Senate approves nuclear arms pact
December 22nd, 2010
03:08 PM ET

Senate approves nuclear arms pact

The Senate voted Wednesday to approve the new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia - a major foreign policy victory for the Obama administration near the end of the lame-duck session of Congress.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, was cleared with the help of solid Democratic support, as well as the backing of several Republican senators.

If ratified, the treaty would resume inspections of each country's nuclear arsenal while limiting both the United States and Russia to 1,550 warheads and 700 launchers. It still needs to be approved by the Russian parliament.

President Obama signed the treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April. The accord is considered a critical component of nuclear non-proliferation efforts and the administration's attempt to "reset" Washington's relationship with Moscow.

Post by:
Filed under: Nuclear • Politics
soundoff (21 Responses)
  1. Cesar

    @Jim: Might you have too much sugar and caffine already???

    December 23, 2010 at 6:50 am | Report abuse |
  2. Major Captain John Smith

    they drew first blood sir.
    they drew first blood.

    December 23, 2010 at 9:11 am | Report abuse |
  3. Frank

    To all of the less Stratigic minded;
    For arguments sake,lets say in WW3.0,the Russians shot their load of 1500 missiles at the United States.Thats a around 30 at each of the 50 States,Lets say with our Airborne and ground based Missile Defense we take out 25%.Regardless.yes millions of Americans will still end up incinerated.What gives the Russians the incentive to cheat and increase and improve their launch capability is that NATO,England.France etc. and yes probably Israel would unload on them so there are other force multiplers in the mix here.

    December 23, 2010 at 9:45 am | Report abuse |
  4. phil

    @Frank...very interesting. Not as interesting as this frozen hummingbird I'm looking at. But interesting. he he. Just pulling your leg Frank. I'm thankful they don't have us building nuclear fallout shelter's in case the "terrorists" attack like they did back in the 50s and 60s. One in five of our homes have either been repossesed or are in some stage of forclosure. So we wouldn't be able to afford them anyway. That's probably why they suggested using duct-tape on our windows and doors if the "terrorists" attacked. They knew we could afford duct-tape, and still have enough money to go to Wal-Mart.

    December 23, 2010 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
  5. phil @ Cap'n Smith

    You accused me of lying about being an old well digger and I replied in defense of my charachter. I'm still waiting for your response Mr. Smith. I say "Mr." because I'm wondering if you are genuine. I'm not making any accusations, so don't get your panties in a wad. It's just that Marines aren't known for their cowardice. If you post a reply, I'll read it unless this frozen hummingbird I'm looking at thaws out and starts buzzing his little wings before your reply posts. If that happens I'll brb after I clean my trousers.

    December 23, 2010 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
  6. J

    Anyone backing usa having 1500+ nukes? What about the rest of the world having that equal amount in case we invade em like we always do for resources? If we're a nation of equal priciples, won't be evident of our ideas of fairness to let other nations (regardless of the size and population) defend themselves with nuclear weapons like because thats what we're doing? Just asking. Life is sacret no matter where one live his. Nukes do make the world safe, and letting those out of control freaks whom we captain keep any nukes to bomb someone later. If i am wrong, someone speak to me!

    December 23, 2010 at 5:39 pm | Report abuse |
1 2