Nukes! Keep them!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 10:28 PM GMT
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/kyl-attempts-to-stop-start-treaty/66653/
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AE4C720101115

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/opinion/15wed1.htmlAfter 21 Senate hearings and briefings, the Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on Thursday on the New Start treaty. The first nuclear arms control agreement with the Russians in nearly a decade, it calls for both sides to reduce their deployed warheads modestly to 1,550 from 2,200. The treaty also will ensure that each country has continued insight into the other’s arsenal, with inspections and exchanges of information.

    If those reasons are not persuasive enough, consider this: Failure to ratify will undermine Washington’s credibility as it presses other wannabes — Iran and North Korea to start — to drop their nuclear ambitions.
    ...
    That hasn’t deterred Senators Jim DeMint and James Inhofe, Republicans who are among the treaty’s fiercest opponents. Jon Kyl, who isn’t on the committee, is leading the fight in the full Senate. More moderate senators, like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Judd Gregg and Scott Brown, have yet to declare their intentions.

    Critics claim that the treaty will limit America’s efforts to build missile defenses, pointing to a line in the nonbinding preamble about the “interrelationship” between offensive and defensive strategic arms and a provision in the treaty that bans the use of missile silos or submarine launch tubes to house missile interceptors.

    American commanders have no interest in using either that way. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says flatly that the New Start treaty will impose “no limits on us.”

    The critics — most loudly Mr. Kyl — also claim that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to “modernize” the nuclear weapons it retains. That is just flat out untrue. President Obama has pledged $80 billion over the next 10 years to sustain and modernize the nuclear complex — more than we think is necessary, especially at a time of huge deficits and two wars.


    So all the money potentially saved from fewer nukes is going into "modernizing" nukes (read: jobs for the defense industry). What more does Mr. Kyl want?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 2:45 AM GMT
    The clock still stands at six minutes to midnight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 3:40 AM GMT
    Well, if they don't subtract some minutes after this bill is rejected in the Senate, I don't know what will. (Short of Iran finally declaring that they have nukes, or a terrorist getting hold of a nuke and exploding it in a city).

    I think whatever alien spaceship is watching us should just give up on us, assuming there is such an alien spaceship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 7:30 PM GMT
    As ever, I'm pretty depressed that people ignored this thread. You all have your priorities wrong!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 9:42 PM GMT
    I personally think no one should have nukes. There is nothing worth fighting for that warrants the use of such weapons.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 9:51 PM GMT
    Not unless we have aliens we have to shoot down.icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 9:55 PM GMT
    And why is it that the same people that went ape sh*t over the 17b GM investment (which is about to issue the largest IPO in US history and net the govt money) aren't all up in arms about what is essentially a demand for and additional 4.9 billion dollars (on top of the 80b committed) to "modernize" our bombs. What do they need wifi? They blow things up, the technology to incinerate a million people at once really doesn't need "improvement IMO.