[wrbwrbwrb]

my understanding and interest in this issue is he has announced changes to our response postures ala what/how we will or won't respond to, not so much in the mechanical delivery but when we will employ nukes.

Announcing that in effect he no longer sees use of chemical or biological weapons use on par with and deserving of the same retaliatory effect of nuclear forces is a misstate which buys, gains or adds absolutely nothing to the issue.

On another note I find that 2 issues are not as clear in what I am reading, validation/verification, Bush included a viable and robust verification clause(s).

It appears that the cameras, inspectors etc. at Russia's strategic missile plant in Votkinsk.

Also, it appears that Russian has basically told us that despite the signing ( still requiring 67 votes in the senate btw to become binding) that they would see any deployment of missile defense shields as an out , virtually abrogating their responsibility to conform to the treaty. Not having it codified means that either Obama has not agreed to not deploy or that he just wants the treaty without having to say yes or no, or that he knows he cannot pas it here if we agree not too, but, this provides an advantage to Putin et al in that if we do, say a year from now deploy one, they can say in effect we have gone back on our word, giving them an out. We would of course say hey its not in the treaty and they will say they were on record as to not obliging themselves of living with it if we deploy a shield. We know in advance how this will play out, we will be made to look as if we changed the game.....