The era of magical thinking

THIS is a very bad moment in the United States for thoughtfulness on foreign affairs—at least in the popular press and in the halls of Congress. Exhibit A: The ongoing fight over ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. Over the past two decades, a series of arms-control agreements have led to negotiated reductions in nuclear weapons from roughly 12,000 to the current level of around 2,000. New START would bring that number down a bit further, to 1,550, while also strengthening verification and transparency for monitoring treaty compliance. That's what's usually called a no-brainer.

And yet key Republicans in Congress—most recently and damagingly Jon Kyl, a senator from Arizona—have repeatedly acted to delay a ratification vote, even though doing so might scuttle the treaty. These senators are supported by a number of right-wing foreign-policy thinkers (including John Bolton, Eric Edelman, Jim Woolsey, and John Yoo) who strongly oppose ratification. But the Obama administration has pushed back hard, responding to most of the specific questions put forth by sceptics of the pact. On Saturday Robert Gates singled out concerns that the agreement might inhibit development of missile-defence programmes, saying, "Anything that we have in mind now or in the years to come that we haven't even thought of is not prohibited." The administration has also put forward $85 billion over the next ten years to modernise America's nuclear infrastructure, the state of which seems to be the primary concern of Mr Kyl. Even hawks such as Robert Kagan and Max Boot have found the treaty worthy of passage, if not perfect. And an impressive group of Republican former officials who negotiated earlier (and much more drastic) cuts in America's nuclear stockpile have lined up behind the agreement.

More at:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/new_start_treaty

+++++++++++++++++

The decision to oppose the latest incarnation of START is a purely political one, motivated not even by an ideological concern for American power so much as it is by a political desire to block any accomplishment by this president. The congressional GOP favors taking a tougher stance with Russia today than Reagan took with the USSR.

They are opposing the president not simply when he proposes "change," but even when he proposes continuity, even when it is in foreign policy, even when the aims have been supported by every president since Nixon, even when there has been a bipartisan consensus on the issue for 40 years. Today's GOP is positioning itself to the right of Robert Kagan on arms control and disarmament. There's only one word for that: extremist.

See also the latest Wall Street Journal editorial on START. Compare and contrast that editorial with the ones from the WSJ dating from episodes when arms control treaties have been proposed by Republican presidents. Today's GOP has its party organs who do not deviate from the party line, even when the party line is utterly inconsistent with the party line that had been established for 40 years. We are at war with Eurasia, and have always been at war with Eurasia.

spread far and wide, so they are thinking if they accept even generous limitations on that budget, limitations they are nonetheless.

Doesn't this treaty also contain an increase in the limit on the big nukes, a.k.a. the strategic nuclear weapons, which hypothetical increase would then obviate planning for even more "modernization".

So, perhaps GOP objections DO make sense in that they wish to prevent ANY limitations in the future, on the proliferation of these "modernized", smaller, more usable nuclear weapons, putting the U.S. once again into an arms race, or, actually that would be arms races, because this time it will be with ANYONE who can carry a suitcase size bomb ANYWHERE. More nuclear weapons in more hands in more places are absolutely an INCREASED THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE U.S., guaranteeing the probability of a "theater" nuclear war somewhere, but, then, perhaps that's the point for the GOP, to perpetuate and increase TRANSNATIONAL MIC DOMINION over the U.S. and, hence, Earth.

And one good way to do that would be by means of 9/11 2.0 in which the necessity of these modernized nukes is "proven" by means of a strike somewhere. Israel? Iran? Do you think either one of them would LET that happen? Afghanistan? Would Russia LET that happen? So whom does that leave, with demonstrable history of LETTING such a thing happen? And who has the added cost:benefit trait of being one of THE main producers of the "modernized" weapons which are fast becoming THE point of contention in a shifting world economy.

Is GOP opposition to START Sedition?

its President.

They also neglect to mention that START has been an important component of an bilateral relationship that has successfully avoided a nuclear war. It ain't broke, but they want to walk away from it anyway.

Right Wing! Thinkers? :wow:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason