Nukem!

[rbbailey]

Question...

Why do we need a treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenal if we aren't in a fight, or an arms race, or some sort of cold war with anyone?

Ready... Set... GO!

[Josh]

Less weapons and weapons materials to lose???

[michelle]

Leading by example.

[rbbailey]

Hummmm... Leading who? We are the only country that needs to do anything different, according to the treaty. And if we really wanted to lead, why not just do it -- if it's the right thing to do for the modern world, why not simply reduce our weapons cache without a piece of paper?

The treaty and the summit that went with it was billed, according to the speeches and press releases, as a way to reduce the nuclear threat from rouge states and terrorist groups... yet N. Korea and Iran were not even invited to the summit, and instead they were told that if they attack us with bio or chem weapons, we would not respond with nuclear weapons.

[Josh]

the nuclear threat from rouge states

I think only N. Korea is a "rouge" state. Last I checked, Iran wasn't Communist.

But they are definitely both "rogue" states

[rbbailey]

Duoh!

[robin]

Less weapons and weapons materials to lose???

Less weapons for the US and no one else. The treaty states that not only will the US reduce it's nuclear arsenal, but will also discontinue any development of new nuclear weapons. No other country has agreed to do the same. The country that does the best job of securing its nuclear material (US), is the only one making any serious concessions. This treaty is foolish, much like our President.

Leading by example.

Perhaps it would be nice to see if the world will follow other examples by the US, before giving away our national security to Russia and China. Perhaps we should wait and see if China is willing to follow our example of allowing religious freedom? Or Russia could follow our example of not threatening and invading our neighbors.