Nuclear Treaty With Russia? Are we Just Trying To Destroy This Country? (Hugo Chavez, enemies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can someone please tell me about a time when we could ever fully trust the Russians?? Please tell me!!
They have at least 12,000 / We currently have 9,000!! WHO NEEDS TO DO THE REDUCING HERE????
And with China always flexing their muscle, Iran, North Korean and Pakistan acting up, how is this the time to de-power ourselves???? How is this the time to has less protection or deterent????
THIS IS INSANE!! this congress is trying to stick it to this country because we threw them out!! A these liberal Republicans like Graham, Snow and Brown have got to go!!! \\
The Russian Prez is laughing about something...I wonder what it could be?
Perhaps if Ronald Reagan were alive you could ask him about the START1 treaty.
Lets see, American can't trust the Russians, French, Afghans, Iraqi's, Palestinians, Turks, Chinese, North Koreans, Paki's, Israelis, Armenians, Czech's, Poles, Georgians, Chechens, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Columbians, Bolivians, Mexicans, Italians, Syrians, Lebanese, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Libyans, Germans, Brits, Democrats, Republicans, and that pimple faced kid at Best Buy.
First of all...have you actually read it? If not, go here. Read the treaty, and it's protocol's, then come back and let us know what you find so dangerous or offensive about it:
Secondly, whether or not you trust the Russian's isn't an issue because the protocol's specifically lay the verification procedures and I'd like you tell me why you think they won't work.
Thirdly, how many nuclear weapons do you think we need? How many is enough? When fully implemented over the next 7 years, it will leave both sides with more than 3000 warheads. Please explain why you think we need more.
Fourthly, if this treaty is not ratified, there is a very high likelihood of another US/Russia arms race and I'd really be interested in seeing how the GOP would propose to pay for that when they just got elected on a promise to reduce spending and cut the deficit.
Since TheWon signed that treaty on April 8, 2010, according to the White House blog and we all know who runs that one, don't we, why wasn't this one debated in Congress before the Lame Duck session? Somehow I believe that free debate in the Senate is needed before they just ok it and let it slide. Why has so much of this kind of importance been put off till now? It seems to me that something of this nature has to have some more inspection than has been done.
The Congress has to make some kind of attempt to get some of the legislative powers of our government back in its hands.
How does it compromise the security of the nation? Are 3000 nukes not enough to destroy the world? Would you rather we went back to the arms race and mutual assured destruction (MAD)?
We both have the same number of nukes. THOUSANDS. We can still blow anyone to bits. RELAX.
I always find these discussions hilarious. Assuming a single nuclear warhead can destroy a metropolitan area, any given country only has about a dozen to two dozen metros that are of significant economic, political, and strategic importance anyway. And that's humouring the argument that we'll ever need enough nukes to screw the whole world 10x over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.