Comments on: Is Nuclear Reduction Necessary?

By: StarKing

StarKing — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:33:02 +0000

Sorry Chad, I may have been a bit out of line there. I was still a bit irritated by another blog I'd just been on. Looking at your previous posting I suspect we're essentially on the same side here.
As to the matter of "two thirds of the Senators present", it isn't unheard of for a president to at least attempt to time things in a way that assures that two thirds of those present are in fact Senators he expects to concur.
Given this President's political heritage and personal political history I would expect such tactics.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:48:02 +0000

Do you know what "rhetorical" means?

"provided two thirds of the Senators present concur'

As if that ever happens. I suppose you can get around that by simply not having any Senators present.

By: StarKing

StarKing — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:23:28 +0000

You might try actually READING the Constitution, it's not all that long:

Article II
Section 2
Second paragraph:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and (yada, yada, etc.)

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:43:08 +0000

And what Constitutional authority does the President have to enter into any treaty with any nation?

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:56:31 +0000

Yes, I was hoping someone would touch on the point of treaties.
And to the point of someone submitting to us, we should also ask, "why would we submit to their whims"?
Also, when we sign treaties and form alliances with some countries, does that create jealousy or hatred within other nations in which we do not?
Interestingly, I heard yesterday that Russias nuclear arsenal is bigger than ours (more warheads and more missiles). Is that true?
To your last sentence; this is like gun "control" laws. Those that it effects most are those who obey the law. Criminals couldn't care much less about gun control laws – they will find ways around them. Duh, they are criminals!

By: Bryan Rosander

Bryan Rosander — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:37:29 +0000

My biggest concerns are twofold:
First of all, we are intervening in another country's sovereign rule. Why should they have to submit to our whims?
Second of all, we are tying our own actions to another country through a treaty. If for some reason, this turns out to be a bad idea, we won't be able to back out on our own.
One of the biggest reasons for this nuclear proliferation is our interventionist policy. Countries notice that we deal with them differently and give them more freedom in exchange for not reducing their commitment to nuclear weapons.
If we do think that nuclear weapons are a problem, we should reduce them without a treaty and stop our interventionist foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the biggest problems with nuclear weapons are coming not from Russia, but from independent terrorist groups who have no societal accountability.