Senate approves nuclear arms treaty with Russia

Comments (25)
Realist99 wrote:

“It is a centerpiece of Obama’s bid to “re-set” relations with Russia, which has been increasingly cooperative on issues related to U.S. national security, from curbing Iran’s nuclear program to the war in Afghanistan.”

Seriously? Before Obama “hit the reset button,” the Russians and others blocked fuel rods from going into the Busheir plant. But in August of 2010, Russian-made rods went in. Operated long enough, the rods will contain enough plutonium to be reprocessed into a bomb–the other track towards fission weapons in addition to the highly-enriched-Uranium track that Iran is also clearly pursuing with its thousands of centrifuges. You might say, “but Russia and Iran promise that once the rods have Plutonium, they will be taken back to Russia for reprocessing.” Who’s willing to bet the lives of their citizens that they’re telling the truth? Not me. And hopefully not President Obama. But if he has so much influence with his new friends the Russians, why wasn’t he able to stop this?

Dec 21, 2010 9:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
marc5 wrote:

Hmmm…. so what about China?

Dec 21, 2010 10:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
giveitthought wrote:

Another talking point for the upcoming elections. Count on this one being hailed as a “MAJOR FOREIGN POLICY MIRACLE.” Sort of like calling your kid a genius when he speaks his first words. Em, no, he’s not a genius, he’s just a kid who finally started talking.

It won’t affect polling numbers even a little, which will send Obama back into his usual whining that the evil Republicans are out to get him. It’s almost interesting.

Dec 22, 2010 1:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
ccharles wrote:

Why do you think they are not releasing the treaty, im sure its national security and not scurtiny. We already trashed one missle defense plan for russia. And im wondering what is making Russia think they are a super power and not a rogue nation that it is. Maybe the dialogue others afford them.
What realist99 pointed out didnt happen over night. That nuclear plant being built then put into operation was the goal of the stalling that Iran is a Master of.
No one is even raising the questions of russian nuclear bombers being based on this side of the Globe. Does this treaty address this that or is it still only a request? One that I believe has been ignored and put USA Soil at risk.

No faith in Obama in any of these matters. Nor a lame duck congress.

Dec 22, 2010 3:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
indiaten wrote:

What kind of lunatic believes that if you get rid of your means to self defense that not only will you be safer but it will make your enemy want to do the same!
Sorry but giving out lollipops and bending over doesn’t work in this world Obama administration!

Dec 22, 2010 7:43am EST  --  Report as abuse

Yet another scheme by Obama to weaken this country. Have we learned nothing from 50 years of “cold war” with Russia? Russia NEVER keeps its side of the bargain and we ALWAYS do resulting in more weapons for them and fewer for us. Now is definitely NOT the time to be disarming America with North Korea and Iran now becoming wild card nuclear powers – thanks in large part to our good friend Obama…

Dec 22, 2010 8:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobSmith wrote:

Why would our President fear Republicants, when there’s sooo many of you impotent posters to worry about :>
Question: does the tin foil hat go on over the white sheet, or vice-versa?

Dec 22, 2010 9:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
ImIn2Jazz wrote:

I would be more concerned about a unilateral Israel attack on Iran and the consequences of US involvement than worrying about North Korea’s nuclear bombastic posturing. The former might bring the US and Russia into conflict, but the later would spur more 6 countries talks and keep North Korea in check. The bottom line is we should have had more foresight than to have lived under the MADD (mutually assured destruction doctrine) and the enormous capital expense both the US and the USSR incurred, before we started down the path to the original START treaty. The reduction in nuclear arms is a good thing. The cost of deterrence has been too high. Approximately 1500+ nuclear weapons on each side in varying sizes, seems a good place to begin. Considering we, the US, are the only country to have used such weapons, if you would ask, the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to evaluate nuclear weapons as a deterrent…it did prevent thousands of Americans from perishing on their island, but at their expense. What concerns me the most is…it’s not the thousands of nuclear weapons we both possess….it is the one we can’t account for. Approve the treaty and be vigilante on securing the existing stockpiled nuclear material.

Dec 22, 2010 11:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
ginchinchili wrote:

Well, well, the Republicans decided to quit holding our nation’s security hostage for their partisan purposes and finally got out of the way. That’s awfully nice of them. America’s top military brass, our Defense Secretary, our President, and all of our past Secs of State and Defense have all endorsed this treaty, but still the Republicans had to play politics. It’s always party first with them.

Senate Republicans did the same thing with the bill to help the 9/11 First Responders. Their hypocrisy boggles the mind. When it comes to using 9/11 for political gain the Republicans can’t talk about it enough. They talk as if THEY were the first responders. Now when it comes time to help out those who sacrificed themselves to help others, the Republicans turn their backs on these Americans refusing to give them the help they deserve. They’ll sacrifice tax cuts for 98% of the country in order to get tax cuts for America’s wealthiest 2%, but they don’t want to help out the 9/11 First Responders. And I’m sure all those Republicans claim to be Christians. Yeah, right. I’m sure Jesus is impressed.

The most amazing thing about it all is that so many Americans continue to support this party of hate and bling. Must be something in the water. That or the rightwing media propaganda machine is working so well that it would make even Hitler green with envy.

Dec 22, 2010 3:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

It’s baby steps; there’s still a long way to go. Global peace doesn’t require MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction); Republicans are living in a paranoid fantasy if they think nuclear weapons are necessary. A simple non-nuclear fuel-air bomb can invoke more than enough destruction, and the US has more than enough conventional missiles and bombs to deal with both Iran (which only the loony Republicans think needs dealing with) and North Korea together.

We aren’t toddlers; we don’t decide who wins based on who can make the biggest boom-boom.

Dec 22, 2010 3:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse

you may like him or not but he is delivering results… i wish him good luck… we have a very good president… i love this country…

Dec 22, 2010 4:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
joking wrote:

Traitors ALL!

Dec 22, 2010 4:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CCHUCK wrote:

Sessions is an idiot. Why in Gods name wouldn’t we be better of without nuclear weapons?
All they are is a supposed deterent to the other guy using their weapons.
Only a madman would consider using a weapon that would reek total havoc on the whole world and lay to waste territories for thousands of years.

Dec 22, 2010 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ccousins wrote:

What’s it called when you claim to find a treaty to be not in the best interest of America–then sell your vote for it.

Oh, yea: “Being a Republican Senator.”

If these people who were bought really thought the treaty was bad for America, they’re traitors for cash. If they were just politikin’ as usual to get what they want at the expense of American taxpayers, they’re greedy slimeballs.

It only goes to show, you can’t trust anything a Republican senator says: to them, it’s all a game and what’s best for America and Americans are re-election soundbites without meaning. I don’t agree with DeMint, but at least he walks what he talks. Most of the rest are worthless as senators and are costing American Taxpayers another hundred billion dollars–just like they voted to put two more years of tax cuts on the tab.

Dec 22, 2010 4:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EndlessMike03 wrote:

The acronym START already includes the word Treaty. Thus, calling it the “START Treaty” is redundant.

Dec 22, 2010 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dressypink wrote:

Bravo Obama, Bravo Dems and a few noble GOP Senators.
This a great day to be in this awesome God’s own country.
Am proud to be an American. An American that can rise above greed, dishonest and disingenuous partisan politics of the extremist far right GOP leadership.

Despite all the hate, lies and dishonorable debates from dubious McCain, hostage takers like Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell. These people are not good for America. They hate America, they hate our peace and prosperity.

This country will survive the ignorant and venomous Palin, the haters of the far right lunatics in house and senate.

Dec 22, 2010 4:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jsonic wrote:

“…America’s historical policy of peace through strength and a rejection of a leftist vision of a world without nuclear weapons”

You mean our policy of dominance through aggression. Seriously, give me an example of a region that has become peaceful due to the use of American force. And even if there are some exceptions, it does not appear to be either the normal effect nor the intention behind military force.

Conservative cynicism suggests that real peace is literally impossible; the world is overcrowded and subject to finite resources. Therefore, take what you can by any means necessary.

Personally, Id rather have zero nukes in the world and I think this method of working with other nations to slowly reduce the global stock is realistic and effective.

Dec 22, 2010 5:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Velmaa1 wrote:

I can’t believe that there are people writing that the Treaty is a bad idea. I don’t know if they realize that a nuclear war would be the anihilation of everyone. If one group drops a nuclear bomb and another retaliates, you wipe out the poplulation of both countries. Why would anyone want to work towards war as opposed to peace? This is amazing to me. I am so happy that the President worked so hard on this treaty and the health care money for 9/11 first responders. People who cannot see these pieces of legislation as good for all people of America are just perpetually negative people. We just have to pray for people like that.

Dec 22, 2010 5:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
grasspress wrote:

don’t you just love these republicans. here’s the latest ‘end of the world’ warning from sessions:

“I think the whole world would see the Senate action (rejection of the treaty) as a resurgence of America’s historical policy of peace through strength and a rejection of a leftist vision of a world without nuclear weapons,” Sessions said.

when these guys don’t get their way, they just scream and holler as loud as they can and carry on just like the immature brats they have come to be.

Dec 22, 2010 5:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
anonym0us wrote:

“…handing President Barack Obama a major foreign policy victory”
What victory? That now we can mutually destroy each other only 5 times over instead of 6? And since neither us nor Russians attempted that for many decades over one could conclude that there’s no risk of mutual destruction because both sides understand it would be just that – mutual destruction. Oh, well, at least we can spend less money on our diminished strategic forces – but comparing to the overall budget deficit it’s a drop in a bucket.
Just a single warhead in the hands of a madman like Iran’s Ahmadinejad or bin Laden carries much more risk than all the warheads in the US and Russian arsenals, combined. The culture of Islam is full of suicidal-murderous stuff they call martyrdom and promise dozens of virgins in reward for it. When they get the bomb they may be too tempted to use it, regardless of consequences to themselves and their countries. And it’s not necessarily they’ll use it on Israel – after all, in their terminology Israel is just the Little Satan, and the Big Satan is America – that’s the most tempting target. And they don’t even need the bomb small enough to be put on a missile, and the missile good enough to make it to the target. It could be a humble container ship sailing under one of the so-called “flags of convenience” entering the port of NYC or LA.
Has B. Hussein Obama done anything to stop Iran from obtaining the nukes? Anything tangible?

Dec 22, 2010 6:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Long overdue… Clearly this was not on the top of the foreign policy list during Bush era. Slowly but surely we’are starting to realize that the cold war is long over. The world has changed and now there are different security threats and challenges. This country needs more allies and not more enemies.

Dec 22, 2010 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
macintosh wrote:

hahaha might as well just send them our nukes and raise a gigantic white flag..

Dec 22, 2010 8:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jmjunyu wrote:

There should not be nuclear weapons in any country!

Dec 22, 2010 11:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Realist99 wrote:

Jsonic wrote:
“You mean our policy of dominance through aggression. Seriously, give me an example of a region that has become peaceful due to the use of American force.”

Dude, I’m going to need you to keep up with at least the big things. Let’s start with Hitler invading Poland in 1939, then occupying most of Western Europe within the next couple of years. An invasion of England was not far off when “American force” turned back the Nazi tide. I think only a few Loonie Toons would say Europe and the world haven’t been better off for that ever since.

Dec 22, 2010 11:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GetpIaning wrote:

With the process coming to an end, it’s worth pausing to appreciate the larger context, and the extent to which far-right Republicans screwed this up. New START, which could have very well been negotiated by Reagan himself, builds on the kind of counter-proliferation policy that’s enjoyed broad international support for a generation. Had Republicans treated this the way previous Senates had, which is to say, ratified it fairly quickly with overwhelming support, the political world have barely have blinked an eye.
But Republicans instead decided to turn this into a defining presidential test, and a challenge to Obama as a world leader. Left with no choice, Obama fought back, rallying support from the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs, foreign leaders from around the globe, eight former Secretaries of State from both parties, five former Secretaries of Defense from both parties, seven former Strategic Command Chiefs, National Security Advisers from both parties, nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces — even a former Republican President (George H.W. Bush).
The result is a victory for the White House that’s even more significant than if the GOP hadn’t needlessly picked a misguided fight.
The Republican leadership made this a purely political battle and fresh off what had seemed a triumphant election season suffered an astonishingly egregious defeat.
There’s no denying how significant Republican gains were in the midterms, and the leverage the GOP will try to exploit in the next Congress. But it’s President Obama who’s ending 2010 on a winning streak.

Dec 22, 2010 11:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.