Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I wonder why they are arranged so the lefty (O) and the righty (M) are positioned so they'd bump elbows.
For some reasons my comments are being deleted, but I will try again. This treaty does not change our alert status and gives a clear warning to Iran and Korea Although some on this site believe nuclear war brings peace, I think nuclear proliferation will bring destruction to the planet.
I thought the idea here was to make some minor adjustment and have a photo-op and appear to keep the "process" going without actually changing anything much.
While the treaty will mandate only modest reductions in the actual arsenals maintained by the two countries . . .Presumeably because the biggest reductions were already made under Bush II and Putin.
I thought the idea here was to make some minor adjustment and have a photo-op and appear to keep the "process" going without actually changing anything much.I think that's right. The 2002 SORT agreement also expires in 2012, so it's natural we'd seek a replacement.
This treaty does not change our alert status and gives a clear warning to Iran and KoreaWhat warning is that? From what I can see we just warned them that we reduced our arsenal.Although some on this site believe nuclear war brings peaceNo some on this site believe nuclear deterrence brings peace.
More peace in our time.Obama finally back in his usual element, community organizing with thugs and crooked politicians.
Mr. Obama hopes to use the trust built during the treaty negotiationsProblem is the Russians aren't in the tank for Obama like the American press, and they have better observation skills than the American media and by derivation the American public.Doesn't Rahm or Axelrod realize the Russians have noticed how Obama lies to his own people?You don't get away with that quite as easily in foreign relations-yet Axelrod and Rahm are conducting foreign policy for state-side consumption and seem to be tailoring it-for only Democrat primary wins. It's interesting like a train wreck.Our four year election cycles are a huge disadvantage when it comes to international relations and Rahm and Axelrod seem to be doing their level best to amplify the weakness.
Joe I am glad to see that you so carefully read my posts- and delete some? But here is the the quote form the post by New Hussein Ham: Nuclear weapons - according to everything we've seen in our history - produce peace.I think clearly enough to see the slippery slope of logic in this statement- even if it was intended as ironic.You are correct dropping the bombs on Japan was not a nuclear war, just use of nuclear bombs that can only give a hint of what nuclear war may bring, and that is one reason to support these treaty efforts.
Roesch, read a little more carefully. You quote Ham:But here is the the quote form the post by New Hussein Ham: Nuclear weapons - according to everything we've seen in our history - produce peace.And then here's what you said:Although some on this site believe nuclear war brings peace,You may not be sensitive to the distinction, but there's a big difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear war. Deterrence depends on nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war. If nuclear war actually results, then the strategy has failed.All that said, though, the only wartime use of nuclear weapons -- the incinerations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- did result in peace. That's not what people are usually talking about, though, when they talk about nuclear war. They mean a war in which both sides have nukes (like the Kargil War) and use them (unlike the Kargil war).
Nuclear weapons - according to everything we've seen in our history - produce peace.And you have CONTRARY evidence? Pakistan and India have fought several times, and yet now that both possess nuclear weapons, India and to an extent Pakistan now show much more moderation. The US and the USSR did they fight? How about any general war 1945 to 1991? Europe never experienced this long a peace….please don’t say “1815-1914”, because that statement ignores the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Russo-Turkish War, and three Balkans wars…..I don’t see nuclear armed states fighting one another, nor do I see large coalitions of nations, Triple Alliance/The Entente, the Axis Powers/The United Nations waging global wars….but in Denmark, under the influence of that free higher education you may have a different data set. I’d be pleased if you’d share it.I think clearly enough to see the slippery slope of logic in this statement- even if it was intended as ironic.You are correct dropping the bombs on Japan was not a nuclear war,Well that’s good now you’re getting back to reality.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:Barry is a Manchurian candidate, programmed in 1984. Owing to budgetary constraints at the Kremlin, not to mention certain, shall we say, shortcomings of Soviet IT, he has not received subsequent updates. He's still running 1.0.Hence his anachronistic euqsenagaeR obsession with SDI, nuclear arms, and Carter era tax cuts. There, I said it.
Cue Biden: "Ending the Cold War is one of the great achievements of this administration!"
I don’t see nuclear armed states fighting one anotherYes, you do. In 1999, India and Pakistan -- both nuclear powers by that time (Pakistan tested a bomb in 1998) -- fought the Kargil War. Pakistani leaders made noises about using a nuclear weapon, and I think Indian leaders may have done as well. Fortunately, neither did, and the conflict did not escalate into a nuclear exchange. The same factors which prevent nation states from escalating localised fighting -- border conflicts, for example -- into total wars of annihilation largely serve to prevent escalation into global thermonuclear war. Nukes make small wars directly between nuclear powers less likely. But they don't stop them.
The cold war ended 20 years ago. The war today is for prosperity from world trade. The Russians are sitting on the natural resiurces that China and EU both covet. So Russia needs a non-aggression pack with the US, and has already had one for 15 years. This is a totally unnecessary treaty with Russia being used by Obama to justify his disarming of America.
A treaty where one side has already declared that it won't follow if conditions not in the treaty hold true.On the other hand, the US loses nothing by getting rid of many of these weapons; we'll still have more than enough. (And at least this time Obama got something.)
Joe,correlation is not causation, and therefore I am not likely to conclude that we have not had a armed conflict with Russia solely because of our nuclear arms. Then hie yourself to a library and read about the Vietnam War and the Cuban Missile Crisis....
Nuclear weapons don't necessarily bring peace, but, up to now, they've made for a somewhat more circumspect world. Back in the Good Old Days when only the Russkies and us had the bomb, managing these issues were easier. When the Brits, Red Chinese, and assorted colonials started acquiring them, it got more complicated. The problem is that, for this to work, everyone must be in their right mind and realize the consequences of a nuclear exchange. And it will all change the second the Dinner Jacket has a real, working A-bomb. Quayle said... More peace in our time. Obama finally back in his usual element, community organizing with thugs and crooked politicians.Quite.A starry-eyed fool and an aggressive dictator making a strategic agreement. What could go wrong?Anybody take a good look at the post-signing photo at Munich lately? Old Neville was so sure he was right!
And it will all change the second the Dinner Jacket has a real, working A-bomb. Dinner jacket? Is there some elegantly dressed terrorist who dresses for dinner I don't know about? Did James Bond go bad?
Will the Senate approve this treaty?
Someone...anyone...please tell me how a rational, logical person can possibly believe that this planet will ever see the end of nuclear weapons. He has made this statement over and over again, along with the one about nukes being "obsolete".This strikes me as the mother of all "the world as I want it to be", not the world as it is.I said it the other day. Unless you can, with 100% accuracy, track, destroy, and/or nullify nuclear devices, they will never be obsolete and will always be part of a major power's arsenal.
I said it the other day. Unless you can, with 100% accuracy, track, destroy, and/or nullify nuclear devices, they will never be obsolete and will always be part of a major power's arsenal.You Sir, are NOT a Team Player....
You Sir, are NOT a Team Player....Sure I am. I'm on the team that doesn't think they can wish away perfectly tested and effective weapons technology that nobody has found a reliable way to counter.For that matter, we are arguably the masters of modern battle zone airspace. But, under the cuts this administration seems to be pursuing, we're planning on giving up that advantage as well. That's as big or bigger than this head-fake nuke treaty. History will judge us harshly, I fear.
"History will judge us harshly, I fear."I'm sure that's right, because history is written by the winners, not the losers. And O is hellbent to turn us into losers.
I fear Obama lacks the skills and judgement to protect us. Naturally I tremble when he messes with our weapons. Would you want Maxwell Smart loose in an arsenal?Balfegor, were you being funny? Do you not remember, when we were all learning how to pronounce Ahmadinejad, we shortcutted to "I'm a dinner jacket?"
Someone...anyone...please tell me how a rational, logical person can possibly believe that this planet will ever see the end of nuclear weapons. Scott M:Imagine there's no HeavenIt's easy if you tryNo hell below usAbove us only skyImagine all the peopleLiving for todayImagine there's no countriesIt isn't hard to doNothing to kill or die forAnd no religion tooImagine all the peopleLiving life in peaceYou may say that I'm a dreamerBut I'm not the only oneI hope someday you'll join usAnd the world will be as oneImagine no possessionsI wonder if you canNo need for greed or hungerA brotherhood of manImagine all the peopleSharing all the worldYou may say that I'm a dreamerBut I'm not the only oneI hope someday you'll join usAnd the world will live as one
Obama is the Imagine President.His policy is based on his ability to imagine.It's all so clear to me now.
Scott M said... Someone...anyone...please tell me how a rational, logical person can possibly believe that this planet will ever see the end of nuclear weapons. He has made this statement over and over again, along with the one about nukes being "obsolete".There's an old Gregory Peck movie in which he discovers a process to make the Russins' nukes inoperable and, of course, the nasty old war-mongers chase him all over New York or something. The day that happens for real is the day they're obsolete. No different than battleships or the horse cavalry.The next day we go to war with the Russians and the Red Chinese.
Do you not remember, when we were all learning how to pronounce Ahmadinejad, we shortcutted to "I'm a dinner jacket?"I actually do not remember this. I don't think I ever found his name particularly difficult to pronounce. Whether I'm pronouncing it correctly -- that I don't know. Don't speak Farsi after all. But it's not hard to get something out.
I am not likely to conclude that we have not had a armed conflict with Russia solely because of our nuclear arms.Well then you're demonstrating an utter lack of historical knowledge. Google Cuban Missile Crisis.But this effort to reduce our nuclear arsenal was also proposed by President Reagan--see text by Paul Lettow, and so I wonder why some Republicans find fault with this effort?I don't see so much fault with the effort as the reason why? Back when Reagan proposed START Russia was the Soviet Union and were considered a clear and present threat. As the Soviet Union dissolved a generation ago that threat has diminished significantly. Yes its all well and good to reduce nukes but I'm not as concerned with Russia nuking us as I am with North Korea and Iran nuking us or our allies.In other words this is picking the low hanging fruit.
Then again if I were Iran and North Korea I would immediately abandon nukes, sign a NPT and start building up a nice chem/bio arsenal since Obama stated the use of them won't result in a nuclear response.
The Russian president signaled general support for the American-led drive to impose new sanctions on Iran, saying that Tehran’s nuclear program has flouted the international community. “We cannot turn a blind eye to this,” Mr. Medvedev said, while adding that sanctions “should be smart” and avoid hardship for the Iranian people. we'll see how long that BS holds up. I expect only as long as it takes to finish the "disarmement summit, when Russia will discover some way rationalize further dialogue with Iran instead of sanctions.
Traditionalguy said....The Russians are sitting on the natural resiurces that China and EU both covet. So Russia needs a non-aggression pack with the US, and has already had one for 15 years.Russia needs more than a non-aggression pact. China is eventually going to come North into the vacuum that is Siberia. Maybe it will be 100 years from now and the US is powerless. Maybe it is 10 years from now and the US would be the only thing to save their Russian asses, but China will take that land and resources sooner or later. If I were Russians, I'd want to be under the US defense Umbrella ASAP, whoops what umbrella? Obama just put that away with NPR.
Did Putin sign off on it? Because listening to his lapdog seems silly.
Great ammo for the republicans to use in 2012 if this amatuer decides to run again. As Russia sells whatever it wants to whoever it wants or decides to carpet bomb the Ukraine, some reasonable people will wonder if the president is getting rolled again and should find new employment elsewhere.
Post a Comment