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 ®, 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 ® 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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:
It compromises the U.S.'s plans for missile defense.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
