US, Russia Reach Nuclear Arsenal Agreement 413
Peace Corps Library writes "The United States and Russia, seeking to move forward on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war, announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on cutting each country's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons, effectively setting the stage for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), a cold war-era pact that expires in December. Under the framework, negotiators are to be instructed to craft a treaty that would cut strategic warheads for each side to between 1,500 and 1,675, down from the limit of 2,200 slated to take effect in 2012 under the Treaty of Moscow (PDF) signed by President George W. Bush. The limit on delivery vehicles would be cut to between 500 and 1,100 from the 1,600 currently allowed under Start. Perhaps more important than the specific limits would be a revised and extended verification system that otherwise would expire with Start in December. The United States currently has 1,198 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and bombers, which together are capable of delivering 5,576 warheads, according to its most recent Start report in January, while Russia reported that it has 816 delivery vehicles capable of delivering 3,909 warheads. 'We have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of danger that weapons proliferation is presenting today,' said President Obama."
Oh please .. (Score:1, Insightful)
Just destroy your selves so we can go back to our huts and tipis, thanks.
Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:5, Insightful)
BBC radio is reporting this will bring the USA and Russia down to owning a mere 95% of the world's nuclear weapons. Go USA! Go Russia!
Seriously, good work both countries for making a step in the right direction. But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.
Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear weapons are powerful, extremely so by the standards of just about anything else(short of real sci-fi stuff, or fuel air bombs representing a week of the western world's refinery output); but they are hardly powerful enough that a dozen and a thousand are the same.
Even if we overestimated and supposed that, for ease of calculation, a single nuclear strike could completely eliminate a city, all but the very smallest countries have substantially more than 12 cities, and a fair amount of hinterland. Not to mention the fact that unpleasant side effects like nuclear winter and social chaos, which would presumably do most of the killing after the first couple of days, would be far more severe with more warheads rather than fewer.
Would any country ever give up ALL their nukes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think not! These weapons are with us for good.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:4, Insightful)
Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
But John R. Bolton, who was ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Obama was going too far. "The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low," he said.
Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect? Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there. I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first. If that's the case, 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it. France, China, and the UK seem to be pretty secure with even less.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:5, Insightful)
But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.
I don't buy that. One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.
It's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea, it's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards. Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.
Re:Anyone know (Score:1, Insightful)
700 nukes.
It distracted attention away from Honduras, the fact that what happened there was not a coup but actually the application of the rule of law (the removal by force of a wannabe dictator who illegally refused to leave office when his legal term limit had been reached), and the fact that the US president publically supported this wannabe dictator who tried, unsuccessfully and quite obviously, to illegally stay in power (that is, what he did was clearly against the laws/constitution of Honduras). A US president speaking out against the rule of law. Now you'd think that would really be newsworthy and certainly more interesting. Instead we get endless coverage about Michael Jackson and this difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Our presidents get in trouble..."
haha.
good one.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:4, Insightful)
One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.
One nuke in American hands justifies the arsenal of every madman out there. As long as America holds a single nuke, any dictator can point to it and argue that he has a sovereign right to self-defense against American aggression. Do as I say, not as I do never works. It's far more dangerous to have these things than to not have them. We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.
Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)
I've really got to love our society. A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country. A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you did not know, the massive nuclear buildup by the US in the 1950's and 1960's was largely based on incomplete intelligence and a great deal of incompetence by the Eisenhower and (much less so) the Kennedy administrations. Although McNamara recognized that the US had a large advantage in both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, he still continued the massive buildup in nuclear weapons started by Eisenhower and pushed the idea of mutually assured destruction. It led to the greatest period of nuclear tension we ever had, and almost led us to nuclear war.
In the 1950's the US thought the Soviets were greatly increasing their nuclear arsenal in order to gain first strike capabilities. This was false and not supported by strong intelligence, and many in the Eisenhower administration did not take proper precautions to ensure this was correct. The US initiated a period of nuclear proliferation that was understandably viewed by the Soviets as an attempt to gain first strike capability, and they quickly followed suit with their own nuclear buildup.
Mr. McNamara did not abandon the idea of massive retaliation, he actually advanced it. He said himself said (paraphrasing) that it was pure luck that we did not end up in a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. He also continued the ludicrous notion of the domino theory [wikipedia.org] which led to the escalation of the Vietnam War under his command.
Also, (taken from the NY Times book review [nytimes.com] of his autobiography) he realized relatively early in the Vietnam war that it could not be won by military force, but did not fight for his opinion and didn't take a public stance on that position until the 1990's. He and the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon administrations destroyed the common trust and confidence in our government, which still has far-reaching consequences today. He oversaw one of the largest expansions of the US military in history, which can be directly traced to our ridiculous defense policy and budget today.
Mr. McNamara was a brilliant man, but he is a symbol of how arrogance and loyalty to authority dragged our country to the brink of destruction. Combined with his (and the rest of the government's) mismanagement of the Vietnam War, Mr. McNamara is certainly not a politician that will be missed by me.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:2, Insightful)
"We need a clear, unambiguous policy that alcohol is absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take Prohibition seriously."
Or substitute marijuana, tobacco, fast food, etc.
Cat's out of the bag, friend. Pretending that it's possible to simply ban nuclear weapons by fiat is catastrophically naive. Deal with the world as it is, not how you would pretend it to be.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... the largest bomb ever built was 50-100 megatons. No bombs of that size were ever built in a deployable system (tsar bomba was too damned big to hit another country with it easily).
You can destroy roads and railroads easily with conventional bombs (which are really good at taking out everything in a straight line when dropped en mass).
At 1 megaton, you can destroy an office building 2.8 miles away reliably (the 10 PSI mark, few buildings will not stand up to 10 PSI of overpressure). Many building would be destroyed at 4 miles, and fires would be started as much as 7 miles away.
The majority of nukes launched in a nuclear war would probably be aimed at other nuclear launch sites. Since survival is very dependent on getting the other guys nukes before they launch. (which is what nuclear armed submarines or the constant planes flying to Russia were about, no way to avoid getting destroyed with a first strike).
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:4, Insightful)
Cite some examples, I think most of your numbers are hog-wash and made up on the spot.
Re:Fallout (Score:3, Insightful)
China is also reducing its arsenal
Citation needed. China has not been very open or forthcoming at all with regards to their weapons programs, nuclear or conventional. In fact they are currently in the process of building new ballistic missile submarines and deploying road mobile ICBMs. How is this compatible with "reducing" their arsenal?
Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (Score:3, Insightful)
A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country. A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.
You forgot the part where the crazy probable child molester pushed the coverage of the struggle in Iran off the front pages.......
Fourth estate indeed.
Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (Score:2, Insightful)
Now this article might not be geek-a-riffic, but the fact remains that nuclear warheads, the science behind them, and all of the crazy software/hardware that goes into them is extremely geeky.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:3, Insightful)
you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.
If we have little or no nukes left, why would the listen?
I find it odd that people have a problem with the United States having weapons of mass destruction. Given that we have been in the Korean war, the Vietnam War, two Gulf wars and countless military operations without using them.
The fact that we were willing to settle on a stalemate in Korea and actually lost Vietnam, yet had enough restraint to not use our arsenal demonstrates we have control and restraint (Hence we have earned the right to preach).
The same cannot be said for North Korea (who does not have sufficient working nukes), yet has fired missiles and tested nukes whenever it wants something from the world (if only to be paid attention to) or Iran (which is not there yet) but has proclaimed they would use them as soon as they get them on Israel (Doesn't show much control, regard for life, regard for environment or understanding).
Furthermore, a Republic or a Democracy is naturally more restrained or at least slower to act (if for no other reason then the required public debate cycles) then a dictatorship or oligarchy.
Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, nuking a bunch of big cities will have an impact on human society--but on the grand environmental scale, it's not going to do very much. People have a misconception that setting off a mere handful of devices will somehow blanket the whole world in radioactive fallout and kill every living thing--and that's not the case by any means. Close to 1000 atmospheric tests took place before 1963, and we're all still around.
Re:Fallout (Score:1, Insightful)
A citation is being modded flamebait, but the guy screaming fuckwad isn't? Pathetic.
Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay.
1. I am not and have never really been a fan of MJ but that fact that you must thrust him even into this shows you are part of the problem of which you speak. He is dead and I feel sorry for his family.
2. McNamara sucked. No really he was a walking talking disaster area. The complete re writing of history around JFK drives me nuts. McNamara and JFK over saw the largest increase in the nuclear stock pile in history. He made no agreements involving arms control except the Nuclear Test Band Treaty which was a good thing I will give you.
Eisenhower tried to talk the the USSR about weapons but the U2 over flight really killed it. Eisenhower was really trying to limit the growth in arms and for some reason people forget that Kennedy ran on "The Missile Gap" to show that the republicans where weak on defense.
Then we have the Bay of Pigs disaster.
And the Cuban Missile Crisis
Then we have Vietnam.
McNamara's strange ideas in weapons development. He thought that since Ford could make several different models from one car the military could make a Navy fighter and an Air Force bomber out of the same plane. That actually produced a good bomber for the Air Force even if it was more expensive and complex than it needed to be. The fighter got canned after a lot of money was poured into it.
Over all I agree with the idea that in general is a stupid waste of effort. Every thing else is just as silly.
Re:Fallout (Score:2, Insightful)
Same exact thing could be said about US. just US organized crime is much more refined as they had time to cultivate from robber barons to CEOs. Russia "ruling elite" had to grind they teeth in mob wars just recently -in 1990s
Re:Comes up a little short (Score:1, Insightful)
The wacky logic is this:
By building out missile defense, we make our enemies' aresenal less effective, the logical conclusion of which is the day when it becomes ineffective.
It therefore follows that, being frightened that on that day we will, having nothing to lose, engage in a first strike, they will have to use their materiel while it still is effective.
Therefore, missile defense systems are a threatening move that invites pre-retaliation and makes us less safe rather than more.
The logic itself isn't wacky. It's the assumption that it is based on. That communication simply doesn't exist, is unreliable, or that the communicators cannot be trusted anyway. Because that assumption leads to the necessity of nuclear war whether you build out defenses or not.
The only real solution is for both or all parties to become invested in each other's success. But then it doesn't matter how many big bada boom boxes anyone has, and the number will dwindle on its own out of economic expedience anyway.
Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a white equivalent of the NAACP?
No, why would there be? Was there a white equivalent of slavery in the US?
Our histories are parallel and intertwined, but not equal. Without injustice, the NAACP would not be necessary. The NAACP was started in the early 1900s, when blacks often couldn't vote or stay in the same hotel or use the same drinking fountain. The NAACP is a demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about - we still haven't healed.
Face it - in the US it is still a tremendous advantage to be a white man.
At a certain point, the effects of ancient history have dwindled to nothing. I'd say that point is already past.
The numbers disagree with you. Blacks are still disadvantaged. If you, as a white guy, don't see racism on a day-to-day basis then I'd say you aren't paying much attention, or you are very lucky and live in a place which I would love to move to.
Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, most of the slavery was carried out by the Africans. In fact, Africa is the only continent that still has legal slavery to this day. And the so called Anglo Saxons consisted or Portuguese ans Spanish who purchased the slaves from African tribes and sold them to settlements under the British crown.
As for reparations, they have already been paid in both the loss of life in gaining the freedoms of the slaves and in the welfare and housing benefits given to minorities and the special treatment they got starting with the civil rights legislation of 1964. Every descendant of a slave has had the opportunity to be more then anything that the slavery took away. Even if you attach the Jim crow laws that were around as late as the early 1960, this means that almost every distressed minority is at least 1 generation out if not 2 or more. There is no need for a cash payment or anything because the people who were harmed and their families directly effected are no longer alive.
Re:Fallout (Score:3, Insightful)
This really doesn't prove anything. China is upgrading everything, their weapons tech is still behind that of Russia, let alone NATO. They still don't have a locally produced 4th generation fighter when Europe and the US have their 5th gen fighters flying and Russia's is nearing completion.
Neither are NATO or Russia. You don't publicise military secrets, this is not an indication of bad intents or dreams of conquest.