Kremlin source: US, Russia agree on arms treaty

[photon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/...russia_nuclear

The United States and Russia have reached an agreement on "all documents" necessary to sign a new nuclear arms treaty, a senior Kremlin official said Wednesday, and the White House said the two nations are "very close" to signing it.
...
The two sides pledged to continue to respect the expired treaty's limits on nuclear arms and allow inspectors to continue verifying that both sides were living up to the deal.

Obama and Medvedev agreed in July to cut the number of nuclear warheads each possesses to between 1,500 and 1,675 within seven years as part of a broad new treaty.

So that only means 95% of the earths life wiped out during a nuclear winter instead of 99%, but still interesting.

[Ozy_Flame]

Anything that reduces the number of nukes in this world is a good thing.

However, it's not Russia we should be worrying about these days in terms of nuclear weapons; it's their neighbours to the south and southeast.

[CaptainCrunch]

It doesn't really make a significant shift, the numbers there still mean that a nuclear exchange is an unwinnable prospect.

These always make me nervous because of the inspection problem around Russia's reliance on mobile launchers with very few hardened sites. The American's still have vast sea and air borne delivery systems as well.

All this does is retire the older more obsolete systems while allowing both sides to implement newer more accurate counter force systems.

Once you get the equation to a point where there's the possibility of a winnable nuclear exchange due to accurate counterforce you get into a more scary prospect.

But on the other hand from a budgetary standpoint both sides save significant money to invest in better conventional defense systems.

[FlamesAddiction]

They'll probably still have a whack load that they can re-arm in a flash if they ever go to war.

[Azure]

What do they do with the bombs they're taking apart and getting rid of?

[Prototype]

Interesting that they do this right before "Hot Tub Time Machine" comes out and reminds us of the 80s. Cold War anyone?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

What do they do with the bombs they're taking apart and getting rid of?

I am pretty sure that they only have to disassemble them and store the parts separately. Then they have to allow the other side to catelog everything and inspect it regularly.

[Azure]

What about the whole nuclear reactor thingy inside? Just store it so the other side can keep track of what you have?

[photon]

There's no reactor inside, just the nuclear material and the bomb components (to smash the nuclear material together to a critical mass as fast as possible.

But yeah they probably store the nuclear stuff too, though they could/should build reactors and use it.

[CaptainCrunch]

They take out the guidance packages on the rocket and burn it. Remove the war head and remanufacture the nuclear material. Then they take the rocket, lay it on its side and ignite the fuel.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Anything that reduces the number of nukes in this world is a good thing.

However, it's not Russia we should be worrying about these days in terms of nuclear weapons; it's their neighbours to the south and southeast.

For Russia, decommissioning nuclear warheads is a good thing since it creates jobs for nuclear scientist that might otherwise be employed by other not so savoury countries. During the end of the cold war, the Russian military was so reduced, that some very intelligent people were only being paid in sausages and food.

[HotHotHeat]

Nuclear arms treaty that includes Nuclear Weapons.

That oughta do it.

[T@T]

Obama and Medvedev agreed in July to cut the number of nuclear warheads each possesses to between 1,500 and 1,675 within seven years as part of a broad new treaty.

I read an article in Time (think it was Time) that no amount of treaty between the USA and Russia will save this planet if someone gets pissed enough and uses the "happy finger"
The worlds submarines alone have enough nukes on board to wipe out this planet in 24 hours. the problem isn't Russia or the USA, it's China!

China won't even discuss their nuclear arms but according to the article I read they are the country that holds back a complete dismantlement of the nukes.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Good deal for the Russians. They would be dismantling their old nuclear arms anyway, keeping them "alive" costs arm and leg, and they'll never actually use them anyway. Now they can channel that money into tanks, planes and troops they can actually use in places like Georgia...

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

However, it's not Russia we should be worrying about these days in terms of nuclear weapons; it's their neighbours to the south and southeast.

Yup, the sooner we eliminate the Mongolian nuclear threat the better so I can once again ride my yak to work without all the suspicious looks

[WilsonFourTwo]

Thank God they got this Arms Treaty in place.

The idea of not having arms is just silly - I'm amazed it was even in question.

[Wookie]

Not with nuclear arms. You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

[Redliner]

Originally Posted by Wookie

Not with nuclear arms. You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

Are those like bionic arms, only better?

[VladtheImpaler]

Don't we have this guy?



What's the point of the treaty?