PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues USA/Russia to announce new nuclear arms reduction treaty.


BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 07:33 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/03/obama-medvedev-close-to-start/1

President Obama is expected to announce a new nuclear arms reduction treaty (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/breaking-new-arms-treaty-with-russia-expected-to-be-announced-today.html) with Russia this morning.


Obama and Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev will speak by phone at 10 a.m., Washington time, about the finishing touches on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, said a White House scheduling announcement.
And Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen will brief reporters at 10:45 a.m.

Czech Republic officials have said they have been contacted about a START signing ceremony to be held in Prague on April 8.
On Thursday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he expected Obama and Medvedev to speak soon, and, "I think we're very close to getting an agreement."

The original START, signed in 1991, expired in December, but has remained in effect as American and Russian arms negotiators worked out a new deal, one that will have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate and Russian Duma.

Also expect a lot of talk about how this has probably been Obama's best week as president -- first, a health care bill; now, probably, a new arms treaty with the Russians.

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 07:40 AM
Also expect a lot of talk about how this has probably been Obama's best week as president -- first, a health care bill; now, probably, a new arms treaty with the Russians.

Don't forget the ringing endorsement he got from Castro for modeling our health care after Cuba's. ;)

Otter
03-26-2010, 07:40 AM
Cats already out of the bag. Too late.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 07:43 AM
Don't forget the ringing endorsement he got from Castro for modeling our health care after Cuba's. ;)Hugo chavez did offer his help to George W. after Katrina..:hmmm: maybe its a trend.;)

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 07:44 AM
Cat's already out of the bag. Too late.What cat? Nuclear arms? The MAD policy thats kept us from blowing each other up?

stevieray
03-26-2010, 07:45 AM
Hugo chavez did offer his help to George W. after Katrina..:hmmm: maybe its a trend.;)

bush bush bush bush bush bush bush bush

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 07:47 AM
bush bush bush bush bush bush bush bushdude it was a joke. hence the smileys....lighten up Francis.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 07:48 AM
Givin ours up while Iran gets theirs. Insane. No wonder we are seen as weak.

Otter
03-26-2010, 07:51 AM
What cat? Nuclear arms? The MAD policy thats kept us from blowing each other up?

I mean Iran, North Korea and every other rogue country already know how to contain and deliver a nuclear reaction. Eliminating retaliatory weapons would be silly and reducing nuclear arms is like reducing biological weapons.

Quantity is the factor. We can only wipe out mankind 21 times instead of 50?

It looks pretty on paper though.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 07:52 AM
Givin ours up while Iran gets theirs. Insane. No wonder we are seen as weak.You are the one that is insane. Enough with the fear mongering. You don't even know what the hell is in the treaty. You really think we are going to go past MAD in our reductions? How many nukes do we need to defend ourselfs? We have thousands, we need one for Iran at the most. Comeon man

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 07:54 AM
Quantity is the factor. We can only wipe out mankind 21 times instead of 50?

It looks pretty on paper though.No chit, why does it matter if we can kill ourselfs 21 times over or 50? It's just PR in my book.

KC native
03-26-2010, 08:47 AM
No chit, why does it matter if we can kill ourselfs 21 times over or 50? It's just PR in my book.

The costs of maintaining our nuclear arsenal aren't exactly small so reducing unnecessary costs like that are good imo.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 09:26 AM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>U.S. announces arms control treaty with Russia

By the CNN Wire Staff



STORY HIGHLIGHTS

First arms control treaty since the end of the Cold War
Treaty would reduce number of deployed warheads each side can have
U.S. official: "Innovative" ways found to verify each side's nuclear arsenal


RELATED TOPICS

Nuclear Weapons (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Nuclear_Weapons)
Russia (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Russia)
U.S. Department of State (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Department_of_State)

Washington (CNN) -- The United States and Russia have reached "the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades," President Obama said Friday.
The agreement cuts by about one-third "the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy," the president said. "It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign the agreement April 8 in Prague, Czech Republic, the president said.

The new treaty will consist of three tiers, the White House said.

"Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force," the White House said in a news release. "Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty."

"The Treaty's duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement," the news release added.
State Department spokesman Mike Toner said Wednesday that talks for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expired in December, were "almost at the finish line."

A Russian official, who has knowledge of the negotiations but was not authorized to speak on the record, described the agreement as significant for both sides. "The strategic part of our relationship is very important," he said, "and it affects the general way we interact with each other."
Negotiators have been working since April 2009 to wrap up the "follow-on" to the 1991 agreement. Talks were difficult, with disagreements over verification, including on-site inspection of missiles that carry nuclear warheads.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the talks earlier told CNN that negotiators had found "innovative" ways to verify what each side has. Verification will be a top issue politically because the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament will each have to ratify any agreement.

Russian officials at one point objected to the Obama administration's plans to build a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe. Specifically, they were angered by news leaks from Romania that it had agreed to allow missile interceptors to be installed in that country.

The issue, according to arms control experts, was resolved by including non-binding language in the START treaty's preamble stating that there is a relationship between offensive and defensive weapons; however, the treaty itself deals only with limits on offensive weapons systems. This resolution could help placate U.S. critics who want no link in the treaty between offensive and defensive weapons, arguing that it might be used to try to limit a U.S. missile-defense plan.

The new START would be the first treaty related to arms control since the end of the Cold War, experts have said, setting the stage for further arms reductions that will tackle thorny issues like what to do with non-deployed warheads that are kept in storage, tactical nuclear weapons (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/nuclear_weapons) and further cuts in missiles and launch vehicles.

On Wednesday, the Czech government confirmed that it has agreed to host the signing of the new START agreement in Prague. The location was the setting for a speech by Obama last April 5 in which he laid out his vision for a world free of nuclear weapons.

The American side is hoping to have the agreement signed by the two presidents before April 12, when a two-day nuclear summit is to be held in Washington.
The new arms agreement would reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads each side can have.
The United States has about 2,200 strategic warheads deployed; Russia (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/russia) has an estimated 2,500.

Under the new agreement, each side would be allowed 1,500 to 1,675 nuclear warheads, officials have said.
The treaty also would also limit the number of strategic bombers and missiles that carry the warheads to between 500 and 1,100 for each side, officials have said.

The current limit is 1,600, but the United States has 900 delivery vehicles; Russia has an estimated 600.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here-->
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc>http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/start.treaty/index.html?hpt=T1
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 09:31 AM
Maybe Obama can kneel for Putin when they sign

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 09:32 AM
The costs of maintaining our nuclear arsenal aren't exactly small so reducing unnecessary costs like that are good imo.I wonder if 1,675 nuclear weapons are enough or not keep us secure? Maybe we need 2000? That wimpy Obama. :cuss: Looks like to me that Russia has to get rid of 300 more nuclear weapons than we do but its not important. jeezzz do we really need more than a couple of hundred on each side to achieve MAD and prevent a nuclear war?

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:44 AM
You are the one that is insane. Enough with the fear mongering. You don't even know what the hell is in the treaty.

Obama's past statements about our nuclear arsenal give a reasonable person plenty of reason to be concerned here.

KC native
03-26-2010, 09:47 AM
Obama's past statements about our nuclear arsenal give a reasonable person plenty of reason to be concerned here.

No, they don't. Only irrational morons fall in that category.

BigCatDaddy
03-26-2010, 09:48 AM
I could be wrong here, but I thought I saw a stat where 50% of the money spent in the world on defense is spent by the US. It's sad we live in a world where so much money needs to be spent on defense and war while most of the world lives on like $5 dollars a day, kids die of starvation, and people can't get the health care they need.

(jumps off soapbox)

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:59 AM
I could be wrong here, but I thought I saw a stat where 50% of the money spent in the world on defense is spent by the US. It's sad we live in a world where so much money needs to be spent on defense and war while most of the world lives on like $5 dollars a day, kids die of starvation, and people can't get the health care they need.

(jumps off soapbox)

Would you rather live in the country that accounts for 50% of the world's defense budget or the country that accounts for 2%? If you choose the latter, you'd better pray that the former doesn't get pissed off at you.

BigCatDaddy
03-26-2010, 10:22 AM
Would you rather live in the country that accounts for 50% of the world's defense budget or the country that accounts for 2%? If you choose the latter, you'd better pray that the former doesn't get pissed off at you.

So you don't think maybe 1 country spending half the world's money that is spend on defense isn't a little excessive? It's not like we are surrounded by foreign threats like Israel is.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:40 AM
Obama's past statements about our nuclear arsenal give a reasonable person plenty of reason to be concerned here.welll you are wrong, IMHO. No one on the face of the earth will ever seriously advocate going away from the MAD policy.

Rid the world of nuclear weapons is a lofty goal and one that we should work torwards but....I think MAD serves its purpose for at least the next 10 years.

alpha_omega
03-26-2010, 11:27 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ose-to-start/1 (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/03/obama-medvedev-close-to-start/1)
...
Also expect a lot of talk about how this has probably been Obama's best WEAK as president -- first, a health care bill; now, probably, a new arms treaty with the Russians.

Fixed that article.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 03:45 PM
So you don't think maybe 1 country spending half the world's money that is spend on defense isn't a little excessive? It's not like we are surrounded by foreign threats like Israel is.

As long as that country is mine, no I don't. I'd be happier if it was 100%.

You didn't answer my question.

Direckshun
03-26-2010, 04:03 PM
Aside from this being a phenomenal development, this proves essentially everybody wrong from early in Obama's administration that Obama "got nothing" out of his trip to Russia.

This is how diplomacy works, and it requires an attention span -- not a 24-hour spin cycle -- to understand how good this President has been at it.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 04:25 PM
Aside from this being a phenomenal development, this proves essentially everybody wrong from early in Obama's administration that Obama "got nothing" out of his trip to Russia.

This is how diplomacy works, and it requires an attention span -- not a 24-hour spin cycle -- to understand how good this President has been at it.

Yeah, phenomenal. :rolleyes:

I wonder how much of the farm he had to give away (beyond the concessions on missile defense that we already know about) to get the Russians to agree to something... anything.

Chiefspants
03-26-2010, 05:07 PM
Givin ours up while Iran gets theirs. Insane. No wonder we are seen as weak.


Well, then its a good thing that Russia's now on board with Iran's sanctions, it is going to be much more difficult for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon if Russia is not on their side.


So, what was it that caused Russia to side the US on this issue?

vailpass
03-26-2010, 05:09 PM
Watch Medvedev bend obama over.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 05:14 PM
Well, then its a good thing that Russia's now on board with Iran's sanctions, it is going to be much more difficult for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon if Russia is not on their side.


So, what was it that caused Russia to side the US on this issue?Yes, please neo-cons enlighten us....Why will Russia get rid of 300 more nuclear weapons than us?

And while your at it come up with an explanation why Pakistan now is coroperating?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2010, 05:15 PM
No chit, why does it matter if we can kill ourselfs 21 times over or 50? It's just PR in my book.

This is excellent news. The cost of cleanup alone from the production of fissile material in areas like Hanford, Washington and the Savannah Plant in South Carolina has run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The cost of maintaining weapons either in an active state or near alert status is wasteful. Furthermore, I wonder how many people know that in the past the Bendix Plant in Kansas City produced the non-nuclear parts for the bomb, including the PAL security system. As such, the strategic importance of that plant raised the target on KC's back from counter value to counter force, which means that it would be one of the first places hit in a nuclear exchange.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 05:16 PM
Watch Medvedev bend obama over.They demanded that the USA stop work on a missle defense system or there was to be no deal. Russia blinked. Obama is continuing on with the development of a missle defense system.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2010, 05:18 PM
I could be wrong here, but I thought I saw a stat where 50% of the money spent in the world on defense is spent by the US. It's sad we live in a world where so much money needs to be spent on defense and war while most of the world lives on like $5 dollars a day, kids die of starvation, and people can't get the health care they need.

(jumps off soapbox)

We spend more money on defense than the next 20 countries combined and 7 times more than our next closest rival (China).

During the nuclear arms race, nearly two thirds of the world's scientists were involved in weapons research and development for either governments or defense contractors.

That is such a staggering waste of human capital, and the costs of it go far beyond a budget deficit.

Sadly, most people were scared into continually supporting the defense department, as we the taxpayers were essentially a form of public subsidy for private corporations who provided us with nothing (other than the illusion of security all the while ramping up hostilities) in return.

vailpass
03-26-2010, 05:28 PM
They demanded that the USA stop work on a missle defense system or there was to be no deal. Russia blinked. Obama is continuing on with the development of a missle defense system.

I've worked DOD contracts for almost 20 years BRC. Currently teaching a business class in a related area. What they tell you in your weekly obama Fan Club newsletter may not be the exact whole picture.

vailpass
03-26-2010, 05:29 PM
We spend more money on defense than the next 20 countries combined and 7 times more than our next closest rival (China).

During the nuclear arms race, nearly two thirds of the world's scientists were involved in weapons research and development for either governments or defense contractors.

That is such a staggering waste of human capital, and the costs of it go far beyond a budget deficit.

Sadly, most people were scared into continually supporting the defense department, as we the taxpayers were essentially a form of public subsidy for private corporations who provided us with nothing (other than the illusion of security all the while ramping up hostilities) in return.

That is the cost of being at the top of the Superpower chain. Would you care to try the alternative?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2010, 05:34 PM
That is the cost of being at the top of the Superpower chain. Would you care to try the alternative?

You could still spend 300 billion dollars a year on defense, almost quadruple China's expenditures, and save us $350 billion a year. I figured you small government types would like that kind of fiscal responsibility.

Direckshun
03-26-2010, 06:18 PM
I've worked DOD contracts for almost 20 years BRC. Currently teaching a business class in a related area. What they tell you in your weekly obama Fan Club newsletter may not be the exact whole picture.

Oh, excellent. Then you can explain to the rest of us here how defense contractors bilk us out of a fuckload of money every year, and how Congressional paddy-cakes create a financially inefficient weapons system where we build a single tank with parts from 41 states.

I welcome the education.

fan4ever
03-26-2010, 06:35 PM
My first thought when hearing this; Russia holding a private armaments garage sale.

BigCatDaddy
03-26-2010, 07:50 PM
As long as that country is mine, no I don't. I'd be happier if it was 100%.

You didn't answer my question.

Doesn't that seem like alot of wasted money that could be better spent?

Given those choices I would prefer the 50%.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 08:39 PM
Doesn't that seem like alot of wasted money that could be better spent?

When it comes to international affairs and the strength of our military, there are at least three things that come to my mind relative to your initial question:

1. We are less likely to have to fight if our military is dominantly superior to that of other countries,

2. If our military is dominantly superior to that of other countries, we're a lot more likely to be able to pick the whens and wheres of our fights instead of having those factors forced upon us, and

3. When we do have to fight, we're a lot more likely to make sure most of the death and destruction is on the other side.

If the world were filled with several roughly equal militaries instead of a superpower and a bunch of far less powerful forces, it would be a lot more dangerous place and any conflict we ended up in would be a lot more bloody for our side (and the outcome a lot more uncertain).

As a result, I'm in favor of having an overkill level of military capability. There will always be a lot of waste in defense spending (it's the government afterall) and I don't know if 50% is the right number or if 45% or 30% would do, but I'm not going to complain because I'd rather we err on the high side than the low side. If we need to cut spending, and I believe we do, I see a lot of other areas that should be cut before we cut the military.

Given those choices I would prefer the 50%.

Thank you.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 08:47 PM
Yes, please neo-cons enlighten us....Why will Russia get rid of 300 more nuclear weapons than us?

And while your at it come up with an explanation why Pakistan now is coroperating?

1. I don't see any reason to believe that Russia is on board with sanctions that will prevent Iran from getting a nuke.

2. Russia may have been wanting to get rid of those nukes without any concessions on our side. If so, everything they got Obama to give up was gravy. We really don't know what Russia was willing to give up. In any event, I'm more interested in what Obama gave up and whether he got any real assistance in the Iranian issue. Russian nukes are a 1980s problem more than a 2010 problem. Maybe Obama can solve the issue of shitty hair bands next.

3. I think it was you who told me in another thread that Pakistan is doing what's in Pakistan's interest as they see it.

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 09:08 PM
2. Russia may have been wanting to get rid of those nukes without any concessions on our side. If so, everything they got Obama to give up was gravy. We really don't know what Russia was willing to give up. In any event, I'm more interested in what Obama gave up and whether he got any real assistance in the Iranian issue. Russian nukes are a 1980s problem more than a 2010 problem. Maybe Obama can solve the issue of shitty hair bands next.

There is the deal. Russia doesn't fear us. They don't for a second think we are a threat.

Getting rid of extra nukes is great but if Obama didn't get help with the Iran problem this whole treaty is just trivial blah blah blah.

Ebolapox
03-26-2010, 09:18 PM
I'm not an obama fan, but I don't see this as an issue.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:19 PM
I'm not an obama fan, but I don't see this as an issue.of course its not an issue. It's just pr. A starter treaty to see if we can trust each other. We will still have tons of nuclear weapons, in fact the Russians give up 300 more nuclear weapons than we do.

This is a no brainer, non political treaty.

BigRedChief
04-08-2010, 06:02 AM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Obama, Russian president sign arms treaty

By the CNN Wire staff


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: President Obama says U.S., Russia pursuing "responsible global leadership"
NEW: Russia's Dmitry Medvedev calls treaty a "win-win situation" for the two countries
Pact cuts number of nuclear weapons held by U.S. and Russia by about a third
Obama will have dinner with heads of government from 11 countries during trip


Prague, Czech Republic (CNN) -- President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday signed a major nuclear arms control agreement that reduces the nuclear stockpiles of both nations.

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- known by its acronym, START-- builds on a previous agreement that expired in December.

The agreement cuts the number of nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia by about a third.

"This day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia -- the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Nuclear_Weapons) -- to pursue responsible global leadership," Obama said after the signing.
"Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global nonproliferation."

Medvedev called START a "win-win situation" for the two countries.
"This agreement enhances strategic ability and, at the same time, allows us to rise to a higher level of cooperation between Russia and the United States," he said.
The two leaders talked about a range of nuclear issues, including Iran, in their meeting before the signing ceremony.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he hopes Congress will ratify the treaty with a large bipartisan majority, as it has with previous arms control treaties.
"We are hopeful that reducing the threat of nuclear weapons remains a priority for both parties," Gibbs said.

The full treaty and its protocols will be posted online at some point Thursday, Gibbs said. Brian McKeon, a senior adviser to the White House's National Security Council and deputy national security adviser to the vice president, will lead the administration's ratification effort, Gibbs said.
Administration officials will begin briefing members of the Senate on Thursday on the particulars of the treaty.
Gibbs said Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama) was also briefed on the situation in Kyrgyzstan, where the opposition claimed control of government Wednesday after deadly protests across the country.

Obama will have dinner with heads of government from 11 countries -- Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

The highlight of the two-day trip is the new treaty with Russia, which is another step in nuclear arms relations between the former Cold War adversaries. Its signing comes two days after the Obama administration announced a new U.S. nuclear weapons policy and four days before Obama convenes a summit of 47 nations on nuclear security issues.

"It significantly reduces missiles and launchers," Obama said of the new treaty, which lasts for 10 years. "It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."

Obama has made nuclear nonproliferation a major priority of his presidency, prompting criticism from conservatives who fear the president will weaken the U.S. nuclear deterrent against possible attack.
"We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea," according to a statement issued Tuesday by Arizona's two Republican U.S. senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl.
"The Obama administration's policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other would-be proliferators and supporters of terrorism."

According to information released by the White House, the new treaty limits both nations to "significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years" of its signing. One of the limits: 1,550 warheads.
"Warheads on deployed ICBMs [Intercontinental ballistic missiles] and deployed SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missiles] count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit," the White House said.
There also are limits on launchers.

The treaty also lays out a "verification regime" that includes on-site inspections, data exchanges and notifications, the White House said.
"The treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities," according to the White House.

Obama said the agreement is part of an effort to "reset" the U.S. relationship with Russia (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Russia).
"With this agreement, the United States and Russia -- the two largest nuclear powers in the world -- also send a clear signal that we intend to lead," the president said. "By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities."

Negotiators have been working since April 2009 to wrap up the "follow-on" to the 1991 START agreement. Talks were difficult, with disagreements over verification, including on-site inspection of missiles that carry nuclear warheads.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the talks earlier said that negotiators had found "innovative" ways to verify what each side has. Verification will be a top issue politically because the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament will each have to ratify any agreement.

Russian officials at one point objected to the Obama administration's plans to build a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe. Specifically, they were angered by news leaks from Romania that it had agreed to allow missile interceptors to be installed in that country.

The issue, according to arms control experts, was resolved by including nonbinding language in the START treaty's preamble stating that there is a relationship between offensive and defensive weapons; however, the treaty itself deals only with limits on offensive weapons systems.

This resolution could help placate U.S. critics who want no link in the treaty between offensive and defensive weapons, arguing that it might be used to try to limit a U.S. missile-defense plan.
The new treaty would be the first pact related to arms control since the end of the Cold War, experts have said, setting the stage for further arms reductions that will tackle thorny issues such as what to do with nondeployed warheads that are kept in storage, tactical nuclear weapons and further cuts in missiles and launch vehicles.
Some of those issues are expected to come up at the nuclear security summit in Washington on Monday and Tuesday.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here-->
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc>http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/08/obama.russia.treaty/index.html?hpt=T1 </TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Direckshun
04-08-2010, 08:58 AM
Honestly I think this is a symbolic victory for US/Russia relations more than anything else. (Although 30%? Holy shit, that's fantastic.)

Anyway, I'm waiting for Pete to admit he's pretty much wrong when he was shitting all over Obama for failing to get anything done in Russia when he visited last year. I remember he gloated several times that I was "just upset that Putin and Russia told Obama to go suck it."

Yes, Pete. I sure was heartbroken. They insulted my President, and all I got out of the deal was cutting their nuclear arsenal down by 30%.

I mean, isn't that the big difference between the politics of the Democrats and the politics of the Republicans right now? The difference between Pete and I embodies it. The Republicans are obsessed with winning the daily message war, and the Democrats are playing the long game.

mlyonsd
04-08-2010, 09:19 AM
I was busy in the shop last night and listening to Fox Special Report when I thought I heard them say Russia had agreed to stop exporting 250,000 barrels of refined gas to Iran daily as a sanction.

Not sure if I heard the story right, but if it is true and it was arranged by our State department kudos to Obama on that one.

Direckshun
04-08-2010, 09:25 AM
I was busy in the shop last night and listening to Fox Special Report when I thought I heard them say Russia had agreed to stop exporting 250,000 barrels of refined gas to Iran daily as a sanction.

Not sure if I heard the story right, but if it is true and it was arranged by our State department kudos to Obama on that one.

Yeah, I mean I think patteeu is right to a certain extent. Russia was probably already looking to make this deal, as I'm sure we were as well. This wasn't Obama breaking down a diplomatic brick wall or anything.

What this was, was a great first step to getting a very important national security alliance going. Russia is the one country we need to get on board with Iran. If we get them on board, it's a game changer. With other countries too, although Iran's the most important one.

It doesn't hurt that it helps to slowly thaw a decades long rivalry of animosity. And a better relationship with Russia could prove to be a boon to the economies of both countries. Lord knows we could both use it...

I don't know if I heard the barrels of gas story yet. But given the magnitude of this treaty it wouldn't surprise me.