Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

    Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

    Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

    Those options include:

    • Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

    • Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

    • Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

    The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

    The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

    That bargain is at the heart of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is up for review next year amid signs it is unravelling in the face of Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.

    In an article for the Guardian today, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, argues that failure to win a consensus would be disastrous. "This is one of the most critical issues we face," the foreign secretary writes. "Get it right, and we will increase global security, pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, and improve access to affordable, safe and dependable energy – vital to tackle climate change. Get it wrong, and we face the spread of nuclear weapons and the chilling prospect of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists."

    According to a final draft of the resolution due to be passed on Thursday, however, the UN security council will not wholeheartedly embrace the US and Britain's call for eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. Largely on French insistence, the council will endorse the vaguer aim of seeking "to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons".

    Gordon Brown is due to use this week's UN general assembly meeting to renew a diplomatic offensive on Iran for its failure to comply with security council demands that it suspend enrichment of uranium. The issue has been given greater urgency by an International Atomic Energy Agency document leaked last week which showed inspectors for the agency believed Iran already had "sufficient information" to build a warhead, and had tested an important component of a nuclear device.

    Germany is also expected to toughen its position on Iran ahead of a showdown between major powers and the Iranian government on 1 October. But it is not yet clear what position will be taken by Russia, which has hitherto opposed the imposition of further sanctions on Iran.

    Moscow's stance will be closely watched for signs of greater co-operation in return for Obama's decision last week to abandon a missile defence scheme in eastern Europe, a longstanding source of irritation to Russia.

    "I hope the Russians realise they have to do something serious. I don't think a deal has been done, but there is a great deal of expectation," said a British official.

    Russia has approximately 2,780 deployed strategic warheads, compared with around 2,100 in the US. The abandonment of the US missile defence already appears to have spurred arms control talks currently underway between Washington and Moscow: the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, said today that chances were "quite high" that a deal to reduce arsenals to 1,500 warheads each would be signed by the end of the year.

    The US nuclear posture review is aimed at clearing the path for a new round of deep US-Russian cuts to follow almost immediately after that treaty is ratified, to set lower limits not just on deployed missiles but also on the thousands of warheads both have in their stockpiles.

    The Obama strategy is to create disarmament momentum in the run-up to the non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, in the hope that states without nuclear weapons will not side with Iran, as they did at the last review in 2005, but endorse stronger legal barriers to nuclear proliferation, and forego nuclear weapons programmes themselves.

    "The review has up to now been in the hands of mid-level bureaucrats with a lot of knowledge, but it's knowledge drawn from the cold war. What they are prepared to do is tweak the existing doctrine," said Rebecca Johnson, the head of the Acronym Institute, a pro-disarmament pressure group. "Obama has sent them it back saying: 'Give me more options for what we can do in line with my goals. I'm not saying it's easy, but all you're giving me is business as usual.'"
    Source
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  • #2
    Good to know global warming will be halted by getting rid of nuclear weapons.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #3
      THIS is the reality we're faced with today. The most radical President in the history of the Republic is seizing power that he's not entitled to, and the power he is supposed to wield responsibly and for the advancement of the nation's interest is being used to realize goals that were only dreamt of by the craziest of the Hard Left Fringe.

      We are being weakened every single day by this man's insane aspirations from the worst of the 'Sixties anti-Americanism. We'll be lucky to get out of the next four years with nothing worse than what a Democratic Congress and Carter led us into in the 'Seventies. Personally, I think it will be much, much worse.

      Comment


      • #4
        I dont see the problem as long as the Russians also scale back their arsenals considerably. The US and Russia will still have a vastly larger nuclear force than the next nearest competitors so there really is no problem.

        Realistically speaking if you can make even 100 warheads detonate over the enemy near simutaneously then noone is going to try take a chunk out of you... ever.

        I dont know of a single country that could continue to function effectivelly with the loss of even its 5 largest cities.

        Would save some money too that will hopefully go to buying boring yet crucial military equipment that will actually be used like body armour, better comms, boots, shirts, personal weapons etc.
        The best part of repentance is the sin

        Comment


        • #5
          Totally agree with Chakos. It doesn't matter if you have 50 or 5000 warheads. Even 10 are more than enough.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's not going to happen, mainly because of Russia. The Russians would love to see to go down to 1200 warheads because that's all that they can afford but don't look to them to drop under 1000.

            Comment


            • #7
              What on earth would they need 1000 for?

              100 would be enough to Obliterate the west.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by zara View Post
                What on earth would they need 1000 for?

                100 would be enough to Obliterate the west.
                What about the Martians???


                WHY YOU KEEP FORGETTING ABOUT THE MARTIANS???? :P:P:P

                Comment


                • #9
                  1 warhead doesnt equal 1 city

                  Not all missiles work as advertised

                  You need enough for a second strike

                  Theres many reasons why you need more than a handful. You would need about 10 warheads targeted at a major city to make sure you take it out properly. Assume 2 dont work as advertised you have 8 left, assume they arnet targeted correctly and 2 more get destroyed by the other warheads detonating and that leaves you 6.

                  Those 6 have to be targeted in a way that you can spread the joy, no good ripping the heart of of a CBD in a city that can be in a 25km radius. You need to nail it with a few in different areas to get the desired effect.

                  Thats a laymans perspective, for more detail im sure OOE has a couple of files explaining nuclear warfare 101 that he can repost because i cant find them at the moment.
                  The best part of repentance is the sin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by zara View Post
                    What on earth would they need 1000 for?
                    Diplomacy 101, you don't give up anything for nothing. To go below 1000 would mean that you're giving the UK, France, China ... and Israel, Pakistan, and India the same rights at the negotiating table as the Super 2. Besides, Moscow has stated the right of 1st use even against conventional threats.

                    Originally posted by zara View Post
                    100 would be enough to Obliterate the west.
                    Not even close. You didn't read those documents I linked to, did you?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Diplomacy 101, you don't give up anything for nothing. To go below 1000 would mean that you're giving the UK, France, China ... and Israel, Pakistan, and India the same rights at the negotiating table as the Super 2. Besides, Moscow has stated the right of 1st use even against conventional threats.

                      Not even close. You didn't read those documents I linked to, did you?
                      What documents?

                      I guess your right.. Nukes can be a bargaining chip too.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Medvedev is all ready to receiprocate on nuclear arms reduction, even before Obama mentioned the pulling out of the missile shield systems in Poland and Czech republic.

                        Medvedev Sees ‘High’ Chance for Arms Reduction Deal by Year-End
                        Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Russia and the U.S. have “quite high” chances of reaching an agreement on cutting their strategic nuclear arsenals, President Dmitry Medvedev told CNN.

                        “If by year end we agree, and chances are quite high, I think it will be very useful for us and the entire global community,” Medvedev said in a Sept. 15 interview that was released today.

                        Medvedev will meet U.S. President Barack Obama Sept. 23 in New York, when they attend the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly. Obama and Medvedev will review the progress of talks on a strategic arms reduction agreement that should replace the existing accord, which expires in December.

                        Medvedev’s comments to CNN were made before Obama said Sept. 17 he would scrap a plan to deploy elements of a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of a more flexible system able to protect against threats to the U.S. and its European allies, primarily from Iran. The original plan, championed by Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush, helped push relations between the U.S. and Russia to a post-Cold War low. ....
                        Last edited by Merlin; 21 Sep 09,, 15:55.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by zara View Post
                          What documents?
                          Nuclear Warfare 101
                          Nuclear Warfare 102
                          Nuclear Warfare 103

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

                            They were really interesting. Amazing it would have taken the Soviets 6 weeks to respond to a nuclear attack!

                            If hes correct it seems we've little to fear from a nuclear Iran. Seems to suggest that the only ones capable of demolishing a population are big states with huge arsenals and the methods to deliver them.

                            I thought it went a little weird in part three though. The author seemed to be arguing (very convincingly) in the first 2 and a half links that nukes really weren't as destructive as popular opinion, and how relatively little damage they would actually do. Then he suddenly jumps into a post-apocalyptic world
                            where were locking up women and babies, wearing armour, using bows and arrows and throwing old women out into the snow to freeze to death!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Part III describes how nuclear war is going to force you to re-organize your society. At the very least, you're not going to your DVD store for tonight's entertainment and running water, let alone bottled water, is a thing of legend.
                              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 21 Sep 09,, 18:52.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X