The so called START 2 treaty.

In here we talk about it since a vote has a few hurdles in the Senate and the increasing oddness of putting a treaty ratification vote during a lame duck session. (Which really hasn't been done before for any treaty.)

Personally from what I've dug into it I don't approve of the new START. For three main reasons:

• It offers far too many concessions to Russia with nothing in return.
• It denies critical technologies at a time when were going to need them. Chiefly missile defense technology. With a nuclear armed North Korea and renewed war a very real possibility and likelihood in the foreseeable future we're going to need a missile defense system that is fully operational, the Russians' whining be damned.
• Thirdly, it has little to no accountability. At all.

I'm not against getting rid of every strategic nuke on the planet in fact I favor banning nukes (it's better to wage war with thousands of tanks and aircraft and the ability for conventional artillery barrages to level a city than nuke usage), but the current framing shafts the American People and cows to the Russians instead of a fair and useful treaty for both parties.

I don't support any treaty that says we're not allowed to build things that defend us from nuclear attacks. Defenses are just that, defenses.

I don't support any treaty that says we're not allowed to build things that defend us from nuclear attacks. Defenses are just that, defenses.

I'm Deboss, and I support this message.

It offers far too many concessions to Russia with nothing in return.

Nice regurgitation of Republican talking points.

It denies critical technologies at a time when were going to need them. Chiefly missile defense technology. With a nuclear armed North Korea and renewed war a very real possibility and likelihood in the foreseeable future we're going to need a missile defense system that is fully operational, the Russians' whining be damned.

Of all the summaries of the New Start treaty, none mentioned reducing or denying missile technology. Except one that mentioned the Heritage Foundation said that, not that they're one to rely on for the truth.

Thirdly, it has little to no accountability. At all.

Says who? Rush Limbaugh? The treaty allows both sides to inspect the other's nuclear arms to ensure compliance with the treaty.

Considering the OP, I'd take this all with a grain of salt, I don't buy that the treaty does any of that.

My understanding is the treaty is written in what I consider a problematic manner. The stuff about defenses is in the preamble which not everyone agrees is binding. Frankly, assuming this is true, if I were the next president, I'd honor the rest of the treaty and ignore the preamble. If the Russians threaten to withdraw, I'd tell them, then we should renegotiate.

A courtesy link to the bill would be nice.

...I'm confused, is the name of the treaty in doubt somehow?

edited 21st Dec '10 10:40:37 PM by Tzetze

Yea, there is nothing in the introduction about limiting defensive arms. It's safe to say everything in the OP is a load of crap.

The only "problem" with the treaty is that it doesn't define clearly enough which nuclear arms are subject to the treaty limitations.

Link

edited 21st Dec '10 10:43:52 PM by CommandoDude

Wouldn't that thing already be in place or something? If it's not, I see no advantage to signing it in the first place.

Did a little research...

This link is to the 1992 START II treaty. The 2010 treaty, called "New START" is here

For missile defense issues, see here for one opinion.

Much ado about nothing?

edited 22nd Dec '10 1:16:58 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

Oh yes, and since this is MT, much hyperbole about nothing as well.

Personally from what I've dug into it I don't approve of the new START. For one main reason:

• Obama likes it.

Let's be totally honest, here. This really has nothing to do with the-Cold-War-never-ended paranoia. The opposition to it is purely for scoring political points.

It's been ratified.

edited 22nd Dec '10 1:11:25 PM by EnglishIvy

Waiting for the Shadow Moses incident to happen...