What is your opinion on the START Treaty?

[Matt Collins]

What is your opinion on the START Treaty?

[pcosmar]

I believe it is not what it claims to be.

[cswake]

Here's a link to it:

http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/D?trtys:4:./temp/~trtysJfJcBZ::

[Stary Hickory]

Treaty allows for arms inspections on both American and Russian soil. Theat means Americans going to Russian bases to snoop around and Russians coming to American bases to do the same.

The thrust of the treaty is verification to assure that the # of nukes is at a level that is agreed upon.

[fisharmor]

The treaty itself?
I don't believe in nuclear arms limitations negotiated with other sovereign states.
I believe that nuclear arms limitations should be sought by the American people.
I agree that there is simply no need for us to maintain tens of thousands of city-destroying nuclear weapons.
But I do think that there is a need for thousands of neighborhood-destroying nuclear weapons.

It should be possible to conduct bombing campaigns without leaving home. There's no reason to maintain foreign bases, carriers, air fleets, etc, just to be able to destroy a single building if we want to.
Of course, I don't agree with bombing those buildings, but if the need ever arose (the claimed purpose for spending all that money on all those ships and planes) then there should be no obstacle to us doing it with a small, efficient ICBM with a single fist-sized warhead.

Plus, if you have a small corps of a couple thousand people devoted to a nuclear armament, they don't have quite the political power that over 3 million active duty personel have, so there won't be as much political pressure to use it.

[pcosmar]

Treaty allows for arms inspections on both American and Russian soil. Theat means Americans going to Russian bases to snoop around and Russians coming to American bases to do the same.

The thrust of the treaty is verification to assure that the # of nukes is at a level that is agreed upon.

Actually the purpose of this is to undermine National sovereignty. And to eventually give control of all Nukes to the United Nations.

As much as I dislike the very Idea of Nukes, this concerns me more.
:(

[Stary Hickory]

Actually the purpose of this is to undermine National sovereignty. And to eventually give control of all Nukes to the United Nations.

As much as I dislike the very Idea of Nukes, this concerns me more.
:(

Not it is not....nothing sinister about the treaty. It is just a continuation of the old Reagan Start Treaty....but in order to "improve" it the number of nukes was cut. Nothing sinister here. Maybe it is unnecessary...but how it came about is very easy to understand.

[oyarde]

It should not be voted on in lame duck congress .

[oyarde]

How is it in best interest of US to allow inspections ? How is it best interest of US to agree to ANY arms control ? Oh , wait , it is not . : (

[Churchill2004]

It will probably cost too much and some special interests will no doubt make money off the execution of it. Still, anything that reduces nuclear stockpiles is an overwhelmingly good thing, and unlike the vast majority of legislation this is a step in the right direction. That we can get the Russians to agree to reduce their stockpiles too makes it all the better. If I were a Senator I'd vote Yea.

[Churchill2004]

How is it in best interest of US to allow inspections ? How is it best interset of US to agree to ANY arms control ? Oh , wait , it is not . : (

Right, because having fewer nukes pointed at us obviously isn't worth allowing those damn dirty Russians to inspect weaponry they've already known the intimate details of for decades. The inspections themselves are a mere formality anyway- the real verification is done by intelligence agencies, and Russian spies will be here regardless of any treaty.

[Stary Hickory]

How is it in best interest of US to allow inspections ? How is it best interset of US to agree to ANY arms control ? Oh , wait , it is not . : (

This is probably true. The first Start Treaty was really needed. As it relaxed tensions and created greater trust. Now, Russia really is not a threat. I don't see them trying to Nuke us any more than France might try to do so.

[oyarde]

Right, because having fewer nukes pointed at us obviously isn't worth allowing those damn dirty Russians to inspect weaponry they've already known the intimate details of for decades. The inspections themselves are a mere formality anyway- the real verification is done by intelligence agencies, and Russian spies will be here regardless of any treaty.

Nothing of value is gained from this . Why self impose restrictions ? No need .

[Brett85]

This treaty is absolute trash. I support a non interventionist foreign policy, but I believe in having a strong national defense here at home. Disarming ourselves will make us less safe. I don't even see what the point of having a Republican Party is when they vote for stuff like this.

[ChaosControl]

Well I wouldn't vote on it without reading it, and reading it may change my view of it, but with what I know of it as of now I support it and unless my reading of it changes my mind I'd vote in favor of it.

[Churchill2004]

Nothing of value is gained from this . Why self impose restrictions ? No need .

Fewer hair-trigger mass-murder machines is not "nothing of value". It's pretty damn valuable, actually.

[oyarde]

Fewer hair-trigger mass-murder machines is not "nothing of value". It's pretty damn valuable, actually.

I disagree . Everyone else is looking to add / build . The US and Russia will still have nukes ......

[oyarde]

The way I look at it , is this . They are dangerous , especially in unstable countries like Pakistan . They do provide safety . I would never agree to any treaty that restricts my ability to arm . Possible long term negatives , no positives . Everybody else has them & the up and coming countries will be adding . If someone has 200 or 2000 is not the most important factor .

[oyarde]

This is probably true. The first Start Treaty was really needed. As it relaxed tensions and created greater trust. Now, Russia really is not a threat. I don't see them trying to Nuke us any more than France might try to do so.

Yes .

[oyarde]

For whatever it is worth , the only people I trust with Nukes , is me . I wish nobody had them but me : )

[Matt Collins]

Here is Pat Buchanan's take on it, he is for it:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan145.html

[BarryDonegan]

I personally feel that the US should not enter into treaties that in any way might restrict us from defending ourselves. What if Russia was no longer our main nuclear threat? Also, since treaties do so much to reduce the sovereignty of the US, we should only engage in treaties when we absolutely have to to do something like end a war. We are not currently engaged in a nuclear war with Russia, nor will we in the future by my estimation. The idea that we can end nuclear weapons as a form of military technology is more of a Utopian pursuit than one that could really have consequence in real life. By engaging in all these treaties between nations to reduce military technology, we are essentially reducing the right of nations to protect themselves.

I also feel that we are to some extent primarily engaged in interventionism because of the fact that the USA believes it has a fundamental right to examine the nuclear stockpiles of other nations. It is a form of interventionism to check out how many weapons other nations may have and to comment on that and pursue policies based on that alone.

[Brett85]

Here is Pat Buchanan's take on it, he is for it:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan145.html

Yes, that was extremely surprising. I don't think that people can really call him an "isolationist" if he supports something like this. You can't technically be an isolationist if you support treaties with other countries.

[virgil47]

I personally feel that the US should not enter into treaties that in any way might restrict us from defending ourselves. What if Russia was no longer our main nuclear threat? Also, since treaties do so much to reduce the sovereignty of the US, we should only engage in treaties when we absolutely have to to do something like end a war. We are not currently engaged in a nuclear war with Russia, nor will we in the future by my estimation. The idea that we can end nuclear weapons as a form of military technology is more of a Utopian pursuit than one that could really have consequence in real life. By engaging in all these treaties between nations to reduce military technology, we are essentially reducing the right of nations to protect themselves.

+10,000

[sailingaway]

It should not be voted on in lame duck congress .

^^ this

Mind you, that is in part because Rand hasn't vetted and voted on it. I don't trust those there now to evaluate things as I do, and I haven't read it. I don't like it limiting what we can do. Part of me says a way to quit taking over countries as bases might be to have really good missile shields, and I don't know all the pros and cons but if it would get us out of intervention overseas, it sounds attractive.

So since I understand we would be limited in upgrading for that, I tend to be against it. But again, I HAVEN'T read it.

It's being shoved down our throats in lame duck session reminds me of the tactics used for the food bill and Obamacare, and so also makes me tend to be against it.

[Churchill2004]

I think those objecting vastly overestimate just how binding these treaties actually are. The restrictions last only as long as the US and Russia continue to agree to them- we could abrogate this treaty tomorrow if we, overtaken by sociopathic insanity, decided we needed to increase our nuclear arsenal. Look at the ABM treaty- which was in fact a mistake that limited our ability to defend ourselves. Bush simply withdrew from the treaty, and the Russians whined and protested, but in no way did the ABM treaty actually stop us from going forward with missile defense technology.

[oyarde]

I see no advantage into making any agreements .

[Ry-Fi]

This Treaty will simply create a prisoners dilemma. We can either destroy our nukes to an agreed level and no longer produce MIRVs, but that leaves us vulnerable. Do we really trust Russia to agree and execute the terms honestly? Maybe so, but in the world of international politics you face constant security dilemmas due to asymmetric information. You HAVE to assume the worst, other wise you could get caught with your pants on the ground. If we agree to "play" decrease nukes and no MIRVs (in the prisoners dilemma game) then Russia has an incentive to do the opposite...just in case they ever go into a confrontation with the USA. Therefore, the USA plays "no change", just as Russia has. If you do not, the consequences of being ill prepared for a nuclear confrontation are devastating. I think this is mere politics.

[Heimdallr]

Sure, anything to reduce the nuclear threat. We have more than enough of 'em.

[oyarde]

You can do whatever you wish with inventory without treaties .

[TheTyke]

I'm also a noninterventionist, and would bring our troops home and have us stop fighting all over... but I think we need to strengthen our defenses at home to the point where no one would even think of attacking us. It's illogical to limit yourself, allow foreign agents to "inspect" your military, and to trust they'll do the same.

I see nukes the way I see secession - it is a good deterrent, but actually using it would probably be disastrous.

[nobody's_hero]

My opinion is that the Cold War is over.

For some reason, neocons are still fearful of Russia.

[oyarde]

I'm also a noninterventionist, and would bring our troops home and have us stop fighting all over... but I think we need to strengthen our defenses at home to the point where no one would even think of attacking us. It's illogical to limit yourself, allow foreign agents to "inspect" your military, and to trust they'll do the same.

I see nukes the way I see secession - it is a good deterrent, but actually using it would probably be disastrous.

I agree with illogical .

[oyarde]

My opinion is that the Cold War is over.

For some reason, neocons are still fearful of Russia.

Yes , it is over .

[Zippyjuan]

We (and Russia) will still have more than enough to wipe out the planet if we so desired. And more than enough to act as a deterant. Cutting our own gives us more credibility if we want to discourage other countries from aquiring nuclear weapons (North Korea, Iran). I think the treaty is a good thing.

[Daamien]

I'm fine with the treaty and am happier in a world with fewer nukes. We have subscribed to hundreds of treaties over the years that limit military powers. Should we for example withdraw from the Geneva Conventions because they can be an inconvenience? Our sovereignty is not threatened by a quid pro quo reduction in arms.

[Ry-Fi]

I'm fine with the treaty and am happier in a world with fewer nukes. We have subscribed to hundreds of treaties over the years that limit military powers. Should we for example withdraw from the Geneva Conventions because they can be an inconvenience? Our sovereignty is not threatened by a quid pro quo reduction in arms.

nuclear weapons are not necessarily bad things. Nuclear Peace Theory actually states that nukes make nations more peaceful, as MAD disincentives war. Look at India and Pakistan. Two warring nations that hated each others guts. Then, they both got nukes and the fighting stopped. Just think about a world in which everyone had nukes. Politicians would definitely think twice before resorting to armed conflict because they know it would mean putting any number of major cities on the line.

[Brian4Liberty]

What is your opinion on the START Treaty?

How much does it cost?

[TNforPaul45]

My opinion is that the Cold War is over.

For some reason, neocons are still fearful of Russia.

Neocons will eternally whip up fear of someone in order to use an "external threat" to whip us into continually feeding the complex. And when we don't buy it, they'll knock a few more buildings over, just to make sure we do.

[oyarde]

I read just a tiny bit and stopped when I got to the part that restricts us from missile defense . Douche bag treaty that will get voted on by morons who will not read it .

[Daamien]

nuclear weapons are not necessarily bad things. Nuclear Peace Theory actually states that nukes make nations more peaceful, as MAD disincentives war. Look at India and Pakistan. Two warring nations that hated each others guts. Then, they both got nukes and the fighting stopped. Just think about a world in which everyone had nukes. Politicians would definitely think twice before resorting to armed conflict because they know it would mean putting any number of major cities on the line.

We haven't been any more peaceful with nukes and actually have used nukes on civilians on two occasions. Also, just because those with nukes may not directly fight each other does not mean that they won't engage in proxy wars. The Nuclear Peace Theory is therefore nonsense. The fewer nukes the better, regardless of whose hands they are in.

[Ry-Fi]

We haven't been any more peaceful with nukes and actually have used nukes on civilians on two occasions. Also, just because those with nukes may not directly fight each other does not mean that they won't engage in proxy wars. The Nuclear Peace Theory is therefore nonsense. The fewer nukes the better, regardless of whose hands they are in.

That is not true. You would not engage in proxy wars if everyone had nukes, because the proxy war would turn into a nuclear war. We would not have entered into armed conflict with Vietnam if we knew it meant a potential nuclear strike on US soil or troops. Because Vietnam did not have nuclear weapons, armed conflict happened. Had the Soviet Union come out and said, "if you enter Nam, we will nuke you" we probably would not have entered the civil war. Using the nukes on two occasions was necessary to prove how powerful these weapons are and how much they should be respected. Also, no two nations that both have nukes have ever gone to war...hence why Nuclear Peace Theory exists. The only wars we have seen since the dropping of the nukes on Japan have been between two non nuclear nations or wars in which only one nation has nukes. Never if both.

[jmdrake]

Right, because having fewer nukes pointed at us obviously isn't worth allowing those damn dirty Russians to inspect weaponry they've already known the intimate details of for decades. The inspections themselves are a mere formality anyway- the real verification is done by intelligence agencies, and Russian spies will be here regardless of any treaty.

I'm pretty sure the Russians quit targeting our cities years ago as we quit targeting theirs. If they are still targeting us after "ending the cold war" then they are jackasses that can't be trusted and no stupid piece of paper is going to change that. That said, my understanding that what we "get" from the treaty is more assurances that Russian nukes will "fall into terrorist hands". In other words we're being blackmailed.

[1000-points-of-fright]

For whatever it is worth , the only people I trust with Nukes , is me . I wish nobody had them but me : )

Is that you, Israel?

[oyarde]

Is that you, Israel?

No , just the Oyardee : )

[Daamien]

That is not true. You would not engage in proxy wars if everyone had nukes, because the proxy war would turn into a nuclear war. We would not have entered into armed conflict with Vietnam if we knew it meant a potential nuclear strike on US soil or troops. Because Vietnam did not have nuclear weapons, armed conflict happened. Had the Soviet Union come out and said, "if you enter Nam, we will nuke you" we probably would not have entered the civil war. Using the nukes on two occasions was necessary to prove how powerful these weapons are and how much they should be respected. Also, no two nations that both have nukes have ever gone to war...hence why Nuclear Peace Theory exists. The only wars we have seen since the dropping of the nukes on Japan have been between two non nuclear nations or wars in which only one nation has nukes. Never if both.

Then let's proliferate nukes to every nation and we will have lasting peace... until the theory fails and blows us all up due to mutual destruction and collateral damage.
/sarcasm

[Ry-Fi]

Then let's proliferate nukes to every nation and we will have lasting peace... until the theory fails and blows us all up due to mutual destruction and collateral damage.
/sarcasm

according to political science that could work. The area where it begins to break down is when we start dealing with groups that have no nation...like Al-Qaeda. Partly because we do not have much experience or historical data to see how the theory plays out with these groups. Still, this is why when people cry about north Korea getting nukes it really is not a big deal. If N. Korea ever used one or gave it away to be used it would mean instant death for them. They have to be certifiably insane to do that as the second they went to use a nuke they might as well be pulling the trigger to a gun against their head thanks to mutually assured destruction.

[Aratus]

i see last nite that it passed 71 to 29!
john kerry + scott brown voted for it...

[BarryDonegan]

nuclear weapons are not necessarily bad things. Nuclear Peace Theory actually states that nukes make nations more peaceful, as MAD disincentives war. Look at India and Pakistan. Two warring nations that hated each others guts. Then, they both got nukes and the fighting stopped. Just think about a world in which everyone had nukes. Politicians would definitely think twice before resorting to armed conflict because they know it would mean putting any number of major cities on the line.

Part of me thinks that if we really want peace, we would want every nation to have a viable nuclear defense system. If you think about it, since the invention of the nuclear weapon, how many times has a nuclear-powered country been invaded or attacked?

And, in my opinion, proxy wars prove the nuclear peace theory. Proxy wars between nations only occur in the territory of nations that do not have nuclear weapons. To stop proxy wars, we probably need to recognize an international second amendment (not codifying it into any sort of law or treaty, but to know it to be a reality that exists in the state of nature when every nation has nuclear weapons) so that every nation knows that there are dire consequences if we don't keep the peace.

[Ry-Fi]

Part of me thinks that if we really want peace, we would want every nation to have a viable nuclear defense system. If you think about it, since the invention of the nuclear weapon, how many times has a nuclear-powered country been invaded or attacked?

And, in my opinion, proxy wars prove the nuclear peace theory. Proxy wars between nations only occur in the territory of nations that do not have nuclear weapons. To stop proxy wars, we probably need to establish an international second amendment so that every nation knows that there are dire consequences if we don't keep the peace.

Exactly! The problem is, nuclear peace theory is just that - a theory. It is a pretty dangerous theory to put to the test, but I am inclined to believe it holds. This is why I do not fear a North Korea or a Russia with nukes. People may act a bit strange at times, but these powerful leaders and dictators are not irrational. They enjoy their power and the favors they recieve for being in control. If one of them were to use a nuclear weapon, it would be the equivalent of committing suicide as as soon as they fire one, they know they have (well now 1500) nukes coming back at them. Using a nuke just does not become worth it.