Nuclear Disarmament Agreement Allows Russian Inspectors on US Soil

[vinnie97]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nuclear-sites/

Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said publicly Tuesday that the two nations have made "considerable" progress toward reaching agreement on a new strategic arms treaty.

The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires in December and negotiators have been racing to reach agreement on a successor.

Clinton said the U.S. would be as transparent as possible.

"We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered," she said, calling missile defense "another area for deep cooperation between our countries."

On another critical issue, Lavrov declared that it would be counterproductive to threaten Iran with more sanctions over its nuclear program -- as he resisted efforts by Clinton to win agreement for tougher measures should Iran fail to prove its program is peaceful.

Clinton visited Moscow on her first trip since becoming America's top diplomat, in an effort to gauge Moscow's willingness to join the U.S. in imposing sanctions.

Clinton said the U.S. agreed it was important to pursue diplomacy with Iran.

"At the same time that we are very vigorously pursuing this track, we are aware that we might not be as successful as we need to be, so we have always looked at the potential of sanctions in the event we are not successful and cannot assure ourselves and others that Iran has decided not to pursue nuclear weapons," she said at a joint news conference.

Iran insists it has the right to a full domestic nuclear enrichment program and maintains it is only for peaceful purposes, such as energy production.

President Obama -- who visited Russia in July -- has vowed to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations. On Tuesday, Clinton apologized for missing that meeting because of a broken elbow.

"But now both my elbow and our relationships are reset and we're moving forward, which I greatly welcome," she said.

She was to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev later Tuesday.

This doesn't sound like an admin particularly concerned about US sovereignty. Of course, there's no way this has any bearing on reality since reported by Foxnews, amirite?

[tricky]

SO on the flipside...we are directly infringing on the sovereignty of N Korea, Iran, and Iraq when we demand they show us their WMD's....Should we only assume that since we are infringing (following your train of thoughts), that we should expect them to be extremely hostile....

[vinnie97]

Damn right since they are dictatorships who have made their horrific intentions known. Have we been sabre-rattling our nuclear might like North Korea lately and threatening our geographical neighbors? Have we denied the Holocaust and threatened to eradicate Israel from the map (or shown any inclination that we would like that to happen)? Perspective's a bitch, isn't it?

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Damn right since they are dictatorships who have made their horrific intentions known. Have we been sabre-rattling our nuclear might like North Korea lately and threatening our geographical neighbors? Have we denied the Holocaust and threatened to eradicate Israel from the map (or shown any inclination that we would like that to happen)? Perspective's a bitch, isn't it?

Well, we are the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons on another nation.

That's the world's perspective of us. And we've had numerous proposals in the past in terms of using Nuclear Weapons, such as using a nuke against North Korea during the Korean war, or using small tactical nukes to destroy underground bunkers.

[vinnie97]

I know, I know, we haven't apologized enough for that lately. Obama should get right on it.

To hell with doing what was necessary against an aggressor allied with Hitler who was attacking our own soil.

North Korea has always been a loose cannon, I'm not sure why there should be any sympathy for nuclear contingencies against them nor do I have any idea how that makes it necessary to invite Russia over for nuke inspections.

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

I know, I know, we haven't apologized enough for that lately. Obama should get right on it.

To hell with doing what was necessary against an aggressor allied with Hitler who was attacking our own soil.

I didn't really state any opinion on it, just giving historical context.

If you want my personal opinion, I'm glad we dropped those bombs on Japan. My grandfather was to be part of one of the first waves marines to invade mainland Japan. The estimated allied casualty rate for that first wave was at 90%. Probability suggests that he is alive today, because of the nuclear bombing of Japan.

That still doesn't change the fact that we are the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another nation.

Originally Posted by vinnie97

North Korea has always been a loose cannon, I'm not sure why there should be any sympathy for nuclear contingencies against them nor do I have any idea how that makes it necessary to invite Russia over for nuke inspections.

There's a marketing term called dogfooding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_one's_own_dog_food

Eating one's own dog food means that a company uses the products that it makes. Dogfooding is a means of a company conveying its confidence in its own products.

How likely are you to oblige a company's products if they don't even use their products themselves?

Some people might, but overall, it seems a bit shady, doesn't it?

If this country is really all about global nuclear disarmament and a part of that is sending inspectors to other countries to monitor their disarmament progress, wouldn't it make sense to show a vote of confidence to these other nations if we dogfooded our own policy?

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by johnny861

If this country is really all about global nuclear disarmament and a part of that is sending inspectors to other countries to monitor their disarmament progress, wouldn't it make sense to show a vote of confidence to these other nations if we dogfooded our own policy?

Stop making sense, Hunter! That will never fly!

We must forever remain untouchable and levy out the rules and mete justice to the world without falling prey to the self-same ideals we pass on to the world!

[zcwilly]

Ideals don't keep you alive, but a nuclear deterrent just might. I don't give a fuck if it's fair or not, life ain't fair.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

Ideals don't keep you alive, but a nuclear deterrent just might. I don't give a fuck if it's fair or not, life ain't fair.

It all leads back to the same old thing, though.

Who watches the watchmen? Y'know?

Ever since 1918 and of course with the departure from Isolationism, WE'VE been part of the world police and caught much ire and lost many resources in holding that role.

Would you rather we do this forever?

I would hope that the standards we are holding and baring would be smart enough to include NOT giving away ALL of our tech during these inspections.

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

We must forever remain untouchable and levy out the rules and mete justice to the world without falling prey to the self-same ideals we pass on to the world!

"Let them hate us so long as they fear us."
-- Caligula

[Nyteshade]

If this country is really all about global nuclear disarmament and a part of that is sending inspectors to other countries to monitor their disarmament progress, wouldn't it make sense to show a vote of confidence to these other nations if we dogfooded our own policy?

This. I assume we are allowed to send inspectors to Russia as well and I fail to see the problem with it.

[Deff Gordon]

i dunno... there are some alvanians out there that believe the Germans used an atomic bomb on St Petersburg and that the destruction there was not from conventional warfare... also, after the fall of Germany, we took the plutonium (because we didn't have enough for our bombs and were only using uranium) and used their plutonium in the bombs on Japan. they say we were only working on enriching uranium and not plutonium...

enough of the tinfoil...

there was however a show this past week on the History Channel on Japan and the bomb they created and tested in N Korea before surrendering. Russia apparently moved in and confiscated all their knowledge.

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

It all leads back to the same old thing, though.

Who watches the watchmen? Y'know?

Ever since 1918 and of course with the departure from Isolationism, WE'VE been part of the world police and caught much ire and lost many resources in holding that role.

Would you rather we do this forever?

I would hope that the standards we are holding and baring would be smart enough to include NOT giving away ALL of our tech during these inspections.

I also disagree with being the "world's police", we stick our nose in a lot of things we shouldn't. But I also think a nuclear deterrent has kept our country intact for a long time and Russia is the only country that could rival us with nukes. It seems to me an obvious strategic blunder to let a country who has been our enemy in the past and has recently invaded other democratically elected countries (among a list of other recent questionable events) come over and count our bullets. What are we getting in return? A facade of "better relations".

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

I also disagree with being the "world's police", we stick our nose in a lot of things we shouldn't.

Without taking too much away from the original point of the thread, even you admit that we dabble in a bit more than we need and thanks to the "nuclear deterrent" we are both feared and hated. This isn't a complete stand down, just a feint in trying to push things to a level of decent discourse between our nations and hopefully others afterwards.

Originally Posted by zcwilly

But I also think a nuclear deterrent has kept our country intact for a long time and Russia is the only country that could rival us with nukes. It seems to me an obvious strategic blunder to let a country who has been our enemy in the past and has recently invaded other democratically elected countries (among a list of other recent questionable events) come over and count our bullets.

Again, as long as the rules are in place BEFORE the visit and we check their pockets to make sure that they don't steal our "bullets" or the "bullet packing machine", things SHOULD be golden.

Originally Posted by zcwilly

What are we getting in return? A facade of "better relations".

If it is a "facade", 1) they lose and lose face and 2) they are hosed on trying to bring things back up by way of production thanks to the dismemberment of their country during the tail end of the 90s. They've got what they didn't sell and that is about it. That's bad enough, but it can't be brought up to speed without our knowing about it well before it became a big enough threat to instigate war.

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Without taking too much away from the original point of the thread, even you admit that we dabble in a bit more than we need and thanks to the "nuclear deterrent" we are both feared and hated. This isn't a complete stand down, just a feint in trying to push things to a level of decent discourse between our nations and hopefully others afterwards.

No, thanks to "foreign policy" not the nuclear deterrent. We don't threaten other countries with nukes.

Decent discourse with Russia? You assume that all other countries work like ours (see below). I don't want them counting our warheads unless it's all just a show. Which if it is, then bravo.

Again, as long as the rules are in place BEFORE the visit and we check their pockets to make sure that they don't steal our "bullets" or the "bullet packing machine", things SHOULD be golden.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton is on it

If it is a "facade", 1) they lose and lose face and 2) they are hosed on trying to bring things back up by way of production thanks to the dismemberment of their country during the tail end of the 90s. They've got what they didn't sell and that is about it. That's bad enough, but it can't be brought up to speed without our knowing about it well before it became a big enough threat to instigate war.

I don't trust them, period. Let's look at a few things they are doing currently:

Selling missiles and warplanes to Venezuela.
Creating a monopoly on European oil and natural gas supplies.
Journalists and dissidents who oppose the government come up missing all the time. One was poisoned with Russian plutonium on European soil.
Hell, they had nukes pointed at us 50 some-odd years ago with some of the same people still in office.