Bombs away!

"U.S., Russia sign historic nuclear treaty"
It is the kind of headline that had a lot more significance in the tense days of the Cold War, but the dismantling of a few more nuclear missiles on both the Russian and American sides is still important and highly political.  The issues and opinions that leaders faced when disarming during the Cold War years have changed little.  One might think that saying so long to a few more weapons of mass destruction would be news that everyone sharing this globe would want to hear, but that is where politics comes in.

Nuclear weapons, while most governments and their leaders have no desire to really use them, are seen as a good tool for defence and a measure of military might.  After all, who would want to get into a fight with a country armed with such powerful weapons?  In other words, they are seen as a deterrent, a means of defence rather than offence, what some might call "a peacemaker."  For the United States, there has been a long history of the Republican Party framing the Democratic Party as being "soft" regarding the use of the military, the defence of the country, or standing up for the country in conflicts with other nations.  Any disarmament treaty signed by a Democratic president could be seen as being "soft" or weak, with those arguing against disarmament saying that such treaties weaken their defences, particularly since that means trusting the other parties signing the treaty will do what they have said they will do (American concerns about signing treaties deserves a separate post at another time).  Therefore, it comes as no surprise that one of the most prominent Republicans in the U.S. at the moment, Sarah Palin,  openly criticized President Obama and the signing of that treaty.  It is also not surprising that others, outside of American politics, support the move.

While the purpose of the attack on Obama might be seen as a purely political move to position herself as being "tough" and Obama being "soft",  are there good reasons for the United States not signing this agreement?  or should both parties be going even further?  After all, both parties still have enough weapon to destroy the globe many times over.  One might also consider whether nuclear missiles are the most appropriate or effective means of securing the United States in the post-9/11 world.