Russia ready for deep nuclear arms cuts: Medvedev

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Russia ready ro deep nuclear cuts: Medvedev


AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Russia is ready to dramatically cut its nuclear stockpiles in a new arms pact with the United States if Washington meets Russia's concerns over missile defense, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Saturday.

"We are ready to reduce by several times the number of nuclear delivery vehicles compared with the START-1 pact," he told a news conference in Amsterdam.

"As far as warheads are concerned, their numbers should be lower than envisaged by the Moscow 2002 pact," he added.

He was referring to an interim pact called the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) which commits the sides to further cuts in their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.


I'm torn between two thoughts, a part of me thinks this is really good news, that any reduction in nuclear arms is possitive. Another part of me thinks that it really doesn't make a difference, I mean does it matter if you can destroy the world five times over or fifty times over?

There are bigger issues at the moment like Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs.




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
What you fail to understand is the impact the little war heads will have when the time comes

we do not have a need for them any more they are very ugly and primitive weapons and should be wiped of this planet ASAP

He knows it the USA knows it and so do the rest of the world

we have better ways to deal with war

its called TALKING...

oh and not to mention all the black projects / aliens



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
What you fail to understand is the impact the little war heads will have when the time comes

we do not have a need for them any more they are very ugly and primitive weapons and should be wiped of this planet ASAP

He knows it the USA knows it and so do the rest of the world

we have better ways to deal with war

its called TALKING...

oh and not to mention all the black projects / aliens


Yeah they do seem a throwback from the cold war, and I cannot really envisage a scenario when we'll need that many, maybe a few tactical warheads to take out North Korean or Iranian facilities.

What to you mean by

when the time comes
?



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
lets just say the nuke stock pile are more of a problem than a solution





posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
lets just say the nuke stock pile are more of a problem than a solution


I disagree. Russia has always had the might of numbers behind it. Mutually Assured Destruction is the number one weapon in its arsenal, and has served as an effective deterrent to Western adventurism.

The only reason Russia would dump its nukes is if they no longer needed them, and that means they'd have something better.

Same as the US.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


So you can understand the need to rid this planet of such a crude bomb


Look up my friend you will understand we have no need for nukes have not needed them for well over 40 years




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


So you can understand the need to rid this planet of such a crude bomb


Look up my friend you will understand we have no need for nukes have not needed them for well over 40 years


Thing I like about your average nuke is that it is such a blunt instrument, you'd have to be nuts to engage it. Anything more surgical, and you might just see it come into use.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Only after discreetly proliferating nuclear technology to half the world.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

The only reason Russia would dump its nukes is if they no longer needed them, and that means they'd have something better.



I partially agree with that statement.

I think the truth is probably closer to the fact that both sides have aging systems and this is just a good excuse to shed both sides of the older less affective weapons systems and is cheaper in the long run to maintain a leaner more affective nuclear arsenal.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


dont worry you will and have


Take a look at your TV one of the best weapons ever made by man

And it sits in your house

KABOOM!



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Here is the reason why they want a reduction. They have been hiding a huge stockpile that the us doesn't know about. Its under Yamantau and half a dozen other mountains. Here are some links that give credence to my story.
#1 Hidden missiles in violation of the START treaty. Link: www.worldnetdaily.com...

They've been building them underground and then not moving them anywhere, producing the complete lifecycle of creation out of the prying eyes of satellites. These complexes have everything to launch these hidden missiles built right in.
#2 Yamantau one of many..as big as Washington D.C. inside the beltway Link: www.viewzone.com...

The Russians are planning to attack the US with the Chinese and others. They want to disarm us economically and militarily. They want us to think they are serious about destroying their stockpile. THEN when we do being the absolute suckers we are they will wipe us out. Then the only ones left will be the politicians whom have been hastily building bunkers for??? What reason now...hmmm...why build one the cold war is over???
Isn't it???? Mr. Biden with the loose lips!!!
#3 Why still build bunkers unless they really know what's coming, and Mr. Average Joe doesn't have access to Russian intel. Link: www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I also go along with the train of thought that either both Russia and the USA have a better WMD than nuclear weapons or one of them doesn't and they are bluffing.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
They might have better weapons. I truly believe both sides have super high speed sub-orbital military aircraft. That sort of makes nuclear missiles second tear. However you really can't beat a thousand missiles coming all at once now can you.
Also some really good possible weapons are directed energy/radiation weapons. Spike weapons from orbit...sats with nukes for EMP...biological attack...I think the Russians probably have some of the latter that will stay around for years.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Oh the Russians wouldn't be suggesting this unless it were actually to benefit them more than the US.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Go Obama!!! He is in Moscow right now disarming America so the secret Russian missiles can wipe the US off the map. Go Obama saviour!



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Obama fell for it. I hope he is not a total idiot and doesn't do it. They won't do it...they have thousands more missiles they've secretly built underground. If Obama wants to do an arms reduction he needs to have a unfettered personal tour of Yamantau in Russia before he agrees! Do a google search for hidden missiles, the Russians a liars, and Obama is probably a dupe!!!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


That's really funny. I was just discussing with my father in law, the usual left wing folly of assuming that if we just disarm, raise the white flag and show our enemies how nice we really are, that we will all just be able to get along and have a great big universal group hug.

I'm sure the president of North Korea will be overjoyed. Of course dictators and thugs can always be trusted and are swayed by kind overtures and displays of weakness.

I'm sure TALK would have worked with Hitler too. Just ask Neville Chamberlain. O yeah, I forgot, the lessons of history don't apply because we are just smarter and nicer than our forefathers.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I was gunna say, maybe our governemnt should reduce too..i mean cmon what good are nuclear warheads anyways? seems knida shabby, because to world power leaders coudnt agree, ggot jeealous over eachothers private aprts size, hat mens total annihilation of the public on both sides... messed up deal ide say.
How many nukes does a country really need anyway? With todays warheads, im guessing 30 megtons and over...wiping a city completly off the map and from time and space itself isnt enough hugh?
HUMANS will never learn





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join