SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsModerate Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: TimF who wrote (20749)1/24/2011 2:11:18 AM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
putting their 'power' ahead of the military security of the US on a treaty that was a DONE DEAL and one that would ensure a much healthier nuclear balance is almost treasonous

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20750)1/24/2011 10:56:09 AM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
They believe the treaty was against the security interest of the US.

I understand you think their wrong, but even if not ratifying the treaty would be harmful to the country (which is debatable itself), that doesn't mean they agree. They would have to completely agree about the harm for it to be even vaguely treasonous, and really it would have to be serious deliberate harm at the behest of or in cooperation with, or to serve the interest of, our enemies.

I understand that some on the right have thrown "treason", around all to easily, but that isn't any reason to do the same.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20751)1/24/2011 1:15:14 PM
From: Skywatcher
2 Recommendations   of 20773
 
they...stupid REPUBLICAN politicians trying to GRAB POWER...vs...
EVERY SINGLE MILITARY PERSON< EVERY SINGLE INTERNATIONAL EXPERT>
EVERY SINGLE STATE DEPARTMENT EXPERT...how without reservation have supported this treaty signing FOR YEARS
vs their sick GOP attempted power grab in order to EMBARRASS the US PRESIDENT for their own political BS....AND put the United States and the rest of the world into a much more nuclear situation

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20752)1/24/2011 3:21:08 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
vs...
EVERY SINGLE MILITARY PERSON


False

EVERY SINGLE INTERNATIONAL EXPERT

False

EVERY SINGLE STATE DEPARTMENT EXPERT

Probably false

And all irrelevant. Your appeal to (unspecific) authority is a weak argument anyway, like appeals to authority in general, but more to the point it is an argument that the people you are criticizing are wrong on this issue, not that they have the same opinion that you do, about how beneficial this treaty may be, but don't want it because of their own self-interest.

Not all the opponents have much in the way of self-interest on this issue. For those that do, that still doesn't mean they are lying, they could still be correct, or they could be wrong. If the later they could be honestly wrong. Self interest can help convince you of the general merits of some idea, without any dishonesty being involved, it would be bias, but not necessarily lying or acting deliberately against the interest of the country. I know you think they are wrong, but people often are wrong, while still being well-motivated.

And you haven't even established that the treaty is in the interests of the country. I haven't looked in to it enough to be sure, but the only argument you've made for it is one of the weakest types of arguments, an appeal to authority. X is Y because Z says its Y, as if experts on an issue (even when they do pretty much all agree which isn't the case here) could never be wrong.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20753)1/25/2011 1:06:22 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
THIS IS EVERYONE...except a FEW DICKHEAD AND QUESTIONABLE "American Republican" Senators

Testimony from Former Republican Officials in Favor of New START Ratification:

* Former Secretaries of Defense James Schlesinger and William Perry – Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 29, 2010.
* Former Secretary Henry Kissinger – Senate Foreign Relations Committee, May 25, 2010.
* Former Secretary of State James Baker – Senate Foreign Relations Committee, May 19, 2010.
* Former National Security Advisors Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley – Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 10, 2010.


National Security Experts Who Have Endorsed New START Ratification:

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, 1997-2001
Howard Baker, U.S. Senator (R-TN), 1967-85
Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor, 1997-2001
Dr. Barry Blechman, Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80; Commissioner, Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, 1998-99
Linton Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, 2002-07
Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense, 1977-81
Mark Brzezinski, Director of Southeast European Affairs, National Security Council, 1999-2001
Richard Burt, Chief START Negotiator, 1989-91
Frank Carlucci, Secretary of Defense, 1987-89
Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, 1993-97
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense, 1997-2001
John C. Danforth, U.S. Senator (R-MO), 1977-95
Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff,1988-89
Lieutenant General Robert Gard, U.S. Army (Ret), President of the National Defense University, 1977-81
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, U.S. Navy (Ret), Inspector General of the Department of the Navy, 1997-2000
Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator (R-NE), 1997-2009
Lee Hamilton, U.S. Congressman (D-IN), 1965-99
Gary Hart, U.S. Senator (D-CO), 1975-87
Rita E. Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute
Carla Hills, U.S. Trade Representative, 1989-93
Lieutenant General Dirk Jameson, U.S. Air Force (Ret), Commander of U.S. ICBM forces 1992-94; Deputy Commander-In-Chief of U.S. Strategic Command, 1994-96
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, U.S. Senator (R-KS), 1978-97
Thomas Kean, Governor (R-NJ), 1982-90; 9/11 Commission Chair
Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense, 1981-85
Richard Leone, President, The Century Foundation
Donald McHenry, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, 1979-81
Sam Nunn, U.S. Senator (D-GA), 1972-96
William Perry, Secretary of Defense, 1994-97
Thomas Pickering, Under Secretary of State, 1997-2000
Steven Pifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 2001-04
Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, 2001-05
Warren Rudman, U.S. Senator (R-NH), 1980-92
Wendy Sherman, Commissioner, Commission for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism; Special Advisor and Policy Coordinator on U.S. policy toward North Korea, 1997-2001
Alan Simpson, U.S. Senator (R-WY), 1979-97
George Shultz, Secretary of State, 1982-89
Theodore Sorensen, White House Special Counsel, 1961-63
John Whitehead, Deputy Secretary of State, 1985-88
Timothy E. Wirth, U.S. Senator (D-CO), 1987-93
Frank Wisner, Under Secretary of State, 1992-93



(Quotations compiled by National Security Network and Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation)

SUPPORT FOR RATIFICATION

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America’s military leadership—to include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our strategic nuclear deterrent. For nearly 40 years, treaties to limit or reduce nuclear weapons have been approved by the U.S. Senate by strong bipartisan majorities. This treaty deserves a similar reception and result-on account of the dangerous weapons it reduces, the critical defense capabilities it preserves, the strategic stability it maintains, and, above all, the security it provides to the American people.” [Secretary Gates, 5/13/10]

James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford and the Secretary of Energy for President Carter: “It is obligatory for the United States to ratify.” [James Schlesinger, 4/29/10]

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I am pleased to add my voice in support of ratification of the New START treaty and to do so as soon as possible. We are in our seventh month without a treaty with Russia.” [Admiral Mullen, 6/17/10]

Dr. James Miller, Principal Deputy Defense Undersecretary for Policy: “The New START Treaty is strongly in the national security interest of the United States. The Department of Defense fully supports the treaty.” [James Miller, 6/16/10]

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): “I support the New START treaty and believe that it will enhance United States national security.” [Senator Lugar, 4/29/10]

Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to President Nixon and Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford: “In deciding on ratification, the concerns need to be measured against the consequences of non-ratification, particularly interrupting a [bilateral arms control] process that has been going on for decades, the relationship to the NPT, and to the attempt to achieve a strategic coherence. And so, for all these reasons, I recommend ratification of this treaty…In short, this committee’s decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge.” [Henry Kissinger, 5/25/10]

Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Samuel Berger, Frank Carlucci, Chuck Hagel, John Danforth and many other prominent national security experts: “We, the undersigned Republicans and Democrats, support the New START treaty.” [30 Bipartisan Leaders via Partnership for a Secure America, 6/24/10]

BENEFITS OF THE NEW START AGREEMENT

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen: “The New START deals directly with some of the most lethal of those common challenges – our stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons. By dramatically reducing these stockpiles, this treaty achieves a proper balance more in keeping with today’s security environment, reducing tensions even as it bolsters nonproliferation efforts. It features a much more effective, transparent verification method that demands quicker data exchanges and notifications… In other words, through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States.” [Admiral Michael Mullen, 3/27/10]

Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush: “The New START Treaty makes its modest but nonetheless useful contribution to the national security of the United States and to international stability.” [Stephen Hadley, 6/10/10]

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu: “New START is an important part of President Obama’s nuclear security agenda. If ratified and entered into force, the treaty will commit the United States and the Russian Federation to lower levels of deployed strategic nuclear weapons in a transparent and verifiable way. This will increase stability between our countries, while demonstrating our joint commitment to a nuclear nonproliferation treaty.” [Secretary Chu, 6/17/10]

Former Secretary of State James Baker: “Although I am not an expert on the nuances of the proposed New START treaty, it appears to take our country in a direction that can enhance our national security while at the same time reducing the number of nuclear warheads on the planet. It can also improve Washington’s relationship with Moscow regarding nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles, a relationship that will be vital if the two countries are to cooperate in order to stem nuclear proliferation in countries such as Iran and North Korea.” [James Baker, 5/19/10]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “This is a treaty that if ratified will provide stability, transparency and predictability for the two countries with more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. It is a treaty that will reduce the permissible number of Russian- and U.S.-deployed strategic warheads to 1,550, a level not seen since the 1950s.” [Secretary Clinton, 6/17/10]

General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander: “I believe that there are three reasons why the New START agreement represents a positive step forward. First, New START limits the number of Russian ballistic missile warheads and strategic delivery vehicles that can target the United States. Second, New START retains efficient flexibility in managing our deterrent forces to hedge against technical or geopolitical surprise. And third, New START will re-establish a strategic nuclear arms control verification regime that provides access to Russian nuclear forces and a measure of predictability in Russian force deployments over the life of the treaty.” [General Chilton, 6/16/10]

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “The chiefs and I believe the New START treaty achieves an important and necessary balance between three critical aims. It allows us to retain a strong and flexible American nuclear deterrent. It helps strengthen openness and transparency in our relationship with Russia. It also demonstrates our national commitment to reducing the worldwide risk of a nuclear incident resulting from the continuing proliferation of nuclear weapons.” [Admiral Mullen, 6/17/10]

CONSEQUENCES OF NONRATIFICATION

General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander:

“If we don’t get the treaty, [the Russians] are not constrained in their development of force structure and…we have no insight into what they’re doing. So its the worst of both possible worlds.” [General Chilton, 6/16/10]

General Brent Scowcroft (Ret.), President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor: “The principal result of non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos.” [Brent Scowcroft, 6/10/10]

James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford and the Secretary of Energy for President Carter: Failure to ratify this treaty “would have a detrimental effect on our ability to influence others with regard to, particularly, the nonproliferation issue.” [James Schlesinger, 4/29/10]

Former Defense Secretary William Perry “If we fail to ratify this treaty, the U.S. forfeits any right to leadership on nonproliferation policies.” [William Perry, 4/29/10]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “The consequences of not ratifying this treaty would have very serious impacts on our relationship with Russia, and would frankly give aid and comfort to a lot of the adversaries we face around the world.” [Hillary Clinton, 6/17/10]

Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to President Nixon and Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford: “This START treaty is an evolution of treaties that have been negotiated in previous administrations of both parties. And its principal provisions are an elaboration or a continuation of existing agreements. Therefore, a rejection of them would indicate that a new period of American policy had started that might rely largely on the unilateral reliance of its nuclear weapons, and would therefore create an element of uncertainty in the calculations of both adversaries and allies. And therefore, I think it would have an unsettling impact on the international environment.” [Henry Kissinger, 5/25/10]

MISSILE DEFENSE

Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly: “The New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty’s constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas.” [General O'Reilly, 6/16/10]

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses.” [Sec. Gates, 6/17/10]

Commander of U.S. Strategic Command General Chilton: “As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans, operations, and advocacy, this treaty does not constrain any current missile defense plans.” [General Chilton, 6/16/10]

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Ash Carter: “Missile defenses have become a topic of some discussion in the context of the Senate’s consideration of the New START Treaty with Russia. The fact is that the treaty does not constrain the U.S. from testing, developing and deploying missile defenses. Nor does it prevent us from improving or expanding them. Nor does it raise the costs of doing so. We have made clear to our Russian counterparts that missile defense cooperation between us is in our mutual interest, and is not inconsistent with the need to deploy and improve our missile defense capabilities as threats arise.” [Flournoy and Carter via WSJ, 6/17/10]



Senate Hearings on the New START Treaty

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

July 15, 2010 – The New START Treaty: Maintaining a Safe, Secure and Effective Nuclear Arsenal – Witnesses: Dr. Michael R. Anastasio, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Dr. George H. Miller, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Dr. Paul J. Hommert, Sandia National Laboratories.

July 14, 2010 – The New START Treaty: Maintaining a Safe, Secure and Effective Nuclear Arsenal (Closed) – Witnesses: The Honorable Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary for Verification and Compliance, Department of State.

June 24, 2010 – The New START Treaty: Implementation – Inspections and Assistance – Witnesses: The Honorable James N. Miller, Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense; Kenneth A. Myers III, Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency and U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction.

June 24, 2010 – The New START Treaty: Benefits and Risks – Witnesses: The Honorable Robert G. Joseph, Senior Scholar, National Institute for Public Policy; The Honorable Eric S. Edelman, Distinguished Fellow Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Visiting Scholar Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced and International Studies (SAIS); Dr. Morton H. Halperin, Senior Advisor, Open Society Institute.

June 16, 2010 – The New START Treaty: Views from the Pentagon – Witnesses: The Honorable James N. Miller, Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense; General Kevin P. Chilton, USAF, Commander, United States Strategic Command; Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, USA, Director, Missile Defense Agency.

June 15, 2010 – The New START Treaty: The Negotiations – Witnesses: The Honorable Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Chief U.S. Negotiator in Post-START Negotiations, Department of State; The Honorable Edward L. Warner, III, Secretary of Defense Representative to Post- START Negotiations, Department of Defense.

June 10, 2010 – Strategic Arms Control and National Security – Witnesses: Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, USAF (Ret.), President, The Scowcroft Group; The Honorable Stephen J. Hadley, Senior Adviser for International Affairs, United States Institute of Peace.

June 8, 2010 – The New START Treaty: The Negotiations (Closed) – Witnesses: The Honorable Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Chief U.S. Negotiator in Post-START Negotiations, Department of State; The Honorable Edward L. Warner, III, Secretary of Defense Representative to Post- START Negotiations, Department of Defense.

May 25, 2010 – The New START Treaty: The Role of Strategic Arms Control in a Post-Cold War World – Witnesses: The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger, Former Secretary of State / Chairman, Kissinger McLarty Associates.

May 19, 2010 – The History and Lessons of START – Witnesses: The Honorable James A. Baker, Former Secretary of State / Former Secretary of the Treasury, Senior Partner, Baker Botts L.L.P.

May 18, 2010 – The New START Treaty – Witnesses: The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Department of State; The Honorable Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense; The Honorable Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

April 29, 2010 – The History and Modern Context for U.S.-Russian Arms Control – Witnesses: The Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Chairman of the Board MITRE Corporation / Former Secretary of Defense, Former Secretary of Energy, Former Director of Central Intelligence; The Honorable William J. Perry, Michael and Barbar Berberian Professor, Center for International Security & Cooperation, Stanford University / Former Secretary of Defense.

Senate Armed Services Committee

July 15, 2010 – To receive testimony on sustaining nuclear weapons under the New START (Open/Closed) – Witnesses: Dr. Michael R. Anastasio, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Dr. George H. Miller, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Dr. Paul J. Hommert, Sandia National Laboratories; Dr. Roy F. Schwitters, Chairman, JASON Defense Advisory Group, S.W. Richardson Foundation Regental Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin.

July 14, 2010 – Briefing on the National Intelligence Estimate on the verifiability of the New START (Closed) – Witnesses: Andrew M. Gibb, National Intelligence Officer for Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Intelligence Council.

June 17, 2010 – To receive testimony on the New START and implications for national security programs – Witnesses: The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Department of State; The Honorable Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense; The Honorable Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; The Honorable Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Week of July 12, 2010 – Briefing on the intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimate on the New START Treaty (Closed) – Witnesses: TBA. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Sen. Richard Lugar and former Sen. Sam Nunn, plus former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright, James Baker and Henry Kissinger.Former defense secretaries William Cohen and William Perry and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft
former Republican secretaries of state Lawrence Eagleburger and George Shultz join Baker, Kissinger and Powell in calling for bipartisan support. "Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers," the group notes.Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the nation’s top military officer, to approve the agreement.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20754)1/25/2011 3:43:45 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
No it isn't everyone, it isn't even vaguely close to everyone.

An accurate statement would be, "it has many prominent supporters from both parties".

But even if it was almost everyone (if it truly was everyone there wouldn't be any controversy, so "almost everyone" is the most even theoretically possible), that wouldn't make your case for you.

Your making multiple unsupported logical leaps. Assuming "almost everyone supports this" doesn't reasonable lead to the conclusion "this is a good idea". Assuming "this is a good idea" doesn't reasonably lead you to "the opponents of this are dishonest, they know its a good idea, but oppose it for selfish reasons only". And even assuming that last, that its only opposed for selfish reasons, doesn't equal "opposing this is treason", or even "almost treasonous". If every special interest objection to a good law, regulation or treaty, and every case of special interest support for laws, regulations, or treaties, that are against the general interest, was treason, the country would be loaded with traitors from all walks of life and from every political ideology or perspective.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20755)1/25/2011 8:33:17 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
ok, fine...you want the debate class in full session ok...
to me there is little doubt that ALL of these many many experts from both sides of the platform, way of life, job descriptions, etc. supported this treaty for many years. To me that is the world of diplomacy, military, state department, nuclear experts, etc. coming together as 'everyone' to support this treaty. And the clowns that tried at the last minute to gain attention, power, publicity, and all the while trying to embarrass the President and simultaneously putting the entire world BACK in to a more unstable nuclear position is outrageous...and the whole thing was ANTI AMERICAN interests.
done...I will leave it at that
I'm extreme on it...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20756)1/25/2011 8:45:14 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
Its not "putting the world back" to anything, at worst its a failure to improve the situation.

At best the treaty would allow for a marginal reduction in cost, and an even more marginal increase in safety. There will still be plenty of nuclear weapons, its not a ground shacking change. If it was, that would allow for a possible greater benefit, but would come with some serious risk as well.

At worst it makes the world more dangerous as arguably (depending on whose interpretation of the treaty you go by) it could harm anti-missile efforts, and possibly efforts to use dual capable weapons systems for conventional attacks. Also while the treaty covers the US and Russia, it doesn't cover other countries, so it brings us down to a level closer to them (but not IMO enough to be a very serious concern for now)

Even if your going to give no benefit of any doubt, and take the most extreme position about someone else's ideas and their reasons for them, "traitor" still doesn't make any sense. Positive or negative the treaty's effects will likely be so small that its not very sensible to consider either side to be in any way a traitor or near traitor just because of their position on this, even if the stated position is dishonest, and entirely for self serving reasons, while the holder of the position really believes the national interest would be the opposite position.

And of course you haven't provided any argument for your contention that the position of your opponents is even wrong, other than an argument from authority, and no argument at all for the idea that they actually believe the treaty would be of great benefit to the US, but they oppose it anyway. I suppose their might be a few (on both sides) of the issue who are acting like that, but it seems to me that generally both sides think their own position actually is in the general interest of the United States.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20757)1/28/2011 8:19:51 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
It would have made sure that all the nuclear materials in the soviet union would have been under little or no int'l supervision compared to the treaty...it would have made the world and the US a much more unsafe place

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20758)1/28/2011 10:47:58 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
Its not primarily a "supervise the ex-Soviet union's nuclear materials treaty." We've had agreements about that before, and we could have agreements about that without directly have this specific arms control treaty, or any tighter limit on strategic weapons. Also the actual monitoring involves a lot more ongoing agreement and working together than just some signature on a paper followed by ratification.

.it would have made the world and the US a much more unsafe place

That's false in at least two ways. The treaty itself won't make things much safer, and even if it somehow would have the lack of it wouldn't make things more dangerous it would leave things the way they where before/without the treaty. Even if the status quo is "dangerous", it still wouldn't be "more dangerous", or to use your words "much more unsafe".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10