START on its way to ratification

[rightwinger]

Obama aides, Republicans predict START ratification - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The only question is how many Republicans will put politics ahead of doing what is best for the country?

The Senate cleared the way today for a major arms reduction treaty with Russia, as a sufficient number of Republicans announced support for the deal and the White House predicted victory.

Senators voted 67-28 to cut off debate for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, and a final vote could come as early as Wednesday.

At least 10 Republicans said they planned to vote for START; supporters need only nine GOP votes to win the two-thirds Senate vote necessary for ratification.

"We remain extremely confident," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., one of the Republicans who announced he would back the treaty, told reporters, "I think it's going to pass and more than just pass."

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obama aides, Republicans predict START ratification - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The only question is how many Republicans will put politics ahead of doing what is best for the country?

I don't know that either passage or non-passage is "best" for the country or will even have that much of a noticeable effect for anyone, but I don't really have an issue with its ratification.

The treaty requires the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear stockpiles so that within seven years of ratification neither deploys more than 1,550 strategic warheads and 700 launchers. It would also require the resumption of on-site inspections that lapsed last December when the original Start treaty expired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22start.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Sounds like plenty to me.

 

[DiamondDave]

Republicans preventing this WOULD be what is best for the country, wrongwinger

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you presume that because Democrats want it, it's what is best for the country?

Is there anything wrong with actually debating and discussing the treaty before we rush to ratify it? I am seriously getting tired of people pretending that things are so important we have to have no idea what's in it before we pass it. That's just insane.

 

[Revere]

Who says Obama is doing what is "best for the country?"

 

[Tom Clancy]

I've been a little late to this whole thing but... What exactly does passing this bill do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've been a little late to this whole thing but... What exactly does passing this bill do?

At the very least it impedes the onset of another budget busting arms race.

 

[Avatar4321]

I've been a little late to this whole thing but... What exactly does passing this bill do?

At the very least it impedes the onset of another budget busting arms race.

Are we at war with anyone who can actually afford a "budget busting arms race"?

Besides, military spending, which can be made more efficient without losing any capabilities is hardly the budget busters. The budget busters would be the so called "Mandatory" spending items. Which, of course, is grossly misname.

 

[Tom Clancy]

I've been a little late to this whole thing but... What exactly does passing this bill do?

At the very least it impedes the onset of another budget busting arms race.

So.. It's more of a Nuclear Reduction treaty between America and Russia?

Cost?

 

[Revere]

Are all the other "busted" budgets for non-arms OK, then?

It's just the arms budgets that "bust?"

 

[Trajan]

Obama aides, Republicans predict START ratification - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The only question is how many Republicans will put politics ahead of doing what is best for the country?

The Senate cleared the way today for a major arms reduction treaty with Russia, as a sufficient number of Republicans announced support for the deal and the White House predicted victory.

Senators voted 67-28 to cut off debate for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, and a final vote could come as early as Wednesday.

At least 10 Republicans said they planned to vote for START; supporters need only nine GOP votes to win the two-thirds Senate vote necessary for ratification.

"We remain extremely confident," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., one of the Republicans who announced he would back the treaty, told reporters, "I think it's going to pass and more than just pass."

thx for telling me whats best for the country. not that you have had a single sane argument to counter any of the opposing viewpoints but hey, uber-partisanship has its own reward I guess.

and the answer is 11, thats how many voted yes on the cloture vote....is that enough for you?

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans preventing this WOULD be what is best for the country, wrongwinger

You mean like when Reagan and Bush signed the first START treaties?

 

[Intense]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J_CqqBrvsU&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

I've been a little late to this whole thing but... What exactly does passing this bill do?

At the very least it impedes the onset of another budget busting arms race.

can you quantify that please? how so?

 

[rightwinger]

Obama aides, Republicans predict START ratification - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The only question is how many Republicans will put politics ahead of doing what is best for the country?

The Senate cleared the way today for a major arms reduction treaty with Russia, as a sufficient number of Republicans announced support for the deal and the White House predicted victory.

Senators voted 67-28 to cut off debate for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, and a final vote could come as early as Wednesday.

At least 10 Republicans said they planned to vote for START; supporters need only nine GOP votes to win the two-thirds Senate vote necessary for ratification.

"We remain extremely confident," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., one of the Republicans who announced he would back the treaty, told reporters, "I think it's going to pass and more than just pass."

thx for telling me whats best for the country. not that you have had a single sane argument to counter any of the opposing viewpoints but hey, uber-partisanship has its own reward I guess.

and the answer is 11, thats how many voted yes on the cloture vote....is that enough for you?

I think when the actual vote takes place Republicans will jump on board.They know they have no defense of a negative vote

 

[Trajan]

Republicans preventing this WOULD be what is best for the country, wrongwinger

You mean like when Reagan and Bush signed the first START treaties?

why yes with all of the verification inc. AND a complete disconnect from any linkage to Missile defense apparatus, development etc...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Does anyone care what we mustr give up?

TREATY BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON
THE REDUCTION AND
LIMITATION OF STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/c39903.htm

 

[Intense]

Q. What is the New START treaty?

A. The 10-year treaty between the United States and Russia - formally the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - is a successor to the first START nuclear arms-reduction treaty signed in 1991. That pact expired last year. Q. What does New START do?

A. Three main things: It would cap the number of deployed, long-range nuclear warheads on each side at 1,550, down from 2,200. It would reduce the number of deployed nuclear-carrying submarines, long-range missiles and heavy bombers to a maximum of 700, with 100 more in reserve (the U.S. currently has about 850 deployed; Russia has an estimated 565). Finally, it would reestablish a system in which each of the nuclear giants monitors the other's arsenal. That system ended last year. Q. Is it a dramatic step in disarmament?

A. Not really. Because there are different rules in START 1 and START 2 on counting warheads, the reduction may well be less than 30 percent. Also, the treaty doesn't mandate that the warheads be destroyed - they will be added to the thousands the United States keeps in storage.

But the treaty is a first step in President Obama's nuclear agenda, which envisions moving on to a second round of more ambitious negotiations. In addition, the Obama administration believes the treaty will bolster U.S. leadership in going after nuclear cheaters.

Q. What do opponents say?

A. They fall into different camps. Some believe traditional arms-control is outdated and it would be better to focus on building an ambitious missile shield, something like President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" vision.

Others accept the policy of recent presidents of a more limited shield to protect against threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea. But they worry about a few mentions of missile defense in New START. While those phrases would not legally bar the United States from carrying out its current missile-defense plans, some Republicans worry Russia would seize on them to pressure Washington in the future.

Finally, some senators are angry about the process. Republicans have complained about considering the treaty in the waning days of a lame-duck session in which Obama has racked up several legislative victories.
What is the New START treaty?

 

[Sallow]

Finally..

The arguments against this treaty made no sense.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans preventing this WOULD be what is best for the country, wrongwinger

You mean like when Reagan and Bush signed the first START treaties?

why yes with all of the verification inc. AND a complete disconnect from any linkage to Missile defense apparatus, development etc...

Verification is still there.

Star Wars opens up a new arena of nuclear escallation. The easiest way to defeat a missile defense system is to throw more missiles at it.

We still have 1500 missiles that we will never use