Nuclear Arms and Russia

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Russia Accuses U.S. of Throwing Up Last-minute Obstacle to Nuclear Arms Treaty. Russia is accusing the United States of throwing up last-minute obstacles to a new landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty as Nato promised Moscow the military alliance would "never" attack it. (telegraph.co.uk).

Russians are not stupid, nor are their leaders. Suppose Pres. Obama gives NATO Commanders an order to attack Russia. The Commanders would likely do it, because Pres. Obama is Commander-In-Chief. Also, Commanders like war. It's the basis of why they are in the military in the first place.

Why would Pres. Obama give an order to attack Russia? Who knows? There could be 10 different reasons. What about the promise not to do so? Irrelevant. Pres. Obama has made many promises in the past, which he has not kept. In fact there so many, I can't think of a single one.

What then should the US position be on a Nuclear Arms Treaty? First, it should maintain the aspect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which I have previously explained. Second, it should eliminate excessive atomic weapons, which are unnecessary to accomplish a MAD response. It should include established procedures, which would avoid accidental initiation of MAD.

On the side, US should continue research to develop improved atomic weapons and techniques to deliver them. In addition, every effort should be made to develop a defense system (Star Wars), which would avoid the intended conclusion of MAD.

If your technologically and strategically ignorant associates in Congress are bent on spending money, US defense is where it should go. Not on frivolous and ridiculous proposals, such as carbon dioxide emission control, or even unnecessary revision of the US health care program.