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.
In Sam’s case, any Republican. He doesn’t care about reality. He cares about his ideology being reinforced. Sad really.
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:
Admiral Mullen apparently feels that Romney’s force balance concerns are mere quibbling:
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.
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.
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?
I think there’s a lot more Tom Clancy in that than Henry Kissinger.
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.
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.

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.

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

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/05/06_cipolat_weapons-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.

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.

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?
That would be one hell of an environmental impact statement.
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.
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?

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