New "START" Treaty on Nuclear Arms Reduction

[rambone]

START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, is a US-Russian treaty that Obama & Medvedev signed in April. It is a new version of a treaty that GHWB signed in 1991. The treaty awaits approval by the Senate.

Is it a good thing? Does it make the world safer? Is it just an inflated type of Gun Control with the same effects?


Will the Senate ratify START treaty before New Year?

New START - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RichardR]

We sign these stupid treaties with various nations all of the time, yet we are the only one's who ever hold up their side of the treaty, every other country either completely ignores or purposely cheats on their obligations.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, if it removes nuclear warheads from the arsenals of both countries I have zero problem with it. It has verification built in, like last time so that's a good start. Maniacal politicians shouldn't have access to large numbers of weapons like this. They're too likely to use them. So, I'll go with a good thing.

 

[Compatriot G]

Well, if it removes nuclear warheads from the arsenals of both countries I have zero problem with it. It has verification built in, like last time so that's a good start. Maniacal politicians shouldn't have access to large numbers of weapons like this. They're too likely to use them. So, I'll go with a good thing.

Well, "maniacal" politicians have had access to large numbers of these weapons for the last 65 years and they have only been used twice.

Signing treaties with the Soviets(oops, I mean "the Russians") does nothing to make the world safer. Places like Pakistan and North Korea still have nukes and have no qualms about sharing this technology with whoever is the highest bidder. The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle since WWII. It isn't going back in the bottle.

If we truly want to be safe, we need to make sure that every nation on the Earth understands that attacking the U.S. will bring the full weight of the U.S. military raining down on top of them. This includes raining hellfire on them, if necessary.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Well, if it removes nuclear warheads from the arsenals of both countries I have zero problem with it. It has verification built in, like last time so that's a good start. [STRIKE]Maniacal politicians [/STRIKE] Gun owners shouldn't have access to large numbers of weapons like this. They're too likely to use them. So, I'll go with a good thing.

FTFY (Of course its a red herring. I thought I'd use your flawed logic once.)

Manical politicians? Like who? Doctor Evil?

YouTube - Austin Powers - 100 billion dollars

 

[mrjarrell]

FTFY (Of course its a red herring. I thought I'd use your flawed logic once.)

Manical politicians? Like who? Me ?

There, FTFY. (Fix your own words. Leave others alone if you have nothing of your own).

The maniacal politicians would be the same ones who've kept us in a near perpetual state of warfare for the last 40 years. None of them, (or even the semi-sane ones) need to have weapons like this at their command. All this treaty will do is reduce the number of warheads. Not eliminate them. Guess having enough to destroy the planet 5 times over isn't enough for people like you. We can do with a lot less of these things in the arsenal.

 

[lashicoN]

I, for one, think we should be able to destroy Earth at least six times over. Five sounds wimpy and then the aliens would know we're weak.

 

[ghostinthewood]

The last two posts are made of win.

I believe Luger is a great politician. Of course, the new train of thought (or at least its been revived) is that he reaches across the isle so he must be a communist (or a nazi/socialist/zombie/whatever the cool kids are saying). So I can't trust him. I bet they're just going to sell all of our warheads to Pakistan and Iran.








If you're having problems deciphering my post, PM me for a sarcasm decoder ring.

 

[firehawk1]

Man some of you really amuse me.

Now the Commander in Chief shouldn't have control over the weapons in the US arsenal cause HE's a politician? Maybe a maniacal one? If not the "politicans" then who? Those evil military commanders?

These weapons have been in existance for 65 years and other than the 2 dropped on Japan have sat and done nothing. But SOME are afraid of some kook suddenly launching them? I'll stick with my previous assesment, PARANOID!

PS And isn't this one of those "entanglements" we are not supposed to be involved in? Kind of sounds hypocritical to me.

 

[rjstew317]

Man some of you really amuse me.

Now the Commander in Chief shouldn't have control over the weapons in the US arsenal cause HE's a politician? Maybe a maniacal one? If not the "politicans" then who? Those evil military commanders?

These weapons have been in existance for 65 years and other than the 2 dropped on Japan have sat and done nothing. But SOME are afraid of some kook suddenly launching them? I'll stick with my previous assesment, PARANOID!