Cold War 1962 (above). Cold War 2010 by Matt Davies (below).
Pat Buchanan (an original Tea Party-type conservative Presidential candidate) blogged the following last week:
Is GOP Risking a New Cold War?
Before Republican senators vote down the strategic arms reduction treaty negotiated by the Obama administration, they should think long and hard about the consequences.
In substance, New START has none of the historic significance of Richard Nixon’s SALT I or ABM treaty, or Jimmy Carter’s SALT II, or Ronald Reagan’s INF treaty removing all intermediate-range missiles from Europe, or the strategic arms reductions treaties negotiated by George Bush I and Bush II.
The latter cut U.S. and Russian arsenals from 10,000-12,000 nuclear warheads targeted on each nation to 2,000 – a huge cut.
If Republicans could back those treaties, what is the case for rejecting New START? Barack Obama’s treaty reduces strategic warheads by 450, leaving each side 1,550.
Is this not enough to deter when we consider what the Chernobyl disaster did to the Soviet Union and what the knockdown of two buildings in New York has done to this country? Ten hydrogen bombs on the United States or Russia could set us back decades, let alone 1,000.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona is holding up the treaty until he gets more assurances that the administration will do the tests and upgrades necessary to maintain the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons. He should receive those assurances.
Maintaining the credibility of the U.S. deterrent is a vital national interest. But does this justify holding the treaty hostage?
Without a treaty, we lose our right and our ways and means to verify that Russia is carrying out the terms of arms treaties already agreed upon.
For more:
8 comments:
I think Buchanan has a point here. Understandably, Republicans want to keep our country safe, and one way to provide this security is a powerful military and a large nuclear arsenal. Anyone who favors the total abolition of nuclear weapons is in my mind an idiot. But there are certainly benefits to taking steps such as the START treaty. The article said it would take away 450 warheads from both U.S. and Russia and both nations would still have some 1500. That seems like plenty to keep our country secure. I doubt any nation in the world is going to mess with us when we still control 1500 nuclear warheads. But this step is also quite symbolic. It shows the world that we are ready to negotiate, that we are not simply a corrupt, power hungry country. As Buchanan pointed out, Russia will be more likely to cooperate with us on other important issues. We can help eachother with national problems like the war on terror. But furthermore, action like this sends a message to countries like Iran, who have long criticized our hypocrisy regarding nuclear weapons. Essentially, our policy on nuclear weapons has been "no one else can have them except us." By slowly dissolving our unnecessarily massive nuclear arsenal, they will be more likely to open up about about their own nuclear programs, since we are setting the example.
Yeah, I agree with John becuase I think for so long the USA has seemingly forced countries into signing these nuclear programs, stating that they will get rid of all of their weapons, but we get to keep ours. This is not the best compromise if you ask me, but I think by signing treaties and showing the US's flexibility for safety, we will be leading by example and show countries that it is more important to protect the safety of the innocent citizens of the countries rather than cause possible harm to people around the world.
If the Republicans in the Senate don't sign on with this treaty and it dies in the Senate, then America loses any power to tell Iran to stop its Nuclear program. This Treaty is a way to show the world that America is also willing to do the Global good of getting rid of nuclear weapons. When we start to get rid of our weapons, other countries will feel safe to do so also. The argument that this will put the country at risk is completely false, this treaty will reduce about 1/3 of our current nuclear arsenal, more than most if not all of the nations that have them.
Hopefully this treaty will be passed. If it is the moral standing of the US will be much better off. Also with countries like North Korea developing the ability to make nuclear weapons we need to start showing that they are not as important as they once were and that North Korea does not need to have them. Hopefully it will also open up more countries to reduce their nuclear arsinal, or atleast allow a better monitoring of the weapons.
If the United States does succeed in getting rid of their weapons, it may cause others to follow our example. However, it may also degrade our reputation as being one of the most powerful and advanced countries for nuclear power. Also, if we do get rid of our nuclear weapons, it will really help the government save money and possibly prevent the national debt from increasing by such a large amount. A compromise between these two would be the best option; have nuclear power, but in a way that will not ruin our economy.
yeezy 500 blush
yeezy boost 350 v2
nfl jerseys
paul george shoes
russell westbrook shoes
nike 95
timberlands
jordan shoes
lebron james shoes
nike shox for women
cheap jordans
jordan 4
curry 8
bape
golden goose superstar
kobe
balenciaga sneakers
canada goose jacket
pg 1
jordans shoes
b9e52m8o30 x7g36z7i05 j0w84b8b24 m6u60i4t42 o6u48s0w24 n8e82b8z25
Post a Comment