I think many of you have the wrong impression of what the proposed mew START treaty really is. It is a treaty that is almost solely focused on strategic nuclear weapons, the ones that could end up on each others soil in just minutes. There might be a little bit of linkage between that goal and some other ancillary things, but that is the primary focus of these negotitations. Adding to the negotiations tactical nukes or any other contentious issues would likely scuttle the agreement, which it seems both the original commentators posted wouldn't mind see happen. The Russians are attempting to link some missile defense to the agreement but that may or may not happen.
Antoher important thing to keep in mind is that the agreement is not even done yet, we have just signaled our intent to make one. We haven't 'given up' anything yet. Mr Peters also makes it clear he has a basic misunderstanding of the agreement, claiming that we may be forced to give up conventional forces. The only conventional forces that we might 'give up' would be aome of our bombers, but I doubt that any meaningful cuts there would be made since the cuts could easily be made to the nuke capable weapons the bombers carry, not the bombers themselves. To assume tht the Russians will be able to 'cut us down to Russia's size' conventionally is patently absurd and shows blatant ignorance about Russian capabilities.
The START treaty is not just about the cuts in strategic weapons, it has pretty strong verification and compliance measures in place to ensure that both sides follow the agreement. It gives us an enormous amount of information that would be much more difficult to come by if the START runs out. This includes test notification of the when and where of all strategic weapons tests, unecrypted telemetry from the tests, inspection of facilities, launch systems and launchers and verification of the actual reductions in weapons and launchers. All of this not only drastically decreases the distrust on both sides but also yields a bonanza of information that would otherwise, at best, be much more difficult to obtain to at worst, be almost impossible to get. And don't say that the Russians don't follow the current agreement, because you wouldn't know what you are talking about. I won't pretend there aren't the occasional violations, but overall the treaty is very well adhered to by both sides. A 95% solution is better than a 20% one.
What has changed now? Russia is regressing significantly in its democracy, and is behaving more like the USSR of the late 50's - late 60's period. That doesn't mean don't negotiate, but get some behavioral change from them in exchange for what we give up.
Russia of the 50's? We are talking about the same corrupt, fragile and weak Russia of today? And behavioral change? Exactly what kind? If you are referring to the little war they had with Georgia last year then any attempt at getting them to change their attiude towards that will likely fail, badly. That type of linkage never occured in the past even when Reagan was negotiatiing from his supposed position of strength.
I think that China and Russia individually taking advantage of a weaker United States, or a United States which acts weak, is much more likely.
That is supposed to be a joke, right? Russia and China might be playing nice but they are still only allies of convenience, not of mutual trust. They are still much greater strategic rivals then they are friends and it is doubtful they will work together on strategic nukes anytime soon, especially when China has never done that. And don't forget, both countries are facing demographic time bombs that could cripple their countries in 30-50 years. If anyone will be weaker, it will be those two.
Well, it looks like the American public is no longer as willing to buy what is being sold by our Commander In Chief. Hey, at least the Russians and Iranians like him.
The Iranians and Russians like him? Where do you get that? Of course that is just one poll,
here are some others.
