President Obama and Russian president Medvedev yesterday (the 8th) signed the START Treaty dealing with reducing the number of nuclear weapons held by Russia and the United States by 1/3rd. Since Obama has signed this treaty it will now go to the senate floor where it must be approved by a 2/3 majority or 67 senators. The article I read dealt specifically with the Republican response and Senator McConnell had this to say.
"The Senate will assess whether or not the agreement is verifiable, whether it reduces our Nation's ability to defend itself and our allies from the threat of nuclear armed missiles, and whether or not this administration is committed to preserving our own nuclear triad," McConnell said in a statement.
Senator Reid responded, "Strategic arms control treaties similar to this one have historically passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support, and I am confident that this agreement will receive the 67 votes from both sides of the aisle needed for passage," Reid said in a press release. "There is no need to play politics with something as important as this is to our national security."
I largely agree with Senator Reid on this in that there really is a need to reduce, not eliminate, nuclear stockpiles. As it stands now nuclear weapons are too powerful a force to have as many at our disposal as we currently do. To be honest I'd like to see them all gotten rid of except perhaps a few only at the disposal of a joint union of countries who could control them only in the case of some major catastrophe where we could conceivably need them but not for warfare.
While this happy dream world doesn't exist taking steps to reduce nuclear arms can only be considered a good thing and a positive step for all countries with nuclear weapons. As for the partisan issue I really doubt Republicans would make any fuss over this because everyone can see the good in reduction and only reducing by 1/3rd will not leave us with too few to defend ourselves.
Squishable Pre-Dawn Open Thread
1 hour ago
3 comments:
I don't think these treaties are in any way helping the situation. They might shine a good light on both US and Russia for deciding to get rid of some of their nuclear power but otherwise I was hoping countries would see that other countries share the exact same power they do and all stay neutral. Lowering the amount of them when they are so catastrophic in the first place does not make a real difference. I doubt any country would give up their last one.
The START agreement and the tragic terrorist attacks in Russia critically inform one another. Working with Russia is a no-brainer, but emulating their brutal “enhanced interrogation techniques” and military solutions to terrorism can only spark furious retaliation:
http://www.theinductive.com/blog/2010/4/6/eagle-and-bear-whos-a-hawk.html
While I agree with Lily to an extent (we have so many nuclear warheads, reducing by 1/3 really does not make that much of a difference), I think that these treaties are significant and rather praise-worthy. It is not realistic for the U.S. and Russia to instantly get rid of all their nuclear weapons, and it's not realistic for all the countries in the world to have equal amounts of nuclear weapons. These gradual reductions are as good as it's going to get. While not ideal, considering where we were only 20 years ago, it's pretty amazing that U.S. and Russia are collaborating to even reduce the number of nuclear weapons.
Post a Comment