Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Good to know global warming will be halted by getting rid of nuclear weapons.
    I've always thought we should use nuclear winter to combat global warming.

    Ever noticed that the earth was cooling in the 50s and the 60s, thus leading some in the 70s to believe the next ice age was not far away. What did we do back then? We had atmospheric nuclear testing. :))
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #17
      So the Administration is proposing to base a reduced US nuclear arsenal on warheads designed 30-35 years ago and have been out of production for about 20 and average 30 years of age to be tested through simulation?

      I'm all in favor of START (the concept and treaty), but for deterrence to be maintained, there has to be some credibility that both the US and Russia can deliver a devastating blow. The Russians base their claims to global influence on their strategic arsenal and are even developing a new generation of multipurpose ICBM and warhead.

      I would prefer limited US production of warheads and even missiles to maintain a modicum of a replacement rate. At the very least, it would give an incentive for Moscow to negotiate START or even elimination With a reduced and aging US arsenal. Moscow may otherwise be tempted to achieve strategic superiority through await US abdication through obsolescence.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        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.
        Those are very interesting documents sir. As someone familiar with the concepts and strategies, they are the most interesting and parsimonious conceptual and analytical I've seen online. Thanks for sharing!

        Comment


        • #19
          Stuart Slade was a nuclear weapons targeteer and he also has the gift of being articulate.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            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.
            Sir,

            That was a very interesting read. Getting back to topic what is your personal take on this Obama "disarmament" policy? It doesn't make any sense to me. Bush & Republicans don't seem to think that reducing weapons is in US interest. Why do you think Obama wants to do it? To me it looks naive at best & stupid at worst believing in some sort of utopia with no clear strategic benefits.

            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.
            I can't seem to wrap my head around this thing. What do they get back? Libya, South Africa have given up weapons/capability. Israel is an ally. Damage has been done w.r.t Pak, NK & India. The only nation left is Iran whose solution increasingly looks military in nature. There must be somebody in the administration who believes in this I would like to know what they base it on?

            Comment


            • #21
              This may not be for "international" consumption as much as for "domestic" consumption.

              Obama's health care "reform" ain't going anywhere. The proposal coming out of the Senate includes some provisions that the left wing of the democrat party doesn't like. Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. His base is turning against him. He might have done this as a concession to some of the more radical left side of the party.
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                This may not be for "international" consumption as much as for "domestic" consumption.

                Obama's health care "reform" ain't going anywhere. The proposal coming out of the Senate includes some provisions that the left wing of the democrat party doesn't like. Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. His base is turning against him. He might have done this as a concession to some of the more radical left side of the party.
                That's interesting but do you think important decisions like this will be influenced by the need to placate left wing? I hangout a lot on slashdot and even there I have seen genuine anger at his policies.

                The way I see it somebody needs to save america from obamas "wholesome unvarnished good-doing".
                Last edited by pChan; 21 Sep 09,, 21:52.

                Comment


                • #23
                  It seems a little weird that Obama is talking about reducing its Nuclear arsenal, whe n the like of North Korea, Iran are making their own arsenals, not to think about Pakistan etc. The guy is a madman.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I am willing to wait to see what the Generals come up with. While I don't trust Obama, I do trust the Generals.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pChan View Post
                      That's interesting but do you think important decisions like this will be influenced by the need to placate left wing? I hangout a lot on slashdot and even there I have seen genuine anger at his policies.

                      The way I see it somebody needs to save america from obamas "wholesome unvarnished good-doing".
                      That's just one theory. Of course the "left" of the democrat party is a handful of congressmen who might be critical in pushing through the bill. They can tell their constituents: hey look, I was instrumental in "nuclear reduction." Might be worth a few votes.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Stuart Slade was a nuclear weapons targeteer and he also has the gift of being articulate.
                        Interesting. I just finished his four "what if" novels.
                        Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
                        (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          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.
                          I get what hes trying to say, its just that part 1 and 2 read very logically and academic -almost like a scientific paper, but part 3 is more like a novel.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Nuke War 103 is an attempt to tell you that you DON'T want a nuke fight. The effects are far from pleasant.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Thank God for good men.

                              From DefenseLink News Transcript: Secretary Gates Remarks at the Air Force Association's Annual Conference, National Harbor, Md.

                              MODERATOR: The first one concerns our nuclear forces. And you mentioned the standup of Global Strike Command. And as we continue our efforts to reinvigorate the nuclear enterprise, what could you share with us on the status of the Nuclear Posture Review and what impact that might have in terms of major changes for our Air Force?

                              SEC. GATES: Well, the Nuclear Posture Review is well under way, and I would say we're beginning to see what some of the likely conclusions are. I would say that it is clear, at least to me, that it is important for us to continue to make investments, and I think larger investments, in modernizing our nuclear infrastructure, the labs and so on, the expertise in those places, to have the resources for life-extension programs, and in one or two cases probably new designs that will be safer and more reliable.

                              We have no desire for new capabilities. That's a red herring. This is about modernizing and keeping safe a capability that everyone acknowledges we will have to have for some considerable period into the future before achieving some of the objectives of significant arms reduction and eventually no nuclear weapons at all. All recognize that is a considerable distance in the future, and we have an obligation to keep this capability safe.

                              I also believe that these capabilities are enablers of arms control and our ability to reduce the size of our nuclear stockpile. When we have more confidence in the long-term viability of our weapons systems, then our ability to reduce the number of weapons we must keep in the stockpile is enhanced. So I see this modernization effort, if you will, as a vehicle and an enabler of arms control and stockpile reduction.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I had a discussion with a Georgetown diplomacy grad student on the internet about the relative effects of nuclear arsenals.

                                By cutting down on nuclear arsenals, you make the nuclear arsenals of new nuclear powers more potent. The balance of nuclear power for a state like Iran or North Korea starts at a much more favorable point for those states than it would with a larger American and Russian arsenal.

                                I'm curious, why would Obama do this? He seems generally to be a smart guy; what would be the benefit of mutual nuclear disarmament? Is he trying to encourage a multi-polar world? Or is this a ruse; and the precision-guided US nuclear arsenal has already achieved overkill?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X