Curious to hear some opinions on the new START treaty. This means you, Pat.
I personally think that it can only hurt America. Reducing warheads and delivery systems sounds like a wonderful thing down on Happy Street in the Land of Swirly-Whirly Gum Drops, but what does it accomplish in the real world? I believe it jeopardizes our abilities in terms of missile defense. It won't save a single life. It won't eradicate chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks as a threat against the global community. It won't even lessen the costly toll of a war that involves either the US or Russia.
I understand the logic for the initial START treaty as a means to an end of the Cold War and arms race, but it's a different world now. The Russians have been trying to curb our efforts towards a missile defense shield in Europe for decades. To ratify this treaty is to give them a small victory towards that end. Feel-good, symbolic victories may be great for the "Aesop's crowd", but serve only to make me more cynical towards politicians here in reality.
2 comments:
I'm with you on this one. Treaties, in general, are a waste of time. They're never really enforceable so why even bother.
Slight subject change, but I have come to a different view on foreign policy over the last few years. We don't need to be in Iraq anymore. Or even Afghanistan. Those people over there are crazy and always have been. Bring our boys home and let them do what they are actually trained to do: fight wars and defend the country. Not police the world, nation-build, and try to bring democracy to ignorant towel-heads who never wanted it in the first place, and never will.
If there is another 9/11, I agree, bomb the crap out of them again. But we don't need to still be on the ground, patrolling their street, spending billions of dollars building schools, hospitals, and roads for them, and trying to make them accept and understand concepts they never will.
Just bomb the crap out of them and call it a day. Big government doesn't work at home, nor abroad.
sReagen hated nuclear weapons, but he built up our supply to deter the USSR. That seemed to work. Make the enemy scared of you. I think if the enemy sees you becoming weaker, they smell blood and go on the offensive. There may be an arms race, but I'd rather be the one with the biggest guns at the end. (I know from experience, since my guns are freaken huge.) I don't think pandering to an untrustworthy "ally" is the right solution.
Post a Comment