GOP Hopefuls Line Up Against Nuclear Treaty

[para944]

WASHINGTON - Republicans weighing a White House bid fiercely oppose a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia and stand in stark contrast to two presidents, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican George H.W. Bush, on a critical foreign policy issue.
"It's an obsolete approach that's a holdover from the Cold War and a bilateral treaty without taking into account multilateral threats," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday, becoming the latest potential 2012 candidate to object to swift passage of the treaty without changes.
Gingrich joins Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and Sarah Palin - all outspoken critics of the pact. The bright line between would-be GOP challengers and the incumbent Democrat raises the likelihood that the New START treaty will become a 2012 issue and its success or failure will reverberate as the next presidential campaign takes shape.


http://www.military.com/news/article/gop-hopefuls-line-up-against-nuclear-treaty.html?col=1186032310810

[LineDoggie]

God help us if Newt is the Nominee, he's a ****head. Smart but a ****head nevertheless

[C.Puffs]

Good. Dumb plan.

[beNder]

God help us if Newt is the Nominee, he's a ****head. Smart but a ****head nevertheless

Newt is like herpes, he just doesn't go away.

On the topic: Russia has constantly modernized their nuclear forces. Other than the D5, what was our last upgrade? Last new ICBM was the Peacekeeper and that was removed and leaving 30 y/o Minutemen III missiles as the land based deterrent. We have no IRBM's since Pershing II, and that is the missile that brought the Ruskies to the table to begin with IIRC.

MAD worked, period.

[Ordie]

As a Cold War Veteran, pass the treaty!

We have bigger priorities now than play the politics of denial.

[Euroamerican]

No!

MAD has been keeping us alive for a good long time. Don't mess with the balance and let's keep an overwhelming force against all possible combined enemies. Think about it. LeMay wanted to preemptively nuke the USSR while we still had the chance. Weakness attracts the forays of those you need to hold at bay.

[Ordie]

No!

MAD has been keeping us alive for a good long time. Don't mess with the balance and let's keep an overwhelming force against all possible combined enemies. Think about it. LeMay wanted to preemptively nuke the USSR while we still had the chance. Weakness attracts the forays of those you need to hold at bay.

Euroamerican,

I grew up all my life with a nuclear trigger at my head and I've been at that tip of the spear confronting the Soviets from the Bearing Sea to the Indian Ocean.

The ideological war between the United States and the Soviet Union OVER. Russia and the United States are no longer enemies nor we can afford to maintain an arsenal the would blow the earth 200 times over.

We have greater issues on this earth to deal with if we want to see our great grandchildren

[C.Puffs]

Euroamerican,

I grew up all my life with a nuclear trigger at my head and I've been at that tip of the spear confronting the Soviets from the Bearing Sea to the Indian Ocean.

The ideological war between the United States and the Soviet Union OVER. Russia and the United States are no longer enemies nor we can afford to maintain an arsenal the would blow the earth 200 times over.

We have greater issues on this earth to deal with if we want to see our great grandchildren


Blow the earth up 200 times over? Hysterical much? Russia's arsenal will continue to dwindle regardless of if there is a treaty or not. Why tie *our* hands? Get ALL reference to missile *defense* out of the treaty proposal and add tactical nukes into it and it might be worth signing. As it is now it's less than worthless.

[Ordie]

Blow the earth up 200 times over? Hysterical much? Russia's arsenal will continue to dwindle regardless of if there is a treaty or not. Why tie *our* hands? Get ALL reference to missile *defense* out of the treaty proposal and add tactical nukes into it and it might be worth signing. As it is now it's less than worthless.

The issue is that we cannot determine the arsenal by trust alone. The treaty will allow each other to verify that arsenal.

How can we lecture the North Koreans, Burmese, Libyans, Syrians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistani and Iranians about the dangers of nuclear proliferation if we (Russia & USA) are not leading by example in not ratifying the treaty in good faith?

[Amur_Tiger]

Blow the earth up 200 times over? Hysterical much? Russia's arsenal will continue to dwindle regardless of if there is a treaty or not. Why tie *our* hands? Get ALL reference to missile *defense* out of the treaty proposal and add tactical nukes into it and it might be worth signing. As it is now it's less than worthless.

The MAD which you were so ready to embrace earlier dosen't work when you have treaties that ignore portions of the MAD equation, missile defense is a part of that, as are tactical nukes to a lesser degree. If you really believe that Russia's arsenal will dwindle in a safe and secure manner then you've enough trust in them to not need your own nuclear arsenal to be so large either. The point of the START treaty is to insure that both sides draw down the forces in a safe and secure fashion, ensuring that the balance between the two remains and that neither side has nukes go missing. If the security gained in the start treaty isn't worth it then the entire war on terror isn't worth it either as the true risk to the security and stability of the US from terrorism is minuscule compared to the threat of loose nukes. This dosen't of course mean it's a likely threat but it's a sufficiently catastrophic thing to go wrong as to outweigh the unlikeliness of it occurring.

[IconOfEvi]

No!

MAD has been keeping us alive for a good long time. Don't mess with the balance and let's keep an overwhelming force against all possible combined enemies. Think about it. LeMay wanted to preemptively nuke the USSR while we still had the chance. Weakness attracts the forays of those you need to hold at bay.

If only.

I recall Patton wanted to continue on, as he put it, to Moscow and beyond.

I suppose in a sense, LeMay and Patton were right, we could have stopped the problem then.

[domokun]

Blow the earth up 200 times over? Hysterical much? Russia's arsenal will continue to dwindle regardless of if there is a treaty or not. Why tie *our* hands? Get ALL reference to missile *defense* out of the treaty proposal and add tactical nukes into it and it might be worth signing. As it is now it's less than worthless.

I agree that tactical nuclear weapons too should be part of treaty.

If US isn't willing to their tie hands at all it will mean that no one else is going to do that either. Leaving missile defense out of treaty completely would mean that nuclear war could in essence become winnable, collapse MAD doctrine would mean that nuclear war would become much more likely to occur. In worst case nuclear powers would start to include weapons in their arsenals that cannot be intercepted. It is possible to build nuclear weapon that will wipe out all life more complex than bacteria from our lovely home planet, it's only matter of will, tech has existed for that since early 50's.

[MN_Air]

"North Korea, you don't get to enjoy cookies, they are bad for you. I get to enjoy cookies though."

[Robert.V]

If only.

I recall Patton wanted to continue on, as he put it, to Moscow and beyond.

I suppose in a sense, LeMay and Patton were right, we could have stopped the problem then.

Except Patton was actually wrong in his assumption. The problem ? ..Oh brother. :roll:

[Stormz_STA]

Stop what problem ?

Commie problem.

[artjomh]

I agree that tactical nuclear weapons too should be part of treaty.

Tactical weapons? Part of a STRATEGIC Arms Reduction Treaty?

Say whaat?


Russia's arsenal will continue to dwindle regardless of if there is a treaty or not.

Nope.

"Will Russia's numbers decline without START follow-on?" : http://russianforces.org/blog/2009/10/would_russias_numbers_decline.shtml


It is a good rule of thumb that generally you get what you pay for. What the United States will get "for free" is not a "dramatic decline of Russia's nuclear numbers", but something more like a Russia's force of about 2400-2500 warheads. The number might be adjusted somewhat to meet the Moscow treaty requirement - 2200 warheads by 2012, but it could easily go up after that. None of that would be transparent - Russia would be quite happy to part with all those START reporting and verification.

It is quite possible that this is the outcome that the authors of the Republican memo would like to see - I can easily see how, once the arms control process is broken, its authors will be complaining about "unconstrained growth" of the same Russia's nuclear numbers they say are in "dramatic decline" today. We've seen that before.

Some in the United States may still decide that the difference between a Russian strategic force of 1500 or 2500 nuclear warheads is not significant enough to be worth the price of a treaty that would constrain U.S. programs. There is half a point here - the numbers don't really matter. At this point the real benefit of the arms control process is in cooperation, trust- and confidence-building, and better communication that creates an environment that allows working on a much broader set of security issues than simple cold-war style bean-counting. We know that these things don't come for free - the Bush administration tried that.

[Robert.V]

Commie problem.

Yeah, those goddamn mother****in' commies causing all them problems !

[Stormz_STA]

Yeah, those goddamn mother****in' commies causing all them problems !

Tru dat, dawg.

[Mein Teil]

Gingrich joins Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and Sarah Palin Lost all credibility right there...:roll:

[domokun]

Tactical weapons? Part of a STRATEGIC Arms Reduction Treaty?

Say whaat?


I see defining tactical nuclear weapons as something not strategic is purely arbitrary measure and honestly quite bizarre kind of bean counting.

B61 is good example of how hard it is to define what is strategic nuclear weapon and what is tactical nuclear weapon. Most B61 gravity bombs in US stockpile are tactical weapons. All variants of B61 are variable yield designs. B61 mod 3 is tactical weapon, it's yield range is from 0.3 to 170kt. Rest of tactical models have lower maximum yields, 45kt on mod 4 and 80kt on mod 10. Some of B61's are strategic weapons, yield range for strategic versions are 10 to 340kt (mod 7) and possibly 0.3 to 340kt (mod 11). It's quite ironic that B61 mod 3 packs more yield than most likely most numerous strategic warhead in US enduring stockpile, W76, that used in most Trident SLBM's.

Drawing the line between tactical and strategic weapons is rather hard as pretty much only difference are type of target and delivery method. Sometimes delivery methods are same for both strategic and tactical weapons. There is hardly any difference if delivery methods are same and yield of weapon is practically same.

How tactical weapons should be included treaties isn't my thing to decide, but in my opinion those should included in those treaties in some way. Politicians and diplomats should do that decision. As separate treaty or as part current ones as difference between strategic and not so strategic nuclear weapons is rather nonexistent.