The New START Agreement, and Why it Won't Work

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. righteousdude2

    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Oct 14, 2007
    Likes Received:
    I was looking at an associated press graphic on the number of nuclear warheads held by the top five nations. As of January 2009, Russia had 2,787 warheads; US had 2,202; France had 300; China had 186; and Britain had 160 warheads.

    The chart that shows these numbers was provided by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

    What I found interesting from the stats on the chart was that under the old START agreement both Russia and the US agreed to limit their warheads from 1,700 to 2,200 respectively. According to the 2009 chart, Russia was 587 warheads over the maximum limit of the START agreement, while the US was 2 warheads over that same agreement.

    The new START agreement will limit both Russia and the US to 1,500 to 1,675 warheads.

    This brings me to my question. What makes Obama believe that the Ruskies will live up to their end of the agreement, when they are currently 587 over the old maximum limit?

    While Obama aims to drop the number of US warheads, what is he going to do to make sure that Russia lives up to their end of the agreement when history has demonstrated that they couldn't comply to the maximum number in the old START.

    While the START agreements are all well and fine, it is risky business by our president to make a deal that removes another 375 nuclear warheads from our national arsenal.

    While it can be argued that the number of warheads held by all the nations in the top 5 is truly "overkill" should there ever be an outbreak of nuclear war, the rationale behind the US arsenal has always served as a deterrent, and nothing more.

    Obama is seriously depleting our ability to deter the notions of rouge nations and other power players around the world, and to agree to reduce our arsenal by another 375 nukes while the Russians have not complied in the past, is reckless and places America in the position of being even weaker in the eyes of those nations that want to see us destroyed.

    IMHO, I'd not have agreed to any more reductions until Russia fully complied, and we were able to verify this. Secondly, I'd not have agreed with Russia to reduce our nukes until Russia signed an agreement to stop enabling Iran and their nuclear weapon ambitions.

    What say you???​


    Pastor Paul :type:
  2. windcatcher

    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Apr 28, 2007
    Likes Received:
    The real question is ....... If you warehouse 1000 cars, all of whom were ready to run, fuel, oiled, lubed, coolant, new rubber, fresh batteries, at the time they were parked; how many do you expect are ready to run at a moments notice 50 years later?

    It is my understanding from reports heard and read, that neither Russia nor US have been maintaining all these 'cars'. If that is truely the case, then it becomes doubtful that the arsenals of either would be as effective as their numbers are on paper.

    Regarding Russia, there were reports some years back that after the economic dismantling of the USSR, some of their nuclear weapons, particularly some of their smaller and more easily transportable ones, were not sufficiently secured and that we were giving financial assistance to provide security. It was reported that numbers could not be verified and suspicion rose that several were missing.

    They may not be the only ones with security problems. A few years ago, a report leaked out how a military plane was flown from a base in the upper north west and made it as far as Mississippi or Lousianna, (I forget which) before being found out. Supposedly, there were so many procedures and protocols in place that only God could have moved that warhead that distance without being found out. Many questions were left unanswered but most esspecially the one about 'how?' when so many hoops and protocols would have had to be passed before even loading the bomb on the plane. Were there fraudelent orders? Were sign off sheets and documents looking official faked to appear real and not recognized as forgeries? What happened to those in line of responsibility? What happened to those who blew the whistle? If the DOD was involved in this set up, who was responsible for securing the oversight.... and who might have been involved in this 'operation'. And what was the intended purpose of the opperation? Was it a test of the military to discover holes and increase its own security? Or was there a more sinister plot afoot, which was tharwted which we may never know about?

    But, I agree.... how do we trust them, when agreements haven't been kept? And how do we trust our CIC, when it seems he's acting on his own agenda regarding taking our strength and prosperity away?
  3. rbell

    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Jan 16, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Paul...I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you; point is, I'm not sure. I believe in Reagan's mantra of "Peace through strength." But is the age of treaties behind us? Not are some thoughts:

    • Putin does scare the heck out of me...and they are still a concern...but I'm not even sure that Russia is our #1 threat anymore. Maybe, maybe not.
    • Russia may be a bigger threat--not because of their nuclear capabilities, but because of their security (or lack of it). Face it...they're surrounded by some pretty unsavory characters in some pretty scary locales (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbajan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.)
    • If we think China has 186 missles, we're crazy. They probably have 10 times that many...maybe more than that. And they're not going to tell us. Heck, we handed them the technology. Thanks, Bill Clinton. (Not to mention repeated pandering to the Communist Chinese by every D and R in power for quite a while)
    • The Muslim nuclear threat is bigger, IMO, than we think. If Pakistan destabilized to the level Afghanistan was at, an attack would be imminent.
    • Furthermore, even if treaties were signed...I trust most of these goons less than I did the Soviets (and no, I didn't trust them).
    • We can no longer negotiate with other world entities as Reagan did. We aren't financially on sound enough footing to do so. China could call our loans and just about bankrupt us.
    • Finally...we now see a day when significant threats exist to our nation's security from entities other than sovereign nations. That makes diplomacy, negotiating, defending, and intelligence-gathering much, much more difficult.
    Edited to add: As you can see, I really didn't make Obama an issue here...not sure how big an issue he is right now, other than the financial hole he's digging (OK, so that part is quite significant). But many of these problems existed before his election, and most (if not all) will be here when we send him home in 2012. :D
    Conclusion: It's gonna take someone a heckuva lot smarter than me to untie this Gordian knot. :tongue3:
    #3 rbell, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  4. billwald

    Expand Collapse

    Jun 28, 2000
    Likes Received:
    During WW2 every combatant country had poison gas but no one used it. I'm not losing sleep over nukes for the same reason.

Share This Page