Page 1 of 13 12345678911 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 190

Thread: Obama Mulls 80 Percent Disarmament of Nuclear Arsenal

  1. #1
    Zune Free At Last FlintHillBilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Generation lost in debt
    Posts
    10,863

    Default Obama Mulls 80 Percent Disarmament of Nuclear Arsenal

    The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.
    Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
    No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.


    The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
    A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.
    [LEFT][*******#000000]
    [/COLOR][/LEFT]
    Source

    Hopefully they weigh this option long and hard and make the correct choice or none at all. Some are going to argue get rid of them all or put a cap on the amount we have but the problem with capping/reducing is we don't live in a perfect world and other countries will bluff on the matter. Anyways, I don't see it happening atleast not down to 300.

  2. #2
    Senior Member wwjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illilolis
    Posts
    3,694

    Default

    If China and Russia will also decrease it by 80% it's great

  3. #3
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwjs View Post
    If China and Russia will also decrease it by 80% it's great
    Yeah, good luck with that. I can't believe even Obama would be this naive.

  4. #4
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Enjoying old women and young wine
    Posts
    572

    Default

    I have no background in this area hence this question: Would a significant nuclear arms reduction have a significant impact on defence savings?

  5. #5
    Member Moechtegern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Stalking enemy boats in 2fort 17
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chanan View Post
    I have no background in this area hence this question: Would a significant nuclear arms reduction have a significant impact on defence savings?
    Brother, like you wouldn't believe. Imagine how much money you spend keeping your car in peak condition (the fact that you use it means it's somewhere lower then that, but close because you are still using it without problems after all), and now imagine how hard it would be to maintain a car that just sits in an opened lot. You can't get the parts moving, which is a major component of keeping it in working order, and there's some nuclear materials in there.

    And honestly people, you're not thinking strategically. To you this reads "Weakening stockpile of weapons", but quantity isn't always good. A discharge of, say, a dozen nukes would be enough to cause a small "nuclear winter", lower atmospheric temperatures, and shorten harvest seasons. Do we really even need 300? If we use one or two, we can just spend a few billion dollars to replace them before we'll end up using them again.

    And honestly, when do any of you think we'll ever use a nuclear weapon? Can't nuke insurgents; they're hiding in civilian populations. Can't nuke small countries; the fallout would do just as much damage to their neighbors. Can't nuke large countries; their economies keep the First World rolling.

    So what are we left with? Naval fleets?

    PS: I support having nukes, but you have to be practical about it when they're this much trouble. Only a fraction of the nuclear waste we've got was caused by making fuel rods. The overwhelming majority is from weaponization.

  6. #6
    Senior Member G-AWZT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Age
    47
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    Wow thanks Barry.

  7. #7
    Member tom03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Age
    27
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moechtegern View Post
    Brother, like you wouldn't believe. Imagine how much money you spend keeping your car in peak condition (the fact that you use it means it's somewhere lower then that, but close because you are still using it without problems after all), and now imagine how hard it would be to maintain a car that just sits in an opened lot. You can't get the parts moving, which is a major component of keeping it in working order, and there's some nuclear materials in there.

    And honestly people, you're not thinking strategically. To you this reads "Weakening stockpile of weapons", but quantity isn't always good. A discharge of, say, a dozen nukes would be enough to cause a small "nuclear winter", lower atmospheric temperatures, and shorten harvest seasons. Do we really even need 300? If we use one or two, we can just spend a few billion dollars to replace them before we'll end up using them again.

    And honestly, when do any of you think we'll ever use a nuclear weapon? Can't nuke insurgents; they're hiding in civilian populations. Can't nuke small countries; the fallout would do just as much damage to their neighbors. Can't nuke large countries; their economies keep the First World rolling.

    So what are we left with? Naval fleets?

    PS: I support having nukes, but you have to be practical about it when they're this much trouble. Only a fraction of the nuclear waste we've got was caused by making fuel rods. The overwhelming majority is from weaponization.
    I totally agree with you. Have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons is a waste of resources ....

  8. #8
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,332

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Moechtegern View Post
    A discharge of, say, a dozen nukes would be enough to cause a small "nuclear winter", lower atmospheric temperatures, and shorten harvest seasons
    Utter bullsh1t.

  9. #9
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Previously Banned Member
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom03 View Post
    I totally agree with you. Have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons is a waste of resources ....
    QFT. Especially with budgetary cuts, you should be happy that Obama wants this. If not, the military will be hit elsewhere.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Nightsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    somewhere in nowhere
    Posts
    1,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moechtegern View Post
    Brother, like you wouldn't believe. Imagine how much money you spend keeping your car in peak condition (the fact that you use it means it's somewhere lower then that, but close because you are still using it without problems after all), and now imagine how hard it would be to maintain a car that just sits in an opened lot. You can't get the parts moving, which is a major component of keeping it in working order, and there's some nuclear materials in there.

    And honestly people, you're not thinking strategically. To you this reads "Weakening stockpile of weapons", but quantity isn't always good. A discharge of, say, a dozen nukes would be enough to cause a small "nuclear winter", lower atmospheric temperatures, and shorten harvest seasons. Do we really even need 300? If we use one or two, we can just spend a few billion dollars to replace them before we'll end up using them again.

    And honestly, when do any of you think we'll ever use a nuclear weapon? Can't nuke insurgents; they're hiding in civilian populations. Can't nuke small countries; the fallout would do just as much damage to their neighbors. Can't nuke large countries; their economies keep the First World rolling.

    So what are we left with? Naval fleets?

    PS: I support having nukes, but you have to be practical about it when they're this much trouble. Only a fraction of the nuclear waste we've got was caused by making fuel rods. The overwhelming majority is from weaponization.
    This, and of course a reduction in nuclear arms is what they all commited to by signing the NPT. What people conveniently forget about is that also the "big 5" have pleged to abandon their nuclear weapons, it's not a treaty aimed at maintaining a status quo.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Az_esm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    St.Petersburg, Яussia
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Yeah, good luck with that. I can't believe even Obama would be this naive.
    Since Russian budget is somewhere 10 times lower than American it would be the option to redirect money for example on modernization of infrastructure.
    The only problem would be the missile defense because with such decreasing American interceptors would start to be more real than potential threat to Russian nuclear arsenal.

  12. #12
    Member a.godumov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    България / Bulgaria
    Posts
    815

    Default

    A discharge of, say, a dozen nukes would be enough to cause a small "nuclear winter", lower atmospheric temperatures, and shorten harvest seasons
    According to Wikipedia (yes i know that it is not a perfectly sure source but still this is official information), the USA has conducted 1054 nucler tests and of them 331 were atmospheric, the USSR has conducted 715 tests, France has conducted 210 tests (of which 50 were atmospheric), the UK has conducted 45 tests, China has conducted 45 tests (among them 23 atmospheric), India has conducted 6 tests, Pakistan has conducted 6 tests. North Korea is also listed with two tests, but i'm not counting them. So we have more than 2000 nuclear explosions of which probably about 500 were atmospheric.

    So where is our nuclear winter?
    You may argue that the tests given were conducted over a wide timeframe and all around the globe, but there were some tests that involved multiple detonations over a short period of time.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,161

    Default

    Given America's aim to develop a missile defense system, I cannot possibly see Russia reciprocating such a reduction in strategic warheads. So unless America is willing to unilaterally scrap their warheads, this is a pipe dream.

  14. #14
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,332

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by a.godumov View Post
    According to Wikipedia (yes i know that it is not a perfectly sure source but still this is official information), the USA has conducted 1054 nucler tests and of them 331 were atmospheric, the USSR has conducted 715 tests, France has conducted 210 tests (of which 50 were atmospheric), the UK has conducted 45 tests, China has conducted 45 tests (among them 23 atmospheric), India has conducted 6 tests, Pakistan has conducted 6 tests. North Korea is also listed with two tests, but i'm not counting them. So we have more than 2000 nuclear explosions of which probably about 500 were atmospheric.

    So where is our nuclear winter?
    You may argue that the tests given were conducted over a wide timeframe and all around the globe, but there were some tests that involved multiple detonations over a short period of time.
    .... and many that involved nuclear weapons of massive yield. The average nuclear warhead today is between 150kt and 2Mt. The biggest explosion was the Soviet Tsar test, with a yield of 50Mt. Back during the Cold War, America tested and deployed a 25Mt weapon. The most powerful weapon we have now is the B83 gravity bomb, a variable yield device. When dialed up to maximum, its yield is 1.2Mt. Our two major ICBM warheads, the W87 and W88, have a yield of 475kt. The W80, used on our cruise missiles, has a yield of 150kt. The Russians mostly have 550kt MIRV warheads on their ICBMs, but they do have a few alternate single larger warheads in the 5-20Mt range.

  15. #15
    Senior Member junglejim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    13,788

    Default

    The US now only has 1000 nukes?! That even enough? Seriously!

    Stop the hate, Radiate. Save our nukes.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •