It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama set to reject 'nuclear posture' on eve of Start deal with Russia

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Obama set to reject 'nuclear posture' on eve of Start deal with Russia


www.timesonline.co.uk

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said that if Mr Obama redefined nuclear arms as purely weapons of deterrence, it would “eliminate the number of potential targets the US military think they need to hit”. It would also reduce the number of nuclear weapons the US believes it needs, he said, which could bring the total well below the 1,550 strategic warheads agreed under the new Start treaty announced last week.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.worldbuzznow.com< br /> www.politico.com
www.slate.com
english.aljazeera.net

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
More Concessions? Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal




posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
This has to be a good thing, hasn't it? I like the the apparent change in nuclear posture. Under Bush it was clear nukes could be used as a pre-empitive action, Obama appears to be turning this around.

The Bush policy.


''A nuclear draft doctrine written by the Pentagon calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), pre-emptively if necessary''.


Insane.

www.armscontrol.org...

With the nuclear summit coming up on April 12-13 in Washington and both Russia and the U.S commited to reduction, and by the looks of things the U.S even more, this has to make the world a safer place.

Even China has agreed to attend.

www.philly.com...

Is this also a signal of the American decline and a realisation it has to work with the world not against it?

Thanks.

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
This has to be a good thing, hasn't it? I like the the apparent change in nuclear posture. Under Bush it was clear nukes could be used as a pre-empitive action, Obama appears to be turning this around.
[edit on 2-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]


Yes...I would have thought this was a fantastically good thing actually...

Nuclear weapons are no longer needed by nations, whether the reason for having them be a deterrence measure, or whether having them is merely the equivalent of "small mans syndrome" on the part of the nation possessing them...

The ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons can only be a good thing, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime or before we've gone very close to wiping ourselves with them...

That's my fear...It will take a conflict where at least several nuclear weapons are used on civilian populations by various countries for us to understand they need to be eliminated...



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Will a further U.S reduction in stocks of missiles and a downgrading of posture lead to the same action by other rival countries?

I would suggest yes for the likes of Russia and China as their rivalry is with America. But what about India and Pakistan? I cannot see those two cutting, without sustained international pressure.

As an Englishman, i back the elimination of our own nuclear stockpile with the cutting of the trident replacement. Would be a big money saver for all in these troubled economic times.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Will a further U.S reduction in stocks of missiles and a downgrading of posture lead to the same action by other rival countries?

I would suggest yes for the likes of Russia and China as their rivalry is with America. But what about India and Pakistan? I cannot see those two cutting, without sustained international pressure.

As an Englishman, i back the elimination of our own nuclear stockpile with the cutting of the trident replacement. Would be a big money saver for all in these troubled economic times.


Agreed PM

The large "powers" will cut their arsenals...But as you said, do we trust countries like Pakistan, India, Israel to do the same ? Like you, I really doubt these guys will come to the table...

They're all too paranoid and mistrusting of their neighbours (in Pakistan & India's case each other) to cut or do away with their arsenals...These guys are the ones most likely to start the conflict I was referring to, btw...

It would indeed save a few bucks like you said too, PM...I often wonder how much it costs to maintain each nuclear weapon and I doubt it would be small beer...

Oh yeah...Great OP by the way, PM
I meant to say so in my previous post but I've got public holidayitis which is making me a bit slow on the uptake



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Thanks. In regard to the money this could save America. The cutting of the Trident replacement in the U.K. COULD save 65 billion pounds (around 100 billion dollars) over 30 years.

www.independent.co.uk...

I can only imagine what America could save. Surely in the hundreds of billions. Is Congress going to approve this kind of move? They normally do not like to cut anything that may lead to a decline in American power.

Back to the cutting of missiles for other countries in the nuclear club. I cannot see anyway Israel would decommision her arsenal, she doesn't even admit to its existence!



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Its just that they have more weapons than nukes today. You do not give up your best weapons, so this means most definitely they have far better stuff behind the scenes.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


2 and a bit billion quid a year is not small change by any stretch...And the amount saved by the US if similar measures were put in place would probably be a pretty fair multiple of that...That's money that could be well spent by nations whose economies still aren't in the best of shape...

Nah, I doubt the US would make really deep cuts to its nuclear arsenal anytime soon, even if the other "powers" agreed to do so and despite the massive amount of dollars that could be spent on something useful...A move like that would be somewhat unpopular with many Americans I believe if ATS is anything to go by...

Heh
That's right..."We don't have nukes...What nukes ?? Provide me of evidence we have nukes...Go on...If you keep saying we have nukes I'll bloody nuke you !!" - Any Israeli politician since they developed their first nuclear weapon...



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Here's an analysis of the cost of maintaining the American nuclear weapons programmes. This is a minimum amount for 2008.


A new study prepared for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace estimated that the cost of U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs exceeded $52 billion last year.

“That’s a floor, not a ceiling,” said Stephen I. Schwartz, who led the study with Deepti Choubey. The estimate does not include the costs of classified nuclear weapons programs or nuclear-related intelligence programs, among other limiting factors.


www.fas.org...


[edit on 2-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


So 2 billion is the low end eh ? Like we said, it could very easily be a lot more and spent on far more important things...



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Far better than nuclear weapons? I really do hope not.

Do you mean something of more tactical worth that can actually be deployed on the modern day battlefield?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
NATO needs no more than 300-400 nukes to destroy most of Russia.

Now they would need more than that to wipe out China...

And you need to have a reserve in case the enemy does a surprise attack against ya...

But less nukes for everybody is better.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


300-400? That may destroy most of their cities. But it wouldn't be enough to take out all their nuclear forces.


As of July 2009, the Russian strategic forces included 608 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 2683 nuclear warheads. The Strategic Rocket Forces have 367 operational missile systems of four types that can carry 1248 warheads.

The strategic fleet includes 13 strategic missile submarines. Their 165 missiles can carry 591 nuclear warheads. Strategic aviation bomber force consists of 76 bombers that can carry up to 844 long-range cruise missiles. In October 2009 the space-based tier of the early warning system included five satellites that appear operational--three on highly elliptical orbits and two on a geostationary orbit.


russianforces.org...

Lets just hope it never comes to that, becasue Europe would be right in the middle of it.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Well here's a MASSIVE turn around to the original story i posted.


The Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations.

But the new policy will narrow potential U.S. nuclear targets, and for the first time makes explicit the goal of making deterrence of a nuclear strike the "sole objective" of U.S. nuclear weapons, a senior Obama administration official said Monday.


online.wsj.com...

So nuclear weapons are now only 'solely' defensive weapons? But these weapons can be used as a first-strike option, against even non-nuclear states? Talk about DOUBLESPEAK bull#.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Is anyone doubting now, who wasn't before, that Obama's goal is the downfall of America. No President has ever told his hand in advance of any military strategy or defensive posture.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Well here's a MASSIVE turn around to the original story i posted.


The Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations.

But the new policy will narrow potential U.S. nuclear targets, and for the first time makes explicit the goal of making deterrence of a nuclear strike the "sole objective" of U.S. nuclear weapons, a senior Obama administration official said Monday.


online.wsj.com...

So nuclear weapons are now only 'solely' defensive weapons? But these weapons can be used as a first-strike option, against even non-nuclear states? Talk about DOUBLESPEAK bull#.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Peruvianmonk]


Yeah, I have a BIG PROBLEM with using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states ESPECIALLY states that have signed the NPT agreement. This is just wrong. I have no problem with a nuclear deterrent but to use them against a state that has agreed NOT to pursue nuclear weapons is WRONG!



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NightoftheComet
 


Its an absolute joke. I'm just glad the U.K. has its own nuclear deterrent to put off any future American attack.


Joking aside. Why would it be leaked to the press that Obama was going to change the nuclear posture one week and then do the oppisite the next and keep it basically the same accept in the 'language' deployed?




top topics



 
1

log in

join