Will the Senate Ratify the Obama Nuclear Give-away?

[amicus]

It was 3 O’clock in the morning, (song), and I was still up watching, “Morning Joe”, on MSNBC and the scene, was some Russian City, and some Russian politician speaking in grand words about a new Treaty concerning Nuclear Weapons.

The Foreign Policy of this new Administration began with an apology to the entire world for American arrogance in global politics, Notwithstanding that it was American Military presence and power that kept the peace since the end of World War Two and virtually fed Europe, with the Marshall Plan, as they recovered from the ravages of war.

Then it was the snub of Israel, the only friendly Democracy in the Middle East in a Cairo speech and the welcoming of foreign tyrants into the White House as equals.

Thus it follows that an essentially unilateral nuclear disarmament which will weaken both the offensive and defensive capability of the United States, and will in effect neutralize any advantage that deterrence might have provided.

The drawdown of troops in Iraq, and the pre announced pull-out from Afghanistan has already enticed Terrorists to increase violence in preparation for a full advance as the US withdraws both strength and influence around the world.

It takes 67 of the 100 Senators to ratify a Treaty, only 59 are Democrats.

So, will, and perhaps, should, the Senate confirm this Treaty?

 

[Stella_Omega]

And while we are on that subject, allow me to heartily recommend the forum control plugin in my signature.

 

[amicus]

Y'all must be waiting for MSNBC and Chris Mathews to tell you what the talking points are, unless you really are that uninformed.

Oh, well....

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Demoncrats are setting the stage for a repeat of 1994.

Unfortunately plenty in the GOP would love to give Obama a smoooch like Gore gave Tipper at the 2000 Demoncrat Convention. Charlie Crist had to be forcefully removed from Obama's embrace.

 

[stephen55]

amicus @unreality.org

From amicus...

Thus it follows that an essentially unilateral nuclear disarmament which will weaken both the offensive and defensive capability of the United States, and will in effect neutralize any advantage that deterrence might have provided.

The real object of the treaty...

The agreement, signed yesterday by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, would require Washington and Moscow to both lower their respective strategic arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads and to cap their fielded nuclear delivery vehicles -- missiles, submarines and bombers -- at 700, with another 100 allowed in reserve. Under a 2002 agreement, the two nations had been required by 2012 to cut their deployed arsenals to no more than 2,200 weapons each.

so much for unilateral....

ami, isn't the truth a bitch.....?????
But fear not, for your fellow Randroids love you.

 

[TE999]

I expect Coca-Cola to resurrect it's 'I'd Love To Teach The World To Sing' commercial any day now. It's so appropriate given all the peace and love in the air.

Let's organize a group hug in the UN plaza. It's peace in our time.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The only purpose for nukes is MAD. Now that Russia and China are no longer 'implacable' enemies, who are we afraid of? Even assuming that Kim Jong Il is stupid enough to launch one of his few nukes, it would only take three or four of ours to obliterate all of N. Korea . . . or Iran . . . or . . . ? Somehow I suspect that 1,550 strategic weapons is probably sufficient.

 

[Pure]

ami, you really need to get out more often,

let's see; obama is planning, with the Joint Chief's ok, to disarm America.

Russia opposes terrorism, having undergone some, herself.

So is it that Obama is working for his Moscow bosses and opposing the terrorists,

Or, is Obama working for Bin Ladin and opposing Moscow.

Straighten us out.

--
Didn't Reagan, about 30 years back propose bilateral 1/3 reductions in nuclear arsenals, for US and Russian. That's what's been approved, in the real world, i gather.

 

[Pure]

Is it too late?

Is it too late?!! Only Fox and ami know for sure.

http://rt.com/Politics/2010-04-08/republicans-shoot-down-start.html?fullstory

//The partisan battle over the American president’s new nuclear initiative was best captured by Fox News during its coverage of Obama’s departure for Prague, the chosen venue for the historic signing between the two former cold war foes.

“President Obama heading for the Czech Republic as we speak,” started the Fox anchor, who spoke as if she were reporting on the sinking of the Titanic. “Set to sign a new nuclear pact with Russia. Now critics are asking: Will the new deal leave the US defenseless… until it’s too late?”//

 

[amicus]

announcing the new Nuclear Posture Review.

But skeptics say the policy change will only embolden those groups and tie the U.S.’ hands.

“I’m deeply concerned by some of the decisions made in the Nuclear Posture Review and the message this administration is sending to Iran, North Korea, and non-state actors who may seek to harm the United States or our allies,” Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, said in a written statement. “By unilaterally taking a nuclear response off the table, we are decreasing our options without getting anything in return and diminishing our ability to defend our nation from attack.”

“We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea,” said Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl in a joint statement.

“The Obama administration’s policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other would be proliferators and supporters of terrorism,” they said.

The White House nuclear strategy review released Tuesday concluded the Obama administration will narrow the circumstances in which the U.S. might launch a nuclear strike, will forego the development of new nuclear warheads and will seek even deeper reductions in American and Russian arsenals.

~~~

Not llong ago I watched a history review of former President Reagan's refusal to abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative, a nuclear defense strategy, in exchange for a Nuclear Arms reduction with the Soviet Union.

In this current Treaty, the question of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, battlefield size, used in regional conflicts, of which Russia has a huge number, was not addressed. Also not addressed was the continuing request of US Military officials to 'upgrade' an aging and in some cases, obsolete technology in both weaponry and delivery systems.

It seems Draconian:

Main Entry: dra·co·ni·an
Pronunciation: \drā-ˈkō-nē-ən, drə-\
Function: adjective
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Latin Dracon-, Draco, from Greek Drakōn Draco (Athenian lawgiver)
Date: 1775
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of Draco or the severe code of laws held to have been framed by him
2 : cruel; also : severe <draconian littering fines>

...to even question a reduction in nuclear arms as it would appear to be a good thing under any circumstances, but with the emergence of rogue States seeking Nuclear capabilities, it is imperative that the United States, as peacekeeper, maintains a clearly superior position in the ability to utilize every weapon in our arsenal to maintain order.

An aside, I am criticized from time to time for using words of which many are not cognizant; thus, the definitions....

Amicus Veritas...

 

[oggbashan]

Tom Clancy put a mutual nuclear weapon reduction treaty well in one of his novels, rather like this:

If we're facing each other with our guns drawn and full magazines, does it make the slightest difference if we take a few bullets out of the magazine and leave it two thirds full? We still have enough bullets to kill each other several times over.

The US and Russia will still have enough nuclear warheads to reduce both countries to a barren wasteland several times.

Og

 

[TE999]

In re: the nuclear treaty...Ronald Reagan once said "Trust but verify."

Trusting present-day Russia to any extent would be a grevious error. They have superficially embraced Capitalisim and Democracy, however the former Communist totalitarianism the country lived under since the revolution bubbles right below the surface awaiting it's chance to spring forth anew.

China owns so much of our national debt right now they wouldn't nuke us, they'd just foreclose. They wouldn't want to destroy their own property.

As far as the 'rogue' and radical Islamic nations go, they already know if they don't nuke us (or we can't trace where the bombs came from) they won't get nuked back. Will we use Chem/Bio warfare against them if they use it on us or just conventional weapons? Who knows.

India and Pakistan are too busy sparring with each other, which leaves Russia.

But it's 'peace in our time', so why worry?

 

[TxRad]

Tom Clancy put a mutual nuclear weapon reduction treaty well in one of his novels, rather like this:

If we're facing each other with our guns drawn and full magazines, does it make the slightest difference if we take a few bullets out of the magazine and leave it two thirds full? We still have enough bullets to kill each other several times over.

The US and Russia will still have enough nuclear warheads to reduce both countries to a barren wasteland several times.

Og

More like smoking radioactive holes for the next 3 or 4 million years.

 

[stephen55]

Oh my God!! We're all going to die.....

Not llong ago I watched a history review of former President Reagan's refusal to abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative, a nuclear defense strategy, in exchange for a Nuclear Arms reduction with the Soviet Union.

In this current Treaty, the question of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, battlefield size, used in regional conflicts, of which Russia has a huge number, was not addressed. Also not addressed was the continuing request of US Military officials to 'upgrade' an aging and in some cases, obsolete technology in both weaponry and delivery systems.

It seems Draconian:
...to even question a reduction in nuclear arms as it would appear to be a good thing under any circumstances, but with the emergence of rogue States seeking Nuclear capabilities, it is imperative that the United States, as peacekeeper, maintains a clearly superior position in the ability to utilize every weapon in our arsenal to maintain order.

An aside, I am criticized from time to time for using words of which many are not cognizant; thus, the definitions....

Amicus Veritas...

Thanks for the definition, ami. Without it I probably wouldn't have looked closer at you points.

Despite Iran's and North Korea's emerging nuclear power, I'm sure that 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads (the big babies) with 700 delivery vehicles (and 100 more in reserve) will keep rogue states on the defensive as opposed to the offensive. With Russia having the same strategic arsenal, the outlook for Iran or North Korea to go on the offense looks even more doubtful.

So far Iran hasn't tested anything nuclear (I'm sure they will) and North Korea's first nuke test was little more than a popcorn fart (one kiloton yield) compared to a strategic fusion warhead (up to 50 megatons). The Great Leader With Bad Hair now has tested another fission device with a 10 kiloton yield. (The Hiroshima bomb was about 20 kilotons yield). I'm not saying that a nuclear bomb in the hands of the RNK is a good idea. It's just prudent to keep the power of that bomb in mind. And so far, the RNK hasn't yet gotten beyond the test device stage. They don't have a nuclear bomb.

As for the role of the US as world peace keeper, outside of the US, that's not what a few billion people think about Uncle Sam. Like it or not, your thinking isn't shared by all. Think Iraq and you might be off to a good start. Think about what the place is going to be like after the peace keepers withdraw and you'll be well on your way.

I don't have any info on how many battlefield sized nukes the Russians have. Whatever it is, I'm sure that the US is right up there. The treaty is about reducing the stockpile of the big babies, the ones that can make an entire country's population disappear.

Finally, what does the US military officials' requests to upgrade old and obsolete stuff have to do with a treaty dealing with reducing nuclear stockpiles? Keep the new stuff and get rid of the old stuff. As for whats left, the 1,550 strategic warheads and 700 delivery vehicles, where in the treaty does it say that you can't fiddle with what you've got? You're talking apples and oranges here.

So much for Draconian.............

 

[amicus]

"...As for the role of the US as world peace keeper, outside of the US, that's not what a few billion people think about Uncle Sam..."

~~~

Since you seem erudite (shall I define that for you too?), in some areas, I will presume that you are propagandizing anti American rhetoric in the above quotation.

I did my young man's journey in 1970 and began in London where Limey's smiled and patted me on the back, 'Thanks Yank!"...I traveled through France and saw several white cross marked graveyards of thousands of American servicemen who died to Liberate France, North Africa and most of Europe.

The Chinese people still appreciate US and Australian servicemen who fought the Japanese on their soil and even Japan, prospered from the occupation and liberation and the lack of any intent to become a European style colonizing nation.

The people of South Korea are yet grateful, half a century later, for their liberation from the Communist North.

American military bases are welcomed and supported in over a hundred nations around the globe; all part of our global 'peace keeping' efforts since WW2.

I don't mind your cheap attacks on individual human liberty as exemplified by the United States of America who welcomed twelve million through Ellis Island from the sewer that was Europe, but I do mind your outright falsehood concerning the sacrifices made by Americans over the past half century to defend the rights of free men around the world.

America doesn't recieve much appreciation from the current generation of socialist apologists, but I'll be damned if you get off Scot free for your ignorance and hatred of all things American.

Oh, and I think it was Marshall Zhukov, when questioned about American food, machinery and weapons during WW2, "Yes, we eat American food and wear clothes made in America, and we are grateful; but the dead bodies killing Nazi's, are Russians..." (I paraphrase)

When the Brits and the French ran North after the American Revolution, we really should have followed up and annexed Canada. As you are, you are an embarrassment to free men everywhere.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

Since you seem erudite (shall I define that for you too?), in some areas, I will presume that you are propagandizing anti American rhetoric in the above quotation.

Methinks you presume too much.

Why should only the big boys have the big toys? Back in my salad days there was a guy by the name of Tom Lehrer, a professor of political science and mathematics at MIT, who was also a musical political satirist. He wrote this song titled Who's Next....

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
The Lord's our shepherd, says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?


The world is still here and despite Iran or North Korea, it'll still be here tomorrow. As for your presumption, a fair chunk of the world thinks that the US bungled Iraq badly. That's their opinion, not propaganda. It's also my opinion. It's what happens when you let a guy like Dubya have the keys. Does "Mission Accomplished" ring a bell?

 

[amicus]

Regardless of how studious one might be, or how long one devotes to the pursuit of knowledge, there are always areas where one is less educated than others.

There was an Iraq before either Bush held office, even an Iraq under British control. Before that, well, just how far back would you like to go? Persia, the Ottoman Empire, back to the inception of Islam and the creation of the Koran? Before that to the Jews and the Exodus from Egypt?

One might toss in the Crusades to spice up your Salad days and to illustrate that the Christian Muslim conflict, forget the Romans, has been going on for a fair stretch of time.

As Islam expands into the far corners of the world, it brings violence and subjugation to each and every society it infects; quite like Christianity in its' Missionary and save the savages stage, which still goes on.

To consider that the Middle East violence is anything other than a continuation of a long standing Religious War, is to speak from ignorance.

Your petty Bush hatred exposes your lack of grace and your lack of appreciation for the soldiers of forty nations that Liberated Iraq.

Religion is like the Plague, and infestation carried over from the Middle Ages and beyond, that needs to be cured.

Your anti war song writer dates you and places you in that particular frame of history when a new generation rejected an old generation without comprehending what achievements that older generation had accomplished.

A forgiveable error, but not with your hubris, and I am not God, I do not forgive.

Amicus

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Iran wants a bomb because they're terrified what happened in Iraq will happen to them. I'd be thinking exactly the same in their shoes.

 

[amicus]

Iran wants a bomb because they're terrified what happened in Iraq will happen to them. I'd be thinking exactly the same in their shoes.

~~~

I am sure all the women in Burka's agree, even those no longer with us through 'honor killings'. There are indications of a rather large resistance movement to the current ruler, perhaps even to the religious dictatorship of Muslim rulers.

Ya never know, people reach out for freedom all over the world and in the strangest places.

(Did you know that women can vote in Iraq now and that twenty five percent of the Parliament, or whatever they call it, is female? jes wonderin')

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

Regardless of how studious one might be, or how long one devotes to the pursuit of knowledge, there are always areas where one is less educated than others.

There was an Iraq before either Bush held office, even an Iraq under British control. Before that, well, just how far back would you like to go? Persia, the Ottoman Empire, back to the inception of Islam and the creation of the Koran? Before that to the Jews and the Exodus from Egypt?
-

Your petty Bush hatred exposes your lack of grace and your lack of appreciation for the soldiers of forty nations that Liberated Iraq.

Religion is like the Plague, and infestation carried over from the Middle Ages and beyond, that needs to be cured.

Your anti war song writer dates you and places you in that particular frame of history when a new generation rejected an old generation without comprehending what achievements that older generation had accomplished.

A forgiveable error, but not with your hubris, and I am not God, I do not forgive.

Amicus

Just a counter point on "W's" Liberation of Iraq.

The stupid dip shit destroyed the most effective counter we had to militant Islam when he removed Saddam. A secular Iraq, armed to the teeth, kept the Iranians worried for years. Of course the Saudis got a little worried after the Gulf War, so who do they call, you guessed it, Good old George.

So talk all the shit you want but don't disrespect the reality of the situation, George W. Bush was a disastrous President, because all he had was Hubris and nothing to back it up with.

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

I am sure all the women in Burka's agree, even those no longer with us through 'honor killings'. There are indications of a rather large resistance movement to the current ruler, perhaps even to the religious dictatorship of Muslim rulers.

Ya never know, people reach out for freedom all over the world and in the strangest places.

(Did you know that women can vote in Iraq now and that twenty five percent of the Parliament, or whatever they call it, is female? jes wonderin')

Amicus

Change the channel, numbnuts, women don't vote in Iraq.....and learn what the 'Parliament' is called in Iraq.....Jeez, yer stupid......can't fix it......

 

[Dragonlipz]

In re: the nuclear treaty...Ronald Reagan once said "Trust but verify."

Trusting present-day Russia to any extent would be a grevious error. They have superficially embraced Capitalisim and Democracy, however the former Communist totalitarianism the country lived under since the revolution bubbles right below the surface awaiting it's chance to spring forth anew.

China owns so much of our national debt right now they wouldn't nuke us, they'd just foreclose. They wouldn't want to destroy their own property.

As far as the 'rogue' and radical Islamic nations go, they already know if they don't nuke us (or we can't trace where the bombs came from) they won't get nuked back. Will we use Chem/Bio warfare against them if they use it on us or just conventional weapons? Who knows.

India and Pakistan are too busy sparring with each other, which leaves Russia.

But it's 'peace in our time', so why worry?

Goddam, but yer a genus down there in Alabammy.......

 

[amicus]

Just a counter point on "W's" Liberation of Iraq.

The stupid dip shit destroyed the most effective counter we had to militant Islam when he removed Saddam. A secular Iraq, armed to the teeth, kept the Iranians worried for years. Of course the Saudis got a little worried after the Gulf War, so who do they call, you guessed it, Good old George.

So talk all the shit you want but don't disrespect the reality of the situation, George W. Bush was a disastrous President, because all he had was Hubris and nothing to back it up with.

~~~

It's the Sunni in Iraq and the Shia in Iran, wherein the conflict lies and Hussein was a brutal dictator if you have forgetten. The Saudi's are Wahabi's and that too adds to the mixture. Oh, yes, and Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds in the Northern Provinces, if memory serves, and since you liked his reign, I guess that says something about you.

The Saudi's are using billions of Petro dollars to spread Islam throughout Africa and Asia, so the fun has just begun, no matter which way you look at it.

The US and others have been burned in such places as Beirut, by Muslems, in Bosnia while defending Muslims, in Somalia by Muslims, in the Twin Towers, by Muslems, so suffered to those in Spain and London, by those self same Islamics who are out to conquer the world.

I personally never liked either of the Bush's, I perceived them as weak, pathetic and unaware of the basic principles of human freedom or economic freedom, but then, one has to consider the alternatives, the Looney Left, always waiting in the wings.

The two thousand plus year old Muslim/Christian conflict, thanks to oil revenue, has finally spilled out of the middle east and the entire world will suffer, regardless of who is at the helm in the US or the UK.

Such is life...

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

I don't want to confuse Amicus with facts but I thought even he would know that his statement is wrong:

It's the Sunni in Iraq and the Shia in Iran, wherein the conflict lies and Hussein was a brutal dictator if you have forgetten.

The majority in Iraq are SHIA. Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party were SUNNI and PART of a minority. The Kurds are another minority. The hope for Iraq is that the people are beginning to think beyond their religious groupings to a government for ALL Iraqis.

Og

 

[stephen55]

Let's do the Randroid Rant.....again!!

amicus,

I said that Dubya (the US) bungled Iraq. Along with Cheney and Rumsfeld, Dubya went in without a proper game plan. He went in for both incorrect and fictitious reasons. (al Qaeda was in Iraq, and they had weapons of mass destruction.) He wanted regime change in Baghdad but he began without considering the end, thus totally fucking up the end game. "Mission Accomplished!!"

He went in on March 20, 2003. It's now Apr. 2010. How many lives, how many wounded, how much money and how much turmoil has this cost?
How much damage to America's international image has this created?
How many more radical Islamic jahidists are now willing to strike back?
Is America safer now or more at risk?
When the US and everybody else withdraws from Iraq next year (if they do), are the Iraqi people going to be any better off?


Your petty Bush hatred exposes your lack of grace and your lack of appreciation for the soldiers of forty nations that Liberated Iraq.

Don't you ever get tired of doing the Randroid Rant?

I don't hate Bush (Dubya). I never said I hated Bush (the Dubya version). I implied he is an idiot. But if you want clarification...George W. Bush is an idiot.Your Objectivist refusal to consider the possibility of any reality existing between your preconceived two extremes, is getting old. Your Objectivist creation of straw men to be burned by your Randian pseudo-philosophy is why most here consider you a joke. You're not a dolt but you are an Intellectual Moron. For someone who praises the freedom of individual reason, your continued slavish adherence to Ayn Rand's cult of personality might make you look like a sycophant, except Rand was neither powerful or influential. She was nothing but a chain smoking writer of tedious fiction who was minimally effective at getting the blinkered to follow the self-blinded. She was a typical cult leader of a typical cult. Her principle command was, "Think and do as I say, lest you be excommunicated."

You're a Randroid. I forgive you. Just don't expect any sympathy.