Why is Obama talking about a decrease in nuclear arms........................

[G-Man]

.......with the Russians while Iran has got the capabilities and North Korea is launching test missles ? ? ?

Looks like history will only remember the United States as an empire for only 80 years or so. 

[Scanner]

Well let's see now...could it be because Russia has at least 2500 heavy megaton warheads - many lightly secured - and the missiles to deliver them.   Iran and NK, not so much.

[G-Man]

But, is this really the appropriate time to do so?  That's really my question.  Everything that has been important, but not overly serious, all of a sudden is life and death with this administration.  I believe that we can no longer guide the world with diplomacy...it's too all over the place.  We need to continue to keep up the sense of strength that the US can bring forth.  Our Allies need to be able to believe that they can rely on our strength as well.   

[Scanner]

 Bush / Kerry Debate:

Kerry, who was the first to be asked to define the greatest threat to national security, hardly waited for it to be uttered before blurting out: "Nuclear proliferation." He added that terrorists are "trying to get their hands on that stuff today."

In turn, Bush said: "I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network." Weapons of mass destruction include chemical/biological weapons, but the term today primarily means nuclear arms.

A report, by Jonathan Medalia of the Congressional Research Service, says the most likely source from which terrorists could acquire a nuclear bomb are the "loose nukes" floating around nations formerly part of the Soviet Union with minimum security to keep them out of dangerous hands.

[Novavalker]

" Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin, the current prime minister and former president, said the Kremlin would not negotiate a replacement to START I unless Obama clarifies plans for the defence system to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic."

My guess is Obama will eventually cave into the Russian demands not to implement the Missile Defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic.


"Within seven years after this treaty comes into force, and in future, the limits for strategic delivery systems should be within the range of 500-1,100 units and for warheads linked to them within the range of 1,500-1,675 units."

 The strategic delivery systems includes US submarines, cruise missiles and bombers. All of which are envied by the Russians. This deal is a win win for the Russians. They know Obama is desperate to make a deal that will make him appear to be doing something on the foreign policy front. I highly doubt Obama will face any scrutiny from the media.

[Scanner]

What missile defense system? Last I heard there is no system installed. In fact, last I heard there is no system that works. So he'd be bargaining away what exactly?

And I guess you don't think 1675 nuclear warheads each are enuff to do the job?  I promise, none of us would ever know who won.

[Bagger John - #3785]

And I guess you don't think 1675 nuclear warheads each are enuff to do the job?

Only if all of them worked. They need periodic refabrication, particularly is the weapon is of a tritium-boosted design. The stuff decays to 3He and has a half-life of 12 years. If the designer shaves the weapon's primary energy budget a little too close, even a small amount of 3He will "poison" the reaction and result in a fizzle. Thus, the tritium reservoirs need occasional replenishment. This isn't as simple as it sounds, and requires specialized equipment and techniques.

I had heard rumors that all the fabrication plants were scaling back operations or being closed altogether due to monetary constraints and the fact that they're polluted as he!!. So having an extra few hundred warheads around could buy a little insurance.

The Soviets were well aware of the drawbacks of this branch of physics and the materials used therein, and they stockpiled accordingly.

[Strong Eagle]

Why is Obama talking about a decrease in nuclear arms?

Because it's the right thing to do.  Both sides have enough weapons to wipe each other out many times over.  They are a hold over from the era of mutually assured destruction.  Nuclear war is not an option for any country... never really was.
 
But, terrorists would love the weapon, and Russia's security for both the weapons and radioactive materials is dicey at best.  The US has spent billions in Russia since the fall of the communist regime to insure the security of Russian nukes.
 
No way that the US will ever use a nuke on Iran or North Korea.  For Iran it would forever doom any possibility of a middle east agreements and would create a world depression that makes what we are in now look like a cakewalk.  North Korea is a client country of China.  If they were nuked by us, you can bet there would be retaliation.  It aint gonna happen.
 
Best thing that could happen is get rid of the whole damn mess.  Reduce the threat of inadvertent launches and terrorist threat.  You know what a 20 kiloton bomb did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki... do you really think there is any situation where the US could drop a 20 MEGATON (that's 1000 times as large) bomb?

[JimL]

Why is Obama talking about a decrease in nuclear arms?

Because it's the right thing to do.  Both sides have enough weapons to wipe each other out many times over.  They are a hold over from the era of mutually assured destruction.  Nuclear war is not an option for any country... never really was.
 
But, terrorists would love the weapon, and Russia's security for both the weapons and radioactive materials is dicey at best.  The US has spent billions in Russia since the fall of the communist regime to insure the security of Russian nukes.
 
No way that the US will ever use a nuke on Iran or North Korea.  For Iran it would forever doom any possibility of a middle east agreements and would create a world depression that makes what we are in now look like a cakewalk.  North Korea is a client country of China.  If they were nuked by us, you can bet there would be retaliation.  It aint gonna happen.
 
Best thing that could happen is get rid of the whole damn mess.  Reduce the threat of inadvertent launches and terrorist threat.  You know what a 20 kiloton bomb did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki... do you really think there is any situation where the US could drop a 20 MEGATON (that's 1000 times as large) bomb?

Two days in a row I find myself agreeing with Eagle, which would normally make me wonder if I was feeling well, if not for the fact that I only partially agree with his previous assertion!  Clearly it is the right thing to do...for the reasons he stated above, the foremost being Russian security (which I suspect may be better now that they have Petro dollars, than immediately after the soviet empire fell) of their arsenal.  

From a strategic standpoint, if we can reduce missiles 1-1 with the Russians it is to our advantage since that would increase the effectiveness of our missile defense system....which is precisely the reason the Russian will not go along with it as long as the the missile shield remains in play.  Here is the part that worries me about this President negotiating on our behalf, is that it would not surprise me if during the negotiations he drops his pants, grabs his ankles and bargains away our missile defense shield (part of the same defense shield that was just deployed to Hawaii to protect us from a would-be stray North Korea missile).

I respectfully disagree that nuclear arms are off the table for Iran and North Korea.  I do not think that a nuclear strike against North Korea would result in China unleashing their missiles on the US...for the very reason you stated above...it would result in mutual destruction when we retaliated against China.  A limited nuclear engagement with North Korea would not be a good thing obviously, however China is smart enough to realize that everyone (except Kim Jong IL) could recover from it.  As you correctly stated in one of your earlier posts....China would be more worried about containing the North Koreans flooding their borders.

[Oss]

There is more than one way to eliminate an enemy.

Now I am not suggesting that I love the smell of napalm in the morning here but we have a whole bunch of B52;s sitting around with all these old bunker busting 2000 lb bombs in em

All Obama has to do is drop em on the NK leader's birthday party next year and problem is solved.

Without him on top the North Korean society crumbles, who cares if China gets it or South Korea gets it anyways.  In fact the world might be better off if Obama says China can have it in return for them giving us the money to eliminate the national debt and north korea becomes a totally demilitarized colony, kind of like hong kong,

History shows this is effective like when the russians sold us alaska or the french sold us the louisiana purchase.

Neither country actually owned those lands, just ask any indian