Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

[Missileman]

Asking a nuclear weapons specialist about reducing nuclear proliferation will get you the same biased opinion and effect as sending a trained military to preserve peace. If and when a nuclear war becomes imminant, I'm sure we have enough weapons in place to accomplish complete annihilation of every enemy from pole to pole. Seeking a political victory with a former superpower, and former opponent nonetheless- kudos; at somepoint we can stop rellishing in how others kowtow to our atomic might and join with us to accomplish something great for humanity. So far as Iran is concerned, how the hell can we say their alleged pursuit of nuke weapons is wrong if we continue to do grow ours-- it's hypocritical and the world takes notice.

As a side note, I find it very peculiar how conservatives preach decreased government intervention domestically, but regard with fervor worldwide the subjugation of foreign interests to our own.

You've got your facts a little confused sport...our nuclear arsenal has been shrinking for decades.

[logroller]

You've got your facts a little confused sport...our nuclear arsenal has been shrinking for decades.

Ok, I'll give you that one-- I should have said "modify and maintain" as we'd peaked our possesion of fissile/fusion warheads in the early sixties. The fact we have enough nukes to blow any enemy to kingdom come remains. Shall we dabble in nuclear arsenal numbers, gross megatonnage of current inventories, their readiness for deployment and deliverability- or will you concede our destructive power is ample.

[SassyLady]

So far as Iran is concerned, how the hell can we say their alleged pursuit of nuke weapons is wrong if we continue to do grow ours-- it's hypocritical and the world takes notice.

Has our President threatened to wipe a country and their people off the face of the earth as Iran's leader frequently tells the world? I would think any sane person would be able to discern the difference.

[red states rule]

Has our President threatened to wipe a country and their people off the face of the earth as Iran's leader frequently tells the world? I would think any sane person would be able to discern the difference.

Some people will never learn one simple fact

America uses are nuclear weapons to ensure the peace while others want nuclear weapons to ensure destruction

America used a nuclear wepaon to put an end to a world war and we are criticized for that

[Gaffer]

There has always been a strategic reason to have more nuclear weapons than we need. If a country like russia, with thousands of nukes themselves, were to make a first strike, they could do a lot of serious damage to our forces. By having lots more nuclear missiles than needed we are able to insure retaliatory strike capability. It's that retaliatory capability that keeps everyone in check.

[logroller]

As a sane person, I struggle to comprehend how STARTII will weaken us to the point of vulnerability to a strategic nuclear war. Maybe this general has some inside info I'm not aware of, but did he provide such support, or just his former credentials.

I understand the logic behind retaliatory strike capability. The strategic concerns on this are well known, have been for a long time. The issue I see as a threat is the documentation of our capabilities; allowing a potential enemy to "size up" and strategically disable our strike capabilities.

My argument is STARTII doesn't decrease our capability, to any significant degree, as to encourage an enemy to strike first. The new start limits three entities: ICBM, SLBM and bomber-based nuclear weapons. It limits the number of warheads, the launchers and vehicles deployed for immediate strike in each of these three areas. The treaty limits the deployable US arsenal to 1550 total warheads, and 700 vehicles(bombs missiles etc). It also limits certain deployable structures, like launch tubes and silos. Our 12-14 strike subs, for example, will only be able to have 20/24 tubes ready for launch, though their other tubes won't be disabled, just unloaded. To add some bite to the bark, assuming only half of these warheads were employed with the latest generation of warhead, the W88 475kt warhead, loaded into the SLBM Trident II, with only 4 MIRV heads per missile (per SORT, a max of 12 capable)-- the boomer force alone can strike 480 separate targets with a destructive kill diameter of ~8km* and with a combined destructive power of 238 megatons of TNT that could eliminate 480 separate targets ~50* sq km in size -- not what I would consider an invitation to pick a fight, and that's just half of the SLBM capabilities under START II; we could do that twice and still have bombers and ground launched missiles (which admittedly are more vulnerable to first strike offenses).


* only a 100kt blast, couldn't find radius for 1/2mt

[Kathianne]

I'm not going into specifics, rather taking a historical viewpoint.

START as now agreed to will require Russia to rid itself of nuclear weapons it's having a devil of a time maintaining, if doing so at all. US will destroy weapons that are ready to use and also require limited development of new weapons in general.

While the above doesn't sound so bad, there were many issues that were problematic with the treaty, once again:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...fficult-to-fix

Only the main points, explanations found at site:

Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.

Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.

Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonprolifera*tion and nuclear disarmament concurrently.

Flaw #6: New START’s limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.

Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.

Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Flaw #9: The BCC’s mandate is overly broad.

Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.

Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.[13]

Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.

While I agree all of these were worth addressing, I bolded the ones I find most problematic. In any case, it no longer matters, it's moot.

I think that watching spending is a wise thing, however we are and have been at war for over a decade now, too bad Congress failed to declare, but that's for another day. Truth is the military has been stretched very thin:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...oing-more-less

Now for the historical lessons on wishing for peace, which in all honesty is what this whole enchilada is about. Yes, the US spends more than the X number countries following, combined. Big problem are those following us are for the most part, our allies. It seems that our diplomatic efforts would be better spent in pressuring them to carry more of the weight.

The last time the world did what is now happening was that rosy period following WWI. The carnage and waste made Europe very leery of future conflicts, for good reasons. Well except for Germany. The failure of Versailles and onset of reparations, followed by the depression made it ripe for Hitler's rising. The rest of Europe had no problem playing ostrich, then appeasers. Neither brought peace. All that happened was Germany managed to build up their defenses that were unmatched by England and France, they only had the leftovers from WWI, not a good show there. Meanwhile Germany had cutting edge air force, army, and submarines. Only the British Navy could sort of hold its own.

If the US had been willing, which in all honesty wasn't our business to do, to stand up to Hitler's rebuilding in early 30's, things may have gone differently. If England and France had done so from a position of strength, a difference may have been made.

We are disarming, cutting back available tools for our armed services from already low points, in a time of war. Meanwhile Russia is agreeing to get rid of nuclear weapons they are unable to maintain. Not a great plan and they are not at war.

[Missileman]

Ok, I'll give you that one-- I should have said "modify and maintain" as we'd peaked our possesion of fissile/fusion warheads in the early sixties. The fact we have enough nukes to blow any enemy to kingdom come remains. Shall we dabble in nuclear arsenal numbers, gross megatonnage of current inventories, their readiness for deployment and deliverability- or will you concede our destructive power is ample.

I don't think it's hypocritical of us to want the rogue nation of Iran to remain non-nuclear. Our force is defensive...Iran's would be offensive.(pun intended)

[logroller]

I'm not going into specifics, rather taking a historical viewpoint.

START as now agreed to will require Russia to rid itself of nuclear weapons it's having a devil of a time maintaining, if doing so at all. US will destroy weapons that are ready to use and also require limited development of new weapons in general.

While the above doesn't sound so bad, there were many issues that were problematic with the treaty, once again:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...fficult-to-fix

Only the main points, explanations found at site:

Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.

Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.

Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonprolifera*tion and nuclear disarmament concurrently.

Flaw #6: New START’s limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.

Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.

Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Flaw #9: The BCC’s mandate is overly broad.

Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.

Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.[13]

Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.

While I agree all of these were worth addressing, I bolded the ones I find most problematic. In any case, it no longer matters, it's moot.

I think that watching spending is a wise thing, however we are and have been at war for over a decade now, too bad Congress failed to declare, but that's for another day. Truth is the military has been stretched very thin:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...oing-more-less

Now for the historical lessons on wishing for peace, which in all honesty is what this whole enchilada is about. Yes, the US spends more than the X number countries following, combined. Big problem are those following us are for the most part, our allies. It seems that our diplomatic efforts would be better spent in pressuring them to carry more of the weight.

The last time the world did what is now happening was that rosy period following WWI. The carnage and waste made Europe very leery of future conflicts, for good reasons. Well except for Germany. The failure of Versailles and onset of reparations, followed by the depression made it ripe for Hitler's rising. The rest of Europe had no problem playing ostrich, then appeasers. Neither brought peace. All that happened was Germany managed to build up their defenses that were unmatched by England and France, they only had the leftovers from WWI, not a good show there. Meanwhile Germany had cutting edge air force, army, and submarines. Only the British Navy could sort of hold its own.

If the US had been willing, which in all honesty wasn't our business to do, to stand up to Hitler's rebuilding in early 30's, things may have gone differently. If England and France had done so from a position of strength, a difference may have been made.

We are disarming, cutting back available tools for our armed services from already low points, in a time of war. Meanwhile Russia is agreeing to get rid of nuclear weapons they are unable to maintain. Not a great plan and they are not at war.

Accepting the emboldened points as moot-- I couldn't agree more, but the gravity of global thermonuclear war are beyond comparison to conventional warfare. START ,IMO, has as much to do with peace as nuclear strategic defense has to do with the winning cold war: as mere posturing; but mankind, and his governments, must be compelled to ensure such tools exist solely to enable our will, not dictate it; as has been evidenced in maniacal national endeavors of the past. War, after all, is the antithesis of peace, not its proponent. Will START do everything its hyped to; doubt it, but we shall continue on in peaceful pursuits.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”- Theodore Roosevelt