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 ...
Yeah, what a lineup of globalist rinos.
didn’t Colin Powell stop calling himself a Republican?
How many Obama voters among those?
The usual suspects.
“WaPo ^ | 12/2/2010 | Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger & Colin L. Powell “
It seems it would a lot easier to be President if in a time of crisis one wasn't asked if the Peacekeeper MX missile in the inventory should be used to put down aggression against USA. The MX was designed to be an accurate first-strike weapon. It had low yield RV’s. What did GWB do? He negotiated them away so he would not have to use them in a time of crisis.
I guess it is not such a bad thing to not have the nukes to use, unless of course one needs them.
BTW, Jimmy Carter was in office at the outset of the MX development. Reagan made it happen.
OMG!! THESE FREAKS AGAIN!!
Looks like someone has already rounded up the usual suspects.
I miss Cap Wienberger.
Colon Bowel has been full of it for several years now.
I just wish he’d hold it in instead of blowing it out at us.
I’d trade the lot of ‘em for John Bolton and Sarah Palin.
My understanding of START includes the idea that we have to ask “permision” to upgrade our defense systems and that we will cancel our plans for upgrades to our submarine fleet. If this is true, I would turn it down. First, we don’t ask permision from anyone. Second, we should not agree to anything that stops us from upgrading any of our ships.
Negotiating a START treaty with Russia will only make us incrementally safer from nuclear war as both sides are pretty unlikely to use them, conditioned as we are from a 50-year Cold War confrontation.
OTOH, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and others are “wild-cards”. Predicting what they might do and under what circumstances is anybody’s guess. Real action in this quarter would be expensive & difficult, so we just go in for more window-dressing with the Russians.
“The administration claims that the treaty has no effect on any American missile-defense program. Surely it knows better. Paragraph nine of the preamble establishes a bias against missile defense. It accepts our “current” defenses while implying that future U.S. defensive systems might undermine the “viability and effectiveness” of Russia's strategic nuclear force.
With this unfortunate paragraph, New Start returns to the old Cold War “balance of terror” and assumes that attempts to defend the U.S. and its allies with missile defenses against strategic attack are threatening to Russia and thus destabilizing.
Limiting missile defenses to preserve U.S. vulnerability to Russian strategic nuclear strikes (as defined by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitry Medvedev or their successors) will result in less effective defenses against any and all countries, including Iran and North Korea.”
The article is a good antidote to the Kissinger et al piece.
Trying too hard to sell the treaty which tells me that the Zero is negotiating from a weak position. If passed, the USA will soon be assuming the same position.
We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multipolar world, Chavez told reporters during a visit to Communist China, one of many. His new world order includes [RUSSIA], China, Iran,... and a significantly weakened United States, he explained.
Resurgent Communism in Latin America
by Alex Newman, March 16, 2010:
"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."
Russia's Medvedev hails "comrade" Obama
Associated Foreign Press (AFP) ^ | April 2, 2009 | Anna Smolchenko
"Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks"
April 1, 2009:
"Obama, Medvedev pledge new era of relations":
President Obama and Venezuela dictator Hugo
Chavez at the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad.
Note the "soul bro" handshake. (my caption)
Obama, Chavez shake hands at Americas Summit:
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.
I agree based on semantics and strength of force. The talk at Avco where I worked and where the delivery system for the RV’s was developed referred to the Mk-21 RV as having first strike capability due to the scalable power of the warhead and the extreme accuracy from 7K miles away.
In reality, in a shooting war, no military target in USSR was safe and with all of the submarine based systems, cities weren't either.
We used to have a good laugh at Avco when we learned that the USAF would notify Soviet spy ships prior to a test launch in the Pacific. USA was so sure of success and apparent accuracy that we wanted to let them know what they had to fear. We used to also monitor Soviet tests, when they were successful.
Unfortunately, we have nothing like that running at high preparedness levels right now...despite clear and present evidence of mounting nuclear threats.