US and Russia Conclude Arms-Control Treaty 165
reporter writes "According to a report just published by the NY Times, Washington and the Kremlin have finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware. Notably, the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield. Quoting: 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter, and on launchers by half. It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime, replacing one that expired in December. But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe, it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield. ... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries. According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.'"
Re:Not good (Score:3, Informative)
Interestingly theres just now happening something between North Korea and South Korea [google.com].
A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea early Saturday, prompting the South's military to rush vessels to the site to rescue its sailors and raising fears of an attack by the North.
Earlier Friday, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes," including a nuclear attack, in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.
After the ship began sinking, President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers, including the defense minister and other top military officials.
Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea, raising fears of an exchange of gunfire.
Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power (Score:5, Informative)
We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.
The President has actually requested a $624M increase for NNSA Weapons Activities in FY2011, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:5, Informative)
China is no superpower and the US remains one.
China has very limited abilities to project power. Russia currently has only the ability to project a few bombers and a couple warship a few thousand miles. On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.
Chinese military power projection is very limited, a handful of nuclear subs, most of which spend years at dock between deployments, no carriers and they lack the capability to move land forces across the Straights of Taiwan.
The US on the other hand, well, 10 nuclear carriers, 8 amphibious assault ships, dozens of bombers capable of deployment in a few hours notice, the ability to deploy paratroopers, helicopter assault forces or Marines anywhere on the planet in 2-3 days.
Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power (Score:3, Informative)
And even if you look by how people now a day define third world countries etc, Russia still ranks as "First World Country" [wikipedia.org].
Re:Hooray (Score:5, Informative)
No idea, but hey old nuclear weapons make for great nuclear fuel, so that is another bonus to this story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program [wikipedia.org]
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:5, Informative)
"A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power."
Russia no longer has a leading position, its in the G8 sure and on UNSC, but it is failing. China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.
They can not however project power. China and Russia lack sealift and airlift.
China can't get forces to Taiwan, they sure couldn't get PLA forces to San Diego if they wanted to. On the other hand the US could get Marines to Hong Kong in a few days.
Re:Not good (Score:3, Informative)
They do not have the ability to create a launch-able nuclear weapon.
Their test bomb was not small enough to launch, they could put it on a ship and bring it to harbor and blow it up maybe.
They could though launch a conventional warhead against Japan though. It would be more likely to go boom also.
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead? (Score:1, Informative)
Each RV counts as one warhead.
So, if a hypothetical missile system could countain 20 reentry vehicles, that one missile would count as 20 warheads towards the total number.
(posting from work, where we do ICBM testing)
Re:Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead? (Score:3, Informative)
Since (IIRC) SALT II, the bombs have been counted separately from the launchers specifically because of MIRV.
Re:Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead? (Score:3, Informative)
One warhead is one warhead.
A MIRV would count as one launcher.
Re:"Conclude?" (Score:3, Informative)
"Conclude" means "bring to an end." They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant). And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty."
This is incorrect. The headline uses the word "conclude" correctly.
"Bring to an end" is one of the many meanings of conclude. The one being used here is "to bring to a decision or settlement; settle or arrange finally: to conclude a treaty."
This use is not only correct, it is the dictionary example of this particular meaning.
Re:Ha! Russia. (Score:3, Informative)
The projection of military power is not just about Carriers and assault ships. More important then the hardware is the logistics and training. Russia has this, China does not, thus Russia is still able to project power especially in their sphere of influence (Central Asia and Eastern Europe). Russia's army can be moved, fed and replenished far from Russian borders, China's army however is not trained nor equipped to operate outside China's borders, even if China had 5 nuclear powered carriers they do not posses the logistics capacity required to operate them (how many tenders in the US fleet, how many base sharing arrangements does the US have with other governments).
Even the Euro-powers have a far greater capacity to project power, despite only having a few outdated fleet carriers and a few light carriers (most light carriers are in the RN) they have a navy and air force that can operate from bases far outside Europe and the agreements with several non-European governments (South Africa, Australia, Thailand, Japan and so forth) to be able to operate logistics operations and in many cases combat troops from these nations. This is in addition to training programs that can rapidly replace losses with a high calibre of recruit, China on the other hand cannot replace professional soldiers with a high quality of recruit (and the nepotism/internal politics of the Chinese army will come back to bite it in this scenario).