Will the GOP approve Start 3 treaty?

[Thunder]

Would the GOP actually go so far as to endanger the world's safety from a nuclear Holocaust, by refusing to approve the new Start nuclear weapons treaty with Russia, just to keep a victory from Obama?

I'd hate to see this happen, but I think some GOPers are that hateful, calculating, selfish, and vindictive.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Would the GOP actually go so far as to endanger the world's safety from a nuclear Holocaust, by refusing to approve the new Start nuclear weapons treaty with Russia, just to keep a victory from Obama?

I'd hate to see this happen, but I think some GOPers are that hateful, calculating, selfish, and vindictive.

I don't suppose you'd consider the possibility that there are many who quite reasonably disagree with your assessment that failing to approve this treaty will put the world in danger of a nuclear holocaust, would you?

 

[Thunder]

I don't suppose you'd consider the possibility that there are many who quite reasonably disagree with your assessment that failing to approve this treaty will put the world in danger of a nuclear holocaust, would you?

I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that less nuclear weapons in this world would be a bad thing.

 

[leftysergeant]

I don't suppose you'd consider the possibility that there are many who quite reasonably disagree with your assessment that failing to approve this treaty will put the world in danger of a nuclear holocaust, would you?

Reasonably?



We are discussing Republicans, you understand, right?

 

[theprestige]

I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that less nuclear weapons in this world would be a bad thing.

My, Grandma, what big goalpost-moves you have!

 

[Thunder]

well, to the guy's credit, we will still be at risk of a nuclear Holocaust, even if Start 3 passes. though, the less nukes we have, the lesser the risk of total destruction.

I wish for a day when the world has less than 100 nukes total.

 

[theprestige]

Reasonably?



We are discussing Republicans, you understand, right?

Not to personalize or anything, but since when have you been competent to judge reasonableness in anything concerning the Republicans?

 

[theprestige]

well, to the guy's credit, we will still be at risk of a nuclear Holocaust, even if Start 3 passes. though, the less nukes we have, the lesser the risk of total destruction.

I wish for a day when the world has less than 100 nukes total.

And I wish for a day when the world has need for less than 100 nukes total. But until that day, any treaty that seeks to reduce the amount of nukes--just like any other treaty with the potential to alter the balance of power between nations--should be approached with caution and clarity, and not ratified simply on the basis of appeal to emotion about "ZOMG nukes!"

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that less nuclear weapons in this world would be a bad thing.

Depends on who has them. I think even you'd have to agree that it would be a very bad thing for a serious enemy to have them, even in smaller amounts than currently exist, and for us to not have any. It's rather widely agree, I think, that the biggest reason that neither us nor the Soviet Union ever resorted to the use of nuclear weapons against the other was the clear understanding that each side had enough such weapons to insure that such an exchange would almost certainly result in the complete destruction of both sides.

What if the U.S. and Russia were both to negotiate a treaty under which we eliminated all of our nuclear weapons, and shortly thereafter, a nation like Iran or North Korea developed them, along with a reliable means of delivering them to any target in the world? Sure, there'd be a lot fewer nuclear weapons in all, but would the world really be safer if such a nation as Iran or North Korea knew that it could use such weapons with impunity, and face no serious threat of a similar counterattack?


In any event, your OP is nothing but thunderous hyperbole. There's no reason to suppose, if Republicans oppose this particular treaty, that it is because they are willing to “endanger the world's safety from a nuclear Holocaust…just to keep a victory from Obama” nor that they would oppose such a treaty just to be “hateful, calculating, selfish, and vindictive”.

I wish for a day when the world has less than 100 nukes total.

What if all or most of those “less than 100 nukes” are in the hands of the Taliban or Al Quaida?

 

[tyr_13]

I hate to spoil the 'what if' athon, but this treaty doesn't do any of those 'what ifs'.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I wish for a day when the world has less than 100 nukes total.

I wish for a day when the world doesn't need 100 nukes.

 

[theprestige]

I wish for a day when the world doesn't need 100 nukes.

Don't you see? That day is already here, only the horrible Republicans won't admit it.

The world needs, roughly: four nukes for Russia, three nukes for China, two nukes each for Pakistan, India, the UK, and France, one nuke each for Iran and North Korea, and no nukes at all for the U.S. or Israel.

The sooner we get that treaty ratified, the better.

 

[Thunder]

I frankly believe that the only reason there has not been a major conflict between the USA, Russia, China, and Western Europe, is because of nuclear weapons.

Yep, they are actually a great deterent against world wars. Who'da thunk it?

Oppenheimer is both the destoyer of worlds AND the preserver of them.

 

[leftysergeant]

Not to personalize or anything, but since when have you been competent to judge reasonableness in anything concerning the Republicans?

Just a statement of fact. They tollerate the Rushblob to speak as though he were a spokesman for their cause. The little toad who is currently Chairman of the RNC even apologized for slighting the big doofus.

This is the act of a reasonable man?

 

[leftysergeant]

What if the U.S. and Russia were both to negotiate a treaty under which we eliminated all of our nuclear weapons, and shortly thereafter, a nation like Iran or North Korea developed them, along with a reliable means of delivering them to any target in the world? Sure, there'd be a lot fewer nuclear weapons in all, but would the world really be safer if such a nation as Iran or North Korea knew that it could use such weapons with impunity, and face no serious threat of a similar counterattack?

Considering that we could wipe out most of their population with conventional explosives, I hardly see that they would gain much by launching a strike without foreign occupiers already on their soil.

What if all or most of those “less than 100 nukes” are in the hands of the Taliban or Al Quaida?

The more nukes there are, the more likely a terrorist organization will obtain a couple of them.

 

[shadron]

Would the GOP actually go so far as to endanger the world's safety from a nuclear Holocaust, by refusing to approve the new Start nuclear weapons treaty with Russia, just to keep a victory from Obama?

Will it buy another house seat in the next election? And yes, the Dems would do it too.

 

[theprestige]

I frankly believe that the only reason there has not been a major conflict between the USA, Russia, China, and Western Europe, is because of nuclear weapons.

Yep, they are actually a great deterent against world wars. Who'da thunk it?

Oppenheimer is both the destoyer of worlds AND the preserver of them.

So blocking an arms reduction treaty actually saves the world? And it's the Republicans who are responsible, and Obama who wants to make things worse?

 

[theprestige]

Will it buy another house seat in the next election? And yes, the Dems would do it too.

Especially since doing so wouldn't actually increase the danger of a nuclear holocaust anyway.

 

[theprestige]

Just a statement of fact. They tollerate the Rushblob to speak as though he were a spokesman for their cause. The little toad who is currently Chairman of the RNC even apologized for slighting the big doofus.

This is the act of a reasonable man?

<cough>leftyseargant re: ACORN</cough>

Your ability to judge reasonableness is where, again?

 

[leftysergeant]

<cough>leftyseargant re: ACORN</cough>

Your ability to judge reasonableness is where, again?

See what I mean? You're throwing stuff from your underwear on this thread.

People who think that any wrong-doing by ACORN was ever proven or that Breitbart or his pet pimp are the mental superiors of a downer cow should not have a voice in the disposition of any sort of weapons.