Obama wants nukes cut by 80% , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 4-2-2009 @ 10:39 PM by sunny_2008ny

Obama wants nukes cut by 80%

www.russiatoday.com

Barack Obama is reportedly calling for ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia. According to the Times newspaper, the new US President wants to cut each country’s nuclear arsenal by 80 per cent.

The radical step would reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 from 5,000 on each side, the paper says.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:39 PM by sunny_2008ny

With the rivalry building up between US and Russia once again in the last year, I think this is desperate attempt on behalf of Obama to contain Russia' poweress.

Just read the other day that Russia has 90 nuke subs compared to US's 60. They also have a much larger stockpile of nuke weapons compared to US

What is Obama trying to achieve? Contain Russia's firepower or is he really interested in peace and good relations with Russia?

www.russiatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:44 PM by stikkinikki

The story, if true, is a step in a positive direction. I hope it is true. It would begin to set an example for the rest of the world how two former arch enemies, even though the USSR is no more, can once again relate to each other. Humanity and nuclear war don't mix very well. There can be no defense for an indiscriminate weapon such as an ICBM.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:46 PM by jam321

I just want to know who or what agency is ensuring that each side keeps to its end of the deal.

Furthermore, I feel that both sides have other weapons that are just as lethal within their reach and that is why reducing nukes isn't that big of a deal.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:48 PM by Common Good

First thing I thought was(smoke screen). You have 5000 nukes, and wanna lower it to 1000. Hell whats the point you still have 1000 nucleor warheads. Ridiculous. All it takes is 1. I dont see the Russians acting on this either. They will just say "hell, this guy might get out in 4 years, and we might get a war monger in there, no thanks".

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:48 PM by dooper

I believe the last President who wanted to diminish our military on such a scaled was JFK.

And we see how that turned out.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:49 PM by David9176

It's good to know that we are on the right track to blow up the world less.
Jokes aside...maybe this could save some cash. We need to make cuts somewhere...nukes sitting around collecting dust wasting money is a good start.

If so I'm all for it.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:50 PM by Riviera

Originally posted by jam321
I just want to know who or what agency is ensuring that each side keeps to its end of the deal.

Furthermore, I feel that both sides have other weapons that are just as lethal within their reach and that is why reducing nukes isn't that big of a deal.

The Agency of Being able to Breath.

Because no matter what, if any of these super powers unloads an arsenal...which I never thought was THAT Big...it'd obliterate us anyway.

And another question....HOW THE HELL DO YOU GET AN ARSENAL OF 5000+ Nukes....with just TWO Countries?!

Edit*

Holy hell....that's not both, that's Each..what the hell are we doing spending so much money on worthless Nukes? WTF are we going to do with them if we don't use them?

[edit on 4-2-2009 by Riviera]

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:58 PM by sunny_2008ny

reply to post by Riviera

Holy hell....that's not both, that's Each..what the hell are we doing spending so much money on worthless Nukes? WTF are we going to do with them if we don't use them?

Well, it is not about actually using the nukes, it is more of a deterrent. It is also a symbol of the country's power and it earns a respect for you in the eyes of your rivals

I believe that the existing nuclear powers like US, Russia, France, China and India has shown considerable restraint in proliferating this technology and ensuring that it does not fall into wrong hands

The exception being Pakistan...while they seem to have nuclear capability, their actual ability to build and operate a stockpile of weapons is questionable and often exagerrated

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:01 PM by Dances With Angels

reply to post by dooper

I don't think that reducing our nuclear weapons will weaken or make our military smaller. In fact, it will only make it less able for us to totally obliterate human civilization, life, and maybe the planet itself. Besides the last time we actually used the bombs was in WW2 and lets hope they will never be used again.

I think he should reduce our amount by 100%. Be gone with that crap. We built 5,000 bombs, and fortunatley never used them. It was a complete waste of money that has left our world on the edge of being destroyed.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:02 PM by wolf241e

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny

]
Just read the other day that Russia has 90 nuke subs compared to US's 60. They also have a much larger stockpile of nuke weapons compared to US

If you mean nuclear powered subs, that may be true. If you mean SSBN's, then you're just wrong. The US only built 18 of them, Russia may have built more but many of those have been scrapped.

Here is a link for the US SSBN's..

www.fas.org...

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:06 PM by jam321

Many of you guys are hitting it right on. I think the older these nukes get, the costlier it is to maintain them and possibly the danger of an accidental explosion increases. I see no reason not to reduce it further. However, I still feel that the reduction is meaningless because we will only find an alternative weapon that is capable of doing the same damage.

Mass destruction is here to stay.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:09 PM by sunny_2008ny

reply to post by stikkinikki

even though the USSR is no more, can once again relate to each other.

There was this news yesterday about the Central Asian countries of the erstwhile Soviet Union coming together with Russia to form a strategic defence alliance. Russia still exerts considerable influence over these countries and they are militarily and economically dependant on Russia for thier survival. The US has been desperately trying to get a foothold in this reigon but has not succeded yet.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:09 PM by Riviera

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
reply to post by Riviera

Holy hell....that's not both, that's Each..what the hell are we doing spending so much money on worthless Nukes? WTF are we going to do with them if we don't use them?

Well, it is not about actually using the nukes, it is more of a deterrent. It is also a symbol of the country's power and it earns a respect for you in the eyes of your rivals

That was a rhetorical question...

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:13 PM by sunny_2008ny

That was a rhetorical question...

Got you !

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:24 PM by ProfEmeritus

One of the unresolved issues regarding our nuclear weapons is the efficacy of them over time. There is debate as to how much degradation of the plutonium would affect the operation of those weapons. Although some government THEORETICAL "studies" have concluded that the weapons will not lose "much" over the period since they were developed(they estimate 85 years as a "safe" time period), the FACT is that the US has not tested any weapons since 1992. T

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:35 PM by stikkinikki

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
reply to post by stikkinikki

even though the USSR is no more, can once again relate to each other.

There was this news yesterday about the Central Asian countries of the erstwhile Soviet Union coming together with Russia to form a strategic defence alliance. Russia still exerts considerable influence over these countries and they are militarily and economically dependant on Russia for thier survival. The US has been desperately trying to get a foothold in this reigon but has not succeded yet.

There is that theory of the the Soviet communists playing long ball and pretending to go away. I think it's hogwash but some still believe I am sure.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:43 PM by Agit8dChop

reply to post by Common Good

I agree, 100 nuclear warheads even is ample to ruin mankind.

5000?...

Imagine the cost in sustaining those aging monoliths.

reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 12:11 AM by sunny_2008ny

reply to post by Agit8dChop

FACT is that the US has not tested any weapons since 1992

Are you sure? Dont you think that the govt carries out secret tests somewhere in Pacific where no one comes to know of it?

reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 12:18 AM by ProfEmeritus

reply to post by sunny_2008ny

Are you sure? Dont you think that the govt carries out secret tests somewhere in Pacific where no one comes to know of it?

I think you meant to direct your question to me, since I posted the statement you question.
Anyway, given the sensitive monitoring devices that detect tectonic activity, such a test would be easily detected by monitoring devices around the world, not controlled by the US. Thus, I am sure that no tests have been conducted since the last recorded one in 1992.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^