Will the GOP approve Start 3 treaty?

[Beerina]

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

The US went through great headaches urging and paying the former USSR and its scientists to track their weapons as they went through their social upheavals. Apparently they didn't even have freakin' serial numbers on them

And the scientists, getting paid $20 a month, were seen as susceptible to bribes by terrorists. Then there was Georgia, not part of Russia anymore, which physically had a bunch of the weapons, so that had to be cleared up, too.

I think this was about the time the US quietly issued the statement that any nukes from country X that got into the hands of terrorists and blew up part of the US would be seen as aiding the terrorists, requiring an appropriate response. Helps focus the attention on the problem. "After all, if your bombs are gonna blow us up anyway..."

 

[The Painter]

Hey, what happened to SALT I, and SALT II? What happpened to START I and START II?

I have always felt more at peace knowing we can only blow up the Earth 8 times instead of 50 times.

Less nukes are good. Only if it's them that have less. We are the Great Satan. We need them to keep the lesser demons in line.

 

[mortimer]

Are you talking about the New START treaty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_treaty_(2010)

START III treaty is all but dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_III

 

[theprestige]

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.

Q.E.D.

 

[WildCat]

With a Dem majority in the Senate how could the GOP block the treaty again?

 

[dtugg]

With a Dem majority in the Senate how could the GOP block the treaty again?

Because ratification requires a supermajority (2/3) vote in the Senate.

 

[Crossbow]

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 hope that the treaty is ratifiied as well, but my guess is that the treaty will not be ratified.

Since it takes at least 67 votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, I seriously doubt that the votes are there in either the current class or in the next class.

 

[WildCat]

Because ratification requires a supermajority (2/3) vote in the Senate.

D'oh!

 

[Thunder]

Are you talking about the New START treaty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_treaty_(2010)

START III treaty is all but dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_III

Start 3 was never ratified.

 

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101117/ap_on_go_co/us_us_russia_nuclear

looks like its already begun. the GOP has just pushed off the vote for months.

I suspect they will kill the treaty, in order to score political points with their extremist allies in the Tea Party.

Politics...over national security. Nice.

 

[Cobalt]

Politics...over national security. Nice.

Suggesting that either party is above using ANY measure to play politics is deliciously laughable.

 

[Thunder]

Suggesting that either party is above using ANY measure to play politics is deliciously laughable.

do you think Obama's negotiated nuclear treaty with Russia is all to score political points with Democratic campaign donators?

if this treaty had been negotiated by Bush in 2008, and not Obama, I have zero doubt that the Democrat run Senate would have ratified the treaty.

 

[WildCat]

do you think Obama's negotiated nuclear treaty with Russia

What treaty was that?

 

[Thunder]

What treaty was that?

err....um....the treaty that's being discussed in this thread.

 

[WildCat]

err....um....the treaty that's being discussed in this thread.

The one which Obama had nothing to do with negotiating?

 

[Thunder]

The one which Obama had nothing to do with negotiating?

haaa!!!

are you suggesting President Obama had nothing to do with the most recent Start treaty, the one now up for vote in the Senate?

hmmm...it appears you aren't taking this thread very seriously.

 

[WildCat]

haaa!!!

are you suggesting President Obama had nothing to do with the most recent Start treaty, the one now up for vote in the Senate?

hmmm...it appears you aren't taking this thread very seriously.

This the same treaty negotiated between Clinton and Yeltsin in 1997?

 

[Thunder]

This the same treaty negotiated between Clinton and Yeltsin in 1997?

 

[MikeMangum]

do you think Obama's negotiated nuclear treaty with Russia is all to score political points with Democratic campaign donators?

if this treaty had been negotiated by Bush in 2008, and not Obama, I have zero doubt that the Democrat run Senate would have ratified the treaty.

Tell that to the Colombians...as you are explaining to them why the Free Trade Agreement was nixed.

 

[mortimer]

This the same treaty negotiated between Clinton and Yeltsin in 1997?

Despite my attempts to correct the OP (it's called New START, not Start III), Thunder has continued to confuse the situation by not correcting that mistake.

And for the record, I think it's stupid that the GOP leadership in the Senate is going to kill New START.

I'll post the link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START