• U.S., Russia agree to slash nuclear arsenals
    27 replies, posted
[release]Reporting from Washington - American and Russian officials have reached a deal to slash their nuclear arsenals after eight months of unexpectedly tough negotiations, sources close to the talks said Wednesday. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who ordered the negotiations begun last July, still must sign off on details of the agreement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. The two leaders are expected to sign a treaty next month in Prague, Czech Republic. The accord will replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, and will set limits on the number of long-range deployed nuclear warheads, as well as the number of nuclear-capable bombers and missiles. The two final obstacles were agreement on how to verify the size of the nuclear arsenals and the issue of missile defense. Neither government would explain how it solved those disagreements. The two sides had previously agreed to reduce the number of long-range nuclear warheads deployed by each nation from a ceiling of 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675. The deal would also require each side to downsize its stock of strategic bombers and land- and sea-based missiles to 800, from 1,600. The deal is the biggest step so far in Obama's effort to scale back the world's nuclear arsenals, and it is to be followed by other reductions from the United States and Russia. The two nations' arsenals represent 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. The difficulty of the negotiations was sobering for Obama administration officials, who had approached them with optimism. Some officials who had expected the talks to be smooth said privately during the process that they had misjudged the Russian eagerness to craft a replacement treaty. U.S. officials had thought the negotiations would be relatively simple because both countries seemed to agree that the current arsenals were bigger than necessary. But as the talks went on, the Americans found their counterparts more demanding than expected on deal terms and more suspicious of U.S. intentions. The Russians seemed to believe the Americans wanted the deal more than they did, and they sought to use that fact in the negotiations, U.S. officials have said. Differences among the Russians also appeared to be a factor. In recent months, Russian leaders have expressed differing views on American missile defense plans. Moscow has been deeply concerned for years about U.S. plans for an antimissile umbrella, fearing such a program could, if expanded, neutralize Russia's huge arsenal of offensive missiles. Russian officials were angry about the George W. Bush administration's plans for a missile defense system that was to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. said the shield was intended to counter Iran's missile program, but the Russians feared that stationing an antimissile system in former Soviet bloc countries would encroach on Moscow's influence near its borders. Obama agreed last year to cancel the program. One knowledgeable source said that "95% of the agreement has been done for a long time. It was that last 5% that was the doozie." "All the documents for the signing of the strategic arms treaty have been coordinated and agreed upon," a Kremlin spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity said Wednesday night. "It's now up to the presidents of Russia and the United States to define the time and place for the signing." The Russian government has not officially responded to a Czech announcement that the new START document would be signed in Prague. But the Kremlin source acknowledged that it probably would take place in the Czech capital.[/release] World War 3 anyone? :downs: Source: [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-us-russia25-2010mar25,0,2958424.story[/url]
It's good to hear that both the U.S and Russia understand that if they engaged in a nuclear war they'd pretty much fuck the planet over.
In the near futurre, this will be one step foward, two step back.
[QUOTE=Sethorion;20947437]It's good to hear that both the U.S and Russia understand that if they engaged in a nuclear war they'd pretty much fuck the planet over.[/QUOTE] I bet both U.S and Russia are lying and simply not slashing the size... secretly.
[QUOTE=Dr. Freeman;20947498]I bet both U.S and Russia are lying and simply not slashing the size... secretly.[/QUOTE] Well I fuckin hope not. It's not a good idea to completely get rid of ones nuclear arsenal simply because it's a way of saying that if you attack us then we'll retaliate but stocking fuckloads of warheads is a bad idea.
Russia won't slash some of it's nuclear weapons, they'll just "dispose" of them in a secret bunker in an unknown location...
You all don't seem to realize the sheer amount of unnecessary nuclear weapons both countries possess. It comes down to not needing enough nukes to end the world by yourself, there's no reason, ever.
That missile defense thing was five days from a diplomatic breakdown. Downsizing the number of nuclear arms will do nothing. Even with the number left over, we could fuck over the world twice. That's not even counting the 'secret' stash both sides have in Siberia/Nevada and Utah that neither side lets each other know about and that never gets counted. The same ones with the dead man's switches that fire off if certain conditions are met even if no human users ok it. Installed in case no one was capable of launching manually. Nuclear weapons are terrifying, but refinement of the nuclear weapon could lead to tactical weapons that could provide similar use to conventional weapons and bombs. Currently, they provide a sort of balance and deterrent. It's the sole thing that's time and time again kept enemies from killing the shit out of each other. And plus, getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't the safest thing, especially in Russia. Alot of the material that's supposed to be strictly regulated and handled ends up going missing, and numbers get fudged while certain groups end up with nice cases of uranium and certain people in certain governments and militaries end up with fat pockets. That's my take on this whole deal. Neither side will ever remove its full arsenal and everyone knows it. You're no more dead with five bullets in your brains as with two.
[QUOTE=Dr. Freeman;20947498]I bet both U.S and Russia are lying and simply not slashing the size... secretly.[/QUOTE]And instead they're DOUBLING IT.
[QUOTE=Detective P;20947685]That missile defense thing was five days from a diplomatic breakdown. Downsizing the number of nuclear arms will do nothing. Even with the number left over, we could fuck over the world twice. That's not even counting the 'secret' stash both sides have in Siberia/Nevada and Utah that neither side lets each other know about and that never gets counted. The same ones with the dead man's switches that fire off if certain conditions are met even if no human users ok it. Installed in case no one was capable of launching manually. Nuclear weapons are terrifying, but refinement of the nuclear weapon could lead to tactical weapons that could provide similar use to conventional weapons and bombs. Currently, they provide a sort of balance and deterrent. It's the sole thing that's time and time again kept enemies from killing the shit out of each other. And plus, getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't the safest thing, especially in Russia. Alot of the material that's supposed to be strictly regulated and handled ends up going missing, and numbers get fudged while certain groups end up with nice cases of uranium and certain people in certain governments and militaries end up with fat pockets. That's my take on this whole deal. Neither side will ever remove its full arsenal and everyone knows it. You're no more dead with five bullets in your brains as with two.[/QUOTE] Actually, Ohio alone has enough nukes in it to destroy the planet 6 times over
[QUOTE=Detective P;20947685]That missile defense thing was five days from a diplomatic breakdown. Downsizing the number of nuclear arms will do nothing. Even with the number left over, we could fuck over the world twice. That's not even counting the 'secret' stash both sides have in Siberia/Nevada and Utah that neither side lets each other know about and that never gets counted. The same ones with the dead man's switches that fire off if certain conditions are met even if no human users ok it. Installed in case no one was capable of launching manually. Nuclear weapons are terrifying, but refinement of the nuclear weapon could lead to tactical weapons that could provide similar use to conventional weapons and bombs. Currently, they provide a sort of balance and deterrent. It's the sole thing that's time and time again kept enemies from killing the shit out of each other. And plus, getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't the safest thing, especially in Russia. Alot of the material that's supposed to be strictly regulated and handled ends up going missing, and numbers get fudged while certain groups end up with nice cases of uranium and certain people in certain governments and militaries end up with fat pockets. That's my take on this whole deal. Neither side will ever remove its full arsenal and everyone knows it. You're no more dead with five bullets in your brains as with two.[/QUOTE] The entire thing is the ideal that hey the ridiculous stockpiles we had during that era are ideals we can leave behind, as our two nations don't need to be enemies. So no, removing 100 nuclear warheads from the world supply certainly doesn't make anyone safer should the buttons be pressed. It's the ideal behind the concept that's important. Aside from that, those are some very, very ballsy claims you're making. Where exactly are you getting this information...?
[QUOTE=Detective P;20947685]That missile defense thing was five days from a diplomatic breakdown. Downsizing the number of nuclear arms will do nothing. Even with the number left over, we could fuck over the world twice. That's not even counting the 'secret' stash both sides have in Siberia/Nevada and Utah that neither side lets each other know about and that never gets counted. The same ones with the dead man's switches that fire off if certain conditions are met even if no human users ok it. Installed in case no one was capable of launching manually. Nuclear weapons are terrifying, but refinement of the nuclear weapon could lead to tactical weapons that could provide similar use to conventional weapons and bombs. Currently, they provide a sort of balance and deterrent. It's the sole thing that's time and time again kept enemies from killing the shit out of each other. And plus, getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't the safest thing, especially in Russia. Alot of the material that's supposed to be strictly regulated and handled ends up going missing, and numbers get fudged while certain groups end up with nice cases of uranium and certain people in certain governments and militaries end up with fat pockets. That's my take on this whole deal. Neither side will ever remove its full arsenal and everyone knows it. You're no more dead with five bullets in your brains as with two.[/QUOTE] A relatively dark take on this whole situation, but sadly, most of it is true. Cutting our nuclear arsenals by even half, which neither side would ever agree to (at least in this day and age) would still allow us enough firepower to annihilate each other several times over. Russia is quite a corrupt country, not quite as bad as after the fall of the U.S.S.R. but still quite corrupt, and of course, our secret stockpiles aren't getting any smaller when neither side will count them up.
Good. Cut off the stockpiles. Leave enough just to keep people from using them.
[QUOTE=MiniManz;20947740]And instead they're DOUBLING IT.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a hidden knife scenario.
fuck da POLICE
B-but, now we can only destroy the world twenty times!
[QUOTE=Mexican;20947930]B-but, now we can only destroy the world twenty times![/QUOTE] i feel safer
[QUOTE=Mexican;20947930]B-but, now we can only destroy the world twenty times![/QUOTE] Not a big deal, we still got enough though, right?
[QUOTE=Regulas021;20947790]The entire thing is the ideal that hey the ridiculous stockpiles we had during that era are ideals we can leave behind, as our two nations don't need to be enemies. So no, removing 100 nuclear warheads from the world supply certainly doesn't make anyone safer should the buttons be pressed. It's the ideal behind the concept that's important. Aside from that, those are some very, very ballsy claims you're making. Where exactly are you getting this information...?[/QUOTE] Well the missile shield was a big deal for a while. If I remember correctly, a Russian diplomat actually got up and left in the middle of negotiations. The 'secret' stashes aren't really that secret. Both side know they have them, and so do alot of military personnel and civilians, but it's one of those things that are just there. Like our spy planes, the SR-71 and F-117 and the like. Both sides knew that they each had high tech spy planes and what they were capable of, but they never had specifics and never let on to the public until confirmed ten, twenty years after they began being used. The tactical weapon thing has simply been a continuing endeavor since the development of the atomic bomb. It's never really gotten far, but many believe it's still possible. The distribution of nuclear material through illegal means was a huge issue as the USSR collapsed. Today Russia's definitely right on it, but things still slip by. I recall watching a documentary on what might happen if a nuclear weapon detonated in America. It explained how in the late 90s a Russian worker simply up and left with small amounts of nuclear material over the course of a few months that was meant to be disposed of. He was caught, and told police he intended to sell the material to buy an air conditioner or fridge or something. It's harder and harder to do as time passes, but it's known to happen, and kept as hush-hush as possible. And it's unfortunate that while the Cold War mentality is gone to the public, and while relations are far better now than then, many in the east simply see this as a low in a never-ending Cold War. Politically and diplomatically, there's little we can agree on. We're constantly still trying to one-up each other, and are constantly competing for political influence. Instead of through proxy wars and ideological politics, now it's simply through economy and trade. That military fuck shit up mind set is still there, though, not too far under our seemingly pleasant 'friendship'. Russia and America are still two giants. Maye no longer THE two giants, but there's no way in hell that we're going to stay all happy happy for too long. Ten, twenty, thirty years, we'll be at it again like old times.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;20947966]Not a big deal, we still got enough though, right?[/QUOTE] I won't be satisfied until we can kill everyone [I]one hundred times![/I]
[QUOTE=Swim;20947773]Actually, Ohio alone has enough nukes in it to destroy the planet 6 times over[/QUOTE] Anyone have that image that proves how misinformed this man is?
Should of made the deal with korea.
Russia is not acting very Russian like.
[QUOTE=Detective P;20948008]Well the missile shield was a big deal for a while. If I remember correctly, a Russian diplomat actually got up and left in the middle of negotiations. The 'secret' stashes aren't really that secret. Both side know they have them, and so do alot of military personnel and civilians, but it's one of those things that are just there. Like our spy planes, the SR-71 and F-117 and the like. Both sides knew that they each had high tech spy planes and what they were capable of, but they never had specifics and never let on to the public until confirmed ten, twenty years after they began being used. The tactical weapon thing has simply been a continuing endeavor since the development of the atomic bomb. It's never really gotten far, but many believe it's still possible. The distribution of nuclear material through illegal means was a huge issue as the USSR collapsed. Today Russia's definitely right on it, but things still slip by. I recall watching a documentary on what might happen if a nuclear weapon detonated in America. It explained how in the late 90s a Russian worker simply up and left with small amounts of nuclear material over the course of a few months that was meant to be disposed of. He was caught, and told police he intended to sell the material to buy an air conditioner or fridge or something. It's harder and harder to do as time passes, but it's known to happen, and kept as hush-hush as possible. And it's unfortunate that while the Cold War mentality is gone to the public, and while relations are far better now than then, many in the east simply see this as a low in a never-ending Cold War. Politically and diplomatically, there's little we can agree on. We're constantly still trying to one-up each other, and are constantly competing for political influence. Instead of through proxy wars and ideological politics, now it's simply through economy and trade. That military fuck shit up mind set is still there, though, not too far under our seemingly pleasant 'friendship'. Russia and America are still two giants. Maye no longer THE two giants, but there's no way in hell that we're going to stay all happy happy for too long. Ten, twenty, thirty years, we'll be at it again like old times.[/QUOTE] As much as I don't want to admit it, you're probably right. The nineties and the 2000's was quite possibly a lull in the cold war. Considering the amount of bloodthirsty conflict western civilization goes through every hundred years or so, I wouldn't be surprised if another one popped up soon.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;20948939]Anyone have that image that proves how misinformed this man is?[/QUOTE] Hear you go. [img]http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/nukes_550.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Bad Spelling;20950150]Hear you go. [img][/QUOTE] If completely altering the climate of the earth, shattering every ecosystem, making nearly all sources of food unusable, casting enough soot into the sky to blot out the sun, and spreading fallout to every corner of the globe don't wipe out civlization I'd be damn impressed. You don't need to nuke every square inch of civilization to destroy it.
Now ask the question - How many nukes are needed to start a societal collapse or kill off enough people to trigger a societal decline?
[QUOTE=Xystus234;20950546]Now ask the question - How many nukes are needed to start a societal collapse or kill off enough people to trigger a societal decline?[/QUOTE] 1
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.