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.