START Treaty

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Goes directly to the major amendment regarding defense systems the GOP was trying to make in order to halt the treaty from passage and cause renegotiation with the Russians, but of course you know that. And you knowing that I supported passage of the START treaty would predisclose you having to even ask "what I thought" about missile defense systems past or present being included in START, but of course you know that, too :-)

Then I give you credit for raising your hand.

What's next taking helmets and flak jackets away from the troops? New 'green' fiberglass destroyers? Heck maybe we can recycle coffee cups into tanks?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Then I give you credit for raising your hand.

What's next taking helmets and flak jackets away from the troops? New 'green' fiberglass destroyers? Heck maybe we can recycle coffee cups into tanks?

I, like god, need the code for what this is supposed to mean.

The START treaty just passed did not in any way limit or restrict our present or future missile defense systems, in spite of two GOP Senators falsely making such public claim. That claim was disproven within hours.

[geeker2]

"You fucl<in' people... you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today...."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

The START treaty just passed did not in any way limit or restrict our present or future missile defense systems, in spite of two GOP Senators falsely making such public claim. That claim was disproven within hours.

an "interrelationship" between nuclear weapons and missile defense should never had been included in the treaty whether in the premable or not.

I just 'hope' Obama's 'non-legal binding' letter to the Senate promissing going foward with Bush's missile defense systems both in Europe and here including protecting us from Iran.

[jms62]

Waste of time and money by our government. Does anyone really think that either side is going to stick to it?

[dellinger63]

Interesting and expert opinion:

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”

Sorry Riot you were lied to and fell for it once again. Don't feel bad, every con-man needs his suckers....


http://www.usni.org/vice-admiral-oba...ussians-start#

[Riot]

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”

Try again, Dell.

Sorry Riot you were lied to and fell for it once again. Don't feel bad, every con-man needs his suckers....

Quite happy to side with our current military, and every living Secretary of State on this one, thanks. You can stick with the two panicky Senators and the minority opinion.

Here's some stuff from back in early 2010, when the Treaty was signed.

March 2010
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ew_nuke_treaty
The Cable got the details in an exclusive interview with Senate Foreign Relations ranking Republican Richard Lugar, R-IN, who met with Obama along with committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, Wednesday morning.

"Missile defense will not be part of the treaty, but in the preamble both parties will state their positions and there will be a mention of offense and defense and the importance of those," Lugar said. He added that because the missile-defense statements were outside the main text, "they are in essence editorial opinions."

---------------------
08 July 2009
Joint Understanding by Obama, Medvedev on Weapon Negotiations

Leaders outline elements for the START follow-on treaty


(begin text)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

July 8, 2009

JOINT UNDERSTANDING

The President of the United States of America and the President of the Russian Federation have decided on further reductions and limitations of their nations’ strategic offensive arms and on concluding at an early date a new legally binding agreement to replace the current START Treaty, and directed that the new treaty contain, inter alia, the following elements:

1. A provision to the effect that each Party will reduce and limit its strategic offensive arms so that seven years after entry into force of the treaty and thereafter, the limits will be in the range of 500-1100 for strategic delivery vehicles, and in the range of 1500-1675 for their associated warheads.

The specific numbers to be recorded in the treaty for these limits will be agreed through further negotiations.

2. Provisions for calculating these limits.

3. Provisions on definitions, data exchanges, notifications, eliminations, inspections and verification procedures, as well as confidence building and transparency measures, as adapted, simplified, and made less costly, as appropriate, in comparison to the START Treaty.

4. A provision to the effect that each Party will determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms.

5. A provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms.

6. A provision on the impact of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles in a non-nuclear configuration on strategic stability.

7. A provision on basing strategic offensive arms exclusively on the national territory of each Party.

8. Establishment of an implementation body to resolve questions related to treaty implementation.

9. A provision to the effect that the treaty will not apply to existing patterns of cooperation in the area of strategic offensive arms between a Party and a third state.

10. A duration of the treaty of ten years, unless it is superseded before that time by a subsequent treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms.

The Presidents direct their negotiators to finish their work on the treaty at an early date so that they may sign and submit it for ratification in their respective countries.

Signed at Moscow, this sixth day of July, 2009, in duplicate, in the English and Russian languages.

FOR THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA:

Barak Obama

FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:

Dmitry Medvedev

(end text)

Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-...#ixzz18yOyjXSf

[Nascar1966]

Cmon people like Russia is really going to let the world know what they have for nuclear weapons.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Try again, Dell.



Quite happy to side with our current military, and every living Secretary of State on this one, thanks. You can stick with the two panicky Senators and the minority opinion.

Here's some stuff from back in early 2010, when the Treaty was signed.



Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-...#ixzz18yOyjXSf

You have the 'chicken dinner' version! Suckered again dopey!