David T.C. in Australia writes:

'If You did not get The First Post here it is again.WAR IS IMMINENCE." In the immediate future my plans do not include Australia. That said, before visiting Hawaii I would much rather see Australia, New Zealand and the 'forgotten isle" Tasmania. However, again, that said, war is always just around the corner on this word. Why we can't just quite and be friends, beats the dickens out of me.

Posted on Sun Aug 08, 2010

David T.C. in Australia writes:

If You did not get The First Post here it is again.WAR IS IMMINENCE if you do noy come and Listen To The Gospel That await's Earth.

Posted on Fri Aug 06, 2010

Victoria in Arizona writes:

Darood Abdolvahab,

Do you know what democracy is? Democracy is giving everyone,women and men regardless of color, creed or religious beliefs the right to education, to contributing ideas to expressing thoughts without fear. The best part of democracy is sharing one's heritage, beliefs and traditional dishes with everyone else and at the same integrating into a wholesome new society with one goal in mind, making this mixtures of individuals none of them perfect all of them different but melding them into a union, a nation proud and aware that everyone has the right to be different. If that an be done then democracy is not a legend but a beautiful reality.

Posted on Thu Aug 05, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Re: Abdolvahab A. in Iran writes:

hello
do you know america is saved world?
what democrasy?

---

Darood Abdolvahab,

What I know is saving the world is a work in progress, and that's best done by everyone.

You are asking "what IS democracy?"?? It's when you get to throw your dictator out on his ear and get a life you want to live the way you want to live it..without Basij bashing your head in for having a bad haircut.

If you are asking "what democracy?" as in you don't see any in your country because America hasn't come saved your corner of creation yet...well have patience my friend...it's one sponsor of terror at a time.

Posted on Wed Aug 04, 2010

Victoria in Arizona writes:

At the rate we are going we will be a legend not unlike Atlantis. Who knows if there is a far sighted planner preparing a rocket of "selected few deemed survivable" to, let's say Mars. Earth, its culture and development and path toward annihilation will become historic legends not unlike Atlantis. We just can't stay away from our own destructive behavior regardless who we are.

Posted on Tue Aug 03, 2010

Abdolvahab A. in Iran writes:

hello
do you know america is saved world?
what democrasy?

Posted on Mon Aug 02, 2010

Yaser K. in the United Kingdom writes:

USA! Please Don't Leave Afghanistan

I m Pashtun, I heard that USA will leave afghanistan in sometime and I am so sad. I want that American troops should remain in Afghanistan because they are developing the region and we don't Afghanistan to be rotten again by those warlords and other neighbouring countries. I request United States of America that you had spend such a great money and resources on this War, now don't left it in the middle because changing of people mind takes time. Afghans as I am myself Afghan (Pukhtun) they are illiterate and uneducated please give them education and bring them on the track of other developed nations.
Its my humble request to the people of United States of America and the policy makers of America please help this nation in rebuilding. I myself have got my education from abroad and I would help you in this regards if you stay in Afghanistan and start a real help to the poor people of Afghanistan instead of backing up the war-mongers and warlords who actually don't want to educate the Afghan people, they are just showing to help you for getting money from USA.

Posted on Sun Aug 01, 2010

Vahid G. in Iran writes:

Is depending on arms the best or the only way to safeguard our security?

Posted on Sun Aug 01, 2010

Shaikh M.U. in Pakistan writes:

i want to get american immigration.

Posted on Sat Jul 31, 2010

David T.C. in Australia writes:

When will The Super power's off The World Unite to disasemble all nuke's to recieve The Help from The Armada Force off Arkmanra's.Fore as it is Now,No One will enter Earth's Skie's with such distruction on One Planet?Please disasemble the Nukes.Sirus your Lord and Savior.If you do not Unite as One To Rid the World off such Evil Weaponrey?Supa Kula Fragile Listen Xbe Alla Doe Shosh,Meaning,You have tick's get rid off them before you turn this Planet a Burnt Orange,Which Will Happen if you do not dismantle the nukes.Sighed a Worried Lord and Father to The Human Race.And ever So Watchfull off nukes persueding Our Destiny.AMEN

Posted on Fri Jul 30, 2010

Trinh V.L in Georgia (U.S.A.) writes:

Thank a lot the Honorable Minister of Foreign Affairs The U.S Department of State discussed with The Vietnamese Government about The Human and Civil Rights
on July 27. 10 My Brother was dead in Vietnam , I have Appleid for visa to VN to visit him but The Vietnamese Consulate Office refused my request.

Posted on Fri Jul 30, 2010

Togrul in Azerbaijan writes:

very good

Posted on Fri Jul 30, 2010

Alexey K. in Russia writes:

I think that we should proceed from the problem of rights and freedoms of Human.My opinion that the institution is the fiction. The defence does not exist.But a global catastrophes.
In Russia is more corruptions. Thats why a new TREATY must help a simple,peaceful people from threats war,a numerous sacrifices.
CAN AMERICA to QUARANTEE a PRESERVATION OF LIFES a SIMPLE PEOPLE?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Tara B. in Oregon writes:

We need to check for nuclear weapons from all countries so they won't start World War 3.

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Veronika V. in the United Kingdom writes:

Tactical nukes are not part of this agreement at all. Are there any plans to limit sharing tactical nuclear weapons and technology for both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons with Third parties?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Veronika V. in the United Kingdom writes:

What is the role of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan – they are not considered “Parties” but the text mentions that the Treaty was implemented in these countries.

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Jerome T.B. in Michigan writes:

Just a basic concern, is how the State Department views my concerns and questions. So far, in writing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a "So What" and already "Solved" attitude from the State Department. A controlled environment, one in which the State Department only wants to answer questions it wants to hear.

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Veronika V. in the United Kingdom writes:

Can I ask for explanation of this part? To me it looks like a rejection of anti-missile defence.
“Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties”

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Veronika V. in the United Kingdom writes:

Article XIII says: “The Parties shall not transfer strategic offensive arms subject to this Treaty to third parties...This provision shall not apply to any patterns of cooperation, including obligations, in the area of strategic offensive arms, existing at the time of signature of this Treaty, between a Party and a third State.”

Is there an obligation to inform each other about these existing agreements with Third Parties?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Veronika V. in the United Kingdom writes:

Can I ask what you think about the release of Sutyagin, and the way how he was treated afterwards? To me it makes very little sense that he would want to go back to Russia.

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Luisa O. in New York writes:

what the heck is going on! its all really simple stop this crazy ness spending the taxpayers money on b.s. really how much is this crap going to cost...?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Jerome T.B. in Michigan writes:

To go on from my first e-mail. Where was the Gratitude, Appreciation, Thankfullness, from the State Department, CIA, and the Pentagon with breaking the ice with Mr. Boris Yeltsin, back in 1955, and the return of the remains of Korean War MIA Pilots, downed in China and North Korea during the Korean War! Another matter pertains to the un-pleasent memories. While hanging around George H.W. Bush, Sr. at the tender age of 2 & 1/2, his 3rd cousin mentioned to me that him and his buddies were going to shoot JFK if he became President and visited Dallas. A group of us from around the Country were put together at my school in Dearborn, MI, and we wrote the original screeplays for "Moon Over Parador" and "Batteries Not Included", songs, lyrics, and tunes for the Beatles, Beach Boys, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and much more going through the CIA. We even called the Chicago based FBI, just before the JFK Assassination and reported these guys who wanted to shoot JFK. What ever involvement they had in the assissnation they went to prison for life for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon in Louisiana State Penitentiary. I saw them on the Phil Donohue Show in 1996. Where is the loop? Where are the Awards and Benefits for so much HELP to the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department.

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Marta F. in California writes:

Why not purchase spent fuel rods for use in
deep sea catalysis, since (as former Gov. Pete
Wilson remarked) it's where we all come from?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Chul-hong in South Korea writes:

No one can deny that the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is a further step toward promoting world peace.

First of all, we have to set a high value on efforts the Obama Administration made initiatively to negotiate with Russia.

Although someone might be dissatisfied with the extent the new START regulates, he needs to remind of the aphorism, "Rome was not built in a day."

So many people, who want China and Europe to participate in the obligations like the new START, wonder that China and Europe have a genuine willingness to reduce their nuclear arms.

In conclusion, I don't doubt that U.S. unvarying endeavor for championing world peace will bear more fruits in the near future.

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I think it's really great to see all you good folks that have commented here on this blog for perhaps the first time, and hopefully the base of regular contributors to discussion here on multiple topics will expand in number.

Interesting question posed here as to how is the UN involved in START?, "what role the UN plays?"...by Edgar in Texas.

I think it goes without saying that even though this is an agreement reached between two nations, START has global ramifications and ratification is of international concern and importance to everyone's sense of security.

So whether that be the institution that supports the notion of "larger freedom" or the community of its member states that do, how then will folks vote to secure larger freedom from insanity?

Aha! And just how does humanity realize its true self when it is sane? We have ample evidence of how we are when we achieve less than this among mindsets don't we?

Well, on another thread I posted this, and it may contain the best argument yet on record in favor of ratification of START, as a "side dish" among the food for thought, and in addressing a bit of a "blind spot", I don't think folks @ State will object strongly to my characterization of the obvious:

"First of all, State has flat got to wake up to the fact that "Us and Them" is a fact of life, just like night and day, death, birth, and taxes...and there's no free lunch.

That until they properly define this as a self-evident state of war between the "sane vs. the insane", ongoing from the time mankind has first become sentient, they have no way of proving to the rest of the world that the war within each individual to live correctly is also manifest on the external as well.

In this, the transition of definition between the commonly externalized way we as a species have confused this issue of "Us and Them" has created the conditions for conflict from an ill defined concept; and today in avoidance one mearly surrenders to an inability to turn the negativity associated with it toward a positive understanding of it.

For the true definition of "Us and Them" is the same one that defines us as human, rather than animalistic.

And being sentient has nothing to do with it.

Evil just as love does, knows its purpose in being.

Just as where someone is born doesn't define "Us and Them", nor the color of people's skin, religios belief, or political persuasion.

These things don't play a divisive part in "Us and Them" when it comes right down to it.

Take the building of some 27-35,000 nuclear weapons (depending on who you trust and verify these figures with)for example.

Now if the building of the means to exterminate the species isn't a benchmark working definition of insanity, I should just shut up now and move to another plane of existance and leave you all to this one.

But if it does, then who are the sane but those trying to get rid of them?

Probably a good reason to ratify treaties...but I digress.

My point here is that "Us and Them" never was a cold war definition that could stick.

And exactly why is it that we make so many friends of former enemies is because we inherantly and subconciously recognise the true definition of the term as not being nationalistic either.

EITHER YOU HAVE THAT SPARK OF EMPATHY WITHIN YOU OR YOU DON'T. And this is what defines being human as opposed to being animalistic...

...What defines a freedom fighter from a terrorist...., and causes civilizations to arise from the debris of dark ages every time they vanish into the sands with only writings on the wall to remember them by today.

It is only makind's arrogence to think this one is any different from the rest, or that somehow we've evolved socially since the days of Ptah Hotep."

(Full text of the "good sayings" can be found here.)
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/discussion_engagement_muslim_communities

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Erin S. in Washington DC writes:

How are the statements in the Nuclear Posture Review (no MIRVs, no new weapons, no new testing) reconcilable with robust modernization program needed to mitigate some of the effects of nuclear weapons reductions? Moreover, committed to achieving “nuclear zero,” how can a political commitment by President Obama to modernize our nuclear arsenal be taken seriously?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Erin S. in Washington DC writes:

What are the implications for extended deterrence and U.S. credibility from New START, especially given the administration’s unwillingness to commit to a more robust global ballistic missile defense system? We already see intense discussions in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Japan to develop nuclear capabilities?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Baker S. in Washington DC writes:

In addition to the other limitations on missile defense in the New START treaty, why hasn’t the administration addressed the newly discovered restriction on test target missiles?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Baker S. in Washington DC writes:

On verification, during his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it appeared that Admiral Mullen could not explain clearly how the unique identifiers would work. Will these identifiers emit a signal that will permit U.S. monitors to track by remote means the strategic offensive arms to which they are attached?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Jerome T.B. in Michigan writes:

My Question is two-fold. One) Why is it taking so long to dismantle the over abundance of nuclear arms. "The Plan" of the Cold War was to produce nuclear arms so the Soviet Union would not fall back in terms of technology, and then shift into Space Exploration and that technology!

Two) I was explained this to me by George H.W. Bush, Sr., back in 1955. I was taken aside by George H.W. Bush, Sr., Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich and taught some German "Ich bin Zwei, Tanks", to say to whom they claimed was my GrandFather's third cousin, Mr. Boris Yeltsin. They wanted the return of the Korean War MIA Pilots downed in China and North Korea during the Korean War. That happened in the 1990's. Plus, they had me help in supposedly cleaning up the CIA. I did just that! Where is the LOOP? Where are the benefits or awards for helping out. Do you still just use, abuse, chew up and spit out other people's children?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Amanda B. in Texas writes:

Keeping in mind that the reason United States should be involved in arms control is to protect the interests of America and its citizens and to insure its security, how can this be accomplished when the new START actually reduces verifiability from the original START and constrains the United States’ freedom of action in pursuing unilateral measures to secure the nation?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Nick N. in Washington DC writes:

Did the administration consider the fact that Russians are already very close to the limits in the treaty because of their inability to support its nuclear forces infrastructure and that the U.S. is the only party that will have to make unilateral reductions?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Robert J. in Albania writes:

i dont have any question,because all my questions have an answer AMERICA.the state of power law justice..

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Vanessa N. in Iowa writes:

First I want to say it is a good initiative.

I would like to know did the treaty create a structure dealing with the control of the measures taken by both countries to apply the treaty (what assurances are there for compliance by both parties)?

What about the European communities and their arms?

What about the new nuclear nations like China, India, Pakistan, Israel....?

Is the treaty only a strategy to get rid of obsolete arms only to be replaced by sophisticated arms like "star wars" to gain power?

What have both countries done to ensure the safe disposal of the nuclear material used in these arms, do they provide for protection of the environment?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Scott R. in California writes:

Dear START members: there is a time and a place for turning swords into plowshares. With Russia supporting Iran's nuclear capabilties including missiles capable of reaching outer space, and Iran's promise to use these nuclear missiles against US and Israel, isn't it out of step with reality to play the role of a nonviolent peaceneck? Also, North Korea says they will attack US and they have test-fired their ICBM's towards US. Also, they sank the South Korean ship. Maybe we ought to put this START treaty off until apres doomsday! Finally, can you really trust the shirtless KGB guy when he signs your treaty? Maybe you should save the hippie routine for halloween.

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Alaa B. in Egypt writes:

United States no longer afraid of weakness, but fears of excessive power Do you agree with me that the United States is stronger than it was, with eight platforms with new missiles being built in Alaska
And what is the meaning of Mr Putin's statement that we are equal in everything except the missile shield?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Ahmad in the United Kingdom writes:

Hi,

I would suggest the biggest challenges facing anyone interested in Arms Control is the vested interests belonging to the Arms Industry. You cannot reasonably expect to reduce arms, whilst ignoring these vested interests, since their focus will be on selling arms to increase profitability.

Thus I would suggest that you 'help' the Arms industry refocus her efforts in other sectors that are more 'human-friendly' before initiating any programme to reduce arms.

Regards,

Ahmad

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Catherine C. in California writes:

Why has it been allowed for terrorists and Mexican drug cartels to overrun our country, kill and terrorize American citizens and target our law enforcement, while the Obama administration panders to those people who break our laws over and over, drain our economy and blatantly curse and hate us?

Why is it allowed for our government to conspire with Mexico and Muslim terrorist to betray our country and the American people?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Jim L. in Georgia writes:

When is the US Going to do away with
Affirmative Action?

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Maria G.C. in Argentina writes:

Please, Mu questions are these :
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START):
My question is: I don't understand Why if the EE.UU. had 2 )two Treaties one in 31 de julio de 1991, and the second in of July 1, 1968, both from Non-Proliferation of Nuclear, NOW make a NEW 3th. Treaty of TNP -
My Other question is that ... This is a Treaty with United States of America and Only Russian Republic , and the others countries WHAT...? Corea North, Iran, Irak, Israel..? Venezuela, etc., etc....??? Brasil....?
Who is THE CONTROL ABOUT THE OTHERS CONTRIES OF THE WORLD....?
And the 3) question is not a question I send CONGRATULATIONS to you by this Treaty Of Not-Proliferation of Nuclear Arms and I send you United States of America my c
CONGRATULATIONS because this Treaty 3th.
Treaty on the Of Not-Proliferation of Nuclear Arms in Part
Three of the Protocol to this Treaty.is eliminated or converted, as appropriate arms NOT NUCLEAR armaments in accordance.
CONGRATULATIONS because This Treaty is
for ICBMs or SLBMs, conversion or
elimination facilities for ICBMs or SLBMs.

If it becomes necessary to make changes in the Protocol to this Treaty that do not affect substantives
Rights or obligations Ander this Treaty,BUT the Parties are ONLY RUSSIAN REPUBLIC AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...???because Each Parties (U.S.A. and Russia) shall reduce and limit its ICBMs and ICBM launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers, ICBM
warheads, SLBM warheads, and heavy bomber and nuclear armaments,

Both Shall use the Bilateral Consultative Comisión to Agreement on such changes without to the procedure to making amendments in paragraph 1)
Of article XV. (It's O.K.-)
Thank you, very much to your answers

Posted on Thu Jul 29, 2010

Edgar M.G. in Texas writes:

What is the roll of the United Nations in START?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

George W.S. in Florida writes:

My question is, Why are we conducting a war in Afganistan and Iraq w/ground troops? We all
know it is a gorilla war, our troops are walking targets.......will we ever learn, you
can't fight this with ground troops ??
From a veteran of the Korea "war"......bring em home and let the tribal elders fight them selves. Sooner or later they will use the weapons on themselves.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Alex V. in Virginia writes:

Why did the U.S. have to include a specific linkage between strategic offensive arms and ballistic missile defense into the treaty language and how does it serve the U.S. national interest?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Jerry G. in the U.S.A. writes:

The US and Russia are apparently on the same page with this strategic arms reduction treaty (nuclear non-proliferation?), are other nuclear nations following suit?
I believe those nations include:France, China, United Kingdom, Israel, India, Pakistan,N. Korea, Iraq and Iran.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Bette A. in Florida writes:

The poll you offered is too broad for me to pick just one personal priority, and my level of knowledge makes me not want to assume.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what START stands for.
My overwhelming concern lately has been the Gulf oilspill. Am learning much as I research it, the wildlife, and the new oil leak into the Kalamazoo river. What is the State Dept's role in the multi-country ownership of these massive oil companies? The Lakehead pipeline, owned now by Enbridge in Canada, and Enbridge Energy Partners, in the US, spans ~2000mi in the US and ~1200mi in Canada. BP & many others are global. How can we regulate better? Canada has much better coal mine safety regulations than we do. Do we have allies in the global energy questions that affect all of us?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Owais R. in the United Kingdom writes:

I think in NEW START U.S. and U.S.S.R. Governments make sure that they can agree to setup a system where they can bound Israel to become part of NEW START.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

David in Ohio writes:

Why Is Israel, never mentioned when it comes to the worlds nuclear arsenal? They should step up to the plate and participate!

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Donald R. in Texas writes:

with all dues respect to the u.s. constitution and the offices, i believe that our u.s. constitution is being trashed by this adminstration our leadership has no reguards for our u.s. constitution and i believe climate change, bailouts, healthcare and the u.n. is all a bunch of lies, no where in the u.s. constitution does it mention about anything about these and the other agencies that are sucking this country monies down and the adminstration has been overan by traitors with respect of course and there needs to be an investigation over this matter. with respect an concern real american

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Claude N. in Kentucky writes:

My question to the source, Where do the United States lie with the China portion of this great world, are they on side or in the
shaddow of the treaty?
Back in November 1987, before Mr Gorbachev
meet with our President Reagan and our Secretary of state Mr Geoge Schultz, I peronaly sent a letter to Moscow to the Premier
on my belife,s of the ICBM and the on coming
ICBM missle buildup, Mr Scultz and the President were surpried how Mr Gorbachev
came open to the idea, so it turned out to be
a very good program, on short range missiles.
Now back to the question, again is the China
leader ship sitting in the same chir of
Mr Putin. If so this would be great progress
for mankind.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Gerald S.D. in California writes:

It makes sense to reduce the vast arsenals of nuclear weapons because reasonable nations will be loathe to use them.

Let's also remove one of Iran's motivations and here's a proposal to reduce tensions in the Middle East:
Given that the Israelis want to eliminate the threat from the other side and the Palestinians need the basics, I propose the following:
1. Define a level of financial, food, construction, etc. aid for both the West Bank and Gaza, to be distributed monthly.
2. Place NATO observers at the borders between Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza to report any and all cross-border activity.
3. Every aid ship that approaches the Gaza strip in the Mediterranean will be inspected by NATO, with Israeli and Palestinian observers. If any weapons are found, the weapons will be confiscated and the aid will be diverted to Africa or other needy areas.
4. For every rocket or incursion into Israel (from Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon) or the West Bank or Gaza (from Israel), a million dollar penalty goes to the other side. For every person hurt, the fine increases to five million dollars and for every person killed or kidnapped the fine increases to fifty million dollars. The penalties would be subtracted from US aid to Israel and EU aid to the Palestinians.

The basic idea is to permit development in the Palestinian territories, provide safeguards for Israel and penalize whichever side causes problems in a way that aids their perceived enemy.

In addition, one might consider expansion of settlements in the West Bank as “incursions” –thus giving Netanyahu a political and economic basis for halting such expansions.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Robert L.S. in China writes:

Thank you for the Department of State for allowing us see more transparency into our Government. I used to work with the US Government and was very dissatisfied with the "secret" agendas with only a few elite group members knowing. Openness and frank mega-log without giving top-secret topics away are the way to go. Thank goodness for the Obama administration. China is very aware of the US and it Chinese citizens are becoming more aware..

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Steven S.B. in Canada writes:

Don't Bring Your Guns to Town

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Bert T. in Canada writes:

The historical and ongoing progress on START and NPT is highly commendable in respect to the involved parties, and perhaps even more importantly, very encouraging to all onlookers as well, because it makes evident that when real fears are effectively addressed & resolved, then meaningful arms reduction is realistically attainable. The US & Russia dialogue on START is a valuable role model for addressing similar issues between India & Pakistan, and Israel & the hardliner Islamic Middle East states.

It is also vital to keep in mind that arms reduction is sustainably viable in the long run only when prominently placed in the broader context of ongoing resolution of mass social-economic development issues via multilateral trade & investment policies on the ground benefiting the national interests of the involved parties while maintaining a sufficient deterrent capability for national defense, via nuclear, conventional or even economic means (e.g. Switzerland, Saudi Arabia), which constitutes the only successful working model that peacefully exists in the world today between former & potential adversaries. In short, when mutual economic interests are sufficiently promoted, developed & realized, the incentive for armed conflict with neighboring states & good trading partners is effectively negated. This concept is the underpinning foundation of economic globalization and its resultant stabilization of the conduct of foreign affairs of functional nation-states around the world today.

The world's current conflict zones and dysfunctional nation-states are remarkably problematic in almost direct correspondence to their common lack of inclusion in meaningful social-development investment & trade policies significantly uplifting the masses in those places, be it the West Bank, the Khyber Pass, the Sudan or North Korea. In positive contrast, economic & diplomatic relationships between bitter wartime enemies, such as the US, Vietnam, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, China and the UK have never been better. The primary successful model for international conflict resolution, reconciliation & reunification is already proven, tried & true, so the only real question is this: what will it take to make the required investment of political will & economic resources to achieve similar results in the world's current conflict zones?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

James P. in North Carolina writes:

Are the United States and Russia engaging Britain and France in arms reduction talks?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Joseph M. in Cameroon writes:

Hi,
Please,provide always a space like this for (commentaries)from me,we have some(techn.and media) solutions.This is not the first time Israel and his friends are under pressure.Iam still reading the book of Esther(chapters 03 and 04).In THE GOD of Israel I trust.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Germana N. in Indiana writes:

I am really sick of our wars, and so are a lot of Americans. We kill and get killed, and make enemies in the process. The war in Afghanistan is NOT WINNABLE, that's the consensus. So WHY are we sending more troops? And when are we finally going to be out of Iraq?
ENOUGH OF WARS. LET'S BUILD OUR COUNTRY AND HELP OUR PEOPLE INSTEAD.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Nick K. in Wisconsin writes:

Last week, Mr. Pifer spoke at the Brookings Institution and acknowledged that New START's verification measures are not as robust as those of START I. He argued that a new treaty needs only to prevent “militarily significant cheating.” But the new 2010 State Dept. verification report enumerates many instances in which Russia intentionally cheated under START I in significant ways. If the verification measures of START I could not prevent significant Russian cheating, and if New START's measures are less robust, won't the cheating problem become worse in the years to come?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Ricky T. in New Jersey writes:

What makes the administration believe that Moscow will be willing to negotiate about its tactical nuclear weapons, and was the administration given any assurances in this regard?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Greg U. in Virginia writes:

Why were provisions on rail-mobile missiles deleted and excluded from New START, including the clarification of how the rail-mobile missiles should be destroyed, a necessary provision to make warhead accountable in the treaty?

Does the administration recognize that Russia is emphasizing and relying on its nuclear forces in its national security strategy more than ever, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicted in Senate hearings?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Krystle C. in Washington DC writes:

Why do we have a treaty that elevates strategic nuclear weapons back to the centre stage when we should be focusing on cooperation to counter rogue states and the potential for nuclear terrorism?

It looks like the U.S. made a number of concessions to Russia in New START. Do you think this was because the negotiators were negotiating against a deadline?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Michaela B. in Washington DC writes:

Why there are explicit limitations on missile defenses when the administration repeatedly stated there will be none?

What steps apart from the U.S. unilateral statement were taken to make clear to the Russians that we will not let the provisions in the New START treaty limit U.S. missile defenses both now and in the future?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Jefferson V. in Washington DC writes:

Why did the administration agree to limits on U.S. conventional capabilities, but not those of Russia?

Did the administration consider the fact that there is no historical evidence that nuclear reductions lead to less proliferation (e.g., since the end of the Cold War, both Russia and the United States reduced their nuclear arsenals by more than 85 percent and, at the same time, India, Pakistan and North Korea developed their own nuclear weapons)?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Owen G. in Washington DC writes:

In March 2003, then Senator Biden stated, “After entry into force of the Moscow Treaty, getting a handle on Russian tactical nuclear weapons must be a top arms control and non-proliferation objective of the United States Government.” John Kerry, and the current White House Science Adviser, John Holdren also emphasized the need to limit tactical nuclear weapons too. Why were strategic nuclear weapons moved to the forefront in negotiations and tactical nuclear weapons not addressed?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Donna J.B. in California writes:

RE: Q of Week, Africa & Democracy - Keeping the doors open for proper positive communications, shall help to hold firm the perceived dreams for democratic countries.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Owen G. in Washington DC writes:

Considering the threat from Iran and North Korea, limitations on U.S. ballistic missile defenses are a great concern to many Senators. If no concessions were made on this issue, why does the administration refuse to release related parts of negotiating records?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Robert Z. in Colorado writes:

How are you going to close the loop holes in bringing pressure against Iran so it does not infringe against the bonified merchants?
Presently, the merchants that have legitmate trade agreeemnts with other countries are being penalized.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Carol in Massachusetts writes:

How can one expect a treaty that controls the proliferation of weaponry to be firm and reliable when and if cosignatories use religious mandates to excuse themselves from commitment to their signature?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Royal H. in Kansas writes:

America was founded on the basic freedoms outlined in the ammendments to our Constitution. As I understand it, certain countries want to use START to severely stop the American people from owning firearms. The START (treaty) is a blatant attempt by some foreign countries to do away with our 2nd Ammendment.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Jonathan T. in Oregon writes:

Given the history of Russia and its START participation,what measures exist to ensure the proper disposal of these weapons materiaals,and are there plans in effect to reprocess these materials into Mini-nukes or Nclear Fuel?
I believe that due to the history of Russias involvement in Nuclearizing redical nations Like Iran,history of assassinations,Sabotage,and espionage that too much trust lies in jargon that can be seperated from Russias actions in the process.Who is in place to ensure these weapons do not land in the hands of radicals?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Owais R. in the United Kingdom writes:

When we talking about International Security then actually we talking about every single issues around the world. Arms control one of them. I am just asking U.S. Government what steps they taken so far and going to talking in future to control arms trade public to public and Government to public. Also when we talking about International Security then what new innovative steps U.S. Government plans to take in future to win hearts and minds of general public around the world rather than just control the Governments.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Dr. Ogoubi K.W. in Togo writes:

I've no question today, please. I'm waitting for the time to using my Eagle's way in the jungle,when it'll be usefull for America and all.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Clyde V. in Kansas writes:

It seems right to sit with other "friendly nations" and talk about reducing arms of all kind, but the dialogue should also be on how to deal with "unfriendly nations" who also have the same kind of arms. Does START have room for that dialogue now or will that require a crisis situation later?

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Lonnie I. in Texas writes:

Why do I get the runaround for the past three years to get a startup business grant?
All they want is money and I can't make them
understand that I barely can pay my bill.

Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010

Richard in U.S.A. writes:

Question: David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona. Don't you agree the unwavering U.S. support for Israel's refusal to sign the NPT is HYPOCRITICAL and embarrassing to American.

Posted on Tue Jul 27, 2010

Edward L. in California writes:

Re French pellet power plant (Recycled Plutonium) Can we improve and install one?

Posted on Tue Jul 27, 2010