Is START good for us?
 

Without even reading this new START treaty I was against it. Here is why

Russia vs the US? Our biggest concern internationally is Iran, Pakistan and North Korea it seems not Russia. Supposedly the Cold War was over..so why are we pressing the START issue as if we are back in the Cold War?

The Economy Stupid...START just seems like a distraction

In the past these treaties were always all one sided with the US bearing the brunt of disposing of their arsenal leaving Russia with superior numbers. The only ones that truly benefit is Russia and other Nuclear powers

From Fox news:

Re: Is START good for us?
 

You know it does seem to me that this Administration is sometimes all about other governments, not ours.

Re: Is START good for us?
 

Prax I think we share mutual interests in the region and I recall that they were in fact our allies in (2) world wars.

The greater threat to both countries is south of Russia and directionally I can see from the foreign news coverage that the US and Russia are viewed as allies against this common threat.

In addition, Russia has now exceed Saudi in oil production, and it might be good to start moving away from the Middle East as a source of joint ventures and development in that area.

Just sayin'

Re: Is START good for us?
 

I don't know enough about the START to even say anything about it.

I do feel some fear about it for two reasons:
1. BHO favored it
2. It was pushed through by the lame ducks

Re: Is START good for us?
 

Let see now Powell, Kissinger, H. Bush, and more in the know republicans who have no political ambitions said it must be done this year.

Re: Is START good for us?
 

What is the significance of this year? ... with one week left?

Re: Is START good for us?
 

Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

U.S. Naval Institute - December 23, 2010

President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

After meeting resistance from several Republicans, the US. Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by a vote of 71-26 on Wednesday.

“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”

Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is often credited with bankrupting the U.S.S.R. because the Soviets were unable to keep pace with the technology being developed by the United States. “We have always been superior in quality..of our nuclear force, so we did not have to negotiate with a party we do not trust,” said Miller. “If Obama wanted to save some money and improve national defense, he should have gotten out of the nuke negations and acted unilaterally. START is simply a political victory for Obama.”

Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”

Re: Is START good for us?
 

I feel that the START program is best for our country and the world. I am glad that the Democrats and Republicans worked together for the good of all Americans. That is the way our country should be in more unity.

Re: Is START good for us?
 

I don't know much about START but I do know that Russia and China started trading without using US dollars. That could be what this is all about.

Re: Is START good for us?
 

I have a feeling you rubber stamp whatever liberals put forth. Not that conservatives don't the same sometimes, but would you clairify why you feel this program is best for the country and world?

Re: Is START good for us?
 

The GOP'ers making excuses to attack this Reagan initiated treaty between the 2 countries who today still hold 95% of the world's nuclear weapons prove that they are only interested in being on the opposite side of Obama on whatever issue they can politicize.


Truth of the matter is that, just like you have plainly stated, most knowledgable Republicans insisted on the new START Treaty being passed.


Oh well.



People complain if the lame duck Congress is a lame duck and does nothing of importance.

People complain if Congress actually earns their pay and perfomrs their duties, fighting the lame duck idea that their last days should be spent twiddling their thumbs.

Whatever....

Re: Is START good for us?
 

This lame duck congress got in what it could while they had the majority. We're not all so easily fooled. just saying....

Re: Is START good for us?
 

Sandie, it seems that you are a rubber stamp, always bouncing on my remarks, but that is OK, it is exciting to me to explain my views. Read the information below about the START Treaty, if you are interested, which explains all about it.

START..(for..Strategic..Arms..Reduction..Treaty) was a..bilateral treaty..between the..United States of America..and the..Union of Soviet Socialist Republics..(USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 .[1]The treaty barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000..nuclear warheadsatop a total of 1,600..ICBMs,..submarine-launched..ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by..United States President..Ronald Reagan, it was renamed..START I..after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became..START II.....The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new..START treaty..was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev and ratified by the US Congress. It will enter into force after its ratification through the Russian Duma........As of May 4, 2009, the United States and Russia began the process of renegotiating START, as well as counting both nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles when making a new agreement. While setting aside problematic issues between the two countries, both sides agreed to make further cuts in the number of warheads they have deployed to around 1,000 to 1,500 each. The United States has said they are open to a Russian proposal to use radar in Azerbaijan rather than Eastern Europe for the proposed missile system. The Bush Administration was using the Eastern Europe defense system as a deterrent for Iran, despite the Kremlin's fear that it could be used against Russia. The flexibility by both sides to make compromises now will lead to a new phase of arms reduction in the future

Sandie that is why I think it is good for America and the whole world.

Re: Is START good for us?
 

Thanks for the explanation.

Curious if you thought what the Vice Admiral (see Sam's post) had to say held anything meaningful, in your opinion?

Re: Is START good for us?
 

NOTHING was passed without the help of Republicans.

START Treaty is not something to be politicized.

Apparently you are very easily fooled into thinking that no matter what-- the Democrats are bad, Obama is bad and whatever they decide to accomplish must be stopped.


I guess you think you have one up on the former Secretary of States that are alive that supported the START Treaty. Yeah, they were fooled, but you weren't!

Don't you see how you are not making any sense?

Neither are the GOP'ers who are attempting to politicize such an important and stabilizing treaty.


Democrat bad.
Republican good!

(where's the Tarzan smiley face?)

Re: Is START good for us?
 

Nope. democrat not bad, republican not good.

Conservative principles, when adhered to, are far better than liberal/progressive ideaology any day of the week.
You don't have to agree, so you don't need to pull out any smilies.

Have you read the other side of this important issue?

And I stand by what I said....the dems would have never got this thru in the 112th congress and that's just a fact.

Re: Is START good for us?
 

I stand by what I said: it would have been IMPOSSIBLE without commonsense bipartisanship.

I am glad for the recent election of so many hopefully conservative politicians. However, I hope they don't take their election as a nod to obstructionism.


Say we left START not ratified. Do you think it would be a good thing for the nuclear arms race to be on again between America and Russia, on top of everything else already destabilizing our world?


Then you have to wonder about Russia and their surrounding neighbors, and the security or lack of security they have for their existing warheads.

But you would like to encourage an environment where more nuclear warheads are developed?


Or would you like the common sense START Treaty to stay in tact, signed by Reagan to help keep the world's nuclear superpowers at peace?

Re: Is START good for us?
 

I would like to see America be able to defend herself without having to answser to the Russians. Tghis isn't the same START treaty signed by Reagan. He would never have allowed the Russians to have the final say so.


side note: can't open two windows on this goofy computer (surely it's the computer, and not me..lol) so will return with the source.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Re: Is START good for us?
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12042584


Since when does Russia get to dictate whether we can renegotiate?