- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
It's a crappy treaty. Well, not for the Russians.
screw the country, the gop cares for nothing but stopping obama, no matter the issue, now kyl has derailed the nuclear weapons treaty........
NYT: Arms treaty with Russia hits snag as GOP balks - Politics - The New York Times - msnbc.com
President Obama’s hopes of ratifying a new arms control treaty with Russia by the end of the year appeared to come undone on Tuesday as the chief Senate Republican negotiator moved to block a vote on the pact, one of the White House’s top foreign policy goals, in the lame-duck session of Congress.
What a partisan post.
President Obama wants it. It must be good. The Republicans don't want to vote on it during the lame duck session. They must be obstructionists.
Maybe the treaty sucks as relates to security for the United States of America?? Nah, can't be that. It's from Obama.
Because it reduces our strategic arms to parity with Russia without addressing, at all, Russia's 10-to-1 tactical arms advantage, while it pretty much forbids our development of missile defense. It treats the balance of power as though it were still the Cold War bi-polar days, where the USSR was the only major strategic threat, and doesn't at all take into account the different roles the US and Russia play in the world. We have global defense commitments; Russia doesn't.
We get nothing out of this treaty, yet we give up a lot. That's a crappy treaty.
Russia's 10-to-1 tactical arms advantage
screw the country, the gop cares for nothing but stopping obama, no matter the issue, now kyl has derailed the nuclear weapons treaty........
What precisely do we give up that is so important go on.
Also... he is just doing what Reagan did. If you remember.
Did they make a treaty with the Aliens before us and get an advantage from them because this is news.
Because it reduces our strategic arms to parity with Russia without addressing, at all, Russia's 10-to-1 tactical arms advantage, while it pretty much forbids our development of missile defense. It treats the balance of power as though it were still the Cold War bi-polar days, where the USSR was the only major strategic threat, and doesn't at all take into account the different roles the US and Russia play in the world. We have global defense commitments; Russia doesn't.
We get nothing out of this treaty, yet we give up a lot. That's a crappy treaty.
Oh, nothing much, just our strategic arms advantage and with it flexibility to adjust to rapidly-changing global threats, as well as the ability to develop missile defense. Getting nothing in return.
Yeah? Show that.
start 1 WAS reagan.
It may well be news to you.
seems mr kyl didn't think so until the balance of power changed. what we get out of the treaty is a reduction in nuclear weapons, which can't be bad, as we have more than enough to destroy the world as it is.
So what? That doesn't mean the terms of the treaties were remotely similar. Just because it shares an acronym it doesn't make it so.
No, please tell us the terms of the treaty and how it disadvantages us...
Oh, nothing much, just our strategic arms advantage and with it flexibility to adjust to rapidly-changing global threats, as well as the ability to develop missile defense. Getting nothing in return.
Yeah? Show that.
And my international security class with simulations of nuclear exchanges between Russia and the United states peer reviewed and performed by multiple sources. Please divulge the Russian advantage because I dont think they've had one since we were flying long range bombers in circles over the arctic to annihilate every ant in Russia since the 60s-70s at the drop of a hat.
No, please tell us the terms of the treaty and how it disadvantages us...
If this post wasn't completely partisan, The OP would have done her own homework.
It's simple math. :shrug:
These "simulations" are irrelevant to the point. And approaching this as though the Cold War dynamic is still at play is precisely the point. :roll: It's a very different world now.
Essentially you want to support the mythos that you can successfully create a shield by shooting a bullet with a bullet, or a laser...
Missile defense is not even in consideration in curriculum.
Also I didn't realize Russia wouldn't have to give up a single nuke.
dear maggie: this was posted in partisan politics, was it not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?