Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Politics

US and Russia Conclude Arms-Control Treaty 165

Posted by Soulskill
from the legs-control-treaty-soon-to-follow dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US and Russia Conclude Arms-Control Treaty

Comments Filter:
  • Hooray (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26, 2010 @04:44PM (#31632142)

    Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact. You're good. I wonder how McCain/Palin would've handled the situation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "I can see^H^H^Hnuke russia from my office!"

    • Re:Hooray (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeng (926980) on Friday March 26, 2010 @05:07PM (#31632480)

      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]

    • I suspect this was one of the main reasons why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The word in diplomatic circles is that this move towards nuclear disarmament originated directly from Obama himself, and not from staffers. I heard that from a very reliable source, ie. someone in diplomatic circles.

    • Is that how godly Obama is these days? He can sign treaties himself without having them ratified by the Senate? Hello Palpatine...
  • Boy would that stink if I can't nuke everyone with ballistics in one turn.
  • Since 744 B-52's were produced I have to assume that number was derived to match the US's current heavy bomber fleet.
    • by idontgno (624372)

      Most of those 744 aircraft are gone. The entire active inventory of B-52 airframes is 94 [af.mil] (see bottom of "General Characteristics" list, last line), all "H" models.

      The inactive ones are extremely inactive, generally in salvageable or restorable condition in The Boneyard [wikipedia.org]. I suppose if someone has to do something to reduce an on-paper count of potentially active bombers, you would saw a bunch of the boneyard birds in pieces, like they did there for START I reductions. (Yes, when doing an arms reduction, you st

  • "Conclude?" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by msauve (701917) on Friday March 26, 2010 @05:14PM (#31632588)
    "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."
    • by T Murphy (1054674)
      But what's the point in reading the summary if the headline is more accurate and informative than it?
    • Re: (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.

  • by molo (94384) on Friday March 26, 2010 @05:26PM (#31632778) Journal

    For those that don't know, one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs. This is known as MIRV [wikipedia.org] (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). Each one can be aimed at different target. Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?

    Thanks.
    -molo

    • One would assume that counts as one launcher and multiple warheads. The term "warhead" isn't exactly vague.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DerekLyons (302214)

      Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?

      Since (IIRC) SALT II, the bombs have been counted separately from the launchers specifically because of MIRV.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeian (409916)

      One warhead is one warhead.

      A MIRV would count as one launcher.

      • by Jeian (409916)

        ... well, technically, one rocket is one launcher. But you wouldn't have multiple MIRVs on one rocket, so...

  • My idea of arms control is double-checked coordinates, and officers who aren't afraid to turn their keys. They come after superpowers with MIRVs, next thing you know they'll be trying to take away my mutated anthrax. I need that. For duck huntin'.

    (Don't mod unless you know what sarcasm is, and have watched every episode of Futurama at least twice).

  • I distinctively remember such treaties being signed in the Gorbachev era.

    How quickly “people” (or rather cattle) forget...

    • by radtea (464814)

      I distinctively remember such treaties being signed in the Gorbachev era.

      Sure, this is just Obama following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately he is in other respects, too, like the massive deficits that Reagan created both via sending bloated budgets to Congress and failing to veto pork in Congressional bills that crossed his desk.

      I can't really see why Republicans hate Obama so much. I understood why they hated Clinton: he was a deficit fighter who actually brought Federal spending under control, leading to the kind of smaller government that Republicans hate.

      • by dbIII (701233)
        Looking at US politics from overseas there really is not much difference between the mainstream of the Republicans and Democrats. You get some weird cocaine ravaged media presenters stirring up trouble on the lunatic fringe, but generally the values remain the same.
        It is truly bizzare however that some "Republicans" on that fringe have a strong leaning towards a monarchy and really want their President to be a King. They see any questioning of a Republican President as treason and see Obama as an usurper
  • Obama planning to cut nuclear arms. Emo President trying to see past 100 megaton bangs.
  • Earlier this week Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that his party would not cooperate with the Democrats for the rest of the year [thehill.com].

    So if they stick to that, how could it end? Well, badly [thedailybeast.com]. I just hope common sense [photobucket.com] breaks out at some point.

  • Of course, we realize that the US ruling political group needs this agreement just because its anti-missile shield can handle only a certain limit of missiles simultaneously.

    So they want to make their anti-missile shield more effective to re-play this one way or another: http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold_War/b_Stalin_era/b_Yalta/Images/march.jpg [ramapo.edu] Those who will own the vast resources of the immense landmass of Siberia will have a strategic advantage in global economy. It is just the matter of time.

    I think

  • China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads. The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think' that they can win in a nuclear war. Considering that they are focused on doing offensive, not defensive, I am concerned about this.
    In addition, I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program. We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder. Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon. Ja

If it smells it's chemistry, if it crawls it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics.

Working...