During missile defense talk, Obama tells Medvedev he'll have 'more flexibility' after

[Cyborn]

Remember, New START is just the beginning. Obama's goal is "a world without nuclear weapons."

So he doesn't want to replace and upgrade US stockpiles, and he's trying to convince other countries to do the same thing. That way, institutional knowledge will be lost over time and total nuclear disarmament can take place.

Only it's not working if other countries start new weapons programs and build new missiles and warheads.

You have to read 'New START' treaty AND compare it with 'old' STARTs and current state of US and RF strategic nuclear forces. Then you'll understand that 'New START' doesn't provide any significant reduction of nuclear wepon. Russia currently have less missiles (although, slightly more installed warheads), than New START requires. US also can achieve levels required by retiring some mostly obsolete missiles, like Minuteman.
Moreover, New START actually far more lax with air-based strategic cruise missiles. Under New START conditions it was ridiculously assumed that one bomber carries only one nuclear warhead. Compare:
START-II

1. For the purposes of this Treaty, the number of warheads attributed to each deployed heavy bombers shall be equal to the number of nuclear weapons for which any heavy bomber of the same type or variant of a type is actually equipped, with the exception of heavy bombers reoriented to a conventional role as provided for in paragraph 7 of this Article. Each nuclear weapon for which a heavy bomber is actually equipped shall count as one warhead toward the limitations provided for in Article I of this Treaty. For the purpose of such counting, nuclear weapons include long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), nuclear air-to-surface missiles with a range of less than 600 kilometers, and nuclear bombs. [ABA]

2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the number of nuclear weapons for which a heavy bomber is actually equipped shall be the number specified for heavy bombers of that type and variant of a type in the Memorandum of Understanding on Warhead Attribution and Heavy Bomber Data Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, hereinafter referred to as the Memorandum on Attribution. [ABA]

3. Each Party undertakes not to equip any heavy bomber with a greater number of nuclear weapons than the number specified for heavy bombers of that type or variant of a type in the Memorandum on Attribution. [ABA]

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms...t2txt.html#4.0
New START

(b) One nuclear warhead shall be counted for each
deployed heavy bomber.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf
See the difference? Also, keep in mind that there is no any at all limitations to actual number of ALCMs in stockpiles. They simply completly outside of overall permitted number of nuclear warheads. Yeah, "a world without nuclear weapons.", su~ure.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

You have to read 'New START' treaty AND compare it with 'old' STARTs and current state of US and RF strategic nuclear forces. Then you'll understand that 'New START' doesn't provide any significant reduction of nuclear wepon. Russia currently have less missiles (although, slightly more installed warheads), than New START requires. US also can achieve levels required by retiring some mostly obsolete missiles, like Minuteman.

Minuteman is not an obsolete system...yet.

[C.Puffs]

Minuteman is not an obsolete system...yet.

The newest Minuteman is older than the oldest Russian ICBM. Yet somehow they're justified in replacing all their's with new designs while our ability has pretty much crumbled to dust. And that's suppose to be a good deal for us.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The newest Minuteman is older than the oldest Russian ICBM. Yet somehow they're justified in replacing all their's with new designs while our ability has pretty much crumbled to dust. And that's suppose to be a good deal for us.

Yeah, just like they're justified in maintaining a missile defense system that is aligned to protect against a second strike (implying Russia would be the ones launching the first strike) while the USA can't deploy 25 interceptors aligned against a first strike.

[C.Puffs]

Yeah, just like they're justified in maintaining a missile defense system that is aligned to protect against a second strike (implying Russia would be the ones launching the first strike) while the USA can't deploy 25 interceptors aligned against a first strike.

And thousands of SAMs as well, let's not forget that. Meanwhile the US has not a single strategic SAM deployed in the US.

[artjomh]

The newest Minuteman is older than the oldest Russian ICBM.

Goddamit, stop your whining!

This whole discussion is a red herring. If you want to create new submarines, new offensive missiles, go ahead!1!1! Nobody cares how many new ICBMs you have, as long as the number is within treaty limits. Start as many new R&D projects as you like. Look at all the fиcks people give about that!

Stop distracting people with these non-arguments. The issue is missile defense, not offensive missiles/submarines. This is, literally, apples and oranges.

[C.Puffs]

Goddamit, stop your whining!

This whole discussion is a red herring. If you want to create new submarines, new offensive missiles, go ahead!1!1! Nobody cares how many new ICBMs you have, as long as the number is within treaty limits. Start as many new R&D projects as you like. Look at all the fиcks people give about that!

Stop distracting people with these non-arguments. The issue is missile defense, not offensive missiles/submarines. This is, literally, apples and oranges.

Yeah, let's talk about missile defense. It's not meant with Russia in mind, Russia damn well knows it, you know it, now it's your turn to, "Goddamit, stop your whining!"

[artjomh]

Yeah, let's talk about missile defense. It's not meant with Russia in mind, Russia damn well knows it, you know it, now it's your turn to, "Goddamit, stop your whining!"

We've had this discussion a million times, so spare us both the effort.

Intentions are irrelevant, only potentials are relevant. I don't care if the guy waving a gun in my face actually means to shoot someone behind me. He is still threatening to me. And I must respond to his asshatery with appropriate measures.

[JCR]

Funny is that the US always uses the "capabilities, not intentions" approach to national security and calls other nations that do the same paranoid

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Intentions are irrelevant, only potentials are relevant. I don't care if the guy waving a gun in my face actually means to shoot someone behind me. He is still threatening to me. And I must respond to his asshatery with appropriate measures.

So what you're saying is that we should be really worried that Russia's strategic nuclear forces are still aligned as if they are going to carry out a first strike in the case of war?

[artjomh]

So what you're saying is that we should be really worried that Russia's strategic nuclear forces are still aligned as if they are going to carry out a first strike in the case of war?

That's a false premise. Russian strategic forces are not aligned for first strike.

- Lower submarine operational tempo
- Open ocean targeting
- Road-mobile missiles being locked into garrisons under START (changed under New START)
- Military doctrine that officially eschews nuclear first strike strike policy
- Nuclear armed ALCM decoupled from strategic bombers
- Nuclear armed SLCM kept in central storage away from naval vessels

If you think this is a first strike posture, you are an ignoramus.

[C.Puffs]

We've had this discussion a million times, so spare us both the effort.

Intentions are irrelevant, only potentials are relevant. I don't care if the guy waving a gun in my face actually means to shoot someone behind me. He is still threatening to me. And I must respond to his asshatery with appropriate measures.

Yeah, that's the problem - there is no "guy waving a gun in your face". It's your imagination.

[C.Puffs]

That's a false premise. Russian strategic forces are not aligned for first strike.

Oh of course. The SS-18 has never been a first strike weapon.

[artjomh]

Oh of course. The SS-18 has never been a first strike weapon.

That is a BS argument. This is like saying that D5 is a first strike weapon. Which it isn't... A single missile cannot be a first strike weapon unless there are 2000 of them.

Good job ignoring the rest of the reasons...

[C.Puffs]

That is a BS argument. This is like saying that D5 is a first strike weapon.

Good job ignoring the rest of the reasons...

Whoever said the D-5 can't be a first strike weapon? I certainly didn't. Your claim of the SS-18 not being a first strike weapon is BS. And "locking road moble missiles in their garrisions" is nothing more than show. How long do you think it takes to drive them off base? Or even just drive them out of their shelter and launch? I "ignored the rest of the reasons" because they're meaningless (even though you'd like to think they mean something).