Some days ago, the United States was supposed to ratify a Nuclear Test Ban treaty, which would be a critical step towards the eventual disarnament of Nuclear Weapons. Although many countries signed it, countries such as China, Russia, India and Pakistan would only sign it if and only if the United States ratifies the treaty. This would be one of the valuable steps towards creating a better world for our descendants

Guess what happened. The Republicans sunk the motion to ratify.

Now WHY THE @#$% WOULD THEY WANT TO DO THAT??!!!?!?

What is WRONG with them? Do they want peace, or are they ignorant towards the dangers of Nuclear War? The only reason I could think about is because they only want to go after Clinton, because they failed with the Lewinsky affair. Partisan Politics, Period.

Not ratifying the agreement means that India, Pakistan, China, and Russia would continue holding on to their nukes. Why should they disarm when the major superpower in the world with the greatest influence won't do the same? This is a step backwards, towards another Cold War, and possibly, a Nuclear Holocaust. Do we want that for our children?

Now, if I were a U.S. voter, I would say: "Hey Bill, run for office again. I'll vote for you without objection, to hell with the Lewinsky thing". The step towards easing the threat of Nuclear War is far more important than some intern problem.

I remember the quote from the Simpsons in which Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are kidnapped by Aliens. When Homer frees them, they agree that Partisan Politics are tearing the country apart, and they decide to work towards a new future. Too bad Homer flushed them out of the airlock. D'Oh.

I'd like to see the Republicans pay for their ignorance.

------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation

First of all, a test ban treaty will not limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That's what treaties like SALT and, uh...some other funny acronyms, are for. Second, I sincerely doubt that any nation has any intention of obeying the treaty. It's simply not something governments are going to view as an option.

Partisan politics does of course play a role here. But it isn't what you think. Politicians are not going to give up the ability to test nuclear weapons. But they're sure as hell going to stick it to the people who have to vote that way. For example, were there a Democratic majority in Congress, I highly suspect you would have seen exactly the same vote, only this time it would be Republicans who would be denouncing Democrats as "war-mongers" and such. It sounds unlikely, but it's true. Conservatives are only conservative in the moment, while liberals are liberal tomorrow. What I mean is, conservatives fight to maintain things that liberals created forty years ago or so. Example: Social Security.

In another forty years, conservatives will be defending issues that liberals today are fighting for, while future liberals will move on to new ground. It is the way of things.

As to my personal feelings on the topic...

*shrug*

I simply don't know enough about the U.S. nuclear arsenal to determine whether testing is necessary. I do know there are those in the academic community who want to be able to conduct such tests not to build better bombs, but to construct better spacecraft. Valid argument? I couldn't say for sure.

I will say this. You seem to be shocked that a nation would take a seemingly self-destructive course. You forget that humanity does not act as most other lifeforms act. We are weeds.

You also have to look at this latest incident in context. Over recent years the US has been swinging its weight around in a military way rather ominously. Unilaterally sending cruise missiles into Asia after Bin-Laden, blowing the hell out of a pharmecutical factory in Sudan, etc. All screaming violations of international law. It helps to form a wortld perception of the USA as a crazy guy with a shotgun taking potshots from his roof at anyone he doesn't like the look of. And now we get the republican mindset in ascendant. Which is basically expressed as "We ain't gonna take shit off any country".

I recently read an article in a UK paper about these developments, and the conclusion that the author reached is that in order to keep the world away from the brink of oblivion and total war, a new check to the US's growing imperialist tendency will be needed; the European Union.

In summary then, if Bush Jnr gets elected expect to find yourselves ever more isolated globally. And that can't be good for anyone.

------------------
"FOOLS! Will I have to kill them ALL?!?!"

I have a question...What would the consequences be IF one went against the treaty? A spanking?

Personally, I think there could be any number of reasons why the Republicans turned it down. Remember, Congress didn't ratify the League of Nations, and we all know how that turned out...`

------------------
"I'm looking for someone to change my life.
I'm looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see, what its done to me...
To lose the love I knew, could safely lead me to
The land that I one knew...
To learn as we grow old, the secrets of our souls."
Question, The Moody Blues

OK, I think you've been listening to a little too much liberal propaganda here. Now all you need to do is say that Republicans was to burn the faces and hair off people that don't look like them and use Clinton's new buzzword "isolationist".

If we ratified this treaty, we would have no clue whether our nukes worked if we ever needed to use them, and neither would anyone else. Testing is a vital part of the nuclear deterent. And do you honestly think that China and North Korea would honor the treaty? They signed a non-proliferation treaty a while back, and we know that they didn't honor it. And if we suspected someone of breaking the treaty, there'd be no way to check it. We'd have to get a practically impossible number of countries to agree with us, and even if they did, whoever we were inspecting could grab a rather large area and not allow us in. This treaty is BAD for the USA, plain and simple.

We're headed toward a Cold War with China, anyway, now that Clin-Ton has sold them a few decades of technology. See if I'm not right.

Ahh! You'd vote for Clinton!?!?! (Assuming, of course, he could be elected again, which he can't. Only two terms allowed.) WHY!? The first thing he did when he got into office was give us something like a 90 billion dollar tax increase! His brother has said that he (Bill) is on drugs in a little-publicized tapped phone conversation! He has made more military deployments to different countries than any president in recent history! Thanks to him, the Chinese have 25 years of nuclear tech and the ability to blow up any city on Earth! Oh, and our old buddy Saadam has had nine months to rebuild his arsenal! And you'd STILL vote for the guy!?

It comes down to Conservative vs. Liberal again. Liberalism just doesn't work. It favors spending money that doesn't even exist, and redistributing wealth to make everyone equal (ala socialism, which we all know doesn't work). This is not the American ideal. If someone has more money than someone else, 95% of the time, HE EARNED IT! He didn't steal it from the poor, he didn't cheat the government out of it, IT WAS EARNED, and the government has no right to take more of the rich man's money than it does the poor man's money. Liberalism is all about bigger government, more spending, and more taxes, and I can't see how anyone can possibly like that.

Sol:

I never thought I'd be relieved to read one of your posts. Some sanity every now and then when dealing with American politics is a comforting thing.

I have to disagree, though. If there were a liberal majority in congress, the treaty would have been ratified. Another liberal tennant is "The USA being a superpower is BAD." The liberals in congress will do everything they can to equalize power between the USA and the rest of the world, even if that means compromizing national security. Now if we can only get the Republicans to stand up to the Democrats and actually advertize that the Dems actually wanted this thing passed, and what it would have meant for the country if it had been, the Dems are toast come next election.

The only politics involved here is Clinton's "legacy", which is now effectively, how do you say, screwed. He signed this thing three years ago. Why is he just bringing it up now? So he'll have a "legacy" as the man who helped disarm the world, or whatever phrase he comes up with. If he really cared about this treaty, he would have A) brought it up years ago, and B) allowed the vote to be defered until he's out of office, so the politics of his "legacy" wouldn't matter.

As for conservatives defending in fourty years what liberals defend now, I know I won't. In fourty years I'll still defending what I defend now. Liberalism is shifting, but conservatism is constant. There is always one goal in mind: to return to the US constitution and the values that made this country great.

Xentrick:

Yep, the very same. But I thought it was four former CIA directors...

Monty:

Again, what could it concievably do to preserve world peace?

And since Clinton's the one unilaterally (and I believe in violation of US law) ordering all these military deployments, I'd have to agree with the "crazy guy on the roof with a shotgun" analogy. I do like the idea of a European union, though. Just make it a democracy and not a socialistic state. Otherwise it'll fall apart, and everyone'll be worse off than before.

"...expect to find yourselves ever more isolated globally."

Ah, THERE it is. Conservatives aren't isolationists. We just don't go around sticking our noses in other countries' business, and expect them to do the same for us.

Jeff:

I've wondered about that myself. What do you do if China breaks the treaty, bomb them? Iraq, yes, and maybe N. Korea, but what about China? Any suggestions?

I have no idea what it would take to clean up our government(Kill all the Lawyers?) but I don't think it will ever happen. We lose a little more every day. Tax money here, freedom of speach there. In another hundred years or so, we will be the Soviet Union, with better food.

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin

1. Until it is ratified or rejected, a treaty goes into effect as soon as the President signs it. Ratification is a confirmation process to ensure our president does not obligate us to something we'd rather not be a part of. The Nuclear Test Ban treaty was already in effect. President Clinton had signed it.

   Over the years, it has been a (usually Democratic majority) congressional habit to wait until the incumbent was no longer in office to vote for ratification when the incumbent was of the opposition party. This ensured your constituents wouldn't think you "caved in".

2. President Clinton was cautioned, not only by Republican leaders but by Democratic ones, that there were insufficient votes to ratify the treaty.

3. Within hours of the treaty's rejection, a television ad featuring Al Gore was being aired decrying the defeat of the treaty. Can anyone here tell me how long it takes to put together a slick television ad? Days? Weeks? I have a (very) little experience with television production and try to keep up on the technology. Even 24 hours of continuous work isn't enough to do a professional-looking ad.

4. Once the treaty was rejected, President Clinton announced that the U.S. would still abide by the provisions of the treaty, as if it had been ratified.
   I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean that the President is allowed to override congress in such a situation? Then why didn't he just issue an executive order to that effect in the first place?

My comment: the treaty would have stayed in effect if it had never come to a vote, as so many people were advising the President. Why did he bother forcing a vote he was assured by all would not pass? The only positive result (if you're a Democrat) is that they can now point their fingers at Republicans and call them "the war-mongering Republican party"?

Smells like a set-up to me.

------------------
A well-intentioned fool can get into more trouble than any number of rapscallions.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

That wasn't the deal. Clinton knew it couldn't pass now, so he wanted to put it off 'til later. The Reps said "OK, but we want a written agreement from you saying that you won't bring it up until January 2001," which is, of course, two weeks before he's out of office. He wouldn't agree to that, so they voted it down. He insisted that the Reps play by his rules, and they shot him down (and it's about bloody time). He needed it now, to save his "legacy", which has now been effectively shot to heck.

Baloo:

You might be able to get a commercial like that out in a week if you really pushed it, but not a day or two by any concievable means.

As for overriding the Senate's decision, I think he meant that, since he's the one that controls when we test the things anyway, he personally will not allow any tests. Once he's out of office, that'll change (we hope).

------------------
The watchdog of public safety, is there any lower form of life?
~C. Mongomery Burns

However:

I know it was a foregone conclusion that the treaty would not pass. Even the White House jerks said so. So it certainly was a political move, and a fairly bonehead one at that. Probably a smokescreen for something else.

I know it isn't the first treaty that the US has kept its hands off, while other, "less civilized" nations signed it (see the UN ones on the Rights of the Child and Rights of Women, for two).

I sort of thought that Alamagordo, Trinity, and Bikini atoll , not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pretty much demonstrated that the damned bombs WORK already. What, do we need to keep testing bigger ones until we break through the Earth's crust to the mantle??

There are a few reasons to test nuclear weapons.

1. To see if the darn things actually work.

   The U.S. knows its designs actually work, so that is no longer a valid reason.

2. To determine if a new model will actually function as designed.

3. To gather data that may be used to increase yield (bigger boom), reduce the size of the next generation of warheads, or diminish the undesirable effects of nuclear blasting (radiation, fallout, etc.

As far as I know, we have computer software to handle the last two aspects of testing.

What kind of treaty suits the U.S? I suppose it's one that will actually prevent proliferation and allow the U.S. to reduce the size of its stockpile while still retaining enough nukes to discourage military adventurism.

What kind of treaty can do that? In my opinion, none. Any country that would abide by a non-proliferation agreement of that sort is probably going to halt testing once they understand how their nukes work well enough to design more without testing, and once they have enough data to design new warheads. Nations who won't sign (such as North Korea) will continue testing until they feel that the political gains of signing outweigh the military advantages of being able to test.

No treaty will prevent nuclear proliferation. A treaty will permit foreigners (them, whoever they happen to be) to come into the mother country (us -- whether US is the U.S. or some other country) and do who knows what kind of spying. A good treaty will necessarily give the guys in charge of security fits.

Any treaty that does not include provisions to detect and penalize violators is not worth the paper it's printed on. Any nation that signs such a treaty may continue testing with impunity if it is in their own interest to do so. Some will. A treaty with "teeth" will only be signed by nations that will not violate it anyway. Either way, whoever wants to test will.

The main purpose of such a treaty is to tell the world that you intend to do what the treaty says. Why not sign the first one that comes along? It might be that it contains provisions that compromise national security, or not allow you to be reasonably certain that others will comply.

The above does not negate one important fact: it's nearly (if not totally) impossible to test a nuclear bomb without doing serious damage to the environment. That's enough reason for many countries to desire a ban, whether they plan on becoming a nuclear power or not.

--Baloo

------------------
A well-intentioned fool can get into more trouble than any number of rapscallions.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Omega: I'm afraid you're rather wrong regarding your definitions of conservative and liberal. You seem to have an us vs. them mentality which I have to confess disturbs me a little.

Rather then explaining it again, how about some examples?

1849: Revolution sweeps across Europe. Apparently some of the local peasentry has got the foolish idea that they'd be better off ruling themselves. This extremely liberal notion is born out of the Enlightenment, of course, a liberal movement that saw the creation of, among other things, a little country called the United States. Conservative forces in Europe railed against this, including this Austrian guy who is quite famous but whose name escapes me. My history professor would be so disappointed...

Speaking of the U.S., it was founded on one of the most liberal documents ever concieved. The Declaration of Independance. Have you ever read the thing? It's got some ideas in it that are pretty out there even today.

Of course, we could continue looking back. The Magna Carta was a monument to liberal thought as well. (Hey, maybe this king guy should be a little accountable, eh?)

For a much more recent example, take Social Security or civil rights. Fought against tooth and nail by conservatives of the day. Now viewed as "essential parts of our nation" by conservatives today. And thus it will continue. What is thought of as revolutionary by one generation is embraced as common, if not necessary, to future ones. It is the way of all things. Yes, even religions. Perhaps especially religions, as they have to survive over much greater lengths of time. To live is to change. Institutions which cannot adapt quickly fall to the wayside.

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net