Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mojito

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.


13 posted on 12/02/2010 11:41:25 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RC2
From “New START: What Would Reagan Do?” by Ed Meese and Richard Perle in today’s WSJ:

“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.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575647183506149438.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

The article is a good antidote to the Kissinger et al piece.

15 posted on 12/02/2010 12:00:22 PM PST by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson