Skip to comments.The Republican case for ratifying New START
Posted on 12/02/2010 11:21:07 AM PST by mojito
Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers. That is why Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated the SALT I, START I and START II agreements. It is why President George W. Bush negotiated the Moscow Treaty. All four recognized that reducing the number of nuclear arms in an open, verifiable manner would reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe and increase the stability of America's relationship with the Soviet Union and, later, the Russian Federation. The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons.
As a result, we urge the Senate to ratify the New START treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. It is a modest and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that expired almost a year ago. It reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Not only does the new treaty wipe out a 1/3 of our nuclear missile force. It also takes out 1/2 our bombers and 1/2 our Submarines. Oh and the best part is the Russia can opt out and we cannot.
This is not just a no but a hell no!
You want to make your case for START? Wait for after the lame duck session.
Soros lapdogs, one and all.
“Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers. That is why Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated the SALT I, START I and START II agreements”
Arms agreements do not in any way, shape, or form protect anyone against nuclear dangers.
“Negotiating a START treaty with Russia will only make us incrementally safer from nuclear war as both sides are pretty unlikely to use them”
If both sides are unlikely to use them, what the heck is the point of the treaty in the first place? That’s the problem with arms agreements. If they work, they were unecessary. If they don’t, all they do is reward agressors.
Man thats a lot of RINO Chicken crappers sitting on one roost
“The article is a good antidote to the Kissinger et al piece.”
Why anyone should listen to Kissinger is beyond me. His entire rationale was that the USSR was no more evil, no more an agressor, no more a “destablizer” (or however they put it), than the U.S. His false idol was the “balance of power” of the post-Napoleonic era. If he could go back that far, it’s kinda ironic he didn’t go just a little further to realize what worked after Napoleon wouldn’t have meant anything to Napoleon (or Hitler, or Stalin, etc.)
These are a bunch of have been, whose mindset are still the same as it was in 1960s-1980s, when Russian was a threat. Yes, I know that Powell’s name is there, but he’s 0bama lover in the first place, so it doesn’t count.
The idea that the United States’ action in reducing its nuclear arsenal promotes peace is illogical. It makes no sense. How does making yourself weaker promote peace? Has any of these START treaties made the world safer? Has it prevented the spread of nuclear weapons? North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems as we speak. How is START going to affect these countries? I can see nothing too coming from START.
PEACE THROUGH SUICIDE
as a gift to one’s enemies ping.
The RINOs calling for handcuffing America with a flawed treaty in a dangerous world.
Their opinion doesn’t add up to a cup of warm spit. They are all obsolete.
Yep...exactly right. They are not "GOP"...nor are they patriotic Americans...they are elitist Globalists...all big-time Council of Foreign Relations saboteurs of our national sovereignty.
Phyllis Schlafly made sure that Ronald Reagan kept his promise...and never once gave Kissinger ANY role in his government. And his foreign policy success was dramatic as a result. Too bad he had James Baker in the White House unfortunately. As we all know, he was one of the ones who helped make the whole Iran-Contra story accusations against Reagan so much bigger than it really was. The Bush's were hoping it would work...and they got their RINO buddy Howard Baker to 'help' Reagan as Chief of Staff. Fortunately, Howard didn't follow through with the Bush plan.
Today, however, the clock is being wound back to before Reagan...to our extreme danger. The Russians for example, are busy deploying an equivalent mobile missile system to the MX...the Topol-M.... while we are dismantling systems...they are deploying.... H'mmm.
Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger & Colin L. Powell
What a collection of pathetic losers. Living (in some cases barely breathing) memorials to the failed promise of the Republican Party to the silent majority of American Patriots across the land.
Unfortunately, we have nothing like that running at high preparedness levels right now...despite clear and present evidence of mounting nuclear threats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.