Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...
how will limiting there nukes and being able to better monitor there nuclear material change that for the worse? If we could work with them under Regan in the 80s...I fail to see how doing it now would be worse.
PLC1 said:
How is agreeing to limit the number of nukes each nation has pursuing an "adversarial relationship"? Wouldn't a new arms race be more adversarial?
These are basically the same question, so I will answer them both here:
Aside from the glaring problems under the treaty of limiting their nuclear weapons, and monitoring their nuclear weapons, I will speak to the issue of furthering an "adversarial" relationship with this treaty.
Ambassador Joseph (who has extensive experience in this arena) makes a better case than I would:
The Obama Administration has stressed the importance of New START to “re-set” the U.S.-Russian relationship. To the extent that the Treaty improves mutual confidence in our bilateral relations, it may make a modest, near term contribution. To the extent the Treaty contributes to the re-establishment of the Cold War relationship we had with the Soviet Union, it will carry a long term cost.
For some in Russia, including in high government positions, the United States is seen and described openly as the adversary. For them, New START serves a number of purposes: it constrains U.S. forces while not encumbering Russian forces; it perpetuates deterrence through the balance of terror and mutual assured destruction; it enhances the status of Russia and restores in part the lost prestige from superpower days; and it once again treats nuclear weapons – the one category of arms on which Russia can compete with the United States – as the principal currency of the relationship.
If we do believe the Cold War is over, and if we want a normal relationship with Russia, we need to move beyond Cold War approaches.
As he pointed out, this TREATY "resets" our relations right back into the Cold War...when we were adversaries. Certainly limiting the spread of nuclear materials etc is important, but we are not pursing nuclear treaties like this with other nuclear powers, such as China, UK, France etc.. why not? Are their nuclear arsenals any less important?
Now, as for a potential new "arms race", that is highly unlikely even without a treaty. The Moscow Treaty remains in effect, and Russia cannot afford to maintain and deploy a large strategic nuclear weapons force.. which is why they are moving towards more tactical weapons (something the treaty ignores).
Additionally, take a look at this exchange between Senator McCain and Air Force General Kevin Chilton, U.S. Strategic Command Commander.
Sen. McCain: General Chilton, do you agree with the unclassified statement in the State Department Verification Assessment that ‘any cheating by the Russians would have little, if any, effect?’
General Chilton: Senator McCain, I do agree with that…
Sen. McCain: Well, what this brings to the casual observer’s mind, General, is if it doesn’t have any consequences if they do any cheating, what’s the point in having a treaty?
It would be akin to putting 10,000 new police on the highways to prevent speeding, but not allowing them to write speeding tickets...
Overall point being, I would agree that we can engage with Russia on the nuclear issue, but a new START Treaty, which reverts us right back into a Cold War enemy mentality is the wrong way to do that.
As an aside:
Even without a new START Treaty, we are already approaching (and so is Russia apparently) the numbers of weapons it will "reduce" us to. Russia is argued to be only 100-150 weapons above to 1,550 limit and with upcoming retirement of legacy systems, will be well below 1,550 with or without START.
As for the US, under President Bush, the US has been trending to well below 2,200 (the Moscow Treaty Limit) as well.
And finally, not to mention, under new counting rules in the new START, both sides could deploy well above the guidelines if they wanted to...not even to mention tactical weapons.
During the cuban missile crisis, fidel castro urged khruschev to attack the US from cuba with nukes, saying it was worth it to him to get rid of the US even if it meant the destruction of cuba. Leftwingers are always lecturing people about how foreigners don't think like us, but then they do such as project american rationality into the minds of the leaders of the closed insular north korea, a country which regularly starves millions of its own people to death in the name of ideological purity.
