GOP Refusal to Approve New START

[Jas09]

The US-Russia strategic arms reduction treaty, which extends the reduction and verification regimes of START I, is still waiting for Senate approval. Even though the treaty has strong support from Sen. Lugar (R), probably the foremost GOP expert in this field, it is unclear whether there will be sufficient support to pass it during the lame duck session. GOP foreign policy mavens such as Kissinger, Powell, Bakker, and Gates all strongly support Senate approval. Admiral Mullen (Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs) also strongly supports the treaty, and wants it approved as soon as possible.

Sen. Kyl (R) seems to be the GOP Senate point-man, and if he supports the treaty it will likely be approved. After supporting it initially, he is now expressing reservations. It is not clear where this change of heart is coming from.

Can someone please explain to me what objections there are that outweigh the damage that failing to approve this treaty would cause to US-Russia relations. Consider that 30% of US material to Afghanistan travels through Russia and their support is critical for any intervention w/r/t Iran.

It is very difficult for me to comprehend the motives here beyond the simple refusal to give Obama a foreign policy victory.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Jas09

It is very difficult for me to comprehend the motives here beyond the simple refusal to give Obama a foreign policy victory.

There is no other motive.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

There is no other motive.

Well, I knew that response was coming.

But I have to think that when the Joint Chiefs say something is "essential" for national security that there is at least some plausible reason to delay, knowing that said delay will reduce the chance of treaty approval.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Well, I knew that response was coming.

But I have to think that when the Joint Chiefs say something is "essential" for national security that there is at least some plausible reason to delay, knowing that said delay will reduce the chance of treaty approval.

A superficial excuse will be made, but the real reason is clear. For the time being, the Republican strategy is to vote it down, then come up with a reason why.

[mack]

Now that Obama's making a big stink the republicans will delight in handing him a defeat, then approve the treaty next year when they will be in a better position to get what they want out of it. Win-win. Whatever hurt this puts on foreign relations will be short term, which is ok with the republicans as long as it reflects on Obama.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by mack

Now that Obama's making a big stink the republicans will delight in handing him a defeat, then approve the treaty next year when they will be in a better position to get what they want out of it. Win-win.

See, I could understand this if there really was a "get what they want out of it" component. But as far as I can tell all of Sen. Kyl's requests were already met (basically nuclear upgrade funding). And the treaty obviously can't be modified by the Senate (it's strictly approve/disapprove).

So what's the angle here? Is ruining US/Russia relations really worth a minor FP defeat for Obama (and really, how many voters will even know or care about it)? How does opposing it now and supporting it later help at all (even just politically)?

So far all of these comments seem to be coming from a "GOP is petty and obstructionist" perspective. I know we have posters that don't believe this to be true - I'd love to hear the sound and reasonable reasons for opposing this treaty.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Jas09

See, I could understand this if there really was a "get what they want out of it" component. But as far as I can tell all of Sen. Kyl's requests were already met (basically nuclear upgrade funding). And the treaty obviously can't be modified by the Senate (it's strictly approve/disapprove).

So what's the angle here? Is ruining US/Russia relations really worth a minor FP defeat for Obama (and really, how many voters will even know or care about it)? How does opposing it now and supporting it later help at all (even just politically)?

So far all of these comments seem to be coming from a "GOP is petty and obstructionist" perspective. I know we have posters that don't believe this to be true - I'd love to hear the sound and reasonable reasons for opposing this treaty.

Sure, as long as they can also come up with reasonable reasons for opposing everything else Obama has proposed so far. I'm sorry that the simple answer doesn't please you, but sometimes the simple answer is the right answer.

[godix]

I agree, if Republicans block this it is nothing but stupid short sighted partisanship political games. Over nuclear weapons, probably the last thing that partisan political games should be played with.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Jas09

So far all of these comments seem to be coming from a "GOP is petty and obstructionist" perspective. I know we have posters that don't believe this to be true - I'd love to hear the sound and reasonable reasons for opposing this treaty.

We're talking about a party that had no moral problem with exposing a CIA agent as political payback against her husband. And since they had no real backlash against that, they have learned that they can basically get away with anything.

It should not be surprising that they would delay an arms-reduction treaty, solely for the purpose of denying Obama some good P.R. headlines. It is reason enough - for them.

The calculations that are being made are strictly "How will (this action) help or hinder the Republican Party?" The interests of the country as a whole or its citizens are of secondary importance.

[elucidator]

They'll come around, this is slam-dunk brain dead stuff, there is no plausible reason to oppose it, and the political advantage will fall apart with people like Lugar giving them shit for being so goddam stupid. A schism in their ranks between the sane and the batshit is the one thing they fear more than Obama healing the sick and raising the dead.

That schism was always pretty much there, but when the sane Republicans could exploit the batshit for their corporatist ends, all was well. But now the batshit are reaching for the levers of policy, and they are, well, nuts.

What they'll do is pick another topic to scream themselves hoarse over, and quietly forget they ever said anything about SALT, Ronald Reagans wonderful, wonderful idea that Obama is wisely following....

[Sam Stone]

Boy, it sure is easy to refute your opponent's argument if you simply invent one. And it's not easy to find out what their real argument is - I'm not that familiar with the issue, and I managed to find out what they're objecting to with a 15 second google search.

I'm not taking a position one way or the other since I haven't studied the issue too much, but the main objections to it from some Republicans seem to be:

1. It compromises the U.S.'s plans for missile defense.
2. It prevents modernization of the missile force.

That 15 second google search turned up This Op-Ed from Mitt Romney:

New-START impedes missile defense, our protection from nuclear-proliferating rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Its preamble links strategic defense with strategic arsenal. It explicitly forbids the United States from converting intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos into missile defense sites. And Russia has expressly reserved the right to walk away from the treaty if it believes that the United States has significantly increased its missile defense capability.

Hence, to preserve the treaty's restrictions on Russia, America must effectively get Russia's permission for any missile defense expansion. Moscow's vehemence over our modest plans in Eastern Europe demonstrate that such permission would be extremely unlikely.

The treaty empowers a Bilateral Consultative Commission with broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific reference to missile defense. New START does something the American public would never countenance and the Senate should never permit: It jeopardizes our missile defense system.

Romney also claims that the new treaty has been gamed by Russia to allow them to continue with their own nuclear plans, while hobbling the US:

The treaty also gives far more to the Russians than to the United States. As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.

Another way Romney says the treaty has been gamed - it focuses solely on launchers, and sets a limit that's higher than Russia's extant fleet of launchers, but significantly lower than the U.S's. That means implementation of START requires the U.S. to dismantle a large part of its stockpile, while Russia has to do nothing.

More troubling if Romney is correct is that the new treaty removes the limitation on MIRV'd warheads that was in the original treaty - and Russia is developing a program to build new MIRV warheads.

Also, the treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, and the Russians have a 10-1 advantage over the U.S. in tactical nukes. It does, however, disallow conventional warheads on ICBMs, which the Russians don't have but what the Americans want to do to replace the nuclear warheads so they can be used for rapid response if necessary.

So to sum up, this is Romney's view:

Today, the U.S. has a strategic advantage of about 2-1 in ICBM mounted nuclear weapons. The START treaty would level the playing field.

The Russians have a 10-1 advantage in tactical nukes. The START treaty does nothing about that.

The U.S. has a large advantage in the development of missile defense. The START treaty would hobble that.

The U.S. has a a plan to mount conventional weapons on ICBMs. The START treaty prohibits it.

Russia has a new program for bomber based nuclear weapons. The START treaty does nothing about that.

Russia also plans to upgrade its warheads with MIRV capability. They removed language from the treaty which would prevent that.

All in all, it seems rather one-sided, if Romney is to be believed (and I don't know if he's right - I haven't studied the issue).

If you want to have an actual debate about this, rather than using this thread to simply mock and sneer at Republicans, I'd suggest a good place to start would be to see if Romney's assertions are true, and then debate the START treaty in light of that.

If Romney's correct, then here's the big problem I see: The START treaty seems tailor-made to enhance Russia's ability to dominate Europe. It leaves in place everything Russia needs to assert control over the continent (bombers, tactical nukes), while eliminating the U.S.'s ability to counter Russian moves (Missile defense, non-nuke ICBM delivery). It evens the playing field in intercontinental missiles, allowing Russia to use MAD to threaten the U.S. with a response should it decide to make moves in Europe.

The result of that could easily be a more dangerous world and a greater likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in the future.

I'm sure there are counter-arguments to these points, and that's where the debate should be focused.

[Sitnam]

If I wasn't so cynical I'd say the reason is the GOP more often finds support in militaristically inclined or Jingoistic supporters and opposing weapons reduction of any kind is a way to beat the drum.

But hey, I thought the same thing when Bush wanted to put missiles in Poland.

For good or ill now I think Bush pushed forward those Polish missiles with no intention of following through just to give the next president a bargaining chip.

Republican Diplomacy; hit them with a big stick, if they agree to become amiable then settle on hitting them with a smaller stick.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Can someone please explain to me what objections there are that outweigh the damage that failing to approve this treaty would cause to US-Russia relations. Consider that 30% of US material to Afghanistan travels through Russia and their support is critical for any intervention w/r/t Iran.

It is very difficult for me to comprehend the motives here beyond the simple refusal to give Obama a foreign policy victory.

For starters, just starters, have any of you remotely considered that this treaty no longer gives us anything? Russia is no longer a stratagic threat to us. At worst, it is a unpleasant, unfriendly nation - but one which is not really hostile. And their nukes are not hostile. I don't really care what nuclear werapons they have. I am not at this point really afraid that they will or have lost control of their weapons. In fact, I don't see a huge number of reasons to increase our own stocks - but I see not reason to bother with the treaty, either, not impose it upon our selves as law.

Second, I doubt that Russia would care that much, either. We've never had friendly relations, and if their invasion of Georgia didn't hurt, this won't either. by now, we've both got our nukes down to a level we're comfortable with - and the treaty doesn't matter much.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Well, if the wise and thoughtful Mitt Romney does not want it, I guess I'll ignore the opinions of that idiotic Admiral Mullen (Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs). I mean, what would he know, compared to Mitt?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

....I'm sure there are counter-arguments to these points, and that's where the debate should be focused.

"Missile defense" is pixie dust that is 100 times more expensive than cocaine. In the what? twenty-odd years? thirty?.... they've been talking this crap they're not one bit closer to shooting down a bullet with a bullet.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Well, if the wise and thoughtful Mitt Romney does not want it, I guess I'll ignore the opinions of that idiotic Admiral Mullen (Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs). I mean, what would he know, compared to Mitt?

Oh, so it's appeals to authority that matter? I suppose you'll concede the debate if I can scare up an even more impressive military figure who agrees with Mitt?

Maybe we should just turn Great Debates into a forum where everyone lists the authorities on their side, and the one who has the greatest number wins. That way, none of us will every actually have to study the issues and try to understand them.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by elucidator

"Missile defense" is pixie dust that is 100 times more expensive than cocaine. In the what? twenty-odd years? thirty?.... they've been talking this crap they're not one bit closer to shooting down a bullet with a bullet.

Funny then that the Russians work so feverishly to stop the U.S. from building missile defenses, huh?

If missile defenses are so impractical, then Obama is a lousy negotiator, because he should have had no trouble getting the Russians to cave on missile defense opposition.

But the fact is, the Russians are terrified of missile defense, because it's the one technology that can be implemented to defend Europe against Russian aggression without putting nuclear weapons in play. Missile defense also eliminates the tactic of using a rogue regime as a pawn to threaten the U.S. with nuclear blackmail.

And if you actually studied the advancement of missile defense, you'd see that your assertion that no progress has been made is bunk.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Oh, so it's appeals to authority that matter? I suppose you'll concede the debate if I can scare up an even more impressive military figure who agrees with Mitt?

Maybe we should just turn Great Debates into a forum where everyone lists the authorities on their side, and the one who has the greatest number wins. That way, none of us will every actually have to study the issues and try to understand them.

Yes, when it comes to missile defense and military treaties, I will believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs over a politician who demonstrably does not want to see the president get any good headlines.


But you can call it an appeal to authority if it makes you feel better.

ETA: You see, I"m just crazy enough to believe that Mullen might, just might have a bit of understanding of the points that Mr. Romney made, and it is actually possible that he knows a little, tiny bit more than Romney about the subject. I am assuming therefore, that when Mullen supports the treaty, he is doing so with a full complement of facts. I trust that he knows what he's doing.

Why do you think that Mullen is necessarily wrong?

[Squink]

What's Colin Powell have to say?
Now there's a Conservative Military guy who would never prostitute his opinion for the gain of his party leaders.

Senator Richard Lugar's, of Nunn Lugar, take on Mitt Romney:

In 35 years of following debates over nuclear arms control, I have never seen anything quite as shabby, misleading and-let's not mince words-thoroughly ignorant as Mitt Romney's attack on the New START treaty in the July 6 Washington Post.

There's nothing but a Republican attempt to deny Obama a victory here.
At this point, they'd supply bin Laden with a nuke, if they thought it'd help their chances come 2012. Despicable.

[Chronos]

To be clear, here, appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. It's only a fallacy when it's an appeal to irrelevant authority. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a perfectly relevant authority when it comes to matters of military policy.

Oh, so it's appeals to authority that matter? I suppose you'll concede the debate if I can scare up an even more impressive military figure who agrees with Mitt?

What military figure do you expect to find who's even more impressive than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Shit like this is just more evidence that all Republicans are either fools, or traitors, and depending on the cause should either be educated or have their sex organs reduced to a bloody pulp by a car door and then marinated in salted lemon juice.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Chronos

To be clear, here, appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. It's only a fallacy when it's an appeal to irrelevant authority. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a perfectly relevant authority when it comes to matters of military policy.

What military figure do you expect to find who's even more impressive than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

In Sam's case, any Republican. He doesn't care about reality. He cares about his ideology being reinforced. Sad really.

[Nametag]

I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that we currently have NO treaty: the previous START has expired. As the Secretary of State has pointed out:

I'm not sure that everybody really understands that when the prior treaty expired, we lost the ability to have inspectors on the ground. We need to get our inspectors back into Russia after a gap of nearly a year. As our intelligence and defense colleagues have repeatedly noted, we are much better off with New START than without it.

Admiral Mullen apparently feels that Romney's force balance concerns are mere quibbling:

The treaty also demonstrates America’s commitment to nuclear arms reductions, Mullen said. “I am convinced that New START - permitting us as it does 1,550 aggregate warheads and the freedom to create our own force posture within that limit – leaves us with more than enough nuclear deterrent capability for the world we live in,” he explained.

Hard-line posturing on defense has always been a winner for Republicans, and I see little more than that here. Romney's Republican credentials are weak in the area of social conservatism, due to his being from Massachusetts, with its gay marriage and public health care. Playing "defense hawk" is popular with both Democrats and Republicans who need some fast credibility with the Right, but from where I stand, it's no more impressive than an Internet Tough Guy.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Funny then that the Russians work so feverishly to stop the U.S. from building missile defenses, huh?...

Well, duh. There is almost no chance the impossible can be done. But if our scientists draw one card to a royal flush three times running, then America is a superpower than can hit whenever they like, and can't be hit back. Do I think that worries the Russians? Hell, it worries me! Our record of wise use of enormous power leaves a lot to be desired.

...If missile defenses are so impractical, then Obama is a lousy negotiator, because he should have had no trouble getting the Russians to cave on missile defense opposition...

Here's the bet: its a thousand to one, if you lose, I flatten one of your nuts with a hammer. If you win, you win nothing except I don't.

Would you prefer not to bet?

....But the fact is, the Russians are terrified of missile defense, because it's the one technology that can be implemented to defend Europe against Russian aggression without putting nuclear weapons in play. Missile defense also eliminates the tactic of using a rogue regime as a pawn to threaten the U.S. with nuclear blackmail....

I think there's a lot more Tom Clancy in that than Henry Kissinger.

...And if you actually studied the advancement of missile defense, you'd see that your assertion that no progress has been made is bunk.

I watched the whole show with interest, being a grown man when it started. Lot of sci-fi buffs watched it closely, nothing gave us goose bumps like real stuff happening that was sci-fi yesterday. But the goddamn math freaks kept butting their noses in, a thousand to one here, a million to one there, pretty soon you're talking some long odds. Math geeks are major party poopers.

I even remember when St. Ronnie of Bakersfield promised that once America had perfected and installed the shield, he would give the technology to the Soviets. Yet despite his glowing, avuncular aura, they were not assured. A suspicious people, those Russians, find it hard to accept soothing gestures while we arm ourselves to the teeth, and investigate the options for invincible armor. Really, whats wrong with those people?

But all the mischief is hidden in that one word: "progress". If we take out our stainless steel parsing tweezers, we could probably come up with a definition for "progress" that would suit you. But in the same roughly thirty years we sent probes out of the system, landed robots on Mars, put the Hubble into space, fixed the fucking Hubble in space, and so on, and so forth.

So, in comparison, if you want to say "progress", might you offer a bit more definition as to what you regard as "progress"? Not that I don't believe you, mind, just that you may be having one of those fits of extravagant generosity so common to Canadians.

[waterj2]

Originally Posted by Squink

What's Colin Powell have to say?
Now there's a Conservative Military guy who would never prostitute his opinion for the gain of his party leaders.

Senator Richard Lugar's, of Nunn Lugar, take on Mitt Romney:

There's nothing but a Republican attempt to deny Obama a victory here.
At this point, they'd supply bin Laden with a nuke, if they thought it'd help their chances come 2012. Despicable.

That quote is actually from Slate journalist Fred Kaplan. Here's the full article, which is basically a line-by-line criticism of Romney's article.

Richard Luger's take is here. He's not much less scathing:

Governor Mitt Romney's hyperbolic attack on the New START Treaty in the July 6 edition of The Washington Post repeats discredited objections and appears unaware of arms control history and context.

[godix]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I even remember when St. Ronnie of Bakersfield promised that once America had perfected and installed the shield, he would give the technology to the Soviets. Yet despite his glowing, avuncular aura, they were not assured. A suspicious people, those Russians, find it hard to accept soothing gestures while we arm ourselves to the teeth, and investigate the options for invincible armor. Really, whats wrong with those people?

OTOH, imagine you are worried that someone might break into your house and want to buy a new lock to prevent that. The neighbors down the street, who happen to be the most likely people to break into your house, loudly protest your plans and do their best to make sure you keep the crappy lock you've had for decades. A thoughtful person might wonder a bit about that...

Although I do believe we should sign the new treaty. But still, Russias argument of 'No no, don't protect yourselfs from nukes. We promise we won't use any' isn't all that convincing.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by godix

OTOH, imagine you are worried that someone might break into your house and want to buy a new lock to prevent that. The neighbors down the street, who happen to be the most likely people to break into your house, loudly protest your plans and do their best to make sure you keep the crappy lock you've had for decades. A thoughtful person might wonder a bit about that...

Although I do believe we should sign the new treaty. But still, Russias argument of 'No no, don't protect yourselfs from nukes. We promise we won't use any' isn't all that convincing.

You and the neighbor both have rifles. It is because of the fear of each other's rifles that an uneasy peace has reigned. You are putting a lot of money into inventing rifle-proof armor. Do you see why this is scary?

Once you have the armor their deterrent is gone. And you, can walk in and kill them at any time. It isn't about you defending yourself. It's about you stomping up and killing them with no risk.

[elucidator]

Hey, we're the Americans! When have we ever attacked anybody who didn't start it? I mean, lately?

[godix]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You and the neighbor both have rifles. It is because of the fear of each other's rifles that an uneasy peace has reigned. You are putting a lot of money into inventing rifle-proof armor. Do you see why this is scary?

Once you have the armor their deterrent is gone. And you, can walk in and kill them at any time. It isn't about you defending yourself. It's about you stomping up and killing them with no risk.

I'm well aware of the logic of MAD. It made sense during the cold war, or at least as much sense as nuclear war can make. However, we are not in the cold war anymore. While START and other treaties like it are important for reducing the threat nuclear weapons pose, we aren't going to eliminate that threat until there is some sort of protection from nuclear missiles.

Besides, the nuclear shield designed during the Bush era most likely wouldn't have stopped Russia's nuclear abilities. They have advanced enough missiles that it would be fairly easy for them to fool our defenses. The shield was designed against 'rouge nations' who's missile tech is vastly inferior to Russia. Which doesn't eliminate the threat, but it does raise the bar from 'able to build to nuke' to 'able to build a nuke AND an advanced delivery system'. Which most likely would eliminate exactly the sort of the threat North Korea and Iran pose.

To use your analogy, Russia and the US have rifles. We're both vulnerable to the crazy guy down the street with a pellet gun. Now we could get vests that would stop the pellet gun, but not each others rifles. Instead, Russia has repeatedly argued the pellet gun guy should be able to take us out. Which always did leave me with a kinda 'are you planning something?' feeling.

Fortunately, there are signs Russia and the US can cooperate on this. The original START treaty being one. US purchasing surplus Russian nuclear material being another. And recently there have been feelers on a possible nuclear shield for all NATO members where Russia may join in development and coverage.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Squink

What's Colin Powell have to say?

He's in favor of the treaty. FWIW.

In any case, as has already been noted, the objections are bullshit. Missile defense work can under new START, does today, and the claim that it is prohibited by it is an untruth. Just not stupid ineffective missile defense that doesn't protect against yesterday's threats, let alone the emerging ones of today and tomorrow. The only question is if the untrue claim is out of stupidity or a lie.

Independent of START the focus on missile defense has changed. Obama early on scrapped the Bush approach in favor of a now NATO ratified missile defense approach that does the job that needs to be done better.

godix, more than "feelers" ... NATO approved.

Leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have approved U.S. President Barack Obama's proposal for a new, expanded missile defense system for Europe. ... NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the system is expected to cost $273 million over the next ten years. He will ask Russia, which had originally opposed the idea of European missile defense, to cooperate on the project. ... Rasmussen is calling this one of the most important summits in NATO's 61-year history. "We will develop modern capabilities to defend against modern threats. We will reach out to partners around the globe. We will make a fresh start in our relations with Russia, with the aim of building a strategic partnership," he said.

[DSeid]

A significant additional factor in the issue is fiscal responsibility.

Even with this treaty the Obama administration figures we will need to spend $85 billion over the next decade on our nuclear arsenal, just to test and replace the failing and aging of what we got. I'd to see that not grow, if not actually get pared back some.

Today's news of NATO's approval of a new missile defense system, more flexible and less costly than what was proposed during the Bush years, that would provide missile defense to all involved, including Russia, coupled with START, is a much more fiscally responsible approach than anything the current GOP "No-you-can't"s would allow. I'd say it's more bang for the buck, (especially since it also involves cost-sharing, rather than our paying for the umbrella of protection all ourselves) but of course the idea is to have a lot less risk of bang at all.

[godix]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Hgodix, more than "feelers" ... NATO approved.

Thanks, but what I meant by feelers was the idea that Russia might be directly involved. Which AFAIK isn't definite yet and at the moment is just a matter of if they want to be or not. However, just the fact there is a serious offer on the table for them to assist is a large step forward.

[Digital Stimulus]

Originally Posted by DSeid

A significant additional factor in the issue is fiscal responsibility.

Heh. We are talking about the GOP leadership here, for most of whom that's mere jibber-jabber.

[gonzomax]

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...pons-price.htm It is a drain. It costs a mere 18 million a day to maintain the nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world many times over. It is a huge waste of money.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

the nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world many times over.

US nuclear arsenal maxed out at about 32,000 warheads.

IOW, not quite enough to plop one down on every two square miles of Nebraska, a medium sized state (77,354 sq mi).
That's far from enough to raise the state's surface temperature to a cherry red glow, much less destroy the world many times over.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Originally Posted by Squink

US nuclear arsenal maxed out at about 32,000 warheads.

IOW, not quite enough to plop one down on every two square miles of Nebraska, a medium sized state (77,354 sq mi).
That's far from enough to raise the state's surface temperature to a cherry red glow, much less destroy the world many times over.

How many are needed for nuclear winter?

[elucidator]

That would be one hell of an environmental impact statement.

[Doug Bowe]

Did you watch the analysis on Washington Week in Review?

This is a nothing treaty. There have been major arms treaties in the past and this one is none of the above. The main points here were agreed upon (and promoted) by George W. Bush in 2002.

This one was supposed to be "easy" to pass. Look, I'm afraid that political obstruction cannot be taken off the table here.

[YamatoTwinkie]

Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers

This one got some serious lols from me. Is this even a possibility from an engineering standpoint?

[Squink]

Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie

Is this even a possibility from an engineering standpoint?

USSR’s huge K-7 'flying wing' aircraft was only one step away from global triumph