START Treaty mini-roundup

[CosmicCowboy]

@ you accusing ME of relying on others to make my conclusions for me.

Only in "newspeak" is 18 > 28.

[Winehole23]

@CC:

So how did the Joint Chiefs all end up on the wrong side of this?

[CosmicCowboy]

@CC:

So how did the Joint Chiefs all end up on the wrong side of this?

I'm sure the Joint Chiefs would prefer this treaty over no treaty.

And the Joint Chiefs also serve at the pleasure of the President. It's not like there is any career future in saying that it sucks.

[EVAY]

I'm sure the Joint Chiefs would prefer this treaty over no treaty.

And the Joint Chiefs also serve at the pleasure of the President. It's not like there is any career future in saying that it sucks.

One of the reasons that the Joint Chiefs prefer this treaty to no treaty? No treaty (which we will have if the Kit Bonds of the world have their way) means ZERO inspections.

But I'm sure you know better than the Joint Chiefs, CC.

[MannyIsGod]

You are such an ignorant ass.

The old treaty provided for 28 annual inspections and the new treaty only calls for 18.

Check it out numbnuts. If anything needs to be pulled out of an ass it's your head.

Statistically does it matter?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not even going to attempt to make heads or tails out of any of this. As a civilian for almost 20 years now, I have such a small percentage of info as I used to have when I was in the nuclear theater. I have to say I find if useless for us normal citizens to discuss it in any meaningful way. Having so much more information available in the past, I know how pitifully little we, the public, really knows on the topic.

Steaming hot pile of bull right here. We have little information on specifics but specifics don't really matter when you're talking about strategic weapons who are mainly political in nature.

[Winehole23]

I'm sure the Joint Chiefs would prefer this treaty over no treaty.

And the Joint Chiefs also serve at the pleasure of the President. It's not like there is any career future in saying that it sucks.

Strong-armed by Obama. Pussies.

You do know this means you can never appeal to their authority again, after calling them all venal, careerist s. Right?

[Winehole23]

, I thought the republicans were gonna win in 2012. You saying the Joint Chiefs won't keep that long?

[RandomGuy]

@ you accusing ME of relying on others to make my conclusions for me.

Only in "newspeak" is 18 > 28.

under the original START treaty, there were 70 inspectable locations across the width and breadth of the Soviet Union, whereas today there are just 35 inspectable locations in Russia

18/35=51%

28/70=40%

51%>40%

This means that we can visit about half of the facilities during any given year, as opposed to 40% previously.

We don't need a similar level of inspections due to the smaller number of weapons and weapons sites.

This isn't "newspeak", it is basic math and introductory statistics. Sorry if that went over your head.

[CosmicCowboy]

18/35=51%

28/70=40%

51%>40%

This means that we can visit about half of the facilities during any given year, as opposed to 40% previously.

We don't need a similar level of inspections due to the smaller number of weapons and weapons sites.

This isn't "newspeak", it is basic math and introductory statistics. Sorry if that went over your head.

We don't have anything at those other sites.



Really.

Trust me.

[RandomGuy]

@ you accusing ME of relying on others to make my conclusions for me.

Only in "newspeak" is 18 > 28.

under the original START treaty, there were 70 inspectable locations across the width and breadth of the Soviet Union, whereas today there are just 35 inspectable locations in Russia

18/35=51%

28/70=40%

51%>40%

This means that we can visit about half of the facilities during any given year, as opposed to 40% previously.

We don't need a similar level of inspections due to the smaller number of weapons and weapons sites.

This isn't "newspeak", it is basic math and introductory statistics. Sorry if that went over your head.

We don't have anything at those other sites.



Really.

Trust me.

(sigh)

The nuclear arsenal of the old USSR is mostly gone. They have closed and cleaned up (well relatively cleaned up, this is Russia after all) a lot of those sites, some of which aren't even on Russian soil anymore, probably another fact that escaped your notice. We have current and constant satellite recon of the closed down sites on Russian soil as well, that you probably haven't seen.

If you are implying by your statement that Russia is hiding something in the "other 35 sites", you are doing so out of ignorance of the Russian nuclear arsenal.

If you are implying that randomly (HA) visiting half of the sites to pull and inspect during a course of the year is insufficient to determine compliance, you are doing so out of ignorance of statistics and intelligence methods.

Which brand of ignorance is it? I'm confused.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm confused.

Yep

[RandomGuy]

Yep

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do you think those other 35 sites might be active?

Or do you think that visiting half the available sites in a year is insufficient?

[Winehole23]

Why START's failure is a very big deal

Few governments will want to deal with Obama on anything that requires congressional approval

posted on November 26, 2010, at 12:00 PM


Once the Senate Republicans carry out their threat to block and kill the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) this year, the United States' ability to conduct foreign policy effectively throughout the world will be significantly weakened.

The treaty's failure has the obvious consequences of harming relations with Russia and potentially undermining cooperation on Iran, Afghanistan, and securing nuclear materials, and it will make it harder for all foreign governments to take political risks in negotiating future agreements with the United States. In addition to raising doubts about President Barack Obama's ability to win support for accords he has signed, the treaty's fate will show the world that every administration initiative, no matter what it is, will be subjected to constant opposition for narrow political ends. Contrary to most expectations, the recent midterm election results have not just had some impact on U.S. foreign policy, but also are immediately having an outsized, disruptive effect that seems likely to increase during the next two years.

Many foreign governments may decide that it is better to wait until after the next election before entering into serious negotiations with America over anything. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expended considerable political capital on negotiating the arms reduction treaty, and its defeat will be an embarrassment for him. Other foreign leaders will not want to expose themselves to the same risk, and will become much more reluctant to offer politically sensitive concessions. The results will satisfy neither hawkish interventionists nor conservative realists, and they are bound to horrify liberal internationalists. At a time when international summits are expanding to accommodate more major and rising powers and America cannot readily count on the support of other governments, the United States needs to have even greater credibility abroad. The treaty's opponents are making sure that America will have considerably less credibility than it already does, which worsens the chances of U.S.-directed collective action on any number of issues from proliferation to climate change to conflict resolution.

For their part, unilateralists will also have little reason to celebrate. For all of the nonsensical fretting hawkish administration critics have done about the "post-American" Obama, they are unwittingly hastening the emergence of the "post-American" multi-polar order that they loathe. American hawks want the United States to remain a European power and to exercise leadership through NATO, but treaty opponents are sabotaging an agreement that NATO and its member governments strongly endorse as important for their own security. Administration critics have been captivated by the false notion that Obama has been abandoning U.S. allies, but it is treaty opponents who will be leaving them in the lurch.

The administration's ability to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically will be undermined as Russian cooperation melts away, but according to the perverse logic of U.S.-Iran relations this will make confrontation more rather than less likely. As international support for Iran sanctions weakens, the more support there will be at home for harsher U.S. sanctions, and there will be a steady escalation of tensions that could break out into direct conflict. Even if one believes that the administration’s diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran have been badly misguided, as I do, the easing of international pressure on Iran makes it more difficult for the administration to consider a genuine policy of engagement.

To a large degree, the president has been operating on the assumption that the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy that prevailed after the end of the Cold War is stronger than the desire for partisan and ideological advantage. That no longer seems to be true. Despite myths to the contrary, American politics has never stopped at "the water's edge." U.S. foreign policy has long been subject to the pressures of partisan compe ion and opportunism, but the sharp divergence of foreign policy priorities of the leadership of the two parties and the willingness to exploit major foreign policy issues for purely political goals are relatively recent developments. This may be an unavoidable byproduct of the divisions over the Iraq war and the relative decline in American power, but it is something that threatens to introduce a new degree of volatility and instability into U.S. relations with other nations. Intense, reflexive opposition to President George W. Bush and President Obama may be the cause, but the United States will have to live with the effects of this instability long after they have been out of office.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/20...-very-big-deal

[RandomGuy]

Many foreign governments may decide that it is better to wait until after the next election before entering into serious negotiations with America over anything. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expended considerable political capital on negotiating the arms reduction treaty, and its defeat will be an embarrassment for him. Other foreign leaders will not want to expose themselves to the same risk, and will become much more reluctant to offer politically sensitive concessions. The results will satisfy neither hawkish interventionists nor conservative realists, and they are bound to horrify liberal internationalists. At a time when international summits are expanding to accommodate more major and rising powers and America cannot readily count on the support of other governments, the United States needs to have even greater credibility abroad. The treaty's opponents are making sure that America will have considerably less credibility than it already does, which worsens the chances of U.S.-directed collective action on any number of issues from proliferation to climate change to conflict resolution.

For their part, unilateralists will also have little reason to celebrate. For all of the nonsensical fretting hawkish administration critics have done about the "post-American" Obama, they are unwittingly hastening the emergence of the "post-American" multi-polar order that they loathe. American hawks want the United States to remain a European power and to exercise leadership through NATO, but treaty opponents are sabotaging an agreement that NATO and its member governments strongly endorse as important for their own security. Administration critics have been captivated by the false notion that Obama has been abandoning U.S. allies, but it is treaty opponents who will be leaving them in the lurch.

Why do Republicans hate America?

[Winehole23]

There is no political penalty for doing so if the electorate neither understands nor cares about START. Plus, it serves expedience to deny Obama everything, even accomplishments that are arguably in the broader national interest.

[Wild Cobra]

How many people trust this president and this congress to be smart bout treaties?

I most certainly do not.

[Winehole23]

We already knew that WC. Have you got any other take on the topic?

[Winehole23]

Reviving a verification mechanism for Russia’s arsenal introduces a degree of predictability and transparency to the management of the world’s two major nuclear arsenals, which avoids costly and debilitating arms build-ups in the future and builds up a measure of trust between both governments. It facilitates cooperation on securing nuclear materials that potentially pose a security threat to the U.S. and Russia. It allows the U.S. to reduce its deployed nuclear arsenal safely and without fear of weakening U.S. defenses, and that helps to eliminate unnecessary costs in maintaining the arsenal.

[Wild Cobra]

We already knew that WC. Have you got any other take on the topic?

I haven't thought enough about this quagmire. That's a topic that would give me headaches if I did.

[Winehole23]

Makes your head ache. It does mine, too.

[Winehole23]

I basically gather that CC is willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Rather than have a reduced rate of inspection for reduced stockpiles, he'd rather have no inspections at all.

Riposte?

[Winehole23]

What if the arms race is renewed in earnest, once cooperation on denuclearization ceases? Cooperation on Iran?

o?

[Wild Cobra]

What if the arms race is renewed in earnest, once cooperation on denuclearization ceases? Cooperation on Iran?

o?

Well, we do have neutron bomb technology. Just don't have any working models, unless we do and say we don't...

[Winehole23]

Non-sequitur, I think. Can you amplify?