Gates & Clinton Explain New Nuclear Policy & Treaty

Gates & Clinton Explain New Nuclear Policy & Treaty

16
5
SHARE

All of this is very straightforward, but it bears repeating since so many on the right cried foul last week.



So, basically, this new policy will deter nations from taking the path that Iran and North Korea have taken since they know we won’t strike them with nuclear weapons…thus taking away a key argument from those who would seek nuclear capabilities.

Also, and let’s make sure this holds the appropriate weight…the agreement with Russia was historic. First, it definitely started a new relationship with our friend/foe and that shouldn’t be discounted. Second, even though this treaty only means a 30% reduction now, it paves the way for a significant drawdown between the two countries in the future. Third, we’re not giving up missile defense in Europe. Of course, Russia is saying they could withdraw, but that’s their style. However, there’s a difference between diplomacy and reality, and this is where I wish my friends on the right wouldn’t be so reactionary.

Still…I want to hear your thoughts. After the smoke has cleared, what do you think of this new policy and treaty?

  • jaygade

    NOOO! We must perpetuate the Cold War! The Peace is a Lie! Liars!

    Kill a commie for mommy!

    Heh. Personally, even though Russia hasn’t exactly become the beacon of freedom and light that we all hoped that it would, it is no longer quite the evil empire that it used to be either.

    I feel better with fewer nukes pointed at my head.

  • Terry

    I think it is again the ability of this President to seek a realistic and functional agreement with other nations, an action absent in the previous administration. Good diplomacy works on a portfolio of advances – here we have a the reduction of unnecessary nuclear warheads, a working relationship with Russia and a baseline for foreign relations with other countries. The idea that we put a line in the sand for those seeking nuclear weapons should not be discounted.

    I enjoy Obama’s core positive re-enforcement perspective. What bothered me most about the Bush administration was not necessarily their viewpoint, but their finger wagging and half empty threats. The played to their political base, but did nothing to address the duties of their position.

  • http://centristcoalition.com/blog/ kranky kritter

    So, how much is 70% of way, way, more than everyone else?

  • http://www.joshcowan.com Josh Cowan

    @ Terry, I’m with you. I like that this doesn’t threaten a destabilization of the way the governments interact (“Do it our way or we’ll…”) while moving towards a minimizing of a potentially huge black swan (a loose nuke in the hands of someone who will use it). Does it go far enough? Not from the risk assessment perspective but it certainly goes in the right direction and, after all, as someone smarter than I once said; “politics is the art of the possible”.

  • wj

    Since the first President to negotiate and sign a treaty with Russia to limit nuclear weapons was Ronald Reagan, obviously this is just a vile socialist plot to destroy America. I mean, what else could it be???