A New START Treaty? No Deal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Item |author=Investor's Business Daily editorial board |source=Investor's Business Daily |date=November 17, 2010 |url=http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554133/20...") |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Removed excess newlines) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=November 17, 2010 | |date=November 17, 2010 | ||
|url=http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554133/201011171912/A-New-START-Treaty-No-Deal.aspx | |url=http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554133/201011171912/A-New-START-Treaty-No-Deal.aspx | ||
|quote="At stake is something far beyond compliance procedures and bean-counting of warheads — the future of America and other free countries having a credible missile defense against nuclear attack. | |quote="At stake is something far beyond compliance procedures and bean-counting of warheads — the future of America and other free countries having a credible missile defense against nuclear attack. As pointed out by Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, New START could end up resuscitating the corpse of the lopsided 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty from which President George W. Bush withdrew in 2001. Gaffney notes that some senators worry the treaty "will effectively hobble once again America's ability to protect its people and allies" using anti-nuclear missile defense, "even from threats emerging from North Korea and Iran — and that Russia will withdraw from the treaty if that proves not to be the case."" | ||
As pointed out by Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, New START could end up resuscitating the corpse of the lopsided 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty from which President George W. Bush withdrew in 2001. Gaffney notes that some senators worry the treaty "will effectively hobble once again America's ability to protect its people and allies" using anti-nuclear missile defense, "even from threats emerging from North Korea and Iran — and that Russia will withdraw from the treaty if that proves not to be the case."" | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Opinion|New START|Treaty should be ratified|against}} | {{Opinion|New START|Treaty should be ratified|against}} |
Latest revision as of 18:35, November 23, 2010
This is an opinion item.
Author(s) | Investor's Business Daily editorial board |
---|---|
Source | Investor's Business Daily |
Date | November 17, 2010 |
URL | http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554133/201011171912/A-New-START-Treaty-No-Deal.aspx |
Quote |
Add or change this opinion item's references
This item argues against the position Treaty should be ratified on the topic New START.