STARTing in any Direction

Any treaty purporting to control and/or limit nuclear weaponry seems on its face to be reasonable and desirable. The current START Treaty under discussion raises several interesting questions. The first is the curious decision to include defensive weapons with attack ones. What could possibly make a nation create and include that equality? One could argue that offense=defense might decrease some effectiveness and desirability of research but, with the obvious danger of offensive weapons and their availability to misuse, it is hard to understand why that equation would become a priority.

The next question is more difficult. What does a treaty mean? Historically treaties created boundaries that could be drawn on maps and compliance could be confirmed from watchtowers. Agreements now are quite different and depend very much upon the nation's honesty and motives. In 1972 the U.N. wrote an agreement that outlawed the development of bioweapons and all the nations eagerly signed--except a few like Israel, South Africa and the United States. The year following its ostentatious signing, Russia opened the first of its bioweapons research center under the umbrella program Biopreparate. At this facility they meticulously developed horrifying hybrids of killer germs, some aimed exclusively at children. At the risk of sounding like "Guns don't kill people, people do", agreeing to outlaw certain weapons and research does not matter much if the party or parties are insincere.

This just raises the truly uncomfortable question: Is anybody here serious? Or is this all the usual public drama and international verbal placebo? Or is this simple the reflex of the lost, to start in any direction.

Knowing the propensity of the Bathoes for posturing and insincerity, one does worry.