Chris, it's a big story because republicans are selling their support only if democrats agree to their demand to add another $4 billion to the deficit. If repubs had just agreed that this is a good treaty, as has nearly everyone with any true expertise in the field, it wouldn't have been such a big story.

You could say the same thing about the presidency.

Joe Biden summed it up best by saying it wasn't a position that lends itself to on the job training, yet America elected the most inept, Socialist ideologue they could possibly have found for president.

most of the work on Start was done during the Bush admin. you dope. nearly everyone with expertise in the field agrees it's a good treaty. It will reduce tension between us and Russia and foster cooperation on important issues like N. Korea and Iran.

Joe: Well said. Stop-The Stats is a dope. There are only two options here. Resume the arms race or follow the lead of Ronald Reagan who believed in arms reduction. Remember, Trust, but verify. Right now we are unable to verify because we are without a treaty.

You still wont be able to "verify" even when and if this is ratified.

I agree with you that we have two choices, but you are wrong as to what one of the choices are.

We must choose between a seriously flawed treaty that, if passed, will act as both a minor accomplishment, yet a MORE THEN MILD risk, or risk upsetting the entire "reset" process. Both choices are terrible.

As to why we still wont be able to verify anything, the verification process of START II relies on "swiss cheese" supervision. In otherwords, there are holes in this.

This treaty does not cover mobile ICBM's as our ability to monitor them has all but been eliminated, which is quite a scary thought considering that, during START I, Russia made SERIOUSLY FREQUENT violations in regards to mobile inspections.

Also, START II does not force Russia to lower its current stockpile of nuclear missiles, but rather the U.S. must unilaterally, under the provisions of the treaty, lower ITS OWN own stockpile while Russia is allowed to RAISE their threshold to meet the new treaty limits (they will be allowed to raise their own stockpile by about 500 warheads).

Thirdly, the amount of yearly inspections set to be put forth are noticeably LOWER then what they were in START I, decreasing from 28 to 18.

Finally, I think the most telling aspect of START II revolves around START I. Even in the midst of the first START, which expired in December of last year, Russia was still able to smuggle (if not outright, in the open, sell) weaponary to Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea (as evidenced by, least of all, the Wikileak cables). If you have what is, by the admission of even those who endorse this treaty (i.e. General Powell) a weaker proposal then what we previously had, it should be quite easy to imagine that when it comes to "verifying" Russian process in regards to ICBM's, we will be put at an even greater disadvantage.

So please... while I think there is an argument to be made that says "we need to pick the lesser of the two evil outcomes and ratify this thing in order to avert a deepening crisis with Russia," do not for a second think that tactically or politically much long term good and come from this.

Chris, I don't believe you. Secretary Gates endorses this plan also chairman of joint chiefs, 7 of 8 of the living past heads of the nuclear deterrent force endorse it. And a few neo-conservative commentators oppose it based on unsubstantiated paranoid claims. War hawks always oppose treaties, always look for excuse to start another arms race, always seek to ratchet up hostilily because they profit from war and military buildup. We dominate the world militarily. There is no serious military threat to us aside from Russia's nuclear force which the Start Treaty will limit and allow inspections and foster cooperation to avoid incidents.