Obama to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons by 80% - no reductions for other nations mentioned

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
This will show other nations that we are being nicer to them.

If we are nicer to them, they will be nicer to us.

And at last, we will achieve "Peace in Our Time".

That worked before, didn't it?
_____________

P.S. Is it November yet?

------------------------------------------------------

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts

By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer
Feb 14, 5:51 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
 
Werbung:
heard in war rooms around the world 'no way, is this the Onion ?'
This will show other nations that we are being nicer to them.

If we are nicer to them, they will be nicer to us.

And at last, we will achieve "Peace in Our Time".

That worked before, didn't it?
_____________

P.S. Is it November yet?

------------------------------------------------------

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts

By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer
Feb 14, 5:51 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

So what? We have about 100 times the number of nuclear weapons other countries have! So, instead of having 100x the nuclear power, we'll have 20x the nuclear power.

Big deal!
 

Not sure where your figure come from, but I noticed that they stopped in 2005. . .and that the trend of disarmement for Russia was much steeper than for the US.

Now, here is another set of data that is current:



Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control ...


www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
Nuclear-Weapon States: The nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are the five states—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States—officially


Nuclear-Weapon States:
The nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are the five states—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States—officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the NPT. Although the treaty legitimizes these states’ nuclear arsenals, it also establishes that they are not supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. Article VI of the treaty holds that each state-party is to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” In 2000, the five NWS committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” But for now, the five continue to retain the bulk of their nuclear forces. Because of the secretive nature with which most governments treat information about their nuclear arsenals, most of the figures below are best estimates of each nuclear-weapon state’s nuclear holdings, including both strategic warheads and lower-yield devices referred to as tactical weapons.
China:About 240 total warheads.
France:Fewer than300 operational warheads.
Russia:Approximately 1,566 operationalstrategic warheads [1], approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 7,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.
United Kingdom:Fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads, total stockpile of up to 225.
United States:Approximately5,113 active and inactive [2] nuclear warheads and approximately 3,500 warheads retired and awaiting dismantlement. The 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warhead stockpile includes 1,790 deployed strategic warheads [1], approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 2,645 inactive warheads.
 
Not sure where your figure come from, but I noticed that they stopped in 2005. . .and that the trend of disarmement for Russia was much steeper than for the US.

Now, here is another set of data that is current:



and little different in relative terms and not even close to 100s of times more than other n ations have.

try again
 
With the existence of terror cells and proxy states, the policy of MADD is no longer a credible deterrant to the use of nuclear weapons. Can you make the case that cutting 80% of our nuclear stockpile would leave us vulnerable? What could we accomplish with 1000 nukes that we could not accomplish with 200? I see no rational explanation for maintaining our current level of nuclear weapons, rather, every argument seems to be purely emotional, i.e. having as many as possible makes you "feel" safer.
 
With the existence of terror cells and proxy states, the policy of MADD is no longer a credible deterrant to the use of nuclear weapons. Can you make the case that cutting 80% of our nuclear stockpile would leave us vulnerable? What could we accomplish with 1000 nukes that we could not accomplish with 200? I see no rational explanation for maintaining our current level of nuclear weapons, rather, every argument seems to be purely emotional, i.e. having as many as possible makes you "feel" safer.

they are there. is it cheaper to dismantle them or keep them ?
if its needless for us then why not FIRST talk to the others on matching ?

the difference would be, according to my abacus, five times as much. and maybe since as you say MADD is less a significant factor, this presents far more potential targets.
 
What I find amusing is the president will cut the military...drastically, while expanding all other areas of government. He has added $5 trillion in debt and his new budget projects another $5 trillion. But, that is a socialist for you.
 
What I find amusing is the president will cut the military...drastically, while expanding all other areas of government. He has added $5 trillion in debt and his new budget projects another $5 trillion. But, that is a socialist for you.

along with the other voting blocks he's discarded, not enough military swing voters to be worth spending money on. well except a few lovely parting gifts.
 
they are there. is it cheaper to dismantle them or keep them ?
Long term, it is cheaper to dismantle them.

if its needless for us then why not FIRST talk to the others on matching ?
Why not lead by example? For what purpose would we ask other nations to match our cuts?

the difference would be, according to my abacus, five times as much.
Offer your sources and we'll look at the math.

and maybe since as you say MADD is less a significant factor, this presents far more potential targets.
Our nuclear arsenal is in the neighborhood of 70,000 weapons which are stored domestically and around the globe. It's my understanding that Obama is only talking about an 80% reduction on those found outside of the United States. For the sake of argument, let's say he were talking about reducing the entire arsenal by 80%, that would still leave us with at least 14,000 nuclear weapons... Is that number not sufficient to deal with all "potential targets"?
 
Werbung:
Long term, it is cheaper to dismantle them.

seems reasonable but suggests dismantle costs are right now and we don't have the money

Why not lead by example? For what purpose would we ask other nations to match our cuts?

they have zero incentive to do so. kinda its been a mutual thing in the past.

Offer your sources and we'll look at the math.

What could we accomplish with 1000 nukes that we could not accomplish with 200?

1000 / 200 = 5


Our nuclear arsenal is in the neighborhood of 70,000 weapons which are stored domestically and around the globe. It's my understanding that Obama is only talking about an 80% reduction on those found outside of the United States. For the sake of argument, let's say he were talking about reducing the entire arsenal by 80%, that would still leave us with at least 14,000 nuclear weapons... Is that number not sufficient to deal with all "potential targets"?

according to the two sources upstream its more like 8500. 80% reduction takes it to more like 1700 (in roundish numbers).
 
Werbung:
Back
Top