START on its way to ratification

[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.

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.

New START Treaty Reduces Limit for Strategic Warheads But Not Number

....

That is correct, but the limit allowed by the treaty is not the actual number of warheads that can be deployed. The reason for this paradox is a new counting rule that attributes one weapon to each bomber rather than the actual number of weapons assigned to them. This “fake” counting rule frees up a large pool of warhead spaces under the treaty limit that enable each country to deploy many more warheads than would otherwise be the case. And because there are no sub-limits for how warheads can be distributed on each of the three legs in the Triad, the “saved warheads” from the “fake” bomber count can be used to deploy more warheads on fast ballistic missiles than otherwise.

....


If the New START Treaty counting rule is used on today’s postures, then the United States currently only deploys some 1,650 strategic warheads, not the actual 2,100 warheads; Russia would be counted as deploying about 1,740 warheads instead of its actual 2,600 warheads. In other words, the counting rule would “hide” approximately 450 and 860 warheads, respectively, or 1,310 warheads. That’s more warheads that Britain, China, France, India, Israel, and Pakistan possess combined!

....​

 

[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.

New START Treaty Reduces Limit for Strategic Warheads But Not Number

....

That is correct, but the limit allowed by the treaty is not the actual number of warheads that can be deployed. The reason for this paradox is a new counting rule that attributes one weapon to each bomber rather than the actual number of weapons assigned to them. This “fake” counting rule frees up a large pool of warhead spaces under the treaty limit that enable each country to deploy many more warheads than would otherwise be the case. And because there are no sub-limits for how warheads can be distributed on each of the three legs in the Triad, the “saved warheads” from the “fake” bomber count can be used to deploy more warheads on fast ballistic missiles than otherwise.

....


If the New START Treaty counting rule is used on today’s postures, then the United States currently only deploys some 1,650 strategic warheads, not the actual 2,100 warheads; Russia would be counted as deploying about 1,740 warheads instead of its actual 2,600 warheads. In other words, the counting rule would “hide” approximately 450 and 860 warheads, respectively, or 1,310 warheads. That’s more warheads that Britain, China, France, India, Israel, and Pakistan possess combined!

....​

that's nice, but not what i asked for.

i bolded the part that i wanted you to source.

and i bolded my "link!" so that you can find the connection.

 

[Trajan]

the next generation strategic rocket forces which the Russians are deploying as their their primary ICBM platform is the mobile-ground based RS-24/SS-29. Does anyone know where they are built and why that is important ?

 

[Jroc]

There has never been a treaty like this passed by a lame duck congress, why is that? There's been too much of this shit going on with this liberal congress, thats why they lost big. Like was said why the hurry? It's all about Obama I don't care who supports it there is no hurry.

 

[Si modo]

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.

New START Treaty Reduces Limit for Strategic Warheads But Not Number

....

That is correct, but the limit allowed by the treaty is not the actual number of warheads that can be deployed. The reason for this paradox is a new counting rule that attributes one weapon to each bomber rather than the actual number of weapons assigned to them. This “fake” counting rule frees up a large pool of warhead spaces under the treaty limit that enable each country to deploy many more warheads than would otherwise be the case. And because there are no sub-limits for how warheads can be distributed on each of the three legs in the Triad, the “saved warheads” from the “fake” bomber count can be used to deploy more warheads on fast ballistic missiles than otherwise.

....


If the New START Treaty counting rule is used on today’s postures, then the United States currently only deploys some 1,650 strategic warheads, not the actual 2,100 warheads; Russia would be counted as deploying about 1,740 warheads instead of its actual 2,600 warheads. In other words, the counting rule would “hide” approximately 450 and 860 warheads, respectively, or 1,310 warheads. That’s more warheads that Britain, China, France, India, Israel, and Pakistan possess combined!

....​

that's nice, but not what i asked for.

i bolded the part that i wanted you to source.

and i bolded my "link!" so that you can find the connection.

Read what it ways and what I said. It is exactly support.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

In order to get the total numbers down, parity must be established, so the gain in one column is noted by asshole divecon while he ignores the overall drop in munitions and systems.

Then he whines when he gets hit in the chops..

Next time I ask for evidence, boycon, post it, you whiner.

 

[DiveCon]

the next generation strategic rocket forces which the Russians are deploying as their their primary ICBM platform is the mobile-ground based RS-24/SS-29. Does anyone know where they are built and why that is important ?

not sure how this matters

Votkinsk Plant State Production Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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

In order to get the total numbers down, parity must be established, so the gain in one column is noted by asshole divecon while he ignores the overall drop in munitions and systems.

Then he whines when he gets hit in the chops..

Next time I ask for evidence, boycon, post it, you whiner.

moron, jokey, it had ALREADY BEEN POSTED

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your analysis, boycon, was faulty from the go, and I pointed it out. Quit your whining.

 

[L.K.Eder]

New START Treaty Reduces Limit for Strategic Warheads But Not Number

....

That is correct, but the limit allowed by the treaty is not the actual number of warheads that can be deployed. The reason for this paradox is a new counting rule that attributes one weapon to each bomber rather than the actual number of weapons assigned to them. This “fake” counting rule frees up a large pool of warhead spaces under the treaty limit that enable each country to deploy many more warheads than would otherwise be the case. And because there are no sub-limits for how warheads can be distributed on each of the three legs in the Triad, the “saved warheads” from the “fake” bomber count can be used to deploy more warheads on fast ballistic missiles than otherwise.

....


If the New START Treaty counting rule is used on today’s postures, then the United States currently only deploys some 1,650 strategic warheads, not the actual 2,100 warheads; Russia would be counted as deploying about 1,740 warheads instead of its actual 2,600 warheads. In other words, the counting rule would “hide” approximately 450 and 860 warheads, respectively, or 1,310 warheads. That’s more warheads that Britain, China, France, India, Israel, and Pakistan possess combined!

....​

that's nice, but not what i asked for.

i bolded the part that i wanted you to source.

and i bolded my "link!" so that you can find the connection.

Read what it ways and what I said. It is exactly support.

i read it. it does not. you are still a dishonest petty bitch. have a nice day.

 

[DiveCon]

Your analysis, boycon, was faulty from the go, and I pointed it out. Quit your whining.

no, i'm right and you prove you cant fucking read

 

[Full-Auto]

Why do you presume that because Democrats want it, it's what is best for the country?

Is there anything wrong with actually debating and discussing the treaty before we rush to ratify it? I am seriously getting tired of people pretending that things are so important we have to have no idea what's in it before we pass it. That's just insane.

We have had a year to discuss and debate it. Time for a vote.

Then why hasnt your clowns brought it to the floor prior to the lame duck?

Because we had to have time to lie about the commish report.

Yes thank you all democrats we should always pass something on your lies.

 

[Trajan]

the next generation strategic rocket forces which the Russians are deploying as their their primary ICBM platform is the mobile-ground based RS-24/SS-29. Does anyone know where they are built and why that is important ?

not sure how this matters

Votkinsk Plant State Production Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thats one of two, thank you.


It matters because there will longer be continuous portal monitoring.....why? because Putin wanted it over, in addtion telemetry exchange will now be voluntary and the number of reciprocal inspections will be reduced.



Anyone know where we make our ICBM's and why thats important?

 

[DiveCon]

well, its all a moot point now
the Senate just ratified it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your analysis, boycon, was faulty from the go, and I pointed it out. Quit your whining.

no, i'm right and you prove you cant fucking read

You are whining. No manhood at all.

 

[DiamondDave]

well, its all a moot point now
the Senate just ratified it

The idiots sneak more bullshit thru... this government is more corrupt than ever...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The treaty is a good one, it is a needed one, and we just watched people from the far wing nut right whine, distort, and lie because the Dems were pushing it. Also 9-11 bill was passed. And DADT passed earlier. And the tax bill passed earlier. All of this in the lame duck session. The Dems just made all Republicans including me look stupid.

Our GOP heroes whined until it was time to go home for Christmas.

 

[DiveCon]

The treaty is a good one, it is a needed one, and we just watched people from the far wing nut right whine, distort, and lie because the Dems were pushing it. Also 9-11 bill was passed. And DADT passed earlier. And the tax bill passed earlier. All of this in the lame duck session. The Dems just made all Republicans including me look stupid.

Our GOP heroes whined until it was time to go home for Christmas.

you are the only one i see here whining

 

[JakeStarkey]

The treaty is a good one, it is a needed one, and we just watched people from the far wing nut right whine, distort, and lie because the Dems were pushing it. Also 9-11 bill was passed. And DADT passed earlier. And the tax bill passed earlier. All of this in the lame duck session. The Dems just made all Republicans including me look stupid.

Our GOP heroes whined until it was time to go home for Christmas.

you are the only one i see here whining

What was that, whiner Oh, that was you.

 

[DiveCon]

The treaty is a good one, it is a needed one, and we just watched people from the far wing nut right whine, distort, and lie because the Dems were pushing it. Also 9-11 bill was passed. And DADT passed earlier. And the tax bill passed earlier. All of this in the lame duck session. The Dems just made all Republicans including me look stupid.

Our GOP heroes whined until it was time to go home for Christmas.

you are the only one i see here whining

What was that, whiner Oh, that was you.

moron