Wrong at the START
Tags: nuclear weapons.
Seems our liberals in the Obama Administration have no clue about the current state of the world:
U.S. and Russian negotiators have reached an “agreement in principle” on a successor to the decades-old START treaty that expired last year, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.
The deal would reduce the number of actively-deployed nuclear warheads from 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675, and the number of possible delivery vehicles — from missiles to submarines and bombers — would fall to between 700 and 800 per side.
“There may be finessing and fine-tuning, but the issues, from our perspective, are all addressed,” said Rose Gottemoeller, the Obama administration’s lead negotiator on the treaty.
The basic structure of the deal was reportedly approved last week during a phone conversation between President Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. The final drafting could take two months, officials said.
Why are we even doing this? START had its place in history – as a means of dealing with the old USSR and the over large stockpile of nuclear weapons we had built to confront that dead entity. Now things are different, and entering in to nuclear weapons agreements with Russia is as absurd as reviving the naval limitations treaty between the US, UK and Japan from the 1920’s. Why are liberals this obtuse?
What we need to be doing, now, is building (and testing) a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to confront the rising challenge of China – and the prospect of a series of Third World dictatorships obtaining nuclear arsenals. Our efforts should be geared towards the means of having a first-strike capability against such nuclear forces coupled with the ability to defend ourselves against any response. But here we are, negotiating treaties with Russia as if its still 1986!
As I noted in Developing a New American Foreign Policy, it is time for us to discard the failed foreign policy of the past and build a policy which actually serves American interests. Writing up pointless agreements with Russia about nuclear weapons is stupid, foolhardy – in short, just what we could expect from an Administration stocked with liberals.
Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
25 Responses to “Wrong at the START”
Caucus of Corruption
Mark
Why are we even doing this? START had its place in history – as a means of dealing with the old USSR and the over large stockpile of nuclear weapons we had built to confront that dead entity. Now things are different, and entering in to nuclear weapons agreements with Russia is as absurd as reviving the naval limitations treaty between the US, UK and Japan from the 1920’s. Why are liberals this obtuse?
we all tried to say a three word resume, 2 minutes in the US senate, never ran a lemonade stand, and was an A.A. protege empty suit would never hack it in the big time……and he AINT Catastrophically!!
“What we need to be doing, now, is building (and testing) a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to confront the rising challenge of China – and the prospect of a series of Third World dictatorships obtaining nuclear arsenals. Our efforts should be geared towards the means of having a first-strike capability against such nuclear forces coupled with the ability to defend ourselves against any response.”
Mr. Noonan,
Are you kidding me? You want more advanced nuclear weapons?! And you want them tested as well? How many times? Where? There’s not enough now in possession to destroy the world several times over?
Just to clue you in, in WW2 two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, and guess what, not only military targets were destroyed but a significant part of the populace as well. Yes, we’re talking about men, women and children.
I’ll bet some female victims were pregnant at the time the bombs were dropped. That’s one hell of a lot of abortions.
And you support more advanced (more lethal) weapons of that type? Of course you do, because you’re pro life aren’t you?
Yes, and we dropped fliers on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki for about a week, warning them to get the hell out of Dodge before we dropped the bombs.
And yes, we do need better technology, we need the best technology available on the planet. Because whether we do or don’t, you can bet that the people in this world that would like to see us all DEAD…and that means you treehugging hippie peaceniks too…are going to get the best technology they can.
And in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past couple of decades, I think our enemies have shown that they will have no qualms about using those weapons.
Innocents die in wars, and innocents were killed in Japan. But if I have to choose between innocent Americans dying and innocents in enemy countries, I’m gonna choose Americans.
“And in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past couple of decades, I think our enemies have shown that they will have no qualms about using those weapons.”
Where else were those weapons used during warfare? Any answers?
“But if I have to choose between innocent Americans dying and innocents in enemy countries, I’m gonna choose Americans.”
You’re going to chose “Americans dying” as opposed to innocents in other countries dying? How generous, I’ll bet your “patriotic” brethren will like that one. Don’t bother responding to your faulty statement by saying, “but what I mean was…” I know what you meant. “All men are created equal”… doesn’t ring a bell does it?
“But if I have to choose” – Well, It’s good to know that you must be God right?
Apologies. This is what happens when I have to change a diaper in mid-sentence. I’m choosing for Americans to live, of course.
No, our OLD enemies didn’t use them. We got there first. Do you think Hitler would have hesitated to use a nuke if he had one? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Saddam Hussein? bin Laden?
Do you think Ahmedingaling wouldn’t use one? He’s a Twelver, for pete’s sake! He’s actively seeking the 12th Imam, the final Imam that brings about the end of EVERYTHING, and there’s no weapon more destructive than a nuke.
Obviously you’re new here. I’m agnostic. I don’t believe I’m God. Did I say WHEN I have to choose? No, idiot. I said IF. IF the chice were mine, yes, I would choose for Americans to live. I happen to be an American, so yeah, self-interest. My wife and kids also happen to be Americans. I’m going to choose for them to live.
Are you willing to sacrifice yourself for someone in another country, whose government has declared war on us? Are you going to sacrifice your kids so theirs can live?
Nevermind, I’ll not bother to ponder what you choose. You’ve made it abundantly clear. And I am sure you’ll spend the next several posts crowing about a structure error I made at 4 in the morning while wrestling a cranky 19 month old out of a stinky diaper.
tfmo
wow a newbie cory1369, and right out of the box we are baby killers and think we are God………sniff sniff d i smell FORKFACE TROLL breath?
We need the latest and greatest weapon systems available, they and our magnificent troops are the only thing standing between our freedom and our annihilation.
“What we need to be doing, now, is building (and testing) a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to confront the rising challenge of China – and the prospect of a series of Third World dictatorships obtaining nuclear arsenals.”
_
This would weaken our position dealing w iran & n korea. our current deterrent is sufficient.
engaging in START strengthens our position.
tfmo says:
February 3, 2010 at 5:48 am
—————————
tfmo, why not first give your full attention to the job of wrestling a cranky 19 month old out of a stinky diaper and then when that task is finished, write your comment. Multi-tasking is sometimes essential but for some reason struggling to type opinions on a conservative blog at 4 (?) in the morning while changing a baby seems rather weird.
Apparently you don’t have kids.
I don’t get to pick and choose when Kiki craps her diaper. She was asleep, I was blogging, she made in her diaper and it woke her up, ticked off. She was further ticked off and kicking up a storm as I got her out of her footie pajamas and cleaned her off, powdered her butt and put a new diaper on. Then I had to hold her and sing to her for a few minutes to settle her back down. Then I returned to the post.
Do not DARE imply that I do not pay attention to my children, CO. Do not dare imply that talking to idiots like you takes priority over the care of my kids.
00
engaging in START strengthens our position.
B.S.
You were never in the military as claimed,
you are a lefty marxist kook who has taken on the persona and cheerleader for the FORKFACE’ers you are an embarrassment.
If you were a veteran you would recognize that a static defense is no defense, and utilizing 50 yo weapons and technology is suicide in war.
OO,
We’re not 100% sure our current deterrent even works – we haven’t built a nuclear weapon in decades and such weapons degrade over time.
Cory,
Peace is only secured through American strength and the best means to ensure against a nuclear war is to convince the tyrants that there is no way to win it – that, in fact, we can destroy their nuclear force with little chance of their being able to hit us, at all.
And, if you will please use a bit of reading comprehension, you’ll see that my program is to build a counter-force – not a force for Mutual Assured Destruction. If an enemy chooses to place his nuclear weapons in his cities, then I can’t control for that, but the purpose of an American nuclear arsenal, in this 21st century with its new imperitives, is as a first strike capability against other nuclear arsenals.
Mark
you are 100% correct, to bad some of our fellow (commie) citizens cant appreciate that!
you’ll see that my program is to build a counter-force – not a force for Mutual Assured Destruction. If an enemy chooses to place his nuclear weapons in his cities, then I can’t control for that, but the purpose of an American nuclear arsenal, in this 21st century with its new imperitives, is as a first strike capability against other nuclear arsenals.
neo – incorrect again. ur assumptions about me are entertaining & amusing.
mark – our simulations indicate our stocks do work. as u know, it violates our ratified treaties to actually test detonate. our stocks are properly maintained, upgraded, & operational.
00
your ignorance is legion.
those “treaties” were with an entity that no longer exists, to treat them as if they were still in force is monumentally stupid.
But we are talking to a FORKFACE cheerleader…so!!!!
00
ur assumptions about me are entertaining & amusing.
That is because I find you to be entertaining and amusing, is sadie your new squeeze?
Mark
here is a good read..
The START treaty
By Keith B. Payne Sunday, January 31, 2010
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_664761.html
nope.
mark posits a dangerous strategy which weakens our international negoiations.
fortunately, mark’s is not the current course of action.
Mo’s Life Rule #3: If you negotiate from strength, you are offering concessions. If you negotiate from weakness, you’re surrendering.
If we follow your liberal ideal, we weaken our position in any negotiation. If we do not have the strength to enforce our sovereignty and our safety, then we lose.
It wasn’t disarmament treaties and reducing our stockpiles that ended the Cold War and the USSR. It was Reagan making it abundantly clear that he would INCREASE our weapon capability, that we would arm ourselves to the teeth, and we would see an end to their tyranny.
AND IT WORKED. The USSR bankrupted itself trying to keep up with us.
We negotiated from strength, with our own sovereignty and safety in mind, and we ended one of the biggest threats to our nation and to the world.
00
ill take Marks strategy ANY day over anything you say, think, believe.
You have proven your self to be a useful idiot lemming mouthpiece for the commie trolls.
go back and slap hands at the pitchfork it is right up your alley.
Amazona says: February 2, 2010 at 7:57 pmYou know, neo, you really are becoming quite an embarrassment. Can you please talk about issues instead of just emoting and exhibiting racism?
00
ahh when the argument goes wrong throw the racism flag, shallow, hollow, meaningless, stupid, irrelevant, and makes you look like a bigger fool than most know you are!
sorry, I agree w amazona who wrote that post.
I can post others who say the same.
Chef
PS
I am neither a racist or thief……YOU on the other hand are BOTH!
00
Ps I can also post others who say the same about you also.
OO,
Computer models cannot replace building and testing – we’re not talking about full scale tests, but we do need sub-critical tests just to make sure the weapons-grade material is, indeed, weapons grade.
And you need to think of why the various tyrants around the world are trying to build nukes – to hold hostage the civil populations of the United States and our allies. Their plan: “attack us, we’ll murder millions of your people”. Our response must be: “we have a force which can knock out your nuclear force before it even gets off the ground, and if we miss a few of them, we’ve got SDI to back stop”.
This is plain sense – there is no other way to go.