectedly”
on June 13. The circumstances were so suspicious
that an autopsy was performed under the supervision
of the FBI.
------------------------------------

But there is something else that Pincus did not mention.
It has to do with those “other people” targeted and
used by Tretyakov and the Russians.

The book, Comrade J, identifies Strobe Talbott, a
former high-ranking Clinton State Department official
and the current president of the Brookings Institution,
a major liberal think tank, as having been a trusted
contact of the Russian intelligence service. Talbott
has denied serving as a Russian agent, but when he
was up for his State Department job in the Clinton
Administration, he admitted a relationship with Soviet
“journalist” and KGB agent Victor Louis.

The Talbott case is consistently ignored by the major
media because he is respected and trusted by his
colleagues in the press. He is also trusted by Senator
Richard Lugar, who served as Obama’s mentor when
Obama was in the U.S. Senate and traveled to Russia,
only to be detained and have his passport examined
by Russian authorities. Obama joked about the detention,
saying he wasn’t in the Gulag.

Pincus asked, “What will the Russians do now?” He
noted that Tretyakov had said that when the Cold
War was over, “the United States asked Russia to
stop the KGB’s covert propaganda activities that
portrayed Washington in foreign media as carrying
out terrible activities, such as saying the United
States was spreading HIV in Africa.”
------------------------------------

So the propaganda and disinformation activities
continue. Indeed, that is what the Kremlin-financed
global Russia Today television channel is all about.
It has a major presence in the U.S.

But wait. Didn’t the Reverend Jeremiah Wright repeat
the KGB disinformation that the U.S. was spreading
AIDS? Indeed he did. In fact, Wright, who was Barack
Obama’s pastor for 20 years, actually claimed at a
National Press Club appearance during the 2008
presidential campaign that the U.S. Government had
manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people.

So we have one identified channel of influence whereby
Soviet propaganda and disinformation was spewing from
the mouth of someone with direct influence over the
President of the United States. But few in the major
media were interested then—or now—as to whether
or not Obama believed any of that nonsense.
-----------------------------------

One possible reason for quickly deporting the spies,
from the point of view of the Obama Administration,
is that they had explosive information about Russian
influence over the U.S. Government that would have
been too incriminating to reveal in a public court case.
“Russia considered these people very important to
their intelligence-gathering activities,” Attorney
General Eric Holder admitted. “They didn’t pass any
classified information,” Holder insisted.
--------------------------------------

Holder had no real answer to CBS “Face the Nation”
host Bob Schieffer’s question of why, after spending
so many years following these agents, they were not
prosecuted. Holder could only claim that the 10 were
somehow not as valuable as the four we got. In terms
of math alone, it just doesn’t add up.

Documents in the case, as we have reported,
demonstrate that the Russian agents were seeking
information about the proposed arms treaty with
Russia and other nuclear weapons information. That
treaty, the New START, has now been signed and
submitted to the Senate for ratification. It is being
criticized by conservatives for giving Russia a strategic
and tactical advantage in nuclear weapons.

One document says four Obama Administration officials
were specifically targeted in the intelligence-gathering
effort. But their names were omitted from the Justice
Department documents about the case. If they actively
conspired with the Russians, shouldn’t they be identified
and arrested and prosecuted?
----------------------------------

Obama’s next step, also certain to please the Kremlin,
is to seek the 67 votes he needs for passing his new
arms deal with Moscow.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
The democrats plan to ram through the START treaty this weekend without giving senators time to review or amend it and as I mentioned before Obama refuses to furnish any record of the negotiations with the Russians who can't afford to do much anyway because the Putin government is robbing the Russian people bline, not unlike the Obama government is doing to the American people.

Previoiusly we have been able to pinpoint sites via satelite and ask to inspect those sites, under the new treaty we would be able to inspect only those sites the Russians designate, does anyone really trust the Russians to be honest??

Under a previous disarmament treaty the USSR was supposed to cut their army forces in eastern Europe by several meillion. They did this by removeing several million men to bases just east of the Urals, which technically meant they weren't stationed in eastern Europe, they took a few more million and designated then as being in the navy rather than the army, otherwise they still kept their rifles etc.

The current START Treaty calls for us to cut our ICBMs by 1/3, out long range bombers and sub lauched missiles by 1/2 and a promise not to retaliated with nukes if attacked by chemical or biological weapons. HUH??

Not covered in the treaty is a new sub launched cruise type missile the Russians have that has a 5,000 mile range. (no doubt the Chinese will have the same at some point.

Now might be a good time to contact your senator and ask that the vote on the treaty be delayed until after the first of the year so that it can be properly reviewed and amended.
 
#66
#66
Corker pledges his vote for New Start. Looks like it's good to go.

Glad that two Tennessee senators changed their mind.
 
#67
#67
With the modernization efforts for the weapons complex (and specifically Y-12 and Oak Ridge) sewn into START, Corker would have a hard time voting against it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
It passed 67-28 I think or will pass tommorrow acording to some.

Weezy said:
Corker pledges his vote for New Start. Looks like it's good to go.

Glad that two Tennessee senators changed their mind.
Click to expand...

images


That's two Tennessee rino senators I will never vote for again.

ObamaPutinPuppet.jpg


ASPLogin

The Obama administration is insisting that the new Strategic Arms Reduction Talks treaty (START) will not limit U.S. missile defenses. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow that Russia believes the treaty will limit U.S. missile defenses to current levels and that any increase would result in Moscow pulling out.
The treaty has three levels: Text and protocols on basic rights and obligations and technical annexes. None of the details have been made public.
Click to expand...

Above was from April, 2010.

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.

Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.

Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonprolifera*tion and nuclear disarmament concurrently.

Flaw #6: New START’s limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.

Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.

Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Flaw #9: The BCC’s mandate is overly broad.

Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.

Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.

Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.
Click to expand...

Eleven Republicans voted yes — (for cloture on debate)
Alexander,
Bennett,
Brown,
Cochran,
Collins,
Corker,
Isakson,
Lugar,
Murkowski,
Snowe,
Voinovich.

I might as well be living in Maine.
 
#69
#69
gsvol said:
Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.

It can't fail to speak to the issue and also speak on reduction of missile defense. Missile defense is the issue of protection against strategic attack.

Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.

This I don't like.

Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.

Doesn't it include a provision for modernization? Thought I read that somewhere.

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

As well it should, if the goal is reduction, and the restriction is bi-lateral.

Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament concurrently.

Pretty sure that was the whole point.

Flaw #6: New START’s limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.

Again, a flaw?

Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.

Only if they chose to limit their global strike options. We could do the same, if we wanted to increase tactical options.

Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

That is an advantage to Russia."

Flaw #9: The BCC’s mandate is overly broad.
Yea?

Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.
Good. Means we have more freedom in that respect.

Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.
START 1 was "adequately" verifiable. What makes this one less verifiable?

Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.
Well, yea. If they cheat, and we find out, the treaty is void.
Click to expand...

Overall, doesn't seem that big of a deal.
 
#70
#70
gsvol, the contention that the treaty is being "rammed through," with insufficient time to reflect on it is utter crap.

The Senate has had it since April.

It is 17 pages long.

They needed to read 14 words a day.



The TRUTH is that the Republicans are not fond of raitifying it because it would be perceived as a win for Obama. Even though the treaty has the universal support of the Republicans have the first clue what they are talking about on this as good for national security, the GOP is playing party politics with national security.

They, and you, ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
 
#71
#71
Guys, if you want to see the responses/refutation of those flaws it takes a quick internet search. Every time an expert refutes them though it falls on deaf ears.

Just for fun:

6. “This is the missile defense concern. There is [sic] significantly divergent views between the United States and Russia on this question of what the treaty does or does not do with respect to missile defense. Both explicitly and impliedly, there are limitations on U.S. missile defense activities in the treaty.”

ACA: New START is a “missile-defense friendly” treaty. The only missile defense “constraint” of any kind in New START is the prohibition on converting long-range missile launchers for use by missile defense interceptors, which isn’t something the Pentagon wants to do. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, testified to Congress that there are no plans to convert launchers, and that if any new missile defense launchers were needed, it would be quicker and cheaper to build new ones.

Moreover, O’Reilly explained that the treaty “…actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program [compared to the 1991 START agreement],” by allowing the launch of missile defense targets from airborne and waterborne platforms.

Critics complain that New START’s preambular language recognizes the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms. This is neither new (similar language was in earlier U.S.-Russian agreements) nor does it create any numerical or qualitative limits on missile defenses.

As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said during a 2001 press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov, “We agreed that it is perfectly appropriate to discuss offensive and defensive capabilities together.”

Moreover, the preamble also notes that “current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties” – a Russian acknowledgment that the 30 U.S. strategic ballistic missile interceptors currently deployed do not threaten Moscow’s strategic nuclear retaliatory capability.

Lost on Kyl is the fact that the Obama administration is going full-bore on its “Phased Adaptive Approach,” which would substantially increase SM-3 intermediate-range interceptor deployments in Europe, with NATO’s backing and potentially in cooperation with Russia. While some missile defense ideologues might bemoan Obama’s decision to shelve the Bush-era plan to deploy 10 unproven silo-based strategic interceptors in Poland, the new plan better addresses the existing Iranian and North Korean short- and medium-range missile threat.

The Sept. 16 bipartisan Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution of advice and consent clearly states that it is the committee’s understanding that “the New START Treaty does not impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defenses” other than the treaty’s ban on converting missile launchers for use by interceptors–which the Pentagon has said it has no intention of doing in any case–and that any further limitations would require Senate approval.

The resolution clarifies that “the April 7, 2010, unilateral statement by the Russian Federation on missile defense does not impose a legal obligation on the United States.” It also reaffirms language in the 1999 Missile Defense Act that it is the policy of the United States to deploy an effective national missile defense system “as soon as technologically possible” and that nothing in the treaty limits future planned enhancements to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system or the European Phased Adaptive Approach.
Click to expand...
 
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
the contention that the treaty is being "rammed through," with insufficient time to reflect on it is utter crap.

The Senate has had it since April.

It is 17 pages long.

They needed to read 14 words a day.
Click to expand...

This would mean Obamacare was passed about 12.3 years too early.

May be more depending on what is considered work days in the senate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top