From the comments: David Kolb

david-kolb.jpgDavid Kolb
You may have missed David Kolb's Nov. 24 column about the New START treaty. Here's what some of our readers had to say:

Commenter E_Fonz says Kolb has a point:

Kolb is far from being unbiased but the GOP does make themselves look pretty bad by trying to block this treaty.

Commenter locutus doesn't think the treaty is that big a deal:

"Dire consequences," "bull’s-eye of a devastating nuclear attack"? Calm down, Dave. New Start is not that big a deal. The prior Start treaty could have been extended after it expired last December, but the Russians declined. After blowing off John Kyl for 18 months, this week Obama finally offered to throw some money at modernizing our aging nuclear capacity, which hasn't been tested for 18 years. You seem fixed on getting a treaty signed for the sake of getting a treaty signed, a common problem among liberals, when the real question is whether it is in the nation's interest to do so.

Commenter smak believes the new treaty is important because we need to get a complete inventory of former Soviet nuclear weapons:

genius, explain why we need to constantly modernize our nuclear weapons inventory. So big business can keep on rolling in government dollars. The old nukes we have are still good enough to kill everyone on the planet. We haven't had an inspector in Russia for over a year. It's not Russia we are worried about it's their stock pile of nuclear arms that we haven't been able to inventory that's scary. If weapons were to go missing we would have no clue. It is a threat to our security. One Republican with balls is calling out his party. Apparently he is the only Republican with any balls at all

Join the conversation.

Find out more about the START treaty at: