I haven't read the text of the agreement yet, but a further 1/3 reduction makes sense. There are still plenty in both arsenals. This is merely a follow-on to the START treaties negotiated by the Reagan admin. Also Remember Bush 41's prompt action in taking control of the Kazakh portion of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal, something I applauded him for doing at the time. What this also shows is a good faith effort to lower tensions over NUCWEPS and can serve as a negotiating point and confidence-building measure for talks to phase out the Pakistani, Indian and Israeli arsenals as well.

Just a reminder, before the Persian Gulf War back in early 90's, James Baker implied to Iraqi Officials that if chem or bio weapons were used on US troops, a nuclear response was not off the table.This bluff worked.Now the current President has basically said we won't fight back to the best of our ability if attacked by something just as harsh as a nuke, such as bio or chem attack.I do not quote Sarah Palin usually because I am not a big fan but she was right when she said it was like backing down from a schoolyard bully after being attacked.

I don't mind the reduction as much I suppose but we should be reducing our stockpile when other nations building them.The goal of a world without nuclear weapons is admirable but not possible, maybe in liberal land where it rains gummy bears but not in the real world.You can not uninvent something, best thing can do is what worked during the cold war, make sure the enemy knows you have the ability and will use it if attacked.While we are in a war against terrorism and despite what mr muslim sympathies obama says, a war against radical islam, we also have nations to worry about and need to maintain our ability to deter these nations and use the nukes if needed.First he scraps a missle shield for less effective alternative now this crap.The naivete shown by Obama in foreign relations just screams Jimmy Carter.:damn:

:har: good one sir. That is the Liberal mindset, void of reality.

So in other words the F-22 has to come back and finish the job the next day while a B-61 finishes the job in a few seconds? :yep:

A B-2 doesn't have to be the delivery system. A low cost Scud or LACM would work, as could a semi-truck. All difficult to intercept. :03:

The only source I used Wikipedia on was for the price of the F-22, which is extremely high no matter what source you look at.

I don't have the figures for the W88 but the older W76 which is the original Trident payload is even cheaper than the B-61 I mentioned in my last post, only 128 million:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W76.html

A Trident missile is only 30 million:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

Dual-use? There certainly is a duel use for nuclear bomb production, storage and service facilities. Its just no one has had the b*lls to build a flying mountain of steel yet! :damn:

Wikipedia

Google Books

Oh right there is no reason for launching 8,000 tons in to LEO with one launch... oh wait there is

Suprisingly enough - I don't have a major issue with this treaty. OK - so instead of being able to wipe civilization off the planet entirely 6 times apiece, we now can each do it only 4 times....

Hmmmm - considering once is all it takes - 2x just to be sure, I don't see a big issue here.

The only issues I have with the treaty is that I haven't seen the verification/enforcement language. The Russians are notorious for not complying with the major weapon treaties - though the same could be said for the US in some ways. *While they tend to ignore limits, we have tended to look for loopholes to exploit*

My real concern has less to do with the treaty itself (other than what I listed) - and more to do with the nuclear usage policy just released. Now that is a problem - but it can be discussed in another thread unless there are no substantial objections.

It was part of the same deal so I think this topic is fine.

The idea is a good one tho. Using a chemical attack against us warrants a attack against the capital using conventional weapons en masse. A chemical or nuke attack only invites global thermonuclear war. Its not a sane policy and is not MAD anyway.

Seems meaningless to me. The Russians are below treaty anyway, they could grow their force under this (replacing old with new weapons).

Hardly a new milestone.

First of all, the treaty is non-binding on the United States until it is ratified by 2/3s of the Senate. So any thing in the treaty can, and probably will be changed.

Second, there is nothing in the treaty that prohibits the United States from responding to any attack with nuclear weapons.

Third, statement about whether the US will use or not use nuclear weapons is documented in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The NPR, for the first time clearly states the United States' position on this matter. Previous versions of the NPR were ambiguous. A summary of our position can be accessed at

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/npr2010.php

• The United States will continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attack, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons.

(Nukes will be used to deter nukes. Not a bad policy)

• The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defense the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

(You use chemical or biological weapons against us, we can nuke you)

• The United States will not use of threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear proliferation obligations.

(if you play nice and follow the NPT rules, we won't threaten you with nuclear weapons. North Korea, Israel, and India, you might want to pay attention here)

Nothing in either the treaty nor the NPR prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack.

Zachstar - I see where your going, but let me ask this.

Is a chem or bio attack by a nation an act of war?

If so - why would you ever take a combat option off the table entirely?

Lets say NY was hit tommorow by a Bio strike that originated with Iran. *This is hypothetical obviously....*

So your saying that we should send a couple of score of bombers over to flatten all of Tehran? Lets analyze that..

Assume a low loss rate from ground fire and interceptors. 5 Buffs and maybe a couple of F15's. That is 45Mill for the Buffs, and 110Mill lost with the F15's. Now, add in the "value" of 27 trained men (and possibly women) that lose their lives in this. What monetary value to you put on that?

So we have a total cost of at LEAST 155 Million in equipment - and this doesn't factor the costs of the sorties of all the other aircraft - which would be huge. A ground strike would be even more costly - in both logistics and lives. Figure a base total cost of 250 Million - which would be a VERY low cost for such an operation (again discounting the lives lost).

One Trident II today costs 29.1 Million - and could send the same message - if not in a much stronger way. And it won't risk additional lives.
Both ways are going to cause massive collateral damage and death.

I am not saying that is the way to respond - but its foolish to take it off the table as an OPTION. Especially since the country would need to spend its money on the relief efforts - not retaliation.

*Note the above actually wouldn't be removed as Iran is not covered - only Non-Proliferation signatories are - but the mechanics stay the same.

See the point?


Edit - Platypus - good info -will read the official doc tommorow as time permits and give some feedback.

Iran is a signatory of the NPT and still remains a member in good standing (although they are pushing it). The official term is "In material accordance" meaning that they are still passing with a D-. :D

Haplo, cost is a non-issue, IMO.

Deterrence requires a credible threat. Under the current admin, there is no credible threat regardless, frankly. If the ambiguous policy doesn't REQUIRE a nuke attack by law, then it is credible that we'd not retaliate PERIOD right now (not certain, but far more plausible than under the previous administration).

In the case of nukes vs countries like Iran, it seems VERY unlikely to me because of collateral issues outside the target country (ie: downwind fallout). I don't see tactical weapons as a plausible threat for US use unless there was pretty broad, worldwide support by major powers.

Mexico builds an a-bomb (OK, they STEAL one ;) ). They decide to nuke the PRC because they want to sell more crap that is "hecho en mexico" to walmart. The PRC retaliates and nukes border towns, and southerly summer winds blanket TX, NM, and AZ with fallout. Would the US with a non-wimp executive branch respond? This is an analog to NK. We could never nuke NK. We'd PO the PRC—and maybe actually harm them—and we'd blanket Japan with fallout. It would NEVER happen.

IMO, nuke policy should be intentionally ambiguous, and ideally, the few likely states to USE nukes should feel we are dangerous cowboys with a hair trigger. This should be a plausible view to hold.

We realistically could almost never use them without harming allies or other major powers with fallout, so it's technically moot. All major powers would of course operate under the understanding of the unseen "wink."

Good post. I see you get what I'm saying. :yeah:

No sane president (Not even regan or bush) would use a nuke. Worse we would do is deploy some of that black project bioweapons you can bet your butt they have stored in max security facility.

But yes initially we would flatten their cities. And destroy just about anything of value elseware until they surrendered in full. Cost is irrelevent at that point. The nation will rage for revenge.

As for rebuilding. Something tells me Iran or whoever would have to become the next state before we would rebuild a country that hit us with a chem attack.

But using a nuke invites a war that humanity wont win. Are we going to have a press conference saying we launch in 3 days or whenever the wind is right? Maybe it needs to go to a commitee to determine long term effects? UN summit? About the only way you can be halfway confident nothing terrible will happen but by that time the cities would be looted and abandoned anyway.

Right that. just that virusses do not go Bang! does not mean they are the more harmless weapon. They are not, and they are not called for no reason the "hydrogen bomb of the poor man".

On a side note, Israel has declared to boycott the nuclear summit in Washington, fearing that it will be abused by Turkey and Syria to attack and trying to weaken Israel by putting it'S arsenal on the agenda, while ignoring Iran. Obama will not be pleased by the Israeli decision. And Israel would be damaging it'S own vital interest of caring for it. A German newspaper quotes a close adviser to Netanyahu with having said: "Obama is a total disaster for Israel". In other words: the ice age is set to most probably continue, until Obama leaves office, or another, more leftist Israeli government takes over.

Turkey's Erdoghan recently closed ties with Iran, calling it a close friend and defending it's nuclear ambitions, also saying that Iran like any Muslim country never can do anything that could be called "wrong" because as an Islamic country it cannot do any wrong. And this in a time when the Turkish Imams started legal actions to topple secularism and getting legal and political immunity from the law, end governmental overwatching of mosques and Imams, and getting equal power over turkish society like the government. Erdoghan's fundamentalist AKP is going conform with almost all these demands, much of these demands will be accepted. Which essentially mean'S the end of the current constitutional state order and the end of Ataturk'S attempt to keep Islam in check by implementing laws for a secular society.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...-sprengen.html

Turkey is no ally for us. High time, very high time that the fools in Washington finally get it. American idealistic thinking and shortsighted politcal pragmatism is no match for Islam's archaic energy. The changes in Turkey since the rise of the AKP are worrying, very worrying. They vast majority of the group of secular, West-oriented Turks are worried, too. add to this the growing ultranationalistic sentiments and the dream for restablishing a post-osmanic dominance. If a comparable thing would take place in Germany, all you guys already would have gone yelling and shouting.

START does not effect North Korea. Not Pakistan. Not Iran. All these are challenges that Obama has no answer for. So do not overestimate START. and more challenges like these countries are likely to appear in the forseeable future.

A reduction in nuclear weapons 33% means nothing. That's only 7 to 10 times the annihilation of our planet.