Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama signs nuclear arms treaty

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

  • Obama signs nuclear arms treaty

    These nuclear treaties to me seem like a relatively minor issue compared to thing such as the ABM shield we are working on in eastern Europe.

    Is this just a feel good measure, or does it have actual, significant impact?
    New Start treaty: Obama signs nuclear pact with Russia

    US President Barack Obama has signed an arms treaty with Russia that would reduce the nations' nuclear arsenals and bolster verification mechanisms.

    The Russian president signed similar documents last week, so the New Start treaty will be finally ratified when the papers are exchanged this weekend.

    The treaty was approved by the US Senate in December and by the Russian parliament last month.

    It replaces the 1991 Start treaty which expired in December 2009.

    The New Start treaty, agreed to by Mr Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, limits each side to no more than 800 deployed nuclear warhead delivery systems (including bombers, missile launchers and nuclear submarines), a cut of about 50%. It limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads.

    It will also allow each side visually to inspect the other's nuclear capability, with the aim of verifying how many warheads each missile carries.

    The White House barred reporters from the Oval Office when Mr Obama signed the treaty, but allowed still photographers.

    The pact, opposed by many Republicans, could become an issue in the 2012 US political campaign.

    Among other criticisms, US opponents of the treaty argued Russia would have reduced stockpiles anyway as its arsenal aged, so the US had no reason to agree to scrap its own nuclear arms.
    Source: BBC News
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12348780
    Attached Files
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    Sounds like this could save a lot of money, just babysitting for all those nukes must be fabulously expensive
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

    Comment


    • #3
      Agreed, it is a good way to save a whole lot of money, especially if older systems that are in need of upgrades and updates are the systems being retired.

      Comment


      • #4
        So we already comply with the launcher limit, now we have to retire some extra warheads?

        What's in it for us if we have to cut the number of launchers while the Russians are already below the limit?
        Last edited by gunnut; 03 Feb 11,, 21:13.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          So we already comply with the launcher limit, now we have to retire some extra warheads?

          What's in it for us if we have to cut the number of launchers while the Russians are already below the limit?
          The fissile material in the warheads can be recycled and used to generate electrical power via nuclear reactors and in geopolitical terms it’s a good "trust" building mechanism with Russia. Plus it does simplify and reduce the logistical and security costs attached to both nations nuclear arsenals.

          What I find interesting is the likely long term impact on both countries ABM programs. For 60 years "MAD" has been the ultimate deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons but if the US, Russia and other nations continue to improve the effectiveness and number of ABM systems in the world at some stage you should reach the point where one side or the other has theoretically at least neutralized the other countries nuclear missile fleet as set down by START.

          If X is your total number of MIRVS and it takes on average 2 ABM's to guarantee the destruction of an incoming warhead then without a "MINI START that sets limits for ABM's (Y) you could soon reach the point where one country or another has 2Y and the nuclear deterrent is more or less neutralised.

          As I understand it START limits bomber based systems as well so you can't rely on them as a replacement and anyway again in theory an integrated air defence system can be build to deal with them as well.

          None of the above is going to happen any time soon of course, the systems are still being developed but there is nothing to stop it occurring in say the next 20-30 years. So what do the U.S and Russia do? Scrap START and go back to the bad old days with each side trying to beat the other's ABM systems through sheer weight of numbers? Sign an ABM treaty limiting the number of these systems to less than the number of warheads? Build AABM systems? Scrap atomic weapons entirely? And what do you do about all the other nations in the world who may not build nuclear weapons but face no treaty constraints if they choose to build their own ABM systems?

          Interesting dilemma.
          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Wisconsin is right and with Bill agreeing there can be no doubt but that START treaty saves money for both sides.

            Interesting that it's still called "Start". We're well beyond starting, but of course START is just an acronym. The original was signed in 1991. And then there was Start II. By early 2001, well more than half of the strategic nukes in existence in 1991 have been eliminated. Both sides were limited to 6K warheads and 1600 delivery systems back then.

            The new Salt Obama signed doesn't affect the allowable number of stockpiled warheads, but cuts the number of deployed warheads to 1,550 and I believe reduces launchers by half again. However, the total number of allowable warheads remains unchanged. If both sides keep the maximum, then somewhere around 4,500 will be stockpiled.

            Good point about dismantling some to provide nuke fuel for power plants or nuke-powered vessels. Is that the plan...I don't know.
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • #7
              1500. 2000. 2500 warheads....what's the difference? You've seen one nuclear war you've seen them all....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                These nuclear treaties to me seem like a relatively minor issue compared to thing such as the ABM shield we are working on in eastern Europe.

                Is this just a feel good measure, or does it have actual, significant impact?
                The regional system that we (NATO) were going to locate in Poland was
                ostensibly intended to strike Iran in the event of an Iranian ICBM attack. France in particular loved the idea. But it gave the Russians major heartburn, as once can imagine it would, and Obama scrapped it citing cost.

                Are strategic arms reduction treaties "feel good measures"? I suspect you're asking a rhetorical question. They are a critical to the goal of eventually scrapping all nukes.
                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                  1500. 2000. 2500 warheads....what's the difference? You've seen one nuclear war you've seen them all....
                  I'm guessing you're sitting on a pile of beer cans. The difference isn't between warheads. It's about the total needed to flatten the earth.

                  The worldwide peak for nukes was over 60,000 in 1990. By 2003, it was down around 20,000. That's small comfort, but at least the combined megatonnage of 20K it's not enough to destroy all life on earth. There's hope for y'all Razorbacks.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                    Are strategic arms reduction treaties "feel good measures"? I suspect you're asking a rhetorical question. They are a critical to the goal of eventually scrapping all nukes.
                    I think it's a pipe dream to scrap all nukes. In a world of doves, the hawk reigns supreme. If the entire world disarmed itself of nuclear weapons, one tinpot dictator with a nuke could blackmail the entire world. Dr. Evil, made real.

                    Obama has been making major concessions to the Russians in terms of ABM installations and now the START treaty - we'll have to see whether this sacrifice of US and European interests pays dividends, or bears costs on us that we are going to regret.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ironduke,

                      If the entire world disarmed itself of nuclear weapons, one tinpot dictator with a nuke could blackmail the entire world. Dr. Evil, made real.
                      i don't think the world will go nuclear-free anytime soon, but this comment is not true. one nuke, even if mated to a decent delivery + aiming + evasion system, is not enough to destroy even one medium-sized city.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        True, but what leader want's thousands of deaths, radiation poisoning, fallout, and of course being remember in history is the fcuktard that allowed a nuke to be exploded on his country on his watch?
                        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          but will this lead to blackmail of the whole world? well, not much more than what kim jong-il's shown possible (and the US has nukes, too).

                          one nuke doesn't change the military calculus. in fact, in this world, more than ever, it paints you as a big target.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            But what about a world devoid of nukes? In a matchup between a pistol and an assault rifle, the assault rifle usually wins, aside from certain scenarios where the pistol is superior (CQB, etc.)
                            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              BR,

                              i am talking about a world devoid of nukes. one nuke, or even three or four nukes, just doesn't have much of a strategic effect. and for whatever inventory you have, you need to roughly triple that to account for inaccurate targeting, failure to launch, in repairs, etc.

                              conventional arms have developed the point where a fairly well-armed force can almost replicate the desired strategic effects of a limited nuclear attack (not that there would ever be such a thing) without the nasty fallout and other unpleasantries.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X