You are currently not logged in. If you wish to post a comment, please first log in.

Display Order:

Click here to read all threads in this forum.

What's in it for the USA?2010-12-05 11:29:56wittner


The USA gains from the New Start treaty in the following ways: 1. It provides for U.S. inspection of Russian nuclear facilities; 2. It decreases the number of nuclear missiles that can attack the USA; 3. It establishes the framework for agreements by other nations to decrease their nuclear arsenals or to forgo developing nuclear weapons; 4. It lowers the vast costs of maintaining and safeguarding U.S. nuclear weapons; 5. It reduces the danger of accidental nuclear war. No wonder polls find that 82 percent of Americans favor such a treaty!
Updated: 2010-12-05 11:31:36


 
Survival is silly?2010-12-04 20:18:05pcwtom


Show me a nuclear weapon and I'll show you an unsoldierly weapon. They are not for defense, they are offensive, and they are illegal by any rules of warfare you can cite. We are way past time to negotiate our way down to zero and give humanity a fighting chance. If an alien species wanted to design a weapon to eliminate the human race, they might well choose nukes. We are sick of them and we want them dismantled and relegated to the dustbin of human history. As long as the US leads in holding them, we will see more and more proliferation, sure as anything. We need intrusive inspections and radical nuclear disarmament. The world is waiting impatiently, as are many Americans.


 
Silly OPED2010-12-04 08:22:48hga


In this treaty the Russians agree to not build weapons they weren't planning on building anyway ($$$) and we'll have to destroy working ones. It also cripples our missile defenses ... I don't understand this obsession the progressives have against self-defense, but here is another example of it. So the bottom line is, "What's in it for us?" as we cut back on all our other serious defenses as well (F22, navy, etc.) making us more dependent on nukes (not a good thing, but better than the alternatives). And why does it have to be rushed through a lame-duck session without full examination? What's "partisan" about that?