Posted on 02/03/2009 1:57:23 PM PST by Sub-Driver
President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reductions talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.
The radical treaty would reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration’s plan to deploy a US missile defence shield in eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.
Mr Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White House to oversee the talks, expected to be headed by Gary Samore, a non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration. The talks will be driven by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
No final decision on the defence shield has been taken by Mr Obama. Yet merely delaying the placement of US missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic — which if deployed would cost the US $4 billion annually — removes what has been a major impediment to Russian co-operation on arms reduction.
Any agreement would put pressure on Britain, which has 160 nuclear warheads, and other nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles.
Mr Obama has pledged to put nuclear weapons reduction at the heart of his presidency and his first move will be to reopen talks with Moscow to replace the 1991 US-Soviet Start Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in December. Under that pact, the two countries have cut their respective stockpiles from roughly 10,000 to 5,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Now how could that possibly go wrong with Obama negotiating for the U.S. and Putin for Russia?
Why doesn't the Obammy just raise a "Come and Get US Flag over the WH?
Gee, maybe its just me...but this doesn’t seem nearly as important as say....THE ECONOMY MELTING DOWN.
Sheesh....
My guess The Obamanation throws in the cost of dismantling, plus some walking around money, plus an “American was evil” joint press conference and that they take our offer running.
Build us an impregnable missile defense system, and we really could get by with very few nukes indeed. Unfortunately, I doubt that’s a priority.
Radical is right.
Reductions between us and the Soviets are in themselves ok, but what about China? And if this is an excuse not to develop the missile shield against Iran and North Kores...
Everything Obama does is based on ideology not reason.
It was Rev Wright who taught him our nuclear weapons are evil.
learnt? WTF?
Lex Luthor vs. Steve Urkel
20% of today’s nukes is still enough to blow up the world many times over.
This would make NO difference.
What about China’s nukes?
Jimmy Carter on steroids!
Here's a better plan. Let's work to reduce nuclear weapons (and their development) in places like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other third world nations.
Then let's work to expand and improve nuclear weapons in the US.
Now that's a change you can believe in. You'd best be hopin' so.
A pipe dream which will never happen.
Odumbo really fell off the turnip truck.
Well, I’m certainly no far of Carter with all he’s done lately.
But, technically, when the Ohio was deployed, the protests were done in front of the Carter White House. Although conceived earlier, it was deployed in 1979.
Boat Name Builder Base FY
Order Laid
Down Launch Commission Stricken
SSBN-726 Ohio GD-EB Bangor 1974 10 Apr 76 7 Apr 79 11 Nov 81 2023
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm
And Bush Sr. is the one who stood down the B-52’s from fail safe and pulled the nuke missiles from Europe, saying he wanted to unilaterally eliminate all theater nuclear weapons (I have the videotape of him saying it).
Nonetheless, Obama is just what I expected him to be.
You forgot moving out of Gitmo so Russia can use it for peaceful purposes.
Oh, I’m sure he means that WE will reduce our nuclear stockpile by 80%
“to show leadership”
Note: launch was 1979, commissioned in 1981
Actually, given the yields of many of them, they aren't. I'll bet you that there are more than 1,000 targets in China and Russia that could survive anything short of a direct nuclear hit and it's not a given that all will be delivered or work as intended. The threat of turning each other into a smouldering greasy spot is what kept the United States, Soviet Union, and China from a direct military confrontation through the latter half of the 20th Century. Why are we messing with success?
I told my daughter this information during the election. She repeated it in class to the amusement of her teacher and was belittled for it and he practically called me a moron.
I can’t WAIT to find out this jerk’s email address and send him the article.
And if anyone believes that Russia really WILL get rid of their nuclear arms, I have some ocean property in Arizona...
Jimmy Carter was my first thought too.
Obama’s going to think he’s actually winning the three-card-monty game, until the other players kick over the cardboard box and disappear into the crowd with American’s lost military dominance in their pockets.
Now that I see this article I mark it as a prophetic dream that we need to be praying against!!!
“The threat of turning each other into a smouldering greasy spot is what kept the United States, Soviet Union, and China from a direct military confrontation through the latter half of the 20th Century. Why are we messing with success”?
If it’s not one horseman, it’s another.
Anyone ever see the movie “7 Days In May”?
>> Then let’s work to expand and improve nuclear weapons in the US.
I would also point out that improving our own nuclear weapons capability — indeed, ALL defense spending — is REAL stimulus to the economy, not that fake welfare crapola they’re peddling.
I’ve got it around here somewhere but been quite awhile since I watched it.
Didn’t Sec. Def. Cohen place flowers in the nuke silos in Russia?
This clown will start WW3. 1000 warheads is NOT enough to protect us from Russia AND China. If we go into WW3 with this
group of morons in charge ... WE WILL LOSE ... BIG TIME
It will be nearly impossible to build a defense against supersonic cruise missiles. ICBMs, it’s a given. Cruise missiles, big vulnerability.
Remember also that our large population bases are generally near the ocean.
Worldwide something like 80 to 90% of the earth’s populace lives withing 100 miles of an ocean. (I may be off by a bit here, but it’s something close to this)
It's a darned shame that Mister Obama just doesn't have the same affection have we for this great Country, and our customs, and our ways, and our remarkable history; and he apparently sees little need for its defense. .
Next, the total elimination of nuclear weapons by the world’s superpowers, thus insuring parity with every rogue state on the planet.....
.....and conventional warfare in perpetuity.
Something they never mention is the correct definition of the word “overkill”. What few people realize is that overkill does *not* mean hitting the same target multiple times.
Instead, overkill means that missiles experience such incredible stresses from leaving their silo to hitting their target, that a significant number of them don’t work. You have to fire extra missiles to hit all the targets you want to hit.
But how many missiles don’t work? Often the number can be very high, from 20-60%. Many will blow up in their silos, or fail at several stages during launch, go off course, tear themselves apart in flight, and to top it all off, their nuclear weapon doesn’t go off.
A nuclear detonation can seriously damage missiles in a very wide area around it, with an electromagnetic pulse, a shock wave, heat and radiation.
So how many nuclear weapons targets are there in Russia? If there are more than 400 to 800, there is a likelihood that the US would need more missiles. However, this assumes that we would use all our missiles up at once, and keep none in reserve.
This would be foolish to do, given the strong chance that many targets wouldn’t be hit at all.
Oh yes, and did I forgot to mention enemy anti-missile missiles? Just flying our missiles there is not enough. They have to evade the missile defenses.
So how many missiles is enough? Probably a lot more than 1000.
Because Obambi wrote a college term paper saying "we can."
“If we go into WW3 with this
group of morons in charge ... WE WILL LOSE ... BIG TIME”
There are debates as to whether the U.S.A. is a significant entity in End Times Bible Prophecy.
Most passages like Isaiah 18, Revelation 18 and Jeremiah 50/51 are taken out of context to prove we aren’t.
However, it’s possible that we are, but it is not obvious. Possible but the way things are looking ....
FMCDH(BITS)
Agree.
Sorry but that is a myth. It assumed that each nuke would have a destructive power > 3 Megatons which would have a total destructive area of many hundreds of square miles. In reality most of today's nukes are the 180KT variety with a destructive area of approx 20 sq miles.
The immediate killzone is the 2 miles radius immediately in the strike zone and more so for an air burst attack vs a ground detonation. So if you multiply 10,000 (assuming that is all the nukes still in inventory, we only have 4,500) and multiply it by 20 sq miles you hardly get the total land area of the earth.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Chinese_military_chief_vows_nuclear_conventional_build-up_999.html
China will accelerate the build-up of its nuclear and conventional arsenal to form a credible deterrent, the general in charge of the country's strategic missile force said. "We will accelerate the building of our nuclear and conventional combat strength," said Jing Zhiyuan, the commander of the Second Artillery Corp, in an article he co-wrote for the authoritative journal Qiushi published on Sunday.
"We will strengthen the build-up of combat systems and improve the training of high-quality personnel," said the article.
China will also develop "a nuclear and conventional missile force corresponding to the needs of winning a war" in conditions changed by modern information technology, it said.
The Second Artillery Corps is an independent branch of the armed forces directly under the control of the powerful Central Military Commission. It is armed with hundreds of strategic and tactical missiles.
"The Second Artillery is the core of our nation's strategic deterrence. It is the main support pillar and backup force of our national security and development," the article said.
The corps' jobs include "deterring other countries from using nuclear weapons against China, and for conducting nuclear counter-attacks and precision strikes with conventional missiles," China said in a recent policy paper.
Quishi is a journal for the ruling Communist Party to publish policies and theories.
The United States has long expressed concern over China's military build-up, and accused the Chinese government of not being transparent about its defence spending.
China has said its military budget for 2008 was 417.8 billion yuan (61 billion dollars), a rise of 17.6 percent from the previous year.
Nobody can reduce Russian nuclear weapons (does that mean WARHEADS?) except Russia
Why would they want to?
Peace love fellowship and trust of that transformational black fella?
The Russians are serious racists- think blacks are apes. They are going to play this guy like a fiddle.
About 475kt for D5 Trident II when all are upgraded from 375kt C4 on Trident I, I think.
500 MMIII’s received their warheads from 50 x 10 MX missiles when they were deactivated (last I read). They are also in this range I think.
Agreed, we don’t have enough to blow up the whole world as perceived, but we would still kill a large portion of it with the residual radiation.
The Russians are sporting about 400 600kt (maybe some have two warheads) on SS-25/27, mobile and silo deployed. Some of their sub weapons were supposed to be 100kt.
We do have the dial-a-nuke B-83’s (and still some B-61’s?).
Oh, and yes, Obama is a fool ... at a minimum
Oh, with issues like reliability and other factors considered and the number of targets and territory- it does make a difference.
Especially if they build an effective counter system defense and we have none.
Ok, pardon my hyperbole. Though I do think the inhabited parts of the earth, population centers, would be pretty much obliterated. But I don’t know.
Either way, I am against reducing inventories just for the sake of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.