1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Should the United States continue Nuclear Reductions?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by BigRob, Jul 6, 2009.

?

Should the United States be cutting its nuclear arsenal?

  1. Yes.

    3 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No.

    3 vote(s)
    50.0%
  3. I don't know.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    President Obama is currently in Russia, and one of the main topics will be on reducing strategic nuclear weapon stockpiles.

    Should the United States agree to this, given that the United States is about 3000-4000 warheads behind the Russians in tactical warheads?

    Continued aging of the United States nuclear arsenal, no new warheads and no upgrades all give credence to the idea among countries in your nuclear umbrella that United States nuclear deterrence is not reliable.

    In this situation, cutting warheads with Russia, putting the United States well behind in numbers, as well as refusing to produce new warheads and the death of programs such as the RRW, cuts in the US nuclear arsenal could easily have the reverse effect of in fact encouraging nuclear proliferation among states who lose faith in US nuclear deterrence.
     
  2. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    That is so crazy, It was crazy when he talked about it during the campaign and its double crazy now that things are getting hotter.


    obama and President Medvedev are signing the agreement. I am sure Putin and Medvedev are thinking *suckers!!*

    and they would be correct.
     
  3. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I think cutting the amount of nukes down from enough to kill the world 10 times over to only 5 times over, will not have much effect in scaring anyone from attacking
     
  4. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    How about the problems with the issue of credibility of the US nuclear arsenal? We have killed the RRW program, and produced no new weapons, and there is a real question around the world if our weapons even work as we claim.

    I would only support a cut in stockpiles if we resume production of new warheads, new methods of ensuring they work, and modernizing our aging force. Until then, we need all we can get in my view.
     
  5. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Cutting strategic weapons does little good if we ignore the huge gap in tactical weapons that currently exists. All we are doing is shaping the US-Russian relationship as one based on nuclear weapons. You do not shape a relationship with a friend based on weapons. Would we be going to the UK to do this? No.

    If we are going to cut weapons, we must target tactical weapons as well, or it is a worthless agreement.
     
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,540
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    I think its just a means of getting the relationships going again and, I guess, making CIS feel important in the eyes of the World - like the good ol' days when the US/USSR would face each other off over the table. IMHO its got nothing to do with "weapons reductions" perse just a means of re-establishing or stabalising diplomatic communications on a footing that both nations understand.

    Getting rid of redundant weapons systems is a saving that both sides could do with, for one thing the CIS cannot afford to maintain a large stock pile and the US does not need to have the old city busters any longer.



    The interesting part of the agreement was the CIS allowing military overflights into A'stan......but thats a different issue.
     
  7. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    What good is that if you shape the relationship in a negative way?

    I think it has everything to do with weapons reductions. Obama is living up to another bad campaign promise. If we are going to go over there and give away everything, we ought to try to at least get something decent for it. Which we have failed to do.

    What we need is credibility, and what our nuclear arsenal currently has, is a serious question mark is that department. Further, if Russia needs to get rid of weapons (and I agree they would have to anyway), why did we go over and hand over ours as well? We could have gotten a much better deal than we did. I also would dispute the notion that we no longer need "city busters."

    This was no victory at all if that is what we got. This will have little real effect on the managing of the war.
     
Loading...

Share This Page