• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

US/Russia Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
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
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,989
5,031
126
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
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.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,767
10,925
136
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.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
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.
Good point. I hadn't considered the money angle. I'm all for anything that saves us money right now.

- wolf
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
I wonder how much it costs to reduce and dismantle vs keeping them intact.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
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.......
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,090
3,628
126
So long as we do not open up a vulnerability.

Of course we'll never effectively address nuclear proliferation.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,767
10,925
136
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.......
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.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,627
73
91
Exactly You'd be worried about foreign spies scouring junkyards to steal our designs.
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.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
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.
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.)
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
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.
Or we can keep them until a better technology is invented that makes nukes obsolete, then dump them in the trash.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,767
10,925
136
Or we can keep them until a better technology is invented that makes nukes obsolete, then dump them in the trash.
Holding on to many thousands of inoperable nuclear warheads is a signifigant and unnecessary security risk
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY