USArmyRetired
Rookie
- May 29, 2010
- 2,601
- 360
- 0
- Banned
- #1
Palin once again knows what she is talking about. She understands about missile defense since she commanded the 49th Missile Battalion in Alaska, the only guard unit that stays active 24/7 in the nation. She was briefed daily. Gotta give credit when credit is due. She nailed it. This is a dangerous treaty. We would have to give up our sea based nuclear weapons platforms (Subs). The Russians have been after this for along time. Between this and DADT we may not have a military left when they are all done with this because of Obama. This is the death of our national security.
Senate Republicans: Vote No on New START - By Sarah Palin - The Corner - National Review Online
READ THIS:
The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in Americas interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.
New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New STARTs verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.
New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty? At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union. That position was right in the 1980s, and it is still right today. We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administrations plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies
more in link:
Senate Republicans: Vote No on New START - By Sarah Palin - The Corner - National Review Online
READ THIS:
The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in Americas interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.
New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New STARTs verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.
New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty? At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union. That position was right in the 1980s, and it is still right today. We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administrations plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies
more in link:
