New START Treaty - Support or Oppose

Foreign policy is one of the domains where Presidents have a lot of power. In an increasingly flatting world, where American power is diminishing, it becomes an even more important issue when evaluating potential Presidential candidates. The new START treaty is an interesting test case in this domain.

Prominent Republican supporters of the treaty:
President George H.W. Bush [usatoday.com].
Sec of State, Henry A. Kissinger (under President Nixon).
Sec of State, George P. Shultz (under President Reagan).
Sec of State, James A. Baker III (under President Reagan).
Sec of State, Lawrence S. Eagleburger (under President George H. W. Bush).
Sec of State, Colin L. Powell (under President George W. Bush).
National Security Adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft (under President George H. W. Bush).
Sen Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)- Former Chairman Foreign Relations Comm.

Here's a comprehensive list [armscontrol.org] of people who have publicly supported the ratification of the treaty.

Opponents of the treaty:
I haven't been able to find a comprehensive list of opponents. I am especially interested in out-of-office opponents because for senators opposing it, the motives are more complex (it could be part of the political maneuvering, loyalty to their caucus, etc.). Two notable opponents (and possible presidential candidates) are:

Mitt Romney [washingtonpost.com].
Sarah Palin [nationalreview.com].

So, what do you make of the treaty and the republican opposition to it? If you had the casting vote, would you support or oppose the treaty's ratification?

Not a big deal... so we diminish the arsenals a few hundred warheads: instead of destroying the planet 20x we can only do it 10x.

Quote from cruizerfish : Not a big deal... so we diminish the arsenals a few hundred warheads: instead of destroying the planet 20x we can only do it 10x.

Are you saying not a big deal in that the treaty isn't a big deal and should be supported? Or are you saying not a big deal that since we can still blow up the world 10x over, it doesn't matter what treaties are passed? I'm confused.

Most Republicans opposing START are simply opposing Obama and in the process unwittingly helping China gain an ally with Russia.

Quote from tyman : Are you saying not a big deal in that the treaty isn't a big deal and should be supported? Or are you saying not a big deal that since we can still blow up the world 10x over, it doesn't matter what treaties are passed? I'm confused.

As I'm sure you remember, many years after the SALT treaty was ratified, Henry Kissinger admitted that it actually didn't reduce our nuclear arsenal at all and that we could not have enlarged it at a faster pace even if there had been no treaty. Nonetheless, ratification was a good idea because it made each side less receptive to the idea of going to war.

And today, many hawkish defense experts think the US doesn't need any nuclear weapons at all, thanks to our ability to inflict so much destruction with highly accurate conventional weapons. In the next decade, some of those weapons won't even carry explosive warheads but instead rely purely on kinetic kill from hypersonic tungsten rods.

Quote from tyman : Are you saying not a big deal in that the treaty isn't a big deal and should be supported? Or are you saying not a big deal that since we can still blow up the world 10x over, it doesn't matter what treaties are passed? I'm confused.

Doesnt matter what treaty is passed... The ideal treaty would not destroy ANY nukes but would have them redeployed against space based threats.

Quote from cruizerfish : Doesnt matter what treaty is passed... The ideal treaty would not destroy ANY nukes but would have them redeployed against space based threats.

The ideal nuke treaty would reduce US and Russian nukes significantly and lead to responsible disposal/reprocessing of the fuel. All we need is enough nukes to deter a nuclear threat from a hand-full of nations. Both Russia and the US have that capability many times over.

Mistakes happen, and reducing the arsenal of the US and Russia reduces the chance of a mistake occurring (less maintenance to keep on top of, less risk of theft/accidental-loss).

Quote from cruizerfish : Doesnt matter what treaty is passed... The ideal treaty would not destroy ANY nukes but would have them redeployed against space based threats.

Interesting thoughts.

Quote from tyman : Interesting thoughts.

Unfortunate for us, we did not build a Manhattan Project around Nikola Tesla. Our ability to smash celestial bodies and planets at a whim appears to be lost. We, as a species, must work with the best tools at our disposal.

Much time, energy and effort goes into creating these magnificent weapons. It would be a crying shame to 'destroy' them.

Quote from cruizerfish : Unfortunate for us, we did not build a Manhattan Project around Nikola Tesla. Our ability to smash celestial bodies and planets at a whim appears to be lost. We, as a species, must work with the best tools at our disposal. Much time, energy and effort goes into creating these magnificent weapons. It would be a crying shame to 'destroy' them.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote from cruizerfish : Much time, energy and effort goes into creating these magnificent weapons. It would be a crying shame to 'destroy' them.

Why? We have many more than we need. It costs money for upkeep and security. There is a risk of loss/theft.

Quote from cruizerfish : Unfortunate for us, we did not build a Manhattan Project around Nikola Tesla. Our ability to smash celestial bodies and planets at a whim appears to be lost. We, as a species, must work with the best tools at our disposal. Much time, energy and effort goes into creating these magnificent weapons. It would be a crying shame to 'destroy' them.

All I wanted was frickin sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads!

Quote from Epiphyte : Why? We have many more than we need. It costs money for upkeep and security. There is a risk of loss/theft.

We have no idea what (or how large) of an object may drift in our path. My attitude towards nukes are like guns...better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Quote from Mixels : All I wanted was frickin sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads!

sharks with tesla coils are more fun.

Quote from cruizerfish : We have no idea what (or how large) of an object may drift in our path. My attitude towards nukes are like guns...better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

That completely ignores the costs of keeping the nukes. As I said, you need to account for the cost of upkeep and security as well as the cost of loss/theft.

If we do find out we need to deflect an asteroid with a nuke, that means that it's likely a last minute effort. If that's the case, the number of nukes won't be the limiting factor, the number of rockets capable of reaching the asteroid will.