Obama Announces Treaty with Russia to Reduce Nuclear Arsenals by One-Third - Video 7/6/09

Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | July 6, 2009 | BrianinMO

[Federalist Patriot]

Here is video of President Obama announcing a "joint understanding" he has signed with Russian President Medvedev that would reduce U.S. and Russian Nuclear Arsenals by one-third. Obama called the treaty he has signed a "legally binding agreement." Nothing was said about the U.S. Constitutional provision requiring the approval of the U.S. Senate to ratify treaties. . . . . (Watch Video)

[y6162]

Obamachev to Russia: we surrender.

[papasmurf]

Why would he say anything about Congressional review? He has already said he believes he can go around Congress.

Chavez
Castro
Zeyala
Putin
etc., etc., etc.

[KarlInOhio]

Did he wave the treaty and proclaim “Peace in our time” while throwing the Poles and Czechs under the bus on missile defense?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Any treaty requires congressional approval.

[Thank You Rush]

MY! He truly is a miracle worker, isn’t he? Legally binding agreement - wonder what Congress will have to say about that? Reduce nuclear weapons by 1/3? Why not 100% you jerk! You have no intention of keeping the US safe anyway so it’s just as well that you stop the pretense!

[b4its2late]

Although Senators sometimes play a part in the initiation
or development of a treaty, the Senate role now is primarily to
pass judgment on whether completed treaties should be ratified
by the United States. The Senate’s advice and consent is asked
on the question of Presidential ratification. When the Senate
considers a treaty it may approve it as written, approve it
with conditions, reject and return it, or prevent its entry
into force by withholding approval. In practice the Senate
historically has given its advice and consent unconditionally
to the vast majority of treaties submitted to it.

[Danae]

I am sure the senate just LOVES being kept out of that unconstitutional loop. Or did you lecture in Constitutional law OholyO.

Oh thats right, the constitution is irrelevant in the Obama administration.

[Charles Martel]

So, Zero got to visually verify the contents of the Yamantau Mountain (city-sized) bunker?

Frankly, we don't have any clue as to just how many warheads Russia possesses. But we'll cut ours by a third - while Russia begins a weapons modernization program? Sheer madness.

A *real* President once said: "Trust, but Verify". Man, how I long for those days.

[GonzoGOP]

The treaty Obama is negotiating limits us to someplace in the area of 1500 nuclear weapons. This cuts our supply of nukes way too short. There are more than 1500 class 1 targets in China and Russia. With only 1500 weapons we cannot completely destroy the opposition. Without that threat MAD falls apart and war becomes inevitable.

Lets assume that each of those 1500 weapons does as much damage as Hiroshima. The bombs are bigger but some of the targets will be smaller cities. The bomb at Hiroshima killed somewhere between 120,000 - 140,000 depending on what source you look up. That adds up to only 180 to 210 million casualties. Now that sounds like a lot, but China has over 2 billion people. That is only 13% casualties, and then only if we go only after cities and ignore military targets, which of course we won't. If half our bombs go after military targets (like their second strike weapons) they would suffer only 7%-8% casualties. They can take that kind of damage, it would hurt, but they could take it. But their 1500 nukes would kill over half to two thirds of the US population. Obama's treaty makes nuclear war winnable, just not for us.

[Niteranger68]

I would love to see our military leaders refuse his orders.

[jakerobins]

Simply because Lord O said so......Making Kingly proclamtions.......I don’t know how I’m gonna live through the next 3 1/2 years....UGHHHHH

[popdonnelly]

Obama, the Constitutional law expert, doesn’t know that treaties have to be ratified by the Senate.

[never4get]

You are probably right...But the way I see it, if we are ever in position that our enemy is willing to take 1,500 nuke hits and us the same. I don’t want to be alive to to experience what is left. Being I live on Long Island about 50 miles east of Manhattan, If I do not die after the initial strike on New York, well, I suppose the radiation will kill me within a couple of days anyway. Truly, if there is someone who believes a nuke war is winnable because we only have 1,500 nukes they are not thinking straight to begin with...Whomever survives may not be the winner. I would argue the survivors will ultimately be the losers.

[GonzoGOP]

Truly, if there is someone who believes a nuke war is winnable because we only have 1,500 nukes they are not thinking straight to begin with..

Communist dictators don't usually think straight as a rule. Look at how many people Stalin killed off 11-12 million in his purges. Then went on to take another 26.5 million casualties in world war II. And was ready to come after us at the end of that. The Soviet Union only had 197 million people in 1940 so the loss of 5.5% to purges and 13.4% to World War II didn't even make them blink. A combined 18.9% losses and the devastation of half his country and he was ready to take on all comers within a matter of months.

It wasn't out ability to cause Russian casualties that stopped him in 1945, it was the fact that he couldn't hit us as hard as we were hitting him. The communists are always willing to trade man for man. Casualties only stopped the Soviets when the number went to 100% of their population. Then we had their attention. History has shown that to a communist government like China loosing 7-15% in order to destroy a major rival has been no big deal. Heck to them its birth control.

[never4get]

7% to 15%....sickness, starvation and disease post irradiated globe will serve to kill the majority. Never mind the global economy will be destroyed....Again, just pointing out how absurd it would be to think if only 1,500 nukes they could win...There is no winner unless presiding over an all but dead planet is being a winner.

[GonzoGOP]

7% to 15%....sickness, starvation and disease post irradiated globe will serve to kill the majority.

There were 1054 above ground nuclear tests and two nuclear attacks before they were outlawed. We are all still here. Radiation from an air burst is localized. The global die off of MAD assumed the approximately 65,000 nukes that were around in the 1985s. The nukes back then were in general much bigger then those currently in service, greater accuracy of targeting allowed for smaller/cheaper nukes to be used on ICBMs. Also the old designs were much dirtier in terms of radiation. Since we must assume that if they only get to keep 1500 they would keep the most modern designs a strike of 1500 weapons to a nation with a population of 1.33 billion is very survivable. For the US, no we would be wiped out, but that isn't the issue.

As for destroying the economy. Look at North Korea, Zimbabwe or any other communist state. Do they look like the care if the economy goes into the tank if doing so ensures they stay in power forever?

[Thunder90]

Putin subscribes to this Communist line of thought: “Treaties are like pie crusts, they were made to be broken” V. Lenin

[Thunder90]

You know that the Russians will NOT abide to the treaty. They violated START II with Reagan during the 80’s, and had their own NMD system using nuke tipped interceptors during that time.

[GonzoGOP]

You know that the Russians will NOT abide to the treaty. They violated START II with Reagan during the 80’s, and had their own NMD system using nuke tipped interceptors during that time.

To be honest I'm not worried about Russia. The With a population of only 140,702,096 (July 2008 est.) people the 1500 remaining nukes would depopulate them with fissionable material to spare. But 1.33 billion Chinese, 1.3 billion Muslims in the Middle East and 1.1 billion Indians are quite another matter. They may not have 1500 nukes each, but since after our attack each would have more than a billion people left, the don't need them.