witness23
Veteran Expediter
It has to do with the Republican Party wanting their "stamp" on it. It was, and has been politicized.
A One-Sided Arms Race
- Thread starter chefdennis
- Start date
It has to do with the Republican Party wanting their "stamp" on it. It was, and has been politicized.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Much like you trying to put your stamp/label on those that disagree with your view?
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Well I'm sure members of Congress and our military leaders have seen the "un-sanitzed" version of the treaty and there seems to be a split between our military leaders and those Republicans that are politicizing the treaty. Which surprises me on your view of this. Especially since you have already admitted not reading the treaty and have the opinion it is a detriment to the safety of our country. So you are telling me that you are siding with politicians over our military leaders on this issue? hmmmmm.....interesting.
Were you against the first START?
You said above that it is not much different than START, I would have to contend that your opinion of the first treaty was, "we are losing" when the original treaty was signed. Would that be correct?
A quote from Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
We are still able to advance on defense capabilities. If you want to argue we haven't done enough of that, then that is a totally different subject and should be brought up in another thread.
For starters I would be basing my beliefs on the following:
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Link: Mullen prods Senate to act quickly on START treaty | Reuters
And this.......
Conservatives split with U.S. military leaders over U.S.-Russia nuke treaty
Link: Conservatives split with U.S. military leaders over U.S.-Russia nuke treaty
And this from the same article I linked above.
Retired Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson
And this, another quote from the same article:
Retired Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon who was head of Central Command and Pacific Command.
And this guy:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates
From this article: Robert M. Gates: The Case for the New START Treaty - WSJ.com
Those are the sources that I have based my opinion on. I'll take those that I have quoted above over yours, sorry.
With all due respect, those concerns have not been brought up for the reasons why the treaty should not have been signed. I am sure that those are concerns but not enough for the treaty not to go forward.
You get a gold star layout, good job. It sounds like you didn't like the first START treaty and yet you worked on it. Thanks for adding to a treaty that weakens the U.S.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I highly suggest you read the links I provided in my last post, along with doing some research of your own, on the New START Treaty and then come back and reply to the thread.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
At least one good thing came of this, I got you to read the treaty
Sanitized or not.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Here is some more good reading on the subject.
The Monitor's View
New START treaty between Russia and US could lead to better relations
Senate ratification of the New START treaty on nuclear weapons could open the way to progress on several stalled strategic issues between the US and Russia, as well as between NATO and Russia.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board / August 3, 2010
Link: New START treaty between Russia and US could lead to better relations - CSMonitor.com
Russia and the United States have a chance to cut their strategic nuclear arsenals by about 30 percent if the Senate ratifies the pending “New START” agreement. But there’s more to this pact than further arms reduction.
Senate ratification could also pave the way for progress on key stalled security issues between Washington and Moscow, as well as between NATO and Russia.
The agreement, a follow-up to the expired cold-war-era Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, has become unnecessarily controversial among Senate Republicans. Signed by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in April, the new arms deal may face its first political test this week if it is taken up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It’s expected to clear that hurdle, but ratification by two-thirds of senators will prove much more difficult.
As senators debate the particulars, they should keep in mind the potential benefit beyond the treaty’s reduction in nuclear weapons. Ratification doesn’t guarantee progress on other difficult security areas, but failure to ratify would likely set back these issues:
European missile defense. Russia is uneasy about US plans for an anti-Iranian missile shield to protect Europe (although it is less alarmed ever since the Obama administration modified it to deploy it first on ships in the Mediterranean and later on land). Russia (erroneously) sees a European shield as a potential security threat and an encroachment on its “sphere of influence.”
Like the Bush administration before it, the Obama team has also reached out to Russia and suggested that it take part in a shield. Germany, on good terms with Russia, is pushing the idea as well. Such a partnering would do much to build trust between Washington and Moscow, and it would send a powerful message to nuclear-bent Iran.
A tactical nuclear arms agreement. Several NATO countries are urging the US to get rid of all tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Deemed by the Germans as “leftovers” from the cold war, the estimated 200 US bombs at six NATO bases were designed to be delivered at short range.
But the US says any removal must be tied to an agreement with Russia, which has about twice as many tactical weapons as the total US supply. (America has an estimated 900 such weapons on its own soil; the Russians have at least 2,000 total, all in Russia.) A tactical arms agreement would be a logical follow-up to a ratified New START treaty.
A treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). In 2007, Russia suspended participation in this important treaty aimed at lessening military tension between Europe and Russia. The 1990 agreement put equal limits on equipment such as tanks and aircraft for the now-defunct Warsaw Pact and NATO. It allowed for verification and monitoring on each side.
Remember that it was Russian tanks that rolled into Georgia two summers ago. A set of complicated issues surrounds revival of the CFE treaty, but they have little hope of being ironed out if the New START treaty falls apart.
Hopefully, that won’t happen. The complaints about the New START agreement are overblown. Critics point to Russian provisions relating to missile defense. But the language is in a nonbinding preamble and unilateral statement. Seven former military commanders of America’s nuclear forces recently endorsed the treaty, saying it would not constrain planned missile defense.
Critics also worry that the cuts are too deep. But they are modest in relation to the past – about 30 percent reductions, down to 1,550 warheads each. That compares with 80 percent reductions over three previous nuclear arms treaties negotiated by three Republican presidents.
Other concerns include verification of Russian compliance and the need to modernize America’s remaining nuclear arsenal. Encouragingly, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been working closely with the ranking Republican member, Sen. Richard Lugar, who supports the treaty, to address Republican fears.
As the US moves closer to elections, this treaty could get sidelined by partisan politics and a full legislative calendar. That must not be allowed. This issue is core to a “reset” in US-Russia relations and to Mr. Obama’s goals on nuclear nonproliferation. He must work hard for ratification, and senators must consider the ramifications of no treaty – what that will mean for unmonitored strategic weapons, and for a host of other strategic issues.
The Monitor's View
New START treaty between Russia and US could lead to better relations
Senate ratification of the New START treaty on nuclear weapons could open the way to progress on several stalled strategic issues between the US and Russia, as well as between NATO and Russia.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board / August 3, 2010
Link: New START treaty between Russia and US could lead to better relations - CSMonitor.com
Russia and the United States have a chance to cut their strategic nuclear arsenals by about 30 percent if the Senate ratifies the pending “New START” agreement. But there’s more to this pact than further arms reduction.
Senate ratification could also pave the way for progress on key stalled security issues between Washington and Moscow, as well as between NATO and Russia.
The agreement, a follow-up to the expired cold-war-era Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, has become unnecessarily controversial among Senate Republicans. Signed by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in April, the new arms deal may face its first political test this week if it is taken up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It’s expected to clear that hurdle, but ratification by two-thirds of senators will prove much more difficult.
As senators debate the particulars, they should keep in mind the potential benefit beyond the treaty’s reduction in nuclear weapons. Ratification doesn’t guarantee progress on other difficult security areas, but failure to ratify would likely set back these issues:
European missile defense. Russia is uneasy about US plans for an anti-Iranian missile shield to protect Europe (although it is less alarmed ever since the Obama administration modified it to deploy it first on ships in the Mediterranean and later on land). Russia (erroneously) sees a European shield as a potential security threat and an encroachment on its “sphere of influence.”
Like the Bush administration before it, the Obama team has also reached out to Russia and suggested that it take part in a shield. Germany, on good terms with Russia, is pushing the idea as well. Such a partnering would do much to build trust between Washington and Moscow, and it would send a powerful message to nuclear-bent Iran.
A tactical nuclear arms agreement. Several NATO countries are urging the US to get rid of all tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Deemed by the Germans as “leftovers” from the cold war, the estimated 200 US bombs at six NATO bases were designed to be delivered at short range.
But the US says any removal must be tied to an agreement with Russia, which has about twice as many tactical weapons as the total US supply. (America has an estimated 900 such weapons on its own soil; the Russians have at least 2,000 total, all in Russia.) A tactical arms agreement would be a logical follow-up to a ratified New START treaty.
A treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). In 2007, Russia suspended participation in this important treaty aimed at lessening military tension between Europe and Russia. The 1990 agreement put equal limits on equipment such as tanks and aircraft for the now-defunct Warsaw Pact and NATO. It allowed for verification and monitoring on each side.
Remember that it was Russian tanks that rolled into Georgia two summers ago. A set of complicated issues surrounds revival of the CFE treaty, but they have little hope of being ironed out if the New START treaty falls apart.
Hopefully, that won’t happen. The complaints about the New START agreement are overblown. Critics point to Russian provisions relating to missile defense. But the language is in a nonbinding preamble and unilateral statement. Seven former military commanders of America’s nuclear forces recently endorsed the treaty, saying it would not constrain planned missile defense.
Critics also worry that the cuts are too deep. But they are modest in relation to the past – about 30 percent reductions, down to 1,550 warheads each. That compares with 80 percent reductions over three previous nuclear arms treaties negotiated by three Republican presidents.
Other concerns include verification of Russian compliance and the need to modernize America’s remaining nuclear arsenal. Encouragingly, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been working closely with the ranking Republican member, Sen. Richard Lugar, who supports the treaty, to address Republican fears.
As the US moves closer to elections, this treaty could get sidelined by partisan politics and a full legislative calendar. That must not be allowed. This issue is core to a “reset” in US-Russia relations and to Mr. Obama’s goals on nuclear nonproliferation. He must work hard for ratification, and senators must consider the ramifications of no treaty – what that will mean for unmonitored strategic weapons, and for a host of other strategic issues.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
I really appreciate your suggestions. Still doesn't change my original comment.
I worked for 5 years on START/INF. In my opinion, based on my first hand experience in arms control verification and my dealings with the MMAC, (mobile missile assessment committee) START was "doable"
We were lacking in verification equipment but we had "just enough" to do the job. (the real numbers of what we could and not do were just plain scary)
Missile defense has NOTHING to do with verification.
Modernization is allowed under the treaty but ONLY the Soviets are modernizing. We are NOT.
We do NOT have the resources now to provide verification. Bases are shut down and there are fewer resources than we had when we worked on START. We have not replaced all of the systems that no longer exist. We have newer systems than when I was in, with greater capacity but their combined capacity does NOT equal the combined capacity of the older systems.
I don't trust congress on treaties, I have seen far too much "goofy stuff" from that bunch. I do not believe that they are acting in the best interest of the Nation.
People are running around putting a "best face possible" on this to sell it to a basically uneducated audience when it comes to arms reduction and treaty verification. People want to be told that this is a "good thing" and the world will be safer for it. They really don't want to be told the realities of life. Never have.
Reading that "treaty" was fun, had to get around to it sooner or later. Brought back a lot of bad memories. Things that I was happy to not remember on a daily basis.
We were lacking in verification equipment but we had "just enough" to do the job. (the real numbers of what we could and not do were just plain scary)
Missile defense has NOTHING to do with verification.
Modernization is allowed under the treaty but ONLY the Soviets are modernizing. We are NOT.
We do NOT have the resources now to provide verification. Bases are shut down and there are fewer resources than we had when we worked on START. We have not replaced all of the systems that no longer exist. We have newer systems than when I was in, with greater capacity but their combined capacity does NOT equal the combined capacity of the older systems.
I don't trust congress on treaties, I have seen far too much "goofy stuff" from that bunch. I do not believe that they are acting in the best interest of the Nation.
People are running around putting a "best face possible" on this to sell it to a basically uneducated audience when it comes to arms reduction and treaty verification. People want to be told that this is a "good thing" and the world will be safer for it. They really don't want to be told the realities of life. Never have.
Reading that "treaty" was fun, had to get around to it sooner or later. Brought back a lot of bad memories. Things that I was happy to not remember on a daily basis.
"You get a gold star layout, good job. It sounds like you didn't like the first START treaty and yet you worked on it. Thanks for adding to a treaty that weakens the U.S."
This is a very silly statement and meant only to demean a fellow E.O. member.
You have no clue what so ever what I did on those treaties. I had a job that I was assigned to do and did it to the best of my ability. I have several awards to back that up. I take great pride in my efforts and NOTHING I did EVER made this country weaker.
To ridicule someones service to this Nation when it is more than obvious that you have no clue about that service is just wrong. I have never demeaned your service.
This is a very silly statement and meant only to demean a fellow E.O. member.
You have no clue what so ever what I did on those treaties. I had a job that I was assigned to do and did it to the best of my ability. I have several awards to back that up. I take great pride in my efforts and NOTHING I did EVER made this country weaker.
To ridicule someones service to this Nation when it is more than obvious that you have no clue about that service is just wrong. I have never demeaned your service.