Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

START and my objections:

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 8:37:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
First, i have less care about the reduction of the US nuclear arsenal, than other aspects of the treaty and the motives for it.

- I deem it inappropriate to ratify a long term treaty during a lame duck session of congress.

- It is absurd to have a stipulation that missile defense technology research development and deployment by the US must be approved by the Russians and the international community. By the way, we are the only side that has this stipulation.

- The reason for the treaty being so lopsided in favor of the Russians is in the hopes that they will be on board when we are dealing with Iran, North Korea and other possible US threats. I think that a fragile hope.

- Is this necessary? I don't think it is. If we wish to reduce our arms, we needn't do so within the confines of a treaty. I am generally skeptical of any treaty.

There is really nothing in this treaty that points to better relations for the US with Russia, and i am unsure of why that would be an advantageous goal anyway. I'm not looking for them as enemies, but i don't see why we are looking like a subordinate in this negotiation in the hopes they will look more favorably upon us.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 9:20:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 8:37:26 AM, innomen wrote:
First, i have less care about the reduction of the US nuclear arsenal, than other aspects of the treaty and the motives for it.

- I deem it inappropriate to ratify a long term treaty during a lame duck session of congress.

- It is absurd to have a stipulation that missile defense technology research development and deployment by the US must be approved by the Russians and the international community. By the way, we are the only side that has this stipulation.

- The reason for the treaty being so lopsided in favor of the Russians is in the hopes that they will be on board when we are dealing with Iran, North Korea and other possible US threats. I think that a fragile hope.

- Is this necessary? I don't think it is. If we wish to reduce our arms, we needn't do so within the confines of a treaty. I am generally skeptical of any treaty.

There is really nothing in this treaty that points to better relations for the US with Russia, and i am unsure of why that would be an advantageous goal anyway. I'm not looking for them as enemies, but i don't see why we are looking like a subordinate in this negotiation in the hopes they will look more favorably upon us.

We are subordinates, now. Or, at least that what it seems like. It's not just us, but many European countries as well. Sad state of world affairs.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 1:01:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 8:37:26 AM, innomen wrote:
- Is this necessary? I don't think it is. If we wish to reduce our arms, we needn't do so within the confines of a treaty. I am generally skeptical of any treaty.

meh. if we reduce our arms while all other countries do not, we make ourselves vulnerable to attack. oddly though, according to at least one source i've seen, we already have a lot more nuclear weapons than russia... i guess we want to be sure they are not stockpiling them while we are reducing our stocks.

as for the restrictions on R&D, that sounds pretty ridiculous, but i don't really know enough about the details to say anything intelligent.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 1:22:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 1:01:49 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/22/2010 8:37:26 AM, innomen wrote:
- Is this necessary? I don't think it is. If we wish to reduce our arms, we needn't do so within the confines of a treaty. I am generally skeptical of any treaty.

meh. if we reduce our arms while all other countries do not, we make ourselves vulnerable to attack. oddly though, according to at least one source i've seen, we already have a lot more nuclear weapons than russia... i guess we want to be sure they are not stockpiling them while we are reducing our stocks.

as for the restrictions on R&D, that sounds pretty ridiculous, but i don't really know enough about the details to say anything intelligent.

I agree . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 1:44:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 1:01:49 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/22/2010 8:37:26 AM, innomen wrote:
- Is this necessary? I don't think it is. If we wish to reduce our arms, we needn't do so within the confines of a treaty. I am generally skeptical of any treaty.

meh. if we reduce our arms while all other countries do not, we make ourselves vulnerable to attack. oddly though, according to at least one source i've seen, we already have a lot more nuclear weapons than russia... i guess we want to be sure they are not stockpiling them while we are reducing our stocks.

as for the restrictions on R&D, that sounds pretty ridiculous, but i don't really know enough about the details to say anything intelligent.

They're a lot bigger. One of the often missing components to MAD is not the first or second strike advantage, but rather the third, fourth etc. Sounds crazy i know, but this is what it is based on. SDI would disrupt that whole thing.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 2:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
MAD is always going to be MAD, I can see taking nukes off hair trigger but both sides will still maintain thousands of them, whether on subs or bombers or in silos.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler