I certainly think that Russia will like us less if we don’t take this reasonable and sane measure. What message does that send? That we want to go back to the Cold War? That we’re still considering swapping megadeaths with them?
Obama getting “Republican support”. It is a new oxymoron. Those terms can not exist in the same sentence.
It is like asking if the Repubs will fight against any Supreme Court nominee of Obama. Or that Sen.Sessions will claim any and all nominees will be "activist’.
Sorry about that, I won’t make that mistake again!
Fine, let’s ignore those old treaties and what President Reagan said and focus on the:
[ul]
[li]National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (Issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense in February of 2006)[/li][li]Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Issued by the Secretary of Defense in February of 2006)[/li][li]The Report on National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century(Issued by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy in September of 2008)[/li][li]Nuclear Posture Review Report (Issued by the Secretary of Defense in April 2010)[/li][/ul]
(Warning these are all PDFs)
This treaty, to my reading at least, is in line with the goals laid out in these reports. Namely, to reduce and modernize our nuclear arsenal while also reducing the world stockpiles of nuclear weapons in order to limit proliferation and reduce the risk that a non-state actor will obtain these WMD. I think these reports lay out clearly the benefits of this treaty, and if you think these reports are wrong or the treaty misses the boat, please point out how.
Finally, regarding your opinion that President Obama and the Democrats are not interested in saving money, I think you are incorrect and I think you need to provide a cite. At least the Democrats have tried to institute paygo polices, first with theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Democratic House and Senate, signed by President Bush breaking his campaign promise of no-new-taxes), then by Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (Democratic House, Senate and Executive) in a party line vote. These policies were continued by the Republicans in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but allowed to lapse in 2002 with the Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Executive. When the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate, they made it a priority to reintroduce the pay as you go policies and made it a standing rule in the house (see page 36 of Rules of the House of Representatives, 110th Congress (note: pdf file)). They did renege on these rules as the recession got worse and they needed to pass President Bush’s 150 Billion Dollar Stimulus Package. The rule was modified by the 111th congress to have an emergency exemption, which allowed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Obama. Since then, President Obama signed the Statutory Pay as You Go Act of 2010 which passed on a party line vote. So, how about you show me how the Republicans are more interested in saving money than the Democrats, because I don’t buy it.
So, I take it SB that all you have is rhetoric and are unable to debate the issues. Yes?
A couple things:
SB raises a valid concern I hadn’t thought of, which is the disposal of components, warheads, etc when these weapons are dismantled. What happens to them? Are they destroyed in a verifiable manner? Could the Russians sell these components without our knowledge to…Iran? Obviously there has to be transparency on both sides for a treaty like this to work. Since I don’t understand how this process works, anyone that knows the answer or could point me in the right direction I’d appreciate it.
Secondly, even if we don’t necessarily gain any strategic advantage from this treaty vis a vis the Russians, if we’re still maintaining what will essentially still be a very large nuclear arsenal…doesn’t it still benefit us as taxpayers and the nation at large to get rid of some of these things? It would save money and rid us of that much more dangerous nuclear material. What would be wrong with that?
Ukraine will relinquish all its nuclear material
Keeping enriched uranium out of the hands of evil-doers after the bombs are dismantled has long been a part of US and the Russian, nonproliferation policies.
SB’s concern appears to merit the same level of concern as Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels.”
The Republicans want to sink this thing so as to weaken the president. They’ll say anything if they think it’ll help in that cause.
I am having trouble finding a good cite, but the US has been buying Russian nuclear material for about 15 years. It’s a win-win really, we make a deal with the Russians to disarm, we help them with money (which the Russian government needed) and technical support (which gave us an overview of the process and allowed us to verify material destruction), and then the material is sold as fuel for use in European and North American power plants. I’ll try to find a cite for this, but it has been a good deal for both the US and Russia.
The problem is that it is not fast enough, something that may be helped by this treaty, but maybe not. There have already been more than 15 known cases of weapons grade material disappearing from the Russian arsenal, and there is reason to believe that much more is unaccounted for. It is really only a matter of time, IMHO, before some material finds its way to a global terrorist outfit like Al Qaeda. I know several people who work in the US intelligence arena and they generally agree that the odds that a US city will be subject to a nuclear (either WMD or dirty bomb) attack by terrorists in the next decade are greater than 50%.
Nothing in my opinion. While I believe it is necessary that we maintain our nuclear deterrence capabilities, the number of warheads we currently maintain is probably not optimal and should be reduced both to modernize and to save money. I really believe that the conservatives that oppose this treaty are only doing it for partisan reasons and cannot actually come up with a valid argument to oppose it.
Former president Bush deserves props for this: Bush Stresses Importance of Nunn-Lugar Programs but Cuts Funds in 2005 Budget Request.
His administration did a heckuva job in limiting the spread of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons.
Heckuva! I hope no one forgets that North Korea developed nukes on his watch. Not that I really liked the Agreed Framework, but he really fumbled that relationship.
By the same token, there’s a greater than 50% chance that I’ll go to either the office or Bermuda tomorrow. WMDs and dirty bombs absolutely don’t belong in the same comparison. Dirty bombs might get people worried, and they’d probably make the news, but in terms of actual damage, they’re just nothing to worry about.
True. It has been a while since I had this conversation with my friend (maybe 1.5 years or so), and IIRC they were actually talking about a nuclear bomb, but I threw in the dirty bomb reference just in case I misremembered. It was a sobering conversation and really shaped my world view. Since then, I have actually been very interested in working in the defense industry (though not building weapons), when prior to the talk I was pretty dead set against it.
Since we don’t seem to have a lot of evidence of how destructive a dirty bomb can be, I don’t think we can equivocally state for certain that they are “nothing to worry about”.
By my understanding of them, sure, they aren’t going to cause the widespread damage and radiation emission of a true nuclear detonation, but they are still a noteworthy threat.
And this is what keeps me up at night. There’s no doubt in my mind that terrorist organizations are actively seeking a weapon like this and will use it against either the USA or Israel once they get it. The repurcussions of such an action will be pretty bad.
You may recall that getting control of all the nuclear technology and weapons-grade fissionables floating around the world was a key plank in Kerry’s 2004 campaign.
I figure the worst-case scenario regarding a dirty bomb is the “dusting” in Heinlein’s “Solution Unsatisfactory.” And frankly, I don’t see how you can use a bomb to get that sort of spread. Best-case scenario is something along the lines of a large car bomb in terms of explosive spreading alpha and beta emitters. That would suck if you were in the area and inhaled the emitters without getting killed by the blast, but that’s a pretty small area.
It’s not something keeping me up at night, but it’s another good reason to control radioactive materials overall.
You might do better using a vehicle mounted fogger and a solution of say plutonium chloride, than with simply blowing up a chunk of the stuff using a bomb.
It fails to mention what was hugely important about the deal itself (because nobody wanted to publicly say it for fear of breaking the deal). The Soviets woke up and found that we’d put missiles in Turkey, and then they came to the table willing to take missiles away in total. However, it was also the culmination of a specific strategic threat and response.
It didn’t occur in a vaccum, It traded a finite, measurable deal of ours agasinst the Soviets. I have no specific problem with Obama’s goals in this particular matter. I do not think the treaty will succeed in any way, shape, or form at getting to them.
Untrue. North Korea has been developing them off-and-on for years, probably decades. They almost certainly never stopped while Clinton was around (they broke every other deal). Even then, I’ve seen no serious alternative to Bush’s strategy, which did minimalize the cost (in fact, it was virtually zip). You can’t deal with an opponent who obeys no rules and honors no deal. They can’t be bargained with because they know we’re not going to launch a war. Thus, pursuing nuclear weapons while feigning foaming-rampage-madness is a sound decision. They get the nukes to guarrantee their security (and not really against us, but against China) while sometimes dragging a little cash out of our pockets in exchange for shutting up for another few years.
Finally, for a man calling himself an ass in public, and offering essentially no logical argument at all, you probably shouldn’t blindly claim your debate opponent has offered “only rhetoric.” Fail.
Making it a plank does not make it a reality. Then and now, I see no practical solution beyond what is already occuring in making this a reality. Ultimately, the technology cannot be controlled in any fashion, and you simply cannot control either the tech or the basic materials, because they are not that rare. The day will not be far off that private organizations can, if they so choose, develop nuclear weapons, much less nation-states.
Mere speculation does not excuse the fact that they detonated their first nuke on Bush’s watch, nor does it excuse Bush’s fuckups along the path to a nuclear armed NK.
Yeah of course, because Bush was so welcoming of strategerys other than those of his close advisors:rolleyes:
There were plenty of folk bewailing Bush’s NK stupidity, and pushing for a return to something a touch more Clintonian*. If you didn’t hear them, it’s because your ears were stuffed with wax.
*Remember Clinton? He’s the guy who didn’t let a brand new nuclear power hatch in North Korea ON HIS WATCH.
It’s been a while and we are finally beginning to see what the Republican response is. They’d rather not have a treaty with Russia.
They’ve been putting off this vote for months leaving our country unable to verify the security of Russian nuclear sites with actual inspectors.
Our country is being made less safe so Republicans can make Obama look ineffective.
What a surprise.