WASHINGTON – Despite near gridlock in the Senate, Republicans were expected to swing behind a new arms control treaty with Russia that President Barack Obama said they will like, even though some are reserving judgment until Obama can assure them the pact won't set back U.S. defenses against other potential foes such as North Korea and Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_ … _us_russia
Wow...I will be very surprised if that happens. Standing with the president?
hmmmmm, what gives?
There has got to be some underhanded motive for this.
What's in it for the Republican Party?
That' all you need to ask where they're concerned...what's in it for them?
If missle defense systems are part of this treaty it will not be ratified by Congress.
Maybe a compromise will be met. Just a thought.
TREATY ADVANCES OBAMA'S NUCLEAR VISION
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world … amp;st=cse
Here's the NYT take on the treaty:
Mr. Obama’s Nuclear Policy
Published: April 6, 2010
President Obama has spoken eloquently about his vision of a world without nuclear weapons. It is a lofty goal that will not be achieved during his presidency — or for years after that. But in a very dangerous time, he is taking important steps to make the world safer and bolster this country’s credibility as it tries to constrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran, North Korea and others.
Two decades after the end of the cold war, the United States and Russia still have a combined total of more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama has revived arms control negotiations, and later this week, he and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia will sign a new agreement (the first since 2002) that will reduce the number of strategic warheads each side has deployed from 2,200 to 1,550.
On Tuesday, Mr. Obama released his Nuclear Posture Review. It does not go as far as it should, but it is an important down payment on a saner nuclear policy.
The document substantially narrows the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. The last review — done in 2002 by the George W. Bush administration — gave nuclear weapons a “critical role” in defending the country and its allies and suggested that they could be used against foes wielding chemical, biological or even conventional forces.
The new review says the “fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States and its allies, and it rules out the use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries, even if they attack the United States with unconventional weapons.
There is an important caveat. That assurance only goes to countries that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which leaves out North Korea and Iran. It would have been better if Mr. Obama made the “sole” purpose of nuclear weapons deterring a nuclear attack. No one in their right mind can imagine the United States ever using a nuclear weapon again. America’s vast conventional military superiority is more than enough to defend against most threats.
This formulation seems mainly intended to deter hard-line critics on Capitol Hill. But any loophole undercuts Washington’s arguments that nonnuclear states have no strategic reason to develop their own arms.
Mr. Obama has wisely made the prevention of nuclear terrorism and proliferation a central strategic priority. And the administration has rightly decided to lead by example. We were especially encouraged to see the review’s statement that the country “will not develop new nuclear warheads.” There is still some wiggle room, which we hope is not exercised. New nuclear warheads are not needed.
The review commits to pursuing further arms reductions with Russia. And it says that future talks must also focus on cutting back the 15,000 warheads, in total, that the United States and Russia keep as backup — the so-called hedge — and short-range nuclear weapons.
The United States has 500 tactical nuclear weapons, which are considered secure, but Russia has 3,000 or more that are far too vulnerable to theft. Any agreement will take years to complete, and Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev should start talking now. The review also commits to talking to China about its arsenal.
Mr. Obama has committed to maintaining the safety and security of America’s nuclear stockpile. He has already backed that up with an extra $624 million in next year’s budget for the nuclear labs and promised — far too generously, in our view — an additional $5 billion over the next five years to build up their aging infrastructure. Mr. Obama has also promised support for more advanced conventional arms.
None of those measures are likely to quiet his critics, who already are charging that Mr. Obama is weakening America’s defenses. They will likely get even louder when it comes time to ratify the New Start treaty with Russia and the long-deferred Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The stakes for this country’s security are high. And most Americans aren’t paying attention. Mr. Obama has a strong argument. He will need to push back hard.
Excellent start; maybe Republicans are figuring that their strategy of freezing the Democrats out is not working. I, too, am sceptical because their Tea Party base will soon start squealing. The whole thing about keeping all of these nukes is ridiculous, of course. If anyone drops one, the rest of us are toast. I thought they figured that out during the cold war. Anyway, the world needs to do some serious planning about what to safely do with all of the nuclear waste, yesterday.
A treat to our security ?
The Chinese are building their armies and are increasing the submarine fleet at a rapid pace.
Should we be alarmed ? Just imagine a submarine fleet off our coast with nuclear missiles.
We made a treaty with Russia, a ally of china, Iran and whoever. The world is getting smaller day by day. Let's not fool ourselves, we do have enemies waiting for us to fall asleep.
This report just in live from Bizarro Superman World:
"maybe Republicans are figuring that their strategy of freezing the Democrats out is not working"
"If anyone drops one, the rest of us are toast"
People who have thought the subject through just a liiiiiiiittttttllllle bit further than that recognize the value of deterrence.
by OLYHOOCH6 years ago
I don't know about all of you, but, I think the time has come for a Bill like this.If we had this Bill in action now, we could be talking about something else, like, what ever???? OKLAHOMA CITY — Investigations have...
by fishskinfreak20088 years ago
So President Obama's approval rating after one month is...only 68%. Our expectations of him on Inauguration night were too high. His approval rating back on Jan. 20 was around 80%.
by Susie Lehto7 days ago
"The tables have turned and what was once the media’s favorite message — President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election — has now grown silent.Apparently, it’s Bill and Hillary Clinton...
by Joelipoo5 years ago
Did anyone hear President Obama mention how he cannot wait to be reelected because "after my election, I will have more flexibility"? He said this to the Russian President when he might have though the...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
New WSJ/NBC poll is positive news (for some of us).Seems those like Ms. Habee who have been calling for the voice of moderation, a meeting the middle, are seeing Obama as seeking to bring far left and far right to the...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.