Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[kiwiman127]

The Iran-START Connection - Elizabeth Weingarten - Politics - The Atlantic

And the stated above opinion from The Atlantic mirrors what the US's top experts (GOP & Dem) have stated. It's that simple but way too complex for the party over country crowd. That's why the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the NATO leadership backs START.
I thought the GOP crowd was all about "listening to the generals"? I guess that applies only when it's convenient.
There is no sense discussing this with them. They have no one of any stature backing their opposition, except some GOP Congressmen/women, who don't have any credentials that match those who are for START now. If only we could get Obama's signature of the agreement, THAT would change their attitude.

 

[Chris]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

Peace is the worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party.

They love guns and war and bigotry.

 

[JBeukema]

The Iran-START Connection - Elizabeth Weingarten - Politics - The Atlantic

And the stated above opinion from The Atlantic mirrors what the US's top experts (GOP & Dem) have stated. It's that simple but way too complex for the party over country crowd. That's why the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the NATO leadership backs START.
I thought the GOP crowd was all about "listening to the generals"? I guess that applies only when it's convenient.
There is no sense discussing this with them. They have no one of any stature backing their opposition, except some GOP Congressmen/women, who don't have any credentials that match those who are for START now. If only we could get Obama's signature of the agreement, THAT would change their attitude.

Not to mention wanting to monitoring the most probable source from which terrorists or rogue states might acquire nuclear weapons or material.

 

[theHawk]

It's about stopping Obama: The GOP's stated concerns are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success," says The New York Times in an editorial. A failure to ratify this treaty would damage U.S. credibility overseas and undermine America's ability to pressure Iran on its illicit nuclear program. Surely "the nation's security interests must trump political maneuvering."

Of course its about stopping Obama. He has proven the be the most destructive President we've ever had. Its always a safe bet to go against whatever this President is for since he always has some hidden socialist, marxist, anti-capitalist motives behind anything he does.

Since losing this last election, you can bet the Dems will be in full suicide bomber mentality to do as much destruction to our nation before they are forced to exit. This treaty to undermine America is an example.

"The nation's security interests must trump political maneuvering"....that's just laughable coming from the NY Times.

 

[theHawk]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

Peace is the worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party.

They love guns and war and bigotry.

Oh WOW I didn't know START was going to bring about world peace forever and ever. Why didn't you guys just say so?

I change my mind, lets all sign a treaty for world peace, why didn't we think of this before?

 

[Annie]

What could be wrong with START?

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

Perhaps thinking before doing might just save some unintended consequences?

 

[JamesMorrison]

A round-up of reasons why U.S. Senators should not, for the first time, ratify this treaty in a lame duck session. Given the promises and actions of this administration in conjunction with the 111th congress, the last paragraph points to the main reason the Senate should wait and debate this treaty next year.

Democrats lost the House and six Senate seats on November 2, but you wouldn't know it from their lame duck agenda. Majority Leader Harry Reid has told Republicans that in a mere three weeks he wants to pass a food safety bill, the immigration Dream Act, a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military, a 9/11 rescue workers relief act, a spending bill for fiscal 2011, an extension of some Bush tax cuts and estate tax reform. Oh, and the New Start nuclear treaty with the Russians.

Yet somehow Republican Jon Kyl is getting kicked around for saying he doubts there's time to ratify the arms treaty this year. Who's really playing the political games here?

***
As the Senate's leading Republican on nuclear security issues, Mr. Kyl has warned the White House for months that it couldn't get its treaty ratified without addressing his concerns on warhead modernization and missile defenses. For months, the Administration gave him mere lip service. Now that it has discovered it doesn't have the votes, the Administration is finally getting serious about Mr. Kyl's concerns even as it is trying to bully him over immediate ratification. Republicans are right to take their time and debate this thoroughly.

The treaty reduces allowed U.S. nuclear launch vehicles to 800, from a ceiling of 1,600, and cuts the number of warheads by 30%, to 1,550, even as years of neglect have undermined confidence in the quality of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Mr. Kyl won a commitment from the Bush Administration to modernize U.S. warheads, but the Obama Administration's first Sect. 1251 report on the issue was shoddy, and it also kept GOP Senators and staff from speaking with scientists who maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

Recently, the White House has been more forthcoming, and in the last week it has promised $4.1 billion in new spending to update nuclear warheads. But that commitment needs to be signed, sealed and delivered before the treaty gets a vote. All the more so because the U.S. hasn't tested a weapon in 18 years. (The U.S. abides by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty though the Senate hasn't ratified it.)

The Administration also doesn't help its credibility by hinting that Senate Democrats will only cooperate on modernization if New Start is ratified. Nearly every nuclear nation in the world is modernizing its arsenal, and the Pentagon says modernization is crucial whether or not New Start becomes the law of the land. If the Administration is willing to threaten to deny modernization money if New Start isn't ratified, how much can Republicans trust its sincerity on the issue?

Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.

At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?

The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.

In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.

***
Against these substantive concerns, the Administration is playing the diplomatic scare card. It claims that if New Start isn't ratified in a month, Russia might retaliate and refuse to help us on Iran's nuclear program or it might block U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan. But if Russia's cooperation depends on a single treaty, how much can we trust the Russians anyway? A treaty bearing on U.S. security deserves to be judged on its merits, not on related political issues.

The Administration is also saying that the longer the treaty is delayed, the longer we won't have inspectors on the ground in Russia. Yet the Administration created this problem. The U.S. and Russia could have agreed to abide by the old Start treaty, which expired last December, and at the time both sides said they would do so. The Russians quickly changed their minds to keep negotiating pressure on the U.S., and now the Obama Administration wants to play the same pressure game to get the treaty through the Senate. The GOP shouldn't fall for it.

New Start is a relatively minor treaty that lacks the nuclear high drama of the Cold War era. Russia is no longer an adversary, its arsenal is going to shrink in any case from cost and decay, and the U.S. will have enough missiles to maintain its nuclear deterrent even under New Start. We would nonetheless probably oppose it on grounds that it furthers the illusion that arms control enhances U.S. security.

The larger issue is whether Mr. Obama still conceives of New Start as the first step toward his dream of total nuclear disarmament. If he does, then it is crucial that Republicans use their leverage on New Start to lock in Mr. Obama's commitments on nuclear modernization and missile defense so he can't later trade those away too. Republicans should take their time and follow Ronald Reagan's advice to trust but verify—not so much Russian promises as Mr. Obama's.

this found at: Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com

JM

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

Same old, same old......

​

“It’s not clear to me what it is,” said Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush who noted that this START treaty is not very different from previous ones negotiated and ratified under Republican presidents. “I’ve got to think that it’s the increasingly partisan nature and the desire for the president not to have a foreign policy victory.”

 

[Vanquish]

A round-up of reasons why U.S. Senators should not, for the first time, ratify this treaty in a lame duck session. Given the promises and actions of this administration in conjunction with the 111th congress, the last paragraph points to the main reason the Senate should wait and debate this treaty next year.

Democrats lost the House and six Senate seats on November 2, but you wouldn't know it from their lame duck agenda. Majority Leader Harry Reid has told Republicans that in a mere three weeks he wants to pass a food safety bill, the immigration Dream Act, a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military, a 9/11 rescue workers relief act, a spending bill for fiscal 2011, an extension of some Bush tax cuts and estate tax reform. Oh, and the New Start nuclear treaty with the Russians.

Yet somehow Republican Jon Kyl is getting kicked around for saying he doubts there's time to ratify the arms treaty this year. Who's really playing the political games here?

***
As the Senate's leading Republican on nuclear security issues, Mr. Kyl has warned the White House for months that it couldn't get its treaty ratified without addressing his concerns on warhead modernization and missile defenses. For months, the Administration gave him mere lip service. Now that it has discovered it doesn't have the votes, the Administration is finally getting serious about Mr. Kyl's concerns even as it is trying to bully him over immediate ratification. Republicans are right to take their time and debate this thoroughly.

The treaty reduces allowed U.S. nuclear launch vehicles to 800, from a ceiling of 1,600, and cuts the number of warheads by 30%, to 1,550, even as years of neglect have undermined confidence in the quality of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Mr. Kyl won a commitment from the Bush Administration to modernize U.S. warheads, but the Obama Administration's first Sect. 1251 report on the issue was shoddy, and it also kept GOP Senators and staff from speaking with scientists who maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

Recently, the White House has been more forthcoming, and in the last week it has promised $4.1 billion in new spending to update nuclear warheads. But that commitment needs to be signed, sealed and delivered before the treaty gets a vote. All the more so because the U.S. hasn't tested a weapon in 18 years. (The U.S. abides by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty though the Senate hasn't ratified it.)

The Administration also doesn't help its credibility by hinting that Senate Democrats will only cooperate on modernization if New Start is ratified. Nearly every nuclear nation in the world is modernizing its arsenal, and the Pentagon says modernization is crucial whether or not New Start becomes the law of the land. If the Administration is willing to threaten to deny modernization money if New Start isn't ratified, how much can Republicans trust its sincerity on the issue?

Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.

At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?

The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.

In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.

***
Against these substantive concerns, the Administration is playing the diplomatic scare card. It claims that if New Start isn't ratified in a month, Russia might retaliate and refuse to help us on Iran's nuclear program or it might block U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan. But if Russia's cooperation depends on a single treaty, how much can we trust the Russians anyway? A treaty bearing on U.S. security deserves to be judged on its merits, not on related political issues.

The Administration is also saying that the longer the treaty is delayed, the longer we won't have inspectors on the ground in Russia. Yet the Administration created this problem. The U.S. and Russia could have agreed to abide by the old Start treaty, which expired last December, and at the time both sides said they would do so. The Russians quickly changed their minds to keep negotiating pressure on the U.S., and now the Obama Administration wants to play the same pressure game to get the treaty through the Senate. The GOP shouldn't fall for it.

New Start is a relatively minor treaty that lacks the nuclear high drama of the Cold War era. Russia is no longer an adversary, its arsenal is going to shrink in any case from cost and decay, and the U.S. will have enough missiles to maintain its nuclear deterrent even under New Start. We would nonetheless probably oppose it on grounds that it furthers the illusion that arms control enhances U.S. security.

The larger issue is whether Mr. Obama still conceives of New Start as the first step toward his dream of total nuclear disarmament. If he does, then it is crucial that Republicans use their leverage on New Start to lock in Mr. Obama's commitments on nuclear modernization and missile defense so he can't later trade those away too. Republicans should take their time and follow Ronald Reagan's advice to trust but verify—not so much Russian promises as Mr. Obama's.

this found at: Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com

JM

That article is complete crap. Here's why. It's nice to try and turn around the whole "Trust but Verify" quote...but that's exactly what naysayers are stopping. Furthermore, arms control DOES enhance security. The author is retarded. The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet.

And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot.

And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there.

 

[JamesMorrison]

That article is complete crap. Here's why. It's nice to try and turn around the whole "Trust but Verify" quote...but that's exactly what naysayers are stopping. Furthermore, arms control DOES enhance security. The author is retarded. The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet.

And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot.

And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there.

The article addresses this complaint. Indeed the "Naysayers" main question regarding the 'urgency' needed in ratifying this treaty, without precedent during a lame duck Congress, is: If so urgently needed, why didn't the Obama Administration at least attempt an extension of old START back in December of last year when it expired? Also, why wasn't the treaty, now in question, submitted immediately for Senate ratification back in last April shortly after it was signed?

Further, Senator Kyle and others have in the past voiced real concerns about the efficacy of present U.S. nuclear weaponry that have gone, until recently, ignored. Sure the administration has promised a 4 billion USD update but GOP Senators and others remember Obama's deals and promises to Health Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, Progressives for the 'Public Option', and even citizens regarding the urgency and necessity of passing Obamacare that never materialized in the end. The article is correct in counseling caution regarding promises from the Obama administration.

Your statement that "arms control DOES enhance security" is too simplistic. This statement applies only to a limited number of state actors such as the U.S., Britain, France, and India. An "Arms Treaty" with Russia should more properly be concerned with that country's ability to keep its nuclear material out of the hands of terrorist and rogue nations. Honestly, the U.S. might be better off paying the Russians to just secure that material (like they did following the fall of the U.S.S.R) or just buy it outright. However, those Russians, like Putin, still long for the veneer of international relevance that this treaty provides. Actors such as DPRK, Iran, and even a radicalized Pakistan do not necessarily share our concern for world peace and, additionally, it is not at all clear that they will not use these weapons against us, both figuratively and literally. The only deterrent with these entities will be a U.S. response that will make their "rubble bounce" but even this might not be enough for a theologically driven Tehran.

As for:

" The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet."

This sounds hopeful but before efforts to curb the world's nukes history has witnessed efforst to reduce the size and number of battleships, before that artillery, and before that the Long Bow (actually, to outlaw it altogether). We should focus on those who would use the weapons and not on the weapons themselves.

What better way to prevent nuclear proliferation than to prevent new nations or rogue ones from joining the nuclear club? Wikileaks has just provided us with a Bahrain, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordon that beg the U.S. to Bomb Iranian nuclear facilities so that they won't feel forced to counter a Persian hegemony with their own Bomb. Additionally we probably have a South Korea and, almost certainly, a Japan that is only a "screw turn" away from the Bomb; the reason being a hostile nuclear DPRK. In fairness we have come to this state of affairs due to the failure of both the Bush and Obama administrations to seriously address both these rogue nations' efforts to have a nuclear Bomb.

"And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot."

Until you provide evidence that, going back to just after the demise of the U.S.S.R , "Conservatives LOVE[ed] to throw them [Russians] up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serve[ed] them." in the context of a purposeful Russian nuclear intended threat This will properly remain a strawman.

However, the author didn't use the word "enemy" he used "adversary" and, in the context of being actively so, the author is correct. This is especially true when viewed regarding Tehran and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, its client Syria, and its support of radical Islamists. Less an immediate threat is DPRK but still more a threat to world peace than, as Sec. of Defense Gates has said of Russia: "[an] oligarchy run by the security services" (courtesy of Wikileaks). That the Russians can't be trusted is simply a statement of fact that can be equally applied to our current President (Yes that is an unnerving thing to say).

Germaine to this debate about START is Russia's relative irrelevance when compared to the security interests of the U.S. and, just as importantly, its allies and trading partners. The U.S. has worldwide responsibilities in this regard that Russia simply does not have. Whole regions along with nations depend on the U.S.'s security umbrella: Europe, Asian 'Tigers' and even the Levant and the Middle East in general. Indeed it has been argued that this U.S. security umbrella has made it financially possible for Europe's experiment in socialism, up until now anyway. This Treaty attempts to reduce "launchers" to a certain level but a lot of these are termed "dual use" and are necessary to maintain "conventional prompt global strike." capabilities that the U.S. needs to sustain its security umbrella. You see the term "launcher" doesn't just refer to a trailer carrying a rocket on a rail. It also refers to Submarines and Heavy Bombers like the B-2. A reduction of these will hamper future flexible delivery systems to carry conventional payloads necessary for conflicts such as Afghanistan or the Balkans.

" And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there."

You almost got it right. First the author, throughout the piece, rightly points out that the purpose of any agreement should first and foremost deal with and have the utmost concern for U.S. security interests. Secondary concerns may be used to compromise in order to reach agreement but only if they do not conflict with the first and primary effort of U.S. security. The author is "rougher on Obama" because it is the U.S. President's Raison d'être to look out for America first during the construction of such treaties and that such treaties must be judged on their merits regarding America's interests and security and not on some flimsy hope that giving favorable treatment to one's interlocutor for this or that will result in some future 'favorable' finding by that signatory on an unrelated matter somewhere down the diplomatic road (i.e. 'help' to prevent a nuclear Iran). Given all the facts and past actions of the President it is logical to conclude that if there is any political gamesmanship here the first place to look would be at an administration who brings a treaty to a lame duck Senate that was signed almost eight months ago, demands it be ratified immediately, and then tries to demonize those Senators who have concerns about American security while in the process of fullfilling their constitutional responsibility.


JM

 

[Trajan]

A round-up of reasons why U.S. Senators should not, for the first time, ratify this treaty in a lame duck session. Given the promises and actions of this administration in conjunction with the 111th congress, the last paragraph points to the main reason the Senate should wait and debate this treaty next year.

Democrats lost the House and six Senate seats on November 2, but you wouldn't know it from their lame duck agenda. Majority Leader Harry Reid has told Republicans that in a mere three weeks he wants to pass a food safety bill, the immigration Dream Act, a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military, a 9/11 rescue workers relief act, a spending bill for fiscal 2011, an extension of some Bush tax cuts and estate tax reform. Oh, and the New Start nuclear treaty with the Russians.

Yet somehow Republican Jon Kyl is getting kicked around for saying he doubts there's time to ratify the arms treaty this year. Who's really playing the political games here?

***
As the Senate's leading Republican on nuclear security issues, Mr. Kyl has warned the White House for months that it couldn't get its treaty ratified without addressing his concerns on warhead modernization and missile defenses. For months, the Administration gave him mere lip service. Now that it has discovered it doesn't have the votes, the Administration is finally getting serious about Mr. Kyl's concerns even as it is trying to bully him over immediate ratification. Republicans are right to take their time and debate this thoroughly.

The treaty reduces allowed U.S. nuclear launch vehicles to 800, from a ceiling of 1,600, and cuts the number of warheads by 30%, to 1,550, even as years of neglect have undermined confidence in the quality of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Mr. Kyl won a commitment from the Bush Administration to modernize U.S. warheads, but the Obama Administration's first Sect. 1251 report on the issue was shoddy, and it also kept GOP Senators and staff from speaking with scientists who maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

Recently, the White House has been more forthcoming, and in the last week it has promised $4.1 billion in new spending to update nuclear warheads. But that commitment needs to be signed, sealed and delivered before the treaty gets a vote. All the more so because the U.S. hasn't tested a weapon in 18 years. (The U.S. abides by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty though the Senate hasn't ratified it.)

The Administration also doesn't help its credibility by hinting that Senate Democrats will only cooperate on modernization if New Start is ratified. Nearly every nuclear nation in the world is modernizing its arsenal, and the Pentagon says modernization is crucial whether or not New Start becomes the law of the land. If the Administration is willing to threaten to deny modernization money if New Start isn't ratified, how much can Republicans trust its sincerity on the issue?

Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.

At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?

The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.

In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.

***
Against these substantive concerns, the Administration is playing the diplomatic scare card. It claims that if New Start isn't ratified in a month, Russia might retaliate and refuse to help us on Iran's nuclear program or it might block U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan. But if Russia's cooperation depends on a single treaty, how much can we trust the Russians anyway? A treaty bearing on U.S. security deserves to be judged on its merits, not on related political issues.

The Administration is also saying that the longer the treaty is delayed, the longer we won't have inspectors on the ground in Russia. Yet the Administration created this problem. The U.S. and Russia could have agreed to abide by the old Start treaty, which expired last December, and at the time both sides said they would do so. The Russians quickly changed their minds to keep negotiating pressure on the U.S., and now the Obama Administration wants to play the same pressure game to get the treaty through the Senate. The GOP shouldn't fall for it.

New Start is a relatively minor treaty that lacks the nuclear high drama of the Cold War era. Russia is no longer an adversary, its arsenal is going to shrink in any case from cost and decay, and the U.S. will have enough missiles to maintain its nuclear deterrent even under New Start. We would nonetheless probably oppose it on grounds that it furthers the illusion that arms control enhances U.S. security.

The larger issue is whether Mr. Obama still conceives of New Start as the first step toward his dream of total nuclear disarmament. If he does, then it is crucial that Republicans use their leverage on New Start to lock in Mr. Obama's commitments on nuclear modernization and missile defense so he can't later trade those away too. Republicans should take their time and follow Ronald Reagan's advice to trust but verify—not so much Russian promises as Mr. Obama's.

this found at: Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com

JM

That article is complete crap. Here's why. It's nice to try and turn around the whole "Trust but Verify" quote...but that's exactly what naysayers are stopping. Furthermore, arms control DOES enhance security. The author is retarded. The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet.

And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot.

And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there.

you do understand that the degradation of nuke stock for instance, and their use of the treaty for that degrading stock they would have let go anyway, benefits them, not us?

 

[rdean]

What could be wrong with START?

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

Perhaps thinking before doing might just save some unintended consequences?

The New START Treaty Is No Mistake - Brookings Institution

Funny, when you read the explanation from the Heritage Foundation, there are no facts, no in-depth study. Basically, it's just an "anti Obama" rant.

Then you read from the Brooking's Institute and you achieve an entirely different understanding.

Considering that former Republican Security advisers back "Start" gives it credibility.

The truth is, Republicans would put the safety of the nation at risk simply to keep Obama from reaching a "perceived" success. They just want him to fail. Even when he expands gun rights, they want him to fail. Even when they accuse him of taking a 200 million dollars a day trip, they point to that "lie" as if it were true. Anything. Just make the black guy "FAIL".

 

[Vanquish]

A round-up of reasons why U.S. Senators should not, for the first time, ratify this treaty in a lame duck session. Given the promises and actions of this administration in conjunction with the 111th congress, the last paragraph points to the main reason the Senate should wait and debate this treaty next year.

this found at: Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com

JM

That article is complete crap. Here's why. It's nice to try and turn around the whole "Trust but Verify" quote...but that's exactly what naysayers are stopping. Furthermore, arms control DOES enhance security. The author is retarded. The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet.

And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot.

And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there.

you do understand that the degradation of nuke stock for instance, and their use of the treaty for that degrading stock they would have let go anyway, benefits them, not us?

Absolutely. But you're not looking at the bigger picture.

 

[Trajan]

That article is complete crap. Here's why. It's nice to try and turn around the whole "Trust but Verify" quote...but that's exactly what naysayers are stopping. Furthermore, arms control DOES enhance security. The author is retarded. The more we inventory, lock down, and remove the nuclear firepower of our world roommates, the fewer accidents (or *gasp* changing politics) will result in danger to the planet.

And the idea that Russia isn't our enemy is HIGHLY self-serving. Conservatives LOVE to throw them up as an out of control, nuclear threat when it serves them. Now, to make your little article work...you say they're not? I bet the majority of conservatives wouldnt take lightly to saying Russia ain't the big bad no more. Hell, the article itself says " how much can we trust the Russians anyway?" The author is an idiot.

And in the end, the author is rougher on Obama for political partisan reasons than they are on our nuclear adversary? That's shows what's going on right there.

you do understand that the degradation of nuke stock for instance, and their use of the treaty for that degrading stock they would have let go anyway, benefits them, not us?

Absolutely. But you're not looking at the bigger picture.

have you read the thread?

 

[JamesMorrison]

To reiterate, the need to pass this latest START treaty is not found in urgency, therefore we can wait until the new Senate is seated next year. Remember this Obama/Medevdev joint statement emanating from the White House after old START expiration?

" Recognizing our mutual determination to support strategic stability between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, we express our commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START Treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter into force at the earliest possible date.

Joint Statement by Presidents Obama, Medvedev on START Treaty

So, if they have agreed to continue "in the spirit" or follow the old START Treaty, what is the rush? Given this, George Will has recently asked whether the urgency for ratification now comes from an Obama Administration recognizing a "decreasingly trustworthy" Russia. But, if so, wouldn't that fact itself call for a closer examination of the treaty?

Further, the WH might quell some mistrust by supplying the negotiating notes (of the new treaty) that have been requested by some in the Senate.

JM

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This Treaty can certainly wait till after the Lame Duckers are gone. I think most of America has no problem with waiting till January on this. This is no "Crisis." No need to ram it through.

 

[Vanquish]

you do understand that the degradation of nuke stock for instance, and their use of the treaty for that degrading stock they would have let go anyway, benefits them, not us?

Absolutely. But you're not looking at the bigger picture.

have you read the thread?

Yep. Scroll back. I'll wait.

 

[logical4u]

The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to Senator Jon Kyl. After months of negotiations with the White House, he has decided to try to block the lame-duck Senate from ratifying the New Start arms control treaty
The treaty is so central to this country’s national security, and the objections from Mr. Kyl — and apparently the whole Republican leadership — are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success.

The Republicans like to claim that they are the party of national security. We can only hope that other senators in the party will decide that the nation’s security interests must trump political maneuvering.

If Iran hasn't listened to anything said about nukes up to now, what makes you think, they will suddenly get reasonable?
Question: if Iran is sitting on some of the world's largest oil reserves, that is relatively easy to get out of the ground, and relatively easy to convert to power, why would they declare they want nuclear technology (for power of course), that costs much more to implement, and the cost of equipment will cost them billions more than using oil for the same purpose (for power of course)?

 

[Vanquish]

Uhm because the only use isn't for electrical power.

 

[Trajan]

Absolutely. But you're not looking at the bigger picture.

have you read the thread?

Yep. Scroll back. I'll wait.

you mean scroll ack to where I lay out objections? you answered? can you provide a page no. or post no.please?