START on its way to ratification

[DiveCon]

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

when will you ever fucking READ the facts posted

When have you ever posted one single fucking fact, idjit.

look above you fucking moron

post 56 if you cant figure it out because you are too fucking stupid

 

[Old Rocks]

Q. What is the New START treaty?

A. The 10-year treaty between the United States and Russia - formally the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - is a successor to the first START nuclear arms-reduction treaty signed in 1991. That pact expired last year. Q. What does New START do?

A. Three main things: It would cap the number of deployed, long-range nuclear warheads on each side at 1,550, down from 2,200. It would reduce the number of deployed nuclear-carrying submarines, long-range missiles and heavy bombers to a maximum of 700, with 100 more in reserve (the U.S. currently has about 850 deployed; Russia has an estimated 565). Finally, it would reestablish a system in which each of the nuclear giants monitors the other's arsenal. That system ended last year. Q. Is it a dramatic step in disarmament?

A. Not really. Because there are different rules in START 1 and START 2 on counting warheads, the reduction may well be less than 30 percent. Also, the treaty doesn't mandate that the warheads be destroyed - they will be added to the thousands the United States keeps in storage.

But the treaty is a first step in President Obama's nuclear agenda, which envisions moving on to a second round of more ambitious negotiations. In addition, the Obama administration believes the treaty will bolster U.S. leadership in going after nuclear cheaters.

Q. What do opponents say?

A. They fall into different camps. Some believe traditional arms-control is outdated and it would be better to focus on building an ambitious missile shield, something like President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" vision.

Others accept the policy of recent presidents of a more limited shield to protect against threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea. But they worry about a few mentions of missile defense in New START. While those phrases would not legally bar the United States from carrying out its current missile-defense plans, some Republicans worry Russia would seize on them to pressure Washington in the future.

Finally, some senators are angry about the process. Republicans have complained about considering the treaty in the waning days of a lame-duck session in which Obama has racked up several legislative victories.
What is the New START treaty?

right there for you jokey, and olfraud too

I see, dingleberry. You really believe that 850 nukes would not be enough to end Russia and the rest of the world?

 

[DiveCon]

Q. What is the New START treaty?

A. The 10-year treaty between the United States and Russia - formally the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - is a successor to the first START nuclear arms-reduction treaty signed in 1991. That pact expired last year. Q. What does New START do?

A. Three main things: It would cap the number of deployed, long-range nuclear warheads on each side at 1,550, down from 2,200. It would reduce the number of deployed nuclear-carrying submarines, long-range missiles and heavy bombers to a maximum of 700, with 100 more in reserve (the U.S. currently has about 850 deployed; Russia has an estimated 565). Finally, it would reestablish a system in which each of the nuclear giants monitors the other's arsenal. That system ended last year. Q. Is it a dramatic step in disarmament?

A. Not really. Because there are different rules in START 1 and START 2 on counting warheads, the reduction may well be less than 30 percent. Also, the treaty doesn't mandate that the warheads be destroyed - they will be added to the thousands the United States keeps in storage.

But the treaty is a first step in President Obama's nuclear agenda, which envisions moving on to a second round of more ambitious negotiations. In addition, the Obama administration believes the treaty will bolster U.S. leadership in going after nuclear cheaters.

Q. What do opponents say?

A. They fall into different camps. Some believe traditional arms-control is outdated and it would be better to focus on building an ambitious missile shield, something like President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" vision.

Others accept the policy of recent presidents of a more limited shield to protect against threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea. But they worry about a few mentions of missile defense in New START. While those phrases would not legally bar the United States from carrying out its current missile-defense plans, some Republicans worry Russia would seize on them to pressure Washington in the future.

Finally, some senators are angry about the process. Republicans have complained about considering the treaty in the waning days of a lame-duck session in which Obama has racked up several legislative victories.
What is the New START treaty?

right there for you jokey, and olfraud too

I see, dingleberry. You really believe that 850 nukes would not be enough to end Russia and the rest of the world?

and how does that change the facts of what i said and was CORRECT
moron

 

[DiveCon]

damn olfraud, you are even more stupid than i thought

 

[L.K.Eder]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

when will you ever fucking READ the facts posted

russia is currently increasing.

new start will limit that.

no new start will not limit it.

Will Russia's numbers decline without START follow-on? - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces

..
Strategic submarines

The strategic fleet modernization program is currently getting the biggest share of Russia's military spending. And while the attention is mostly on the problems of the Bulava missile test program, the Russian Navy has a few other things to show for all this money - four out of six submarines of the Project 667BRDM/Delta IV class have completed overhaul already and the two remaining ones are expected to return to the active force in 2009 and in 2010-2011. These submarines will carry R-29RM Sineva missiles - it is an old design, but the missiles are newly manufactured.
These submarines and missiles could probably stay in service for quite some time - I would guess that the 2015-2020 time horizon is not out of question. Their predecessors, Project 667BDR/Delta III submarines, built about 30 years ago, are still very much alive.
If Russia is constrained by an arms control treaty, one could assume that when the new Project 955 subs with Bulava missiles will start entering service they will be replacing old Project 667BDRM submarines. In this the scenario, which I used in my projections, the number of SLBM warheads would go up a bit - to about 740 from the current 670.
But without constraints of an arms control treaty, the Navy would probably try to keep the recently refurbished Project 667BDRM/Delta IV in force for as long as they can. For example, instead of keeping a total of eight submarines in service, retiring one Project 667BDRM submarine every time a new Project 955 sub enters service, the Navy could keep ten, adding 32 launchers and 128 warheads to the SLBM force. Admittedly, this is not much, but these things add up - the number of SLBM warheads would grow to just under 900.


..

 

[Old Rocks]

when will you ever fucking READ the facts posted

When have you ever posted one single fucking fact, idjit.

look above you fucking moron

post 56 if you cant figure it out because you are too fucking stupid

Fucking stupid is what you are, Dive. Do you really think that we have to have the ability to destroy the world ten time over? If we and Russia only had 20 thermonukes each, we would still have the capability to end each nations existance.

I think all to many of you whackos subscribe to Lemays defination of winning a nuclear war. That was "if there is one American left, and all the Soviets are dead, we have won". Insanity exponential.

 

[DiveCon]

When have you ever posted one single fucking fact, idjit.

look above you fucking moron

post 56 if you cant figure it out because you are too fucking stupid

Fucking stupid is what you are, Dive. Do you really think that we have to have the ability to destroy the world ten time over? If we and Russia only had 20 thermonukes each, we would still have the capability to end each nations existance.

I think all to many of you whackos subscribe to Lemays defination of winning a nuclear war. That was "if there is one American left, and all the Soviets are dead, we have won". Insanity exponential.

again, that does NOT address the point i made
keep on deflecting though

 

[DiveCon]

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

when will you ever fucking READ the facts posted

russia is currently increasing.

new start will limit that.

no new start will not limit it.

Will Russia's numbers decline without START follow-on? - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces

..
Strategic submarines

The strategic fleet modernization program is currently getting the biggest share of Russia's military spending. And while the attention is mostly on the problems of the Bulava missile test program, the Russian Navy has a few other things to show for all this money - four out of six submarines of the Project 667BRDM/Delta IV class have completed overhaul already and the two remaining ones are expected to return to the active force in 2009 and in 2010-2011. These submarines will carry R-29RM Sineva missiles - it is an old design, but the missiles are newly manufactured.
These submarines and missiles could probably stay in service for quite some time - I would guess that the 2015-2020 time horizon is not out of question. Their predecessors, Project 667BDR/Delta III submarines, built about 30 years ago, are still very much alive.
If Russia is constrained by an arms control treaty, one could assume that when the new Project 955 subs with Bulava missiles will start entering service they will be replacing old Project 667BDRM submarines. In this the scenario, which I used in my projections, the number of SLBM warheads would go up a bit - to about 740 from the current 670.
But without constraints of an arms control treaty, the Navy would probably try to keep the recently refurbished Project 667BDRM/Delta IV in force for as long as they can. For example, instead of keeping a total of eight submarines in service, retiring one Project 667BDRM submarine every time a new Project 955 sub enters service, the Navy could keep ten, adding 32 launchers and 128 warheads to the SLBM force. Admittedly, this is not much, but these things add up - the number of SLBM warheads would grow to just under 900.


..

they will be able to continue to INCREASE while WE decrease
why not have it have them stay at where they are while we decrease
that actually makes more sense in reducing the total amount

 

[Claudette]

Whats the difference wether this treaty is ratified today or 7 days from now?? I'm fairly sure the Russians aren't gong to drop a bomb between now and then.

Whats the big assed hurry?? OL'BO will still get the credit.

I would rather they take a close look at this treaty and if they have to make a few changes. Make em.

No biggie in my book.

Of course Harry Reid may have another view especially since that dufus could have brought this to the floor in Sept or Oct but decided not to because of the Nov elections now all of a sudden is vital?? Bullshit its just Harry trying to flex his so called muscle.

 

[L.K.Eder]

when will you ever fucking READ the facts posted

russia is currently increasing.

new start will limit that.

no new start will not limit it.

Will Russia's numbers decline without START follow-on? - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces

..
Strategic submarines

The strategic fleet modernization program is currently getting the biggest share of Russia's military spending. And while the attention is mostly on the problems of the Bulava missile test program, the Russian Navy has a few other things to show for all this money - four out of six submarines of the Project 667BRDM/Delta IV class have completed overhaul already and the two remaining ones are expected to return to the active force in 2009 and in 2010-2011. These submarines will carry R-29RM Sineva missiles - it is an old design, but the missiles are newly manufactured.
These submarines and missiles could probably stay in service for quite some time - I would guess that the 2015-2020 time horizon is not out of question. Their predecessors, Project 667BDR/Delta III submarines, built about 30 years ago, are still very much alive.
If Russia is constrained by an arms control treaty, one could assume that when the new Project 955 subs with Bulava missiles will start entering service they will be replacing old Project 667BDRM submarines. In this the scenario, which I used in my projections, the number of SLBM warheads would go up a bit - to about 740 from the current 670.
But without constraints of an arms control treaty, the Navy would probably try to keep the recently refurbished Project 667BDRM/Delta IV in force for as long as they can. For example, instead of keeping a total of eight submarines in service, retiring one Project 667BDRM submarine every time a new Project 955 sub enters service, the Navy could keep ten, adding 32 launchers and 128 warheads to the SLBM force. Admittedly, this is not much, but these things add up - the number of SLBM warheads would grow to just under 900.


..

they will be able to continue to INCREASE while WE decrease
why not have it have them stay at where they are while we decrease
that actually makes more sense in reducing the total amount

you are correct and i agree. it would be better to set the cut-off lower.

but this is a treaty.

a compromise.

both sides need to get something out of it.

and need to sell it at home.

imagine a cut-off, where russia does not have to get rid of anything, and the usa has to decrease a lot.

 

[Si modo]

The new START is ridiculous. It actually allows for more deployed nuclear warheads than the previous treaties because of the bomber counting rule. One bomber = one deployed warhead in New START. That makes no sense at all. Each bomber's payload can carry about 20 warheads.

Great way for each of us to hide deployed warheads.

I wonder why we cannot do a real count of deployed warheads and REALLY reduce deployed warheads? It's just silly and certainly no real reduction of deployed warheads.

 

[skookerasbil]

Holy crap........

Who can figure out the forum members on this thread who have no concept about "deterrence theory"???

 

[Old Rocks]

The new START is ridiculous. It actually allows for more deployed nuclear warheads than the previous treaties because of the bomber counting rule. One bomber = one deployed warhead in New START. That makes no sense at all. Each bomber's payload can carry about 20 warheads.

Great way for each of us to hide deployed warheads.

I wonder why we cannot do a real count of deployed warheads and REALLY reduce deployed warheads? It's just silly and certainly no real reduction of deployed warheads.

Because that would decrease the influence of each sides military-industrial complex. And there is no way that would pass on either side. Humanities insanity.

 

[Si modo]

The new START is ridiculous. It actually allows for more deployed nuclear warheads than the previous treaties because of the bomber counting rule. One bomber = one deployed warhead in New START. That makes no sense at all. Each bomber's payload can carry about 20 warheads.

Great way for each of us to hide deployed warheads.

I wonder why we cannot do a real count of deployed warheads and REALLY reduce deployed warheads? It's just silly and certainly no real reduction of deployed warheads.

Because that would decrease the influence of each sides military-industrial complex. And there is no way that would pass on either side. Humanities insanity.

Previous treaties did not do this and they passed.

 

[WillowTree]

Obama aides, Republicans predict START ratification - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The only question is how many Republicans will put politics ahead of doing what is best for the country?

The Senate cleared the way today for a major arms reduction treaty with Russia, as a sufficient number of Republicans announced support for the deal and the White House predicted victory.

Senators voted 67-28 to cut off debate for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, and a final vote could come as early as Wednesday.

At least 10 Republicans said they planned to vote for START; supporters need only nine GOP votes to win the two-thirds Senate vote necessary for ratification.

"We remain extremely confident," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., one of the Republicans who announced he would back the treaty, told reporters, "I think it's going to pass and more than just pass."

No! The only question is is "how strong is your kool aid?" moron!

 

[DiveCon]

russia is currently increasing.

new start will limit that.

no new start will not limit it.

Will Russia's numbers decline without START follow-on? - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces

they will be able to continue to INCREASE while WE decrease
why not have it have them stay at where they are while we decrease
that actually makes more sense in reducing the total amount

you are correct and i agree. it would be better to set the cut-off lower.

but this is a treaty.

a compromise.

both sides need to get something out of it.

and need to sell it at home.

imagine a cut-off, where russia does not have to get rid of anything, and the usa has to decrease a lot.

if the purpose was to actually DECREASE the total, then this would be preferable

 

[Trajan]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

whats the rush? we can wait 2 weeks....

 

[DiveCon]

Whats the difference wether this treaty is ratified today or 7 days from now?? I'm fairly sure the Russians aren't gong to drop a bomb between now and then.

Whats the big assed hurry?? OL'BO will still get the credit.

I would rather they take a close look at this treaty and if they have to make a few changes. Make em.

No biggie in my book.

Of course Harry Reid may have another view especially since that dufus could have brought this to the floor in Sept or Oct but decided not to because of the Nov elections now all of a sudden is vital?? Bullshit its just Harry trying to flex his so called muscle.

i could be wrong on this, but it is my understanding, given the separation of powers, that the senate can NOT make any changes to this treaty, just accept or reject and if rejected it would be up to the executive branch to renegotiate

 

[DiveCon]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

whats the rush? we can wait 2 weeks....

don't mind olfraud, he didn't even bother to actually read the FACTS before he opened his worthless trap

 

[L.K.Eder]

The new START is ridiculous. It actually allows for more deployed nuclear warheads than the previous treaties because of the bomber counting rule. One bomber = one deployed warhead in New START. That makes no sense at all. Each bomber's payload can carry about 20 warheads.

Great way for each of us to hide deployed warheads.

I wonder why we cannot do a real count of deployed warheads and REALLY reduce deployed warheads? It's just silly and certainly no real reduction of deployed warheads.

link!

sort allows up to 2200.

even if all bombers are fully loaded it would not break 2000.

it is a stupid loophole for creative accounting, however.

i see new START as a starting step for a better reduction in the future.