US and Russia agree nuclear cuts

[semilife]

US and Russia agree nuclear cuts

US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have reached an outline agreement to cut back their nations' stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Well the rest of the world can rest in peace that its not going to be blown to smithereens, or can it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8136918.stm

 

[Sureboss]

Cutting back on stocks isn't going to do a huge amount, though it is good to improve US-Russia relations.

 

[Tornado]

Well the rest of the world can rest in peace that its not going to be blown to smithereens...

...quite as many times over.

Really, this is great mostly because it allows both countries to get rid of the obsolete stuff and out of date tech; and it allows both countries to lower maintenance costs. Otherwise? Flowery puffs of meaninglessness.

 

[semilife]

Cutting back on stocks isn't going to do a huge amount, though it is good to improve US-Russia relations.

...quite as many times over.

Really, this is great mostly because it allows both countries to get rid of the obsolete stuff and out of date tech; and it allows both countries to lower maintenance costs. Otherwise? Flowery puffs of meaninglessness.

Yes I agree the actual practical implications of the even making radical cuts in nuclear arsenal on both sides wouldnt really in the bigger scheme of things make that much difference, mainly due to volumes involved. They are proposing to reduce them below 1700 each from 8000-9000 (esitmate) for US and 12000-14000(estimate) for Russia. I think though that at least the pledge should be acknowledged for a step in the right direction.

 

[YSSMAN]

Keep in mind that these cuts, while a good move, do not actually get rid of the warheads themselves - but in actuality, they dismantle the delivery systems.

 

[Sureboss]

They'd have to send it recorded delivery.

 

[Keef]

What exactly is the point of cutting back on weapons we're never going to use anyway? We already have them, and it seems like it would just cost even more money to dispose of them properly than it would to leave them sitting there.

Somebody please explain why this isn't a terrible idea.

YSSMAN, if by "dismantle" you mean take the rocket off the nuke and put it on something else, cool. But if you mean take the rocket off and throw it away, well that only makes sense if the things are old and decrepit. Do we even have any missiles that aren't top-of-the-line anyway? As I understand the most of our nukes are nearly constantly out at sea in submarines anyway, and it wouldn't be a wise decision to dock them simply to take weapons off. That'd be one hell of an opportunity for a crazed enemy.

 

[GTP_joeninety]

Great news.

Was there any reason why they made so many of the damn things anyway.!?

The part of this I personally don't like is the hundreds of warheads that will now be rolling around out the back of the warehouse.......just waiting for a disguntled employee
to make a quick buck selling them off to the blackmarket *i'm sure they made a movie about that*

 

[YSSMAN]

YSSMAN, if by "dismantle" you mean take the rocket off the nuke and put it on something else, cool. But if you mean take the rocket off and throw it away, well that only makes sense if the things are old and decrepit. Do we even have any missiles that aren't top-of-the-line anyway?

I mean take the top off, send it to a bunker, and leave the rocket outside in pieces so the Russians know we're doing it. Most of the old-school rockets need to be replaced, but as you mentioned, a lot of the tech has gone into our submarine launch systems, and not the land based ones.

But, since we're going back to Mars, methinks we could just duct tape a couple of the rockets together and get most of the way there.

 

[Northstar]

Great news.

Was there any reason why they made so many of the damn things anyway.!?

Well after WW2 we got into the Cold War, which was basically a government level game of 1up. This resulted in having thousands of useless nuclear warheads and a multi-billion dollar space program(both worthless).

The part of this I personally don't like is the hundreds of warheads that will now be rolling around out the back of the warehouse.......just waiting for a disguntled employee
to make a quick buck selling them off to the blackmarket *i'm sure they made a movie about that*

I'm guessing most of the people that will be/have been dealing with the warheads will be military scientists so they go through probably one of the deepest background checks of all employers. Plus, even if one of them wanted to sell one, I'm guessing they would have one hell of a time getting it out.

Also, I feel this is a step in the right direction. Previously we were just demanding that countries stop making nuclear weapons while we keep all of ours.

 

[semilife]

I mean take the top off, send it to a bunker, and leave the rocket outside in pieces so the Russians know we're doing it. Most of the old-school rockets need to be replaced, but as you mentioned, a lot of the tech has gone into our submarine launch systems, and not the land based ones.

But, since we're going back to Mars, methinks we could just duct tape a couple of the rockets together and get most of the way there.

The whole thing probably needs to scrutinised by independent third parties who don't necessarily have interest in either side, hmmm who fits that bill? Swiss perhaps their neutrality is legendary. Or maybe North Korea / Iran anyone?

Nice idea with duct tape for trips to Mars, but it is perhaps a little more technical than that.

Great news.

Was there any reason why they made so many of the damn things anyway.!?

As Justin rightly mentioned this was nothing more than an arms race (sort of keeping up with the Joneses if you like), see who could build the biggest stockpile of weapons the quickest. Each side wouldnt have necessarily been aware of how much of stockpile their enemy had (at best a rough estimate). This was very much a cat and mouse situation that they were playing during the cold war.