New START Treaty
 

Just saw on the news (no link sorry, tv news), Big Barry O and Medvedev have just agreed to cut warheads by 1/3, whilst slashing all delivery systems - media's words, not mine - clarifying it by saying that they're going to drastically cut the number of missiles, bombers and missile subs.

Sounds like a bloody stupid idea to me...

It's not as if Medvedev is even in charge over in Russia :doh:

Kumbya .. lets hold hands and skip through the green grass. :sunny:

Did you object to all the earlier versions of this treaty your government did?

But apparently its not Obama in charg ein the US, he is just a puppet for an evil commymuslimatheist plot backed by a secret legion of nazi dentists.

[Obama] "he is just a puppet for ..."

Now who IS he ?
A puppet, really ? For what i have read here, he must the incarnate devil himself. A little bit control on weapon and oil companies, a health care plane for "not well-off" people, an excuse to the first nations of the US - this man is the devil himself !
Or he is just hired by the Bush dynasty, to have an excuse for King Bush 3rd :D

Greetings,
Catfish

reducing the number of warheads is nothing I have something to say against, both sides still are left with more warheads than enough. The US also plans to modernise existing systems, which effects the bombs stored in Europe, too.

The challenge of Iran and North Korea Obama has not answered by this.

To rule out atomic retaliation in case of attacks with biologic weapons, is questionable, imo, and not helpful. It can serve as an encouragement to strike with biologic weapons.

wow a bilateral treaty between two countries doesn't answer two other countries.

Nothing wrong with redoing START, nuclear waepons are tremendously expensive and by definition, a weapon of last resort and not to be used except under very specific situations.

America did not feel safe when it had over 30,000 deliverable warheads in its arsenal so it stands to reason that if no amount of nukes will provide the desired level of security, you might as well thin out the herd to the greatest extent practical.

That's what this version of START seems like to me, a sensible and entirely rational approach for managing weapons that may be considered essential but are entirely irrational and make no military sense.

Why? The US and Russia each got more warheads than all the other nuclear nations combined!

Huh? I'm sorry but you have been tragically misinformed about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are dirt cheap minus the research cost of Manhattan. A B-61 nuclear gravity bomb in a production run of 50 costs 750,000 USD (1995 $) while a single F-22 in the current production run 187costs 149 MILLION USD (1999 $ )!

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/B61-11.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

Actually, I have had formal courses in nuclear target analysis and tactical fire planning with nuclear weapons during the early eighties. Have also extensively studied nuclear deterrence during the Cold War and the development of nuclear weapons doctrines of both NATO and the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry that you seem to have succumb to hype and the superficial lure of Wikipedia for your info.

The majority of nuclear weapons costs are not so much in the acquisition of the weapons themselves but in the delivery systems and in the huge and unique infrastructure required to manufacture, store, secure and service them. There is no dual-use options for these facilities and the highly trained specialists that run them, the costs are recurring and cannot be reduced without reducing stockpiles OR compromising safety or security. I also strongly suggest that a warhead for a Trident missile is not a particulary cheap item so cherry picking a low tech bomb's cost out of a catalog proves absolutely nothing.

The treaty is a good idea. Even with the reduction there is still more than enough to cause WW4 to be fought with sticks and stones.

Our policy shift is good as well. If we have not been nuked launching any nuke is very likely to start a nuclear war. Something tells me not even bush would have launched in case of a biological attack.

When each side has a cubic buttload of warheads, agreeing to reduce them by 1/3 still gives each side a considerable supply.

So if a single B-61 costs 750,000 and an F-22 costs 149 million wouldn't you have to factor in the costs of the B-2 as the B-61 doesn't fly by itself

In addition, you can use the F-22 for multiple roles, and you can use it more than once.

The B-61 does only one thing, and it can only do it once.


Reducing the number of warheads doesn't really affect anything. It's not a bad goal, but cutting down by 1/3 won't really change our abilities. The declaration of non-use is a bit different, though. I don't think we should be declaring who we will or won't use them against. I'd probably be alright with a "no first use" policy, so long as there was an option for extreme circumstances.

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.