• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US/Russia Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty

W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
So it looks like we have a treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals by 25%.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36050902/ns/world_news-europe/

I can see some value in this from the standpoint of improving our overall relations with Russia. However, I have never quite understood the point of nuclear arms reduction. It seems to me that reducing your arsenal to where you only have enough to blow up the world 50 times over instead of 70 times over doesn't really increase overall human security from nuclear weapons. Maybe the argument is that fewer nukes means it is less likely that the wrong people (i.e. terrorists) will some day get ahold of them?

Opinions?

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
So it looks like we have a treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals by 25%.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36050902/ns/world_news-europe/

I can see some value in this from the standpoint of improving our overall relations with Russia. However, I have never quite understood the point of nuclear arms reduction. It seems to me that reducing your arsenal to where you only have enough to blow up the world 50 times over instead of 70 times over doesn't really increase overall human security from nuclear weapons. Maybe the argument is that fewer nukes means it is less likely that the wrong people (i.e. terrorists) will some day get ahold of them?

Opinions?

- wolf
Click to expand...

Well, if you can destroy world 50 times over instead of 70, and save 25% of the maintenance cost of the arsenal, its a good thing. Generally speaking these treaties are pretty much meaningless. Usually we just agree to do stuff we were gonna do anyways.
 
Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are extremely expensive to maintain have declined substantially in strategic value since the end of the cold war. Plus all the surplus nuclear material can be downmixed into reactor fuel which keeps electricity prices down.
 
K1052 said:
Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are extremely expensive to maintain have declined substantially in strategic value since the end of the cold war. Plus all the surplus nuclear material can be downmixed into reactor fuel which keeps electricity prices down.
Click to expand...

Good point. I hadn't considered the money angle. I'm all for anything that saves us money right now.

- wolf
 
Word on the street is that (according to the Russians) there is language that restricts missile defense.

Don't worry though, Obama says it doesn't.......
 
So long as we do not open up a vulnerability.

Of course we'll never effectively address nuclear proliferation.
 
Patranus said:
Word on the street is that (according to the Russians) there is language that restricts missile defense.

Don't worry though, Obama says it doesn't.......
Click to expand...

The Russians are seemingly incapable of ever telling the truth.

I'm no Obama fan but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this unless someone can prove otherwise.
 
Hacp said:
Exactly You'd be worried about foreign spies scouring junkyards to steal our designs.
Click to expand...

Actually, the question itself is irrelevant. Unless you plan on paying to keep them in operational standby into eternity, there are ultimately three options. Use them, dismantle them, or discard them. There are already plenty for consumption, and discarding them isn't really an option. So (assuming we don't engage in global nuclear destruction where these warheads have little marginal utility) you can pay to dismantle them now or, in the future, pay to dismantle them plus pay maintenance every day from now until then.
 
K1052 said:
The Russians are seemingly incapable of ever telling the truth.

I'm no Obama fan but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this unless someone can prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
I wish I could give Obama the benefit of the doubt on treaty negotiation, but given his insularity about WIPO and others I can't trust him half as far as I can throw him. Of course he's no worse than good ol' Dubya who was part of the same machine. (Just putting in that caveat lest anyone accuse me of having partisan hate.)
 
BigDH01 said:
Actually, the question itself is irrelevant. Unless you plan on paying to keep them in operational standby into eternity, there are ultimately three options. Use them, dismantle them, or discard them. There are already plenty for consumption, and discarding them isn't really an option. So (assuming we don't engage in global nuclear destruction where these warheads have little marginal utility) you can pay to dismantle them now or, in the future, pay to dismantle them plus pay maintenance every day from now until then.
Click to expand...

Or we can keep them until a better technology is invented that makes nukes obsolete, then dump them in the trash.
 
Hacp said:
Or we can keep them until a better technology is invented that makes nukes obsolete, then dump them in the trash.
Click to expand...

Holding on to many thousands of inoperable nuclear warheads is a signifigant and unnecessary security risk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top