Join a Discussion on START

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
July 26, 2010
Conversations With America: A Discussion on the New START Treaty Replay

Update: Watch the video here.

On Thursday, July 29, 2010, Ambassador Steven Pifer, Director of the Brookings Institution's Arms Control Initiative, will hold a conversation with Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher, on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The discussion will be moderated by Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J. Crowley. The event will be streamed live on DipNote, the Department of State's official blog, at 3:30 p.m. (EDT). You will have the opportunity to participate through the submission of questions, some of which will be selected for response during the live broadcast. Submit your questions now, here on DipNote.

This is the fourth in the new Conversations with America video series recently launched by the Bureau of Public Affairs, in which the State Department's senior leadership hold monthly conversations live, online, with leaders of prominent non-governmental organizations. Discussion topics include foreign policy and global issues, and provide a candid view of how leaders from the foreign affairs community engage the Department on pressing foreign policy issues.

Comments

Comments

Edward S.
|
California, USA
July 27, 2010

Edward L. in California writes:

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

Richard
|
United States
July 27, 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.

Lonnie I.
|
Texas, USA
July 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.

Clyde V.
|
Kansas, USA
July 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?

Ogoubi w.
|
Togo
July 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.

Owais R.
|
United Kingdom
July 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.

Jonathan T.
|
Oregon, USA
July 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?

Royal H.
|
Kansas, USA
July 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.

carol
|
Massachusetts, USA
July 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?

Robert Z.
|
Colorado, USA
July 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.

Owen G.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
July 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?

Donna B.
|
California, USA
July 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.

Owen G.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
July 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?

Jefferson V.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
July 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)?

Michaela B.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
July 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?

Krystle C.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
July 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?

Greg U.
|
Virginia, USA
July 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?

Ricky T.
|
New Jersey, USA
July 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?

Nick K.
|
Wisconsin, USA
July 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?

Germana N.
|
Indiana, USA
July 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.

Joseph M.
|
Cameroon
July 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.

james p.
|
North Carolina, USA
July 28, 2010

James P. in North Carolina writes:

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

Bert T.
|
Canada
July 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?

Steven B.
|
Canada
July 29, 2010

Steven S.B. in Canada writes:

Don't Bring Your Guns to Town

Robert S.
|
China
July 29, 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..

Gerald D.
|
California, USA
July 29, 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.

Claude N.
|
Kentucky, USA
July 29, 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.

donald r.
|
Texas, USA
July 29, 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

David
|
Ohio, USA
July 29, 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!

Owais R.
|
United Kingdom
July 29, 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.

Pages

Latest Stories

April 17, 2014

The Way Forward in Ukraine

Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, on April 16-17 to participate in bilateral meetings and a multilateral… more

Pages