Republicans against debt...but not really...

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

That being the case, just what effect does th new treaty have, if any? Why is it necessary at all? Could it simply be a political advantage to Obama, with no real consequences?

In my opinion, all the new START Treaty does is further tie the hands of the United States in its foreign policy decisions, all while getting absolutely nothing in return...

Russia was going to be at this level regardless of the presence of a Treaty, and we basically gave in to their demands and got nothing in return... it seems to be a prime example of horrible negotiating on the part of the United States.

which would be what, then?

We need to base our relations on common interests and joint efforts to deal with today’s security challenges, such as countering nuclear terrorism and managing the expansion of nuclear energy in a manner that reduces the risks of nuclear weapon proliferation.

START does none of these things, and frankly, in my opinion, its existence further binds our hands in pursuing these goals.

Since both the US and Russia have far more nuclear weapons than any other nations, wouldn't it make sense for both of those nations to severely cut back the number of such weapons? If Russia and the US are not in an adversarial position, who are the weapons to defend against?

As I pointed out, both nations were already in the process of obtaining the Treaty levels without a Treaty... therefore what is the need for the Treaty?

However, the presence of the Treaty simply codifies the old foreign policy as sets us right back to the days of the USSR...a horrible concept.

Why would we need more missiles than would be necessary to discourage NK, Iran, or some other third world country from launching an attack?

We do not automatically "need more missiles" to maintain our nuclear deterrent, however it is idiotic to assume that we must be on par with Russia since our nuclear arsenals are for vastly different purposes... for example, we use ours to extend security assurances, while Russia uses theirs to threaten, for example in the middle of the START negotiations they threatened to deploy Iskander missiles " as a military response to US plans to deploy missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic", which did nothing to threaten Russia in any way.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Also what possible agreement could the US and France come up with..France you reduce to 100 and we will reduce to 1800?

Point is, we don't seek deals with our allies...

That said, the role of nuclear weapons varies for each country, arbitrarily seeking parity for the sake of parity is lunacy.

Seems to me both the US and Russia want to reduce...but regardless of relations don't want to be the only one doing it...this way both get to reduce there amounts, saving both money and giving them political cover to not look like your just doing it yourself and weakening there own status.

This statement blatantly ignores the fact that in the absence of a START Treaty both sides have continued in reduction efforts. I don't see the argument that START was needed to provide legitimacy for further reductions when they were already occurring.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

pretty good, and alot better then none...and yes its a big nation...but we are not looking for hidden stuff...we are looking to make sure what both sides already know about, stays safe...and not say easily accessed by anyone looking to help Bin Ladin or anyone else who wants nuclear material.

If the goal is to keep weapons and materials "safe" and out of the hands of "Bin Laden" types, then it makes little sense why we don't pursue such treaties with other nations like the UK/France etc... after all, there are plenty of radicals in those countries who might go off the deep end.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

If the goal is to keep weapons and materials "safe" and out of the hands of "Bin Laden" types, then it makes little sense why we don't pursue such treaties with other nations like the UK/France etc... after all, there are plenty of radicals in those countries who might go off the deep end.

That should be a goal, of course. There are terrorists in Russia, too, as well as in the former Soviet republics. One scary thing is that those nations may not have a good way to keep track of their nukes, and that they could wind up in the hands of terrorists.

So, why wouldn't the treaty with Russia help with that goal? Isn't there an adequate provision for enforcement? Wouldn't both the US and Russia have a better idea where those weapons are?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

If the goal is to keep weapons and materials "safe" and out of the hands of "Bin Laden" types, then it makes little sense why we don't pursue such treaties with other nations like the UK/France etc... after all, there are plenty of radicals in those countries who might go off the deep end.

those nations have much better controls then the Soviets do , and aslo we have been working with other nations as well to secure there material, often taking it from them and storing it ourselfs so they don't have the pay the costs...

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience at the University of Louisville in Kentucky last week. They saw “the ingredients for nuclear bombs warehoused in facilities without electricity, telephones or armed guards.”"
now I don't know but that seems like a very bad thing, and far more dangerous then any Iranian Nuke...as its the type that could fall to someone who could use it against us.

And it was just about a year ago, that the US covertly pulled a 40lb of Enriched Uranium out of Chile...a Allie ..this would have never made news if not for the 8.5 (8.6?) earthquake that happened while we where doing it...

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

That should be a goal, of course. There are terrorists in Russia, too, as well as in the former Soviet republics. One scary thing is that those nations may not have a good way to keep track of their nukes, and that they could wind up in the hands of terrorists.

It is certainly a noble goal... but START III (assuming it actually enters into force in Russia) does not accomplish anything like that. All that can be done if someone is found to be "cheating" is taking it to a bilateral commission, which has no real authority.

In fact, the State Department openly admits that Russia was not in compliance with START I... and we did nothing about it.

So, why wouldn't the treaty with Russia help with that goal? Isn't there an adequate provision for enforcement? Wouldn't both the US and Russia have a better idea where those weapons are?

There is no enforcement in this treaty.. period.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

those nations have much better controls then the Soviets do ,

This is precisely the problem here... the Soviet Union no longer exists.. we need to stop pretending that is does.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience at the University of Louisville in Kentucky last week. They saw “the ingredients for nuclear bombs warehoused in facilities without electricity, telephones or armed guards.”"
now I don't know but that seems like a very bad thing, and far more dangerous then any Iranian Nuke...as its the type that could fall to someone who could use it against us.

This is a total misrepresentation. Those reports came from Russian sites in the early 1990's, not today... and more importantly, it was not START that brought those discoveries into the light.

The very next line in that speech was "The International Atomic Energy Agency has released the details of 15 cases of smuggling involving weapons-grade nuclear materials since 1993. But we have no idea how many other smuggling operations have gone undetected. Nuclear terrorism has been called the world’s most preventable catastrophe. But to prevent it, the world needs to act."

What I put in bold is certainly true... but again, no one has shown (or made a good argument) for why we needed a new START Treaty to obtain that..since the treaty does not accomplish any of those goals.

There have been numerous discussions (you can find them in the Congressional Record) over that very issue, and no one really argued that START was the solution in any form.

Pointing to that, but ignoring the numerous programs in place over the years to combat that as evidence we need START (a treaty that does nothing to combat this) just does not add up in my opinion.

and aslo we have been working with other nations as well to secure there material, often taking it from them and storing it ourselfs so they don't have the pay the costs...

And it was just about a year ago, that the US covertly pulled a 40lb of Enriched Uranium out of Chile...a Allie ..this would have never made news if not for the 8.5 (8.6?) earthquake that happened while we where doing it...

These two comments go together, so I moved the top one to address it here.

You are correct that the US moved HEU out of Chile this year. That action came under the Global Threat Reduction Initiative under the NNSA, however what is an important element to that Initiative that you left out is that it solely targets civilian sites.. military sites are not covered under the plan, and again, no treaty such as START is needed to pursue these programs..

There are countless programs in place seeking to better secure fissile material etc.. but this whole idea that we somehow needed to pass a new START treaty in order to prevent the spread of nuclear materials is simply laughable... we can do that without START, as evidenced by 20 years of progress following the collapse of the USSR.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

It is certainly a noble goal... but START III (assuming it actually enters into force in Russia) does not accomplish anything like that. All that can be done if someone is found to be "cheating" is taking it to a bilateral commission, which has no real authority.

In fact, the State Department openly admits that Russia was not in compliance with START I... and we did nothing about it.



There is no enforcement in this treaty.. period.

So, there's no international oversight of nuclear weapons at all? If that's so, then the treaty is just a piece of paper.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

So, there's no international oversight of nuclear weapons at all? If that's so, then the treaty is just a piece of paper.

First, let me clarify.. I referred to the Treaty as START III, which it is not, it is New START.

Now, as for the actual treaty, it does include inspections, but what it does not include is any enforcement mechanisms for the agreement... As with START I, the State Department openly admitted Russia was not in compliance with the Treaty, and yet we could nothing about it.

However, I think viewing the treaty as "just a piece of paper" is the wrong approach. The problem with that is that the United States is going to look at the Treaty as binding law (even though the track record of the Russians implies they will not honor the agreement as written). Look at START II for example, we in the United States often looked at that treaty as a done deal, however it was never actually entered into force until the Russian Duma finally agreed years later (in largely a symbolic gesture in an attempt to prevent us for leaving the ABM Treaty).

But let me ask you this... was the world any less safe because the Russian Duma had not ratified START II?

Now, I will not say the Treaty is entirely a wash..I do think their is some validity to President Obama's argument that the United States needed to show it was serious about disarmament...My problem with his argument is that I don't think START was needed to do that, and I would also argue that unilateral disarmament (to a degree) would give us more credibility in that realm anyway. Politically, I think this would have been a smarter move because the Russians have to decrease their arsenal anyway, and the US could have scored some political points by doing it that way, or at the very least gotten a much better deal at the negotiating table.

But, overall, in terms of the new START, I simply don't see why it was needed, or how it ultimately betters our monitoring programs etc.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

First, let me clarify.. I referred to the Treaty as START III, which it is not, it is New START.

Now, as for the actual treaty, it does include inspections, but what it does not include is any enforcement mechanisms for the agreement... As with START I, the State Department openly admitted Russia was not in compliance with the Treaty, and yet we could nothing about it.

However, I think viewing the treaty as "just a piece of paper" is the wrong approach. The problem with that is that the United States is going to look at the Treaty as binding law (even though the track record of the Russians implies they will not honor the agreement as written). Look at START II for example, we in the United States often looked at that treaty as a done deal, however it was never actually entered into force until the Russian Duma finally agreed years later (in largely a symbolic gesture in an attempt to prevent us for leaving the ABM Treaty).

But let me ask you this... was the world any less safe because the Russian Duma had not ratified START II?

Now, I will not say the Treaty is entirely a wash..I do think their is some validity to President Obama's argument that the United States needed to show it was serious about disarmament...My problem with his argument is that I don't think START was needed to do that, and I would also argue that unilateral disarmament (to a degree) would give us more credibility in that realm anyway. Politically, I think this would have been a smarter move because the Russians have to decrease their arsenal anyway, and the US could have scored some political points by doing it that way, or at the very least gotten a much better deal at the negotiating table.

But, overall, in terms of the new START, I simply don't see why it was needed, or how it ultimately betters our monitoring programs etc.

so if it was not needed, and does nothing...why is it you think so many security officals, military people, and others all have said how important this is?

Is not having 2/3rds less launchers then in the First treaty, and 30% less then the 2nd...a good thing in terms of reducing the amount of nuclear arms in the world? Aslo lower in terms of costs for us to not have to keep so many ready? Also the new treaty clarified some issues about what counted as a launcher and or 1 warhead...issues that where where not always agreed on before...is not . for example, the US counted before all the warheads on a bomber...the Russians...the bomber was one...issues like that.

to verify limits, each side being allowed up to 18 inspections a year on the other’s territory, as well as by satellite and other remote means. ...better then..none?

Also if we can't work with friends to reduce nukes, and secure nuclear material that could be used by terrorist...against both of us...who can we work with then?

also I have not seen anything that has shown that this treaty in any way makes it so we can not have missile defense.if it did, I doubt people like Kissinger would be supporting it.

also what exactly would you like for enforcement? you fail inspection we bomb it? we have the right to pull out of the treaty if we don't feel they are holding up there end, or it threatens our Security interest. The biggest penalty would be hurting relations with the other side...and that the other side also can lose the ability to check on the other just as much. Its not like we can fine them, or something..so what would you propose we did?

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

so if it was not needed, and does nothing...why is it you think so many security officals, military people, and others all have said how important this is?

Because we are stuck in a Cold War mentality, and because politically, I will concede, the Treaty has some importance.

There are numerous security officials/military leaders etc who take my view as well.

Is not having 2/3rds less launchers then in the First treaty, and 30% less then the 2nd...a good thing in terms of reducing the amount of nuclear arms in the world?

It is a good thing.. all of which was being accomplished without the Treaty.

Also lower in terms of costs for us to not have to keep so many ready?

We don't need a Treaty to accomplish that.

Also the new treaty clarified some issues about what counted as a launcher and or 1 warhead...issues that where where not always agreed on before...is not . for example, the US counted before all the warheads on a bomber...the Russians...the bomber was one...issues like that.

Yes, it offered minor changes to the counting rules...but you seriously cannot be arguing that counting rules are what will keep fissile and other nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists etc?

to verify limits, each side being allowed up to 18 inspections a year on the other’s territory, as well as by satellite and other remote means. ...better then..none?

Yes, it would be better than "none", but that is a false choice because "none" was never a real option as we had/have various other programs in place to help the Russians ensure the stability and security of their nuclear arsenal/materials.

And again, how does verifying limits (assuming verification procedures work, which given the history the odds are they will not) really translate into combating nuclear terrorism? It doesn't.

Also if we can't work with friends to reduce nukes, and secure nuclear material that could be used by terrorist...against both of us...who can we work with then?

Who says we cannot work with our friends to reduce nuclear weapons and material? I am all for working with Russia, and others, to accomplish just that.

My problem is the new START does not actually address that issue, rather it resets our relations right back into a Cold War framework, binds our hands in other foreign policy dealings, and makes nuclear weapons the currency in our relations with Russia...

also I have not seen anything that has shown that this treaty in any way makes it so we can not have missile defense.if it did, I doubt people like Kissinger would be supporting it.

I never said the Treaty makes it so we "cannot have missile defense." I don't think anyone has argued that.. the problem will be that the Russians (and their senior officials stated this) seem to think the Treaty will limit (not eliminate) our missile defense efforts.

Additionally, Russia has made no secret of their distaste for our missile defense policy in Europe, and with this new Treaty we have handed them a major card to play in any future negotiations...

When we move to deploy the proposed new missile defense shield in Europe, Russia is going to oppose it, and most likely threaten to walk away from the new START to get us to come to the table and further curtail our missile defense efforts.

also what exactly would you like for enforcement? you fail inspection we bomb it?

I would like to see actual enforcement... as I said, the Treaty is akin to putting 10,000 new cops on the road in an effort to prevent speeding, but not allowing them to write speeding tickets.

we have the right to pull out of the treaty if we don't feel they are holding up there end, or it threatens our Security interest.

Yes, we have that right... but just as in START I, even if Russia refuses to comply, we will do absolutely nothing about it.

The biggest penalty would be hurting relations with the other side...and that the other side also can lose the ability to check on the other just as much. Its not like we can fine them, or something..so what would you propose we did?

What I would propose, and I thought a made clear, is to abandon the START treaty, move past the Cold War relations, and seek to establish our relations based on mutual concerns, such as combating nuclear proliferation, combating nuclear terrorism, spreading peaceful nuclear energy, etc etc. All of these can be accomplished without binding our hands with meaningless treaties.


Part of what you seem to be doing here is making a case that we need to work with people to secure nuclear material etc, and then pointing to START as accomplishing that... the problem with that argument is that START does not accomplish that, and really does not even address it.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Now, I will not say the Treaty is entirely a wash..I do think their is some validity to President Obama's argument that the United States needed to show it was serious about disarmament...My problem with his argument is that I don't think START was needed to do that, and I would also argue that unilateral disarmament (to a degree) would give us more credibility in that realm anyway. Politically, I think this would have been a smarter move because the Russians have to decrease their arsenal anyway, and the US could have scored some political points by doing it that way, or at the very least gotten a much better deal at the negotiating table.

But, overall, in terms of the new START, I simply don't see why it was needed, or how it ultimately betters our monitoring programs etc.

Unilateral disarmament would have been a smarter move politically? Are you sure about that? Can you imagine what the opposition party would have said about US unilateral disarmament? I can, and it's not pretty.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Unilateral disarmament would have been a smarter move politically? Are you sure about that? Can you imagine what the opposition party would have said about US unilateral disarmament? I can, and it's not pretty.

Yes, it would not be total disarmament (obviously), but unilaterally going to the levels the new START sets up would have been a better move in terms of international politics in my view, and given the US the same credibility that President Obama wanted to gain from a new START Treaty, all without the needless binding of our hands that a new START establishes.

As for domestic politics, yes obviously the opposition party is going to be upset with whatever the other party does, but I think a compromise could have been reached quite easily by cutting certain programs in exchange for a true modernization (and by that I don't mean just freeing up a few billion over many years) of our remaining nuclear arsenal.. I don't think Republicans would have opposed that as much as you might think... I certainly would have supported it.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Yes, it would not be total disarmament (obviously), but unilaterally going to the levels the new START sets up would have been a better move in terms of international politics in my view, and given the US the same credibility that President Obama wanted to gain from a new START Treaty, all without the needless binding of our hands that a new START establishes.

As for domestic politics, yes obviously the opposition party is going to be upset with whatever the other party does, but I think a compromise could have been reached quite easily by cutting certain programs in exchange for a true modernization of our remaining nuclear arsenal.. I don't think Republicans would have opposed that as much as you might think... I certainly would have supported it.

I think such a move would have helped the credibility of the US abroad, but would have been the start of more partisan hype than even the health care reform bill.

But, we'll never know for sure now.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I think such a move would have helped the credibility of the US abroad, but would have been the start of more partisan hype than even the health care reform bill.

But, we'll never know for sure now.

Another good idea falls victim to politics.