Republicans blocking START treaty for political gain

[Riot]

Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption’

In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.

Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

Danforth’s fears are not unfounded. Lugar, who is up for reelection in 2012, has already been targeted by tea party groups. “If I was Dick Lugar, I would certainly expect a challenge,” noted veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As Diane Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Tea Party, told the Times, removing Lugar “will be a difficult challenge. But we do believe it’s doable, and we think the climate is right for it and we believe it is a must.”

Indeed, asked about a potential tea party challenge motivated by his breaks with the GOP on START and other issues, Lugar suggested the party has drifted to the right while he has stayed steady, saying, “These are just areas where I’ve had stances for a long time.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/27/...gar-overboard/

[Cannon Shell]

Why not just quote from the National Enquirer?

Nuclear treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on anyway. So we should be "embarassed" with delays to signing the STARt treaty?

Well here is some info on our 'friends', the Russians from a GAO report to Congress in 2003:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03526t.pdf

Over the past decade, the United States has responded to increased
proliferation risks in Russia by providing $6.4 billion for Departments of
Defense, Energy, and State programs in the former Soviet Union. The
United States has made important progress in three areas. First, the
Department of Defense helped destroy 463 Russian nuclear submarines,
long-range bombers, and strategic missiles to support Russia’s efforts to
meet treaty requirements. Second, the Department of Energy installed
security systems that helped protect 32 percent of Russia’s weapons usable
nuclear material. Third, the United States supplemented the income
of thousands of Russian weapons scientists so they would be less inclined
to sell their skills to countries of concern.

However, U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation programs have
consistently faced two critical challenges: (1) the Russian government has
not always paid its agreed-upon share of program costs and (2) Russian
ministries have often denied U.S. officials access to key nuclear and
biological sites. Regarding program costs, Russia did not pay, for example,
its previously agreed-upon share of $275 million to design and build a
nuclear storage site at Mayak. As of January 2003, the United States plans
to spend $385 million for a scaled-down version of this site. Russia has
also failed to pay operation and maintenance costs for security equipment
the United States installed at sites with weapons-usable nuclear material.
As a result, DOE plans to spend an additional $171 million to ensure that
this equipment is properly maintained. Regarding access, Russia will not
allow DOD and DOE the level of access they require to design security
improvements, verify their installation, and ensure their proper operation.
As a result, the agencies have been unable to help protect substantial
portions of Russia’s nuclear warheads and weapons-usable nuclear
material. In addition, many Russian biological sites that store dangerous
biological pathogens remain off-limits to the United States. Russia justifies
these access restrictions on the grounds that it is protecting its national
security interests.


Of course these were all provisions of another nuclear waepons treaty.

[joeydb]

Treaties like this are stupid. The rest of the world is building up their arsenal, and we had better start modernizing ours and fast.

Deterrence, and not "Kumbaya" singing, is the way to ensure peace.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Treaties like this are stupid. The rest of the world is building up their arsenal, and we had better start modernizing ours and fast.

Deterrence, and not "Kumbaya" singing, is the way to ensure peace.

Every president signs one of these treaties. They are like a resume builder with no real teeth, deterrent or threat. Most of the nukes that are targeted for destruction are fairly obsolete anyway and should be taken out of commission. I'm sure our (and the other countries) best stuff isnt even acknowledged anyway.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Treaties like this are stupid. The rest of the world is building up their arsenal, and we had better start modernizing ours and fast.

Deterrence, and not "Kumbaya" singing, is the way to ensure peace.

Don't know what the treaty involves, do you Joey? It goes directly to keeping nuclear capabilities balanced (thus safer)

So you and Chuck are voting AGAINST extending our ability to continue physically going into Russia, and actually counting their arsenal, checking out their nuclear sites, seeing their capabilities, etc.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Don't know what the treaty involves, do you Joey? It goes directly to keeping nuclear capabilities balanced (thus safer)

So you and Chuck are voting AGAINST extending our ability to continue physically going into Russia, and actually counting their arsenal, checking out their nuclear sites, seeing their capabilities, etc.

No one is against treaties, they just are pieces of paper that are largely unenforceable anyway. As shown in the posts that you choose to ignore is testimony from a congressional hearing outlying the "issues" that the Russians have presented among them not letting us see much of what we are allowed to see, not paying their share and generally ignoring many provisions. The idea and work of reducing nuclear stockpiles is worthwhile but delays in signing this treaty hardly put us in danger or in a difficult spot as you have suggested in another thread.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

As shown in the posts that you choose to ignore is testimony from a congressional hearing outlying the "issues" that the Russians have presented among them not letting us see much of what we are allowed to see, not paying their share and generally ignoring many provisions. .

I'm not ignoring that. That point taken. Granted.

So you are for voting AGAINST extending our ability to [try and] continue physically going into Russia, actually counting their arsenal, checking out their nuclear sites, seeing their capabilities, etc.?

[Riot]

Why not just quote from the National Enquirer?

You can't live without your straw men, can you? Facts are facts in spite of who is publishing it. Lugar said what he said. Are you contesting that Lugar didn't said it?

Nuclear treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on anyway.

Yeah, Ronald Reagan really blew it with "trust but verify" and this treaty. What a freakin' waste he - and Bush I, and Bush II - were to pursue this regarding nuclear containment. It was all useless.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You can't live without your straw men, can you? Facts are facts in spite of who is publishing it. Lugar said what he said. Are you contesting that Lugar didn't said it?



Yeah, Ronald Reagan really blew it with "trust but verify" and this treaty. What a freakin' waste he - and Bush I, and Bush II - were to pursue this regarding nuclear containment. It was all useless.

The quotes are immaterial to the issue. The "story" was taken from a radical website and completely oversensationalized.

Yes on the whole the treaties are window dressing. It isnt that disimilar from the gun amnesty programs offered in big cities with high crime rates. Sure it doesnt hurt but you dont really think that if US or Russia has 10000 nukes instead of 30000 we are a whole lot safer?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The quotes are immaterial to the issue. The "story" was taken from a radical website and completely oversensationalized.

Nice try, sorry, no. The "issue", as I posted in this thread, was the GOP blocking the START treat simply for political gain.

The "radical website" didn't falsify Lugar's quotes. The website you dislike is only the messenger. We can pick a different one that relays the quotes just as accurately.

The "issue" is not the validity or benefits of any particular treaty. You can start a thread on that if you like. That's just the straw man you put up to distract from the GOP being obstructionist, obstructionist to the point of self-destruction worries by some, and being viewed that way by their very own party seniors.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nice try, sorry, no. The "issue", as I posted in this thread, was the GOP blocking the START treat simply for political gain.

The "radical website" didn't falsify Lugar's quotes. The website you dislike is only the messenger. We can pick a different one that relays the quotes just as accurately.

The "issue" is not the validity or benefits of any particular treaty. You can start a thread on that if you like. That's just the straw man you put up to distract from the GOP being obstructionist, obstructionist to the point of self-destruction worries by some, and being viewed that way by their very own party seniors.

Your shock that political parties do things for political gain is interesting. Especially considering the newly stated goal of Pelosi to prevent the President from compromising with the GOP.