Lose, not loose.
Quote from: CTV NewsThe leaders of Russia and the United States have agreed to slash their respective nuclear warhead arsenals by about 30 per cent, in a landmark pact that U.S. President Barack Obama said was a move in the right direction for both sides.
Under a pending agreement announced Friday, both countries will be limited to 1,550 long-range warheads, down from the 2,200 they are each currently permitted to hold. Each side will have seven years to reduce their nuclear inventory. They will also reduce the number of warheads and bombs they keep active on planes, ships and land.
The agreement requires verification actions by both parties, which U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said will "reduce the chance for misunderstanding and miscalculations."
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to sign off on the agreement in Prague on April 8, though the deal still needs to be ratified by lawmakers in their respective countries. It replaces a 1991 treaty that expired last December.
It was in Prague, nearly one year ago, that Obama called for the elimination of nuclear weapons and signalled his commitment to that goal.
In Washington, Obama said the agreement reached Friday with Moscow was part of his administration's ongoing efforts to "reset" the frosty relations Washington holds with the Russian government. He said the deal would also put both countries closer to undoing some of the damage that was done by the Cold War arms race.
"In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time. Today, we have taken another step forward in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children," Obama said Friday.
Natalya Timakova, a spokesperson for the Russian president, told the Interfax news agency that the treaty "reflects the balance of interests of both nations."
The White House released a statement that credited "American and Russian leadership" for improving the security of both nations and making nuclear security and global nonproliferation a continued priority.
After Obama spoke to reporters, Clinton said neither the U.S., nor Russia, needed such large stockpiles for defense purposes. Yet the two superpowers hold about 90 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military supported the reductions called for in the agreement.
The military brass "stand solidly behind the treaty," he said.
CTV's Washington Bureau Chief, Paul Workman, said Obama has fought hard to forge a better working relationship with Moscow, but has been largely rebuffed in his efforts so far.
"The Russians did not extend very positively to his (Obama's) outstretched hand," Workman told CTV News Channel from Washington on Friday morning.
"So, they really have been working on this issue a lot, all on trying to get relations with the Russians back on track as much as they possibly can."
The United States and Russia now face common problems, with the threats posed by terrorism and rogue states being of particular concern to both countries, Workman said.
"It's not so much now that the United States and Russia are enemies in a Cold War -- nuclear power, nuclear warheads are not so much the issue for them," he said.
SourceThe two countries there still have enough power to pretty much lay waste to the world as we know it, but it feels like a step in the right direction at least.
At least some good news from the US for once, it seems.
assuming either actually go through with it, instead of just hiding them.
I thought this was interesting:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg
I guess its a good thing that the US is losing some more nukes, although I think this gives the wrong idea to terrorist organizations as well as other powers. Peace is good I guess, but the threat of destruction is what keeps the peace, remove the capabilities, guess what, no peace.the US may be seen as weak, encouraging organizations to attack.
Even so, a good move for peace.
...I don't think nukes are what keeps terrorists at bay.
Quote from: IAMFORTE on March 26, 2010, 09:27:44 PM
I guess its a good thing that the US is losing some more nukes, although I think this gives the wrong idea to terrorist organizations as well as other powers. Peace is good I guess, but the threat of destruction is what keeps the peace, remove the capabilities, guess what, no peace.the US may be seen as weak, encouraging organizations to attack.
Even so, a good move for peace.
mutual assured destruction is keeping the peace
disarming ourselves to lessen that possibility removes peace
but good job making a move towards peace
your logic has a big gaping hole in it \(:?)/
its the fear of getting nuked that keeps people at bay
and yes i know, my logic is quite flawed XD
Lets go with, mutual assured destruction is keeping the peace, but, disarming weapons for the sake of peace, may, in fact encourage some of the less sane leaders that a weakness is present.
If that still is flawed then I give up XD
basically, in a world where the US has to act tough to prevent harm to its citizens, disarming nukes is definetly not a good action.
It's impossible to eliminate nuclear weapons. The technology has already been developed, and people know how to build them. There are wackos out there like North Korea who would gladly stockpile nuclear weapons, and even use them. There's really no advantage to limiting how many nukes we can have, as we'd never need to actually use that many. Limiting how many nukes we can have ready for use only lessen our security. Getting rid of our nukes all together, as Obama seems to want, will completely destroy our security. Even if you were able to get every country in the world to agree to not having any nukes, there would still be idiots who have them. Those countries would be free to use those nukes against countries that don't have them, because there would be no substantial retaliation.
Yeah ^_^
thats what I mean XD
But even so, getting rid of 33% of your armament, still can't be good, true putting that much power in the hands of one country is folly, but, theres gotta be someone at the top right?
And yes, removing all nuclear weapons is impossible and quite pointless.
Quote from: Irock on March 26, 2010, 11:44:55 PM
Getting rid of our nukes all together, as Obama seems to want, will completely destroy our security.
dunno if the technology is there yet, but anti-missile systems could take down nukes mid-flight (assuming we had them and they were functional, if not, in the future maybe)
Quote from: NAMKCOR on March 27, 2010, 01:59:13 AM
Quote from: Irock on March 26, 2010, 11:44:55 PM
Getting rid of our nukes all together, as Obama seems to want, will completely destroy our security.
dunno if the technology is there yet, but anti-missile systems could take down nukes mid-flight (assuming we had them and they were functional, if not, in the future maybe)
We'd have to know the nukes were coming ahead of time. Besides, the possibility for a nuke being wasted isn't enough for a country to prevent another country from launching an attack. The threat of the other country retaliating with their own nuclear weapons is.
Also, nukes don't have to travel on warheads. They could be detonated from the ground.
very true, you have a valid point.
I don't agree with a total disarmament either, we do need our own defense, however I don't think the world needs as much weaponry as it has right now.
Yeah. I don't know the storage to active ratio on our nuclear weapons, but I don't think we should be reducing the number of active weapons we have on planes and ships. They're there to protect us, not harm us. It'll only make it more difficult for us if we're attacked. However, there's really just no need to have a lot of inactive nukes stockpiled. Whats the point? I'm not even sure how many we have inactive and stockpiled.
Quote from: NAMKCOR on March 27, 2010, 02:11:02 AM
very true, you have a valid point.
I don't agree with a total disarmament either, we do need our own defense, however I don't think the world needs as much weaponry as it has right now.
My thoughts exactly. What the hell are we doing with so much nukes under our butts? Mind you, we can't get rid of all of them, we need power to be intimidating enough so that no country will dare try to attack us thinking that we can't fight back. But, we don't need enough nukes to waste almost everything on the planet.
Many nukes XD
The US has 2626 active warheads and 9400 inactive ones. (wikepedia)
taking a general guess, I would say that one of those nukes is enough to prevent habitation of a sizable amount of land for 50+ years (plus it can wipe out the city)
But keep in mind, this is a guess and a guess only, feel free to prove me wrong if you have evidence that states otherwise XD
Quote from: IAMFORTE on March 27, 2010, 02:29:05 AM
Many nukes XD
The US has 2626 active warheads and 9400 inactive ones. (wikepedia)
taking a general guess, I would say that one of those nukes is enough to prevent habitation of a sizable amount of land for 50+ years (plus it can wipe out the city)
But keep in mind, this is a guess and a guess only, feel free to prove me wrong if you have evidence that states otherwise XD
We're talking long-range. We can only have 2,200 long range nukes right now, so I'm assuming most aren't long range.
I don't think this means any more than the US and Russia saying to eachother, "okay, we're cool."
No, losing 30% of 2,200 or whatever isn't really going to do much. For both parties to trust eachother to do it, after shitty relations in the past... I can appreciate what they're doing here.
Quote from: chewey on March 27, 2010, 04:06:21 AM
I don't think this means any more than the US and Russia saying to eachother, "okay, we're cool."
No, losing 30% of 2,200 or whatever isn't really going to do much. For both parties to trust eachother to do it, after shitty relations in the past... I can appreciate what they're doing here.
I agree, it's a diplomatic move, like a handshake more than anything.