Obama calls for nuclear arsenal cuts

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

How about we launch one of those puppies and have us a weenie roast?

We did several of those back in the late 40's up into the 60's some of them did not turn out so well just act the "Atomic Veterans".

[Red October1984]

We should send him to Bikini Atoll to have one of those Weenie Roasts

[Oberon]

[mapuc]

3 for the price of 1 so to say

We cut down on our atomic arsenal...

Yea they are just making 1 atomic bomb = 3-4 old ones

Heard about it yesterday on danish news, where an expert explain that, USA and Russia had developed new type of atomic missile that was stronger than those they had for 20-30 years ago

He said that todays atomic bombs was like 3-4 times stronger.

Therefore it easy to say we are cutting down on the amount of our atomic arsenal. Because the strength will stil be there.

Markus

[Wolferz]

Atom bombs are obsolete. Fuel-air explosives are the shiznitz today.
M O A B anyone?

Obama could dispose of the obsolete arsenal just north of the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsula. That would kill two birds with one stone.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hey, let's throw people off the scent of the numerous scandals in Washington by tossing out talks of nuclear arms reductions. Great idea! Smoke and mirrors. When did Obama become concerned with nuclear arms?

[Jimbuna]

^ Oh ye of little faith

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Hey, let's throw people off the scent of the numerous scandals in Washington by tossing out talks of nuclear arms reductions. Great idea! Smoke and mirrors. When did Obama become concerned with nuclear arms?

Same reason he jumped on Gun Control when we were mad at him for the Economy.

He keeps making non-issues BIG issues and blows it out of proportion just to cover up something....like the NSA Spying...

The thing about that...

I expected it.... It broke and I was like "You guys really didn't expect this?"


Obama is just over here "So....about those nuclear weapons....."

[AVGWarhawk]

Right now nuclear arms are not the issue or a concern but it sure does put up a smoke screen as Berneke completely destroys what is left of the economy with pulling the plug on the make believe economy created by the fed buying bonds to the tune of $85 billion a month. How will Mr. Smile and Grin get around this one as he stands in the Rose Garden? The WH is getting deeper in the crap. Let's talk nuclear arms?

[Wolferz]

Feats of legerdomain practiced by presidents from Nixon on down.

That's called bizness as usual.

As long as we the people continue to swallow it, they'll keep spooning it.

[kg6eyr]

Okay, so now he's talking SART, yet it seems that we've got too many fingers in too many cookie jars. I doubt I need to list everything that's happened since 2008, but I'm sure y'all know what I mean. After we pulled out of Iraq, it just so happened that we needed to find another door to go kick down, or at least it seems that way.

Perhaps it's economical to scale back further, but when we've got Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea to consider, maybe there also needs to be guidelines on exactly how the nuclear arsenals ought to be downsized.

I'm not one to point fingers, but it's fairly well established that the Russians have traded with them in the past, so if Russia is to downsize their arsenal, there'd need to be a sort of guideline to assure that some rogue state doesn't happen upon a Russian nuke that just happens to be earmarked for reduction.

Of course, I guess we only have SALT I and SALT II to serve as baseline examples, since the world has changed drastically since the late eighties.

I'm not sure if this is smoke and mirrors for mister Oh-Bomber or not, but it seems interesting that this subject comes up amidst the earlier veiled threats from North Korea. Could it be possible that the US still believes that Russia is providing NK with weapons? Personally, I'd think not, as even the Russians aren't that silly to be caught in bed with Pyongyang, but hey - it is a possibility, right?

[Oberon]

One wonders how much scorn would be placed upon a Republican president for a similar movement....

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

If it is a fair reduction between the US and Russia then I see no problem.Thing is the Russians have been investing much more in cruise missiles with nuclear warheads(or the potential to carry them) that allows them an advantage gap in fact they already have one.

So a deal would have to cover both ICBM and various nuclear capable cruise missiles.Other wise one side has would have an unfair balance.


http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russi...uise-missiles/

"Russia has reserved the right to reload ICBM silos and the treaty doesn't include mobile launchers"

I thought this was a true statement from Mr Ford, but after a little research I'm not sure:

http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/0...le_icbms.shtml

Christopher Ford, currently a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. Entitled "Does 'New START' Fumble Reloads and Rail-mobile ICBMs" the piece conveniently summarizes the arguments and "frets about" scenarios in which

"SS-25-style treaty-accountable deployed ICBM launcher could be accompanied by one or more nuclear-armed reload missiles and any necessary reload vehicles,"

or, even worse,

"unlimited numbers of rail-mobile launchers deployed with nuclear-armed missiles."

"All this, of course, is just plain crazy". says the two year old author of the above article (can't find his name) He goes on to say:

The entire Ford's argument is built on an assertion that a launcher that is mobile but not self-propelled cannot be considered a mobile launcher under the treaty definition, so it not limited by the Article II.1.c of the treaty. He goes on suggesting that even a deployed launcher of this kind would be exempt from the treaty limits, but only to prove that once you start from a false statement you can arrive to literally any conclusion, however arbitrary and false.

Speaking seriously, the treaty indeed does not define or otherwise specifically mention rail-mobile launchers. The reason is simple - there are none deployed. The last RT-23UTTH/SS-24 rail-mobile missiles had been removed from service in 2002 and the last base was liquidated in 2007.

The New START treaty is fairly clear in that it deals only with those systems that exist - since all mobile launchers of ICBM are road-mobile, they are defined accordingly. The treaty does not define a number of other, more exotic systems, like air-launched ballistic missiles, for example. The reason is simple - instead of listing every possible system basing configuration one can come up with (which was more or less what the original START did), the New START has Article V.2, which leaves the issue to the Bilateral Consultative Commission.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Berneke completely destroys what is left of the economy with pulling the plug on the make believe economy created by the fed buying bonds to the tune of $85 billion a month.

I hear Jamie Dimon got his eye on the Fed seat...God help America if he gets it as no one else will.

Forget nukes the world's economy is facing a greater threat. Have you noticed every time a finance mess happens they are now happing faster and worst than the last one.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Oberon

One wonders how much scorn would be placed upon a Republican president for a similar movement....

The only movement I see here is from the bowels.