Senators question future of US-Soviet nuclear pact

[Xenophon]

It appears Barry may not have the 67 senators to pass his nuke treaty.

Not surprising considering how unpopular this particular treaty has been since Barry came up with it.

The Associated Press: Senators question future of US-Soviet nuclear pact

 

[Luissa]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

 

[Modbert]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

But we can only destroy the world seven or eight times over a piece!

 

[Luissa]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

But we can only destroy the world seven or eight times over a piece!

True!

 

[Modbert]

True!

I mean like US Army Retired said, how are we going to nuke a asteroid if it ever comes? Or what about the aliens like in Independence Day?

 

[boedicca]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

It's not the amount that's the issue - it's having programs to test that they are operational. Obama is abandoning the quality control to make sure they work.

 

[Luissa]

True!

I mean like US Army Retired said, how are we going to nuke a asteroid if it ever comes? Or what about the aliens like in Independence Day?

Nuclear weapons didn't work in Independence Day, remember.

They had to give the ship a virus first.
And they only needed ten, I believe.

 

[Luissa]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

It's not the amount that's the issue - it's having programs to test that they are operational. Obama is abandoning the quality control to make sure they work.

Link

 

[Xenophon]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

If they work.

This treaty is yet another of those pointless 'feel good' things he's trying to up his popularity.

Has their been any tension with the Russians that might lead to a confrontation in the past 20 years? Nope, so why the pressing need for a 'new' treaty?

 

[Modbert]

Has their been any tension with the Russians that might lead to a confrontation in the past 20 years? Nope, so why the pressing need for a 'new' treaty?

U.S. And Russia Sign Nuclear Arms Treaty : NPR

The two leaders had hoped to have it signed by last December, when the old START treaty expired. There were fits and starts before a final telephone call sealed the deal two weeks ago. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that in the end, patient diplomacy produced a treaty with real results.

Nuclear parity is particularly important to Russia, which lags the U.S. in conventional weapons. And keeping an eye on Russia is important to the U.S., says Andrew Kuchins, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"With the expiration of the START I treaty in December, it meant you were going to lose the entire verification and monitoring regime that went along with that," he said. "So I think for the Obama folks, being able to replace the treaty and maintain a significant degree of that verification and monitoring regime is probably the most important achievement, from the standpoint of U.S. national security, with the treaty."

 

[Luissa]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

If they work.

This treaty is yet another of those pointless 'feel good' things he's trying to up his popularity.

Has their been any tension with the Russians that might lead to a confrontation in the past 20 years? Nope, so why the pressing need for a 'new' treaty?

Dogbert answered for me.


And why is it a big deal that we do have a treaty with them? Last time I checked it wasn't the Cold War anymore.

I also think it is funny that someone who speaks against the Iraq War, would have a problem with a peaceful treaty.

 

[boedicca]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

It's not the amount that's the issue - it's having programs to test that they are operational. Obama is abandoning the quality control to make sure they work.

Link

I heard this discussed verbally. The real issue is Congress - although Obama's policy position seems to support the Congressional stance. The closest I can find is an article which explains the testing process to upgrade existing stock piles - testing is required to do this, which Obama has said testing won't occur. There are loopholes however which would allow him to "change his mind".

Essentially, in order to keep existing stock piles current, some testing and development of new warheads has to take place - otherwise, the they just degrade.

The latest Defense Department nuclear road map, released this week, reflects President Obama's repeated declaration that the United States will not build new nuclear warheads or conduct underground nuclear tests. But Pentagon officials have since made clear that the policy contains loopholes.

Using language hammered out to satisfy senior Defense Department officials who are looking ahead 30 years, the Nuclear Posture Review allows for new nuclear components to be deployed in older warheads if that is necessary to make them safer and more reliable and if the president and Congress approve, according to Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters that as options are reviewed for extending the life of nuclear warheads, "strong preference" would continue to be given to refurbishment (leaving a nuclear package alone and upgrading nonnuclear components) or reuse (switching out older nuclear packages for designs used in other deployed or retired systems).

"Replacement of any nuclear components," Gates said, would be chosen only "if absolutely necessary [and] would require specific presidential approval."

Expanding on Gates's statement, Cartwright emphasized that any such replacement would utilize "designs not in the [present] stockpile but based on previously tested designs." His description is very close to that applied to the George W. Bush administration's planned Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which Congress killed in 2007 and which Gates had supported.

Thomas D'Agostino, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the nuclear weapons-building complex, said that until now, the long-standing life-extension program has used refurbishment to keep thousands of decades-old nuclear warheads certified as reliable. When Congress blocked the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, it imposed guidelines mandating "no new warheads for new military capabilities" and no testing.

Cartwright, however, said the door is still open for the testing option. Asked about a statement Gates made some time ago, in which he said testing could eventually be needed, Cartwright said: "We don't know what five years from now might bring. Nobody has ever removed from the commander or anyone else in that chain the ability to stand up and say, 'I'm uncomfortable. I believe that we're going to have to test, or I believe that we're going to have to build something new.' That's not been removed here."

Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists said the Nuclear Posture Review's stockpile-management section "leaves the door open to allow a future administration to extend the life of an existing warhead by essentially replacing it with a newly designed one." However, Young said, "This administration will almost certainly not do so, but will instead refurbish existing warheads or reuse existing components."

washingtonpost.com

 

[Luissa]

Notice you didn't bold this part.

Cartwright, however, said the door is still open for the testing option. Asked about a statement Gates made some time ago, in which he said testing could eventually be needed, Cartwright said: "We don't know what five years from now might bring. Nobody has ever removed from the commander or anyone else in that chain the ability to stand up and say, 'I'm uncomfortable. I believe that we're going to have to test, or I believe that we're going to have to build something new.' That's not been removed here."

Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists said the Nuclear Posture Review's stockpile-management section "leaves the door open to allow a future administration to extend the life of an existing warhead by essentially replacing it with a newly designed one." However, Young said, "This administration will almost certainly not do so, but will instead refurbish existing warheads or reuse existing components."

Why do we need new warheads?

 

[Xenophon]

Dogbert answered for me.

Answer for yourself, I no longer read that half wit's posts.

 

[martybegan]

I think 1500 nuclear weapons is enough.

Nuclear weapons are kinda illogical as too few leads to a greater risk of use than too many.

Once the amount of weapons possesed goes below a certain threshold people start thinking they can survive a counterstrike if they can destroy enough of the other sides warheads in a first strike scenario.

If by having an overabundance of warheads you assure that enough will survive a first strike to obliterate the other side you give the opposition pause in assuming it can survive the retaliation from a first strike.

For countries with smaller aresenals the size of russia's and the US's aresenals give them pause, as they cant be sure if the larger countries will not retaliate to protect an ally.

 

[saveliberty]

0bama the military genius. Oh, we are going to close Guantanamo. Well, that is tougher than I thought. Hey, we are going to try terrorists in civilian courts. Gee that isn't going so well. What about withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? In one or two years, maybe longer.

Now he decides to leave us vulnerable by capping testing and upgrades to our arsenal. This socialist President is moving ahead at top speed to ruin us. The Senate is going to tell the community organizer to get tough.

 

[Modbert]

Answer for yourself, I no longer read that half wit's posts.

Lie all you like. Won't get you anywhere.

 

[boedicca]

Why do we need new warheads?

If the old ones have deterioriated, they need to be replaced with newer versions to maintain the stock pile. It's difficult to do this without doing any development or testing.

 

[Modbert]

0bama the military genius. Oh, we are going to close Guantanamo. Well, that is tougher than I thought. Hey, we are going to try terrorists in civilian courts. Gee that isn't going so well. What about withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? In one or two years, maybe longer.

Now he decides to leave us vulnerable by capping testing and upgrades to our arsenal. This socialist President is moving ahead at top speed to ruin us. The Senate is going to tell the community organizer to get tough.

We tried terrorists in civilian courts for years under Bush. People like you didn't give a fuck because the President was a Republican. Now that he's a Democrat, you bitch about it.

Stop being a hypocrite about Iraq and Afghanistan too. Nothing Obama is doing now in these areas is different than what he campaigned on. If you had actually listened (since it seems clear you didn't) instead of eating up all the "OMGZ! OMGZ! HE'S A SOCIALIST!" bullshit then maybe you would know.

Also, we've made greater strides in Afghanistan with the Pakistanis in Obama's time in office in one year than Bush's entire time in office.

 

[boedicca]

0bama the military genius. Oh, we are going to close Guantanamo. Well, that is tougher than I thought. Hey, we are going to try terrorists in civilian courts. Gee that isn't going so well. What about withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? In one or two years, maybe longer.

Now he decides to leave us vulnerable by capping testing and upgrades to our arsenal. This socialist President is moving ahead at top speed to ruin us. The Senate is going to tell the community organizer to get tough.

Sarkozy thinks Obama is insane:

A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently “obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy as stating that President Barack Obama is “a dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular, “insane”.

According to this report, Sarkozy was “appalled” at Obama’s “vision” of what the World should be under his “guidance” and “amazed” at the American Presidents unwillingness to listen to either “reason” or “logic”. Sarkozy’s meeting where these impressions of Obama were formed took place nearly a fortnight ago at the White House in Washington D.C., and upon his leaving he “scolded” Obama and the US for not listening closely enough to what the rest of the World has to say.

French Leader Sarkozy Slams Obama, Warns He Might Be Insane | EUTimes.net