Obama wants U.S. and Russia to cut 80% of nukes... - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:02 AM Thread Starter
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Obama wants U.S. and Russia to cut 80% of nukes...

So, how many think Russia is going to do this, even after saying that they will?


February 5, 2009, 1:36

Obama wants nukes cut by 80%

Barack Obama is reportedly calling for ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia. According to the Times newspaper, the new US President wants to cut each country’s nuclear arsenal by 80 percent.

The radical step would reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 from 5,000 on each side, the paper says.

U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Washington hopes to hold talks with Moscow on reducing nuclear weapons in the near future.

Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White House to oversee the talks, which will be headed by Gary Samore - a non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration. Hillary Clinton’s State Department will guide the process.

Obama is also to review the Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project strongly opposed by Moscow.

Moscow says the proposed system is a direct threat to Russia’s national security. No final decision on the defence shield has reportedly been taken in Washington.

Talks with the US on nuclear arms reduction will make sense for Russia only if its concerns over the proposed missile shield programme are also considered, said Russian general-Colonel Viktor Yesin, former head of the country’s Joint Staff. He says Russia must push the US to shelve plans for its missile shield.

However, Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin says Obama's proposal sends a positive signal.

"This proposal and President Obama's plans are a fresh signal that must be developed in direct talks between the Russian Foreign Minister and the U.S. Secretary of State, and between military experts," he said

Also, The Times quotes Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov as saying:

"We welcome the statements from the new Obama Administration that they are ready to enter into talks and complete within a year, in this very confined timeframe, the signing of a new Russian-US treaty on the limitation of strategic attack weapons."

The current treaty signed in 1991 by the Soviet Union and US - Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) – expires in December. It reduced stockpiles for both from 10,000 to 5,000.

And a new treaty could become a new start.

“I think the Obama Administration is keen to reach out to Moscow. It doesn’t see Russia as a country that it needs to have problems with,” says Tony Halpin, Times Online Moscow Bureau’s chief.

Still, Konstantin Kosachyov, who heads the State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Russia has yet to receive any official proposal from Washington.

Meanwhile, the lower house of the Czech parliament has postponed a vote on whether to accept a U.S. missile defence radar on its soil.

It has been delayed because U.S. president Barack Obama has not announced whether he intends to proceed with missile shield plans in Eastern Europe.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5654836.ece

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:07 AM
T5-T56-Tremec specialist
 
thesource's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heading back to Plentywood
Posts: 8,389
The Russians , IMO , think Obama is a fucking joke .
thesource is offline  
post #3 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:08 AM
Token Union Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: texas
Posts: 2,912
I don't see how down sizing our nuclear arsenal is a bad thing. Either country could still probably destroy 95% of our planet with 1000 nuclear bombs. You'd be suprised at what kind of message 5 well placed nuclear bombs will send. Look at WWII when it only took 2 nuclear bombs to break the back of a country that vowed to fight to the last man, woman, and child standing. Plus getting rid of all those bombs is bound to create some highly skilled jobs that pay a decent amount.

TRAIN TRASH it's like WHITE TRASH but with money.

My other vehicle is a Locomotive.

Don't cupple up without protection.
FreightTrain is offline  
 
post #4 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:09 AM
Cummins > Powerstroke
 
8mpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: id rather be cummin than strokin
Posts: 19,068
I bet he asks Russia to dismantle theirs and we hide ours

2006 Dodge Ram Megacab Cummins
1969 Mustang Coupe
1969 Mustang Mach1
1969 Chevy C10
1966 Mustang Coupe
8mpg is offline  
post #5 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:10 AM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Since the US (and the former USSR) have already reduced from 70,000 nuclear weapons to about 5500 over the last 30 years.....It's not that big of a deal.

Read up on SALT I, SALT II and START treaties, all require verification via satellites. Right after Desert Storm , we cut up 400 B-52's, left them out in the open for Russian satellites to see, then melted them down. For thier own nuclear weapons dismantlement, the Russians actually hire us to do it.
White trash wagon is offline  
post #6 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:14 AM Thread Starter
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
I think it will drastically change our position in the world. Everyone knows that Russia will hide their nukes. I am sure that the numbers we have now are way off, but it sends a message to the world that we are that much closer to being (more of) a target.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #7 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:19 AM
BELIEVE, IT'S TIME!!!!
 
Who Needs 8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: A little here, a little there . . .
Posts: 14,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Since the US (and the former USSR) have already reduced from 70,000 nuclear weapons to about 5500 over the last 30 years.....It's not that big of a deal.
This is true, however there are two problems:

1.) 100% of the former USSR warheads that were removed/disassembled over the last 30 years can not be accounted for. 99.8% accounted for is not good enough when it comes to nukes. (And unfortunately while we will never know, I wouldn't be surprised if 100% of the US warheads can not be accounted for)

2.) The radioactive waste depository being built in the middle of some Mountain in the Rockies continues to be delayed and behind schedule.

"The Pill": Helping control the Educated Population since 1960


Improve America's Education System: Have the High School Drop Outs Spayed and Neutered.


Stupid and Lazy breeds more Stupid and Lazy.


"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill


The DFWStangs Political Forum: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Who Needs 8 is offline  
post #8 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:23 AM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who Needs 8 View Post
1.) 100% of the former USSR warheads that were removed/disassembled over the last 30 years can not be accounted for. 99.8% accounted for is not good enough when it comes to nukes. (And unfortunately while we will never know, I wouldn't be surprised if 100% of the US warheads can not be accounted for)
Correct, right after the USSR collapsed and they were basically insolvent, some nukes were "lost". Subsequently most of them were recovered (they asked for & received US help).

But once things got back in order they have as good a control as the US does.

But...then again, the USA has at LEAST 1500lbs of plutonium that is unaccounted for.
White trash wagon is offline  
post #9 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:31 AM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who Needs 8 View Post
This is true, however there are two problems:

1.) 100% of the former USSR warheads that were removed/disassembled over the last 30 years can not be accounted for. 99.8% accounted for is not good enough when it comes to nukes. (And unfortunately while we will never know, I wouldn't be surprised if 100% of the US warheads can not be accounted for)

2.) The radioactive waste depository being built in the middle of some Mountain in the Rockies continues to be delayed and behind schedule.
Yucca.?

Unfortunately, I believe Russia will pull a germany of ww1 and ww2 ( without all the jews)

After germany lost ww1, they were basically dismantled and lost all of their teeth. The enraged germans pretended to comply with treaties while secretly building up its armaments for a certain offensive (slips my mind at the moment )

USSR fell close to 20 years ago, now they are trying to build up their power again and trying to flex their muscles around the world. Now that we have a pushover for POTUS, This seems like the perfect time to start making moves and building armaments.
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #10 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:42 AM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04 View Post
So, how many think Russia is going to do this, even after saying that they will?
On the flip side, what makes you think the US is going to do this, even after saying that they will?

It's all BS. The arms race is never-ending. What would they do with them? Leave them in the desert for Russian satellites to monitor? I don't think so. Dismantle them and let Russian dignitaries inspect what's left? I don't think so.

It's handing an olive-branch to the Russians, nothing more and nothing less. If the Russians decline, or accept and are proven to be liars, then the USA gets good PR out of it.

And if it ever comes down to it, the USA has enough nukes to defend herself, whether it's 5000 or 1000.
46Tbird is offline  
post #11 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 05:54 PM
Lifer
 
Hass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird View Post
On the flip side, what makes you think the US is going to do this, even after saying that they will?
Simple. Because our new pres is a complete idiot. He will probably eliminate our military at home and tap the UN to protect us.
Hass is offline  
post #12 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 09:20 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
It takes ONE nuke to completely fuck shit up. Consequently who really gives a flying rats ass how many anyone has? Does it really matter?

No.

Bunch of bullshit political grandstanding, a waste of time, and a crying damned shame that people don't realize it.
Fox466 is offline  
post #13 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 10:22 PM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hass View Post
Simple. Because our new pres is a complete idiot. He will probably eliminate our military at home and tap the UN to protect us.
A president cannot do that. Only Congress has the authority to raise an Army, or to stand one down.

Last edited by White trash wagon; 02-05-2009 at 10:34 PM.
White trash wagon is offline  
post #14 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-05-2009, 10:52 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Since the US (and the former USSR) have already reduced from 70,000 nuclear weapons to about 5500 over the last 30 years.....It's not that big of a deal.

Read up on SALT I, SALT II and START treaties, all require verification via satellites. Right after Desert Storm , we cut up 400 B-52's, left them out in the open for Russian satellites to see, then melted them down. For thier own nuclear weapons dismantlement, the Russians actually hire us to do it.
There is a Mnuteman missle silo in SD that was turned into a static display. I think it might actually be a national historic site. Anyway, when they lowered a disarmed ICBM back into the silo as a finishing touch... well, from what I've heard, the Russians didn't like seeing that via their satellites.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #15 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-06-2009, 04:37 AM
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
I would be willing to consider it. But they would need to follow the " trust but verify" model that Reagan established.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #16 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-06-2009, 04:39 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ellis County
Posts: 18,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
A president cannot do that. Only Congress has the authority to raise an Army, or to stand one down.
I would put nothing past this congress...

CHL holder and Conservative...AKA "Domestic Terrorist"
Vertnut is offline  
post #17 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-06-2009, 11:30 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
of ALL the issues obama is dealing with this?its nets us americans absolutley nothing.

huge waste of time.

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #18 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-06-2009, 02:56 PM
Lifer
 
Hass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
I would put nothing past this congress...
Agreed.
Hass is offline  
post #19 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-06-2009, 07:31 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The hooker Hotel
Posts: 569
No way in hell I'd back this plan. Since we went off the gold standard 40 or so years ago our money has been backed by the plutonium standard. The 2 things that have made us soooo strong that NO ONE can stand up to us "toe to toe" is the power of the dollar and the power of the nukes that back our dollar. The dollar is going to die quickly with the Dems spending trillions that we don't have. That leaves us with the nukes and the Navy to project power across the globe and I'll bet Obama plans to cut the Navy down quite a bit as well.

Once the citizens of the USA give up their guns their freedoms will end swiftly.

In the same fashion once we give up our nukes our nation will end. 1000 ain't going to cut it. We need to be able to crush the complete world at will in order to defeat the vultures that want to pick our bones clean.

The 1/2 of the world that hates us is drooling at the thought of us cutting back on our military strength. Birds allways wish that they could talk the cat into giving up it's teeth and claws with out a fight.

Last edited by svo855; 02-06-2009 at 07:35 PM. Reason: miss spelled
svo855 is offline  
post #20 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-06-2009, 08:29 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Well today the Kremlin insulted Obama.
CJ is offline  
post #21 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-07-2009, 06:18 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: tail end of where the hell are we road
Posts: 807
we do not need russia for an enemy . we need them as friends . for 50 years we spent way too much time and resources screwing with russia. the world super powers need to pull together and put an end to bullshit like iran . and it is coming. ragheads are causing trouble all over the planet. china has had enough and now russia is getting fed up with it. nukes mean nothing any more. cant use them anyway. our navy is what scares hell out of everybody. i'm waiting to find out what isreal finds on that ship . if it's loaded with iranian weapons it'll be game on .

" dont mess with the porchdog........ he bites "
Bubbaearl is offline  
post #22 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-07-2009, 09:43 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The hooker Hotel
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbaearl View Post
we do not need russia for an enemy . we need them as friends . for 50 years we spent way too much time and resources screwing with russia. the world super powers need to pull together and put an end to bullshit like iran . and it is coming. ragheads are causing trouble all over the planet. china has had enough and now russia is getting fed up with it. nukes mean nothing any more. cant use them anyway. our navy is what scares hell out of everybody. i'm waiting to find out what isreal finds on that ship . if it's loaded with iranian weapons it'll be game on .
Nukes still have meaning. Wait until we have a very small amount of them and you will see how much we need them. An aggressor only needs to get rid of or limit how many nukes we can hit them back with to win over us in a nuclear war. If we have less nukes it makes it that much easier to destroy them before we can use them.

A few big city buster H-Bombs parked in satellites in a geosynchronous orbit over the worlds oceans and the will to use them would be all it takes to INSTANTLY end us as a world navel power. With a WEAK man like Obama in the drivers seat an aggressor may be willing to take the risk involved in nuking every carrier task force at the same time. The modern Dem's are so weak that they would not respond to a nuclear attack with one of our own if it did not directly strike the lower 48 states.
svo855 is offline  
post #23 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-07-2009, 09:57 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: tail end of where the hell are we road
Posts: 807
do you know how few it would take to end it all ? nukes are like a gun too big to shoot. as few as 10 fired from each side would be the end of it. we did not become the world super power by bulling everybody else. we simply bought allies around the world. the super powers know they can never go to war again . too costly. now dumb fuck rag heads are too damn stupid to realize this so it will take the collective pressure of all the super powers to rid us of their bullshit. cold war posturing with russia is a total waste of time and resources. even the arab states are getting tired of irans bullshit. they will step aside and let isreal destroy them . the time of talking and shit is over. i say before summer isreal will destroy gaza and be done with it. how long should they put up with the rockets ? jmho

" dont mess with the porchdog........ he bites "
Bubbaearl is offline  
post #24 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-07-2009, 11:56 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The hooker Hotel
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbaearl View Post
do you know how few it would take to end it all ? nukes are like a gun too big to shoot. as few as 10 fired from each side would be the end of it. we did not become the world super power by bulling everybody else. we simply bought allies around the world. the super powers know they can never go to war again . too costly. now dumb fuck rag heads are too damn stupid to realize this so it will take the collective pressure of all the super powers to rid us of their bullshit. cold war posturing with russia is a total waste of time and resources. even the arab states are getting tired of irans bullshit. they will step aside and let isreal destroy them . the time of talking and shit is over. i say before summer isreal will destroy gaza and be done with it. how long should they put up with the rockets ? jmho
All the world combined has blown up about 50,000 nukes both above ground, under water, and below ground since nukes were invented. Sooo given that fact I could not tell you how many it would take to "END IT ALL".
svo855 is offline  
post #25 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-07-2009, 12:41 PM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by svo855 View Post
All the world combined has blown up about 50,000 nukes both above ground, under water, and below ground since nukes were invented. Sooo given that fact I could not tell you how many it would take to "END IT ALL".
Wrong, to detonate 50,000 nukes would require blowing up 2 a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year since 1945!!!!

The total number of nuclear tests have been more like 2000 . 2/3 of which were underground. And how many tests were done on populated areas? None....

Here's the rundown of tests

USA 1054
USSR 715
France 210
UK 45
China 45
India 6
Pakistan 6
N Korea 1

Last edited by White trash wagon; 02-07-2009 at 12:48 PM.
White trash wagon is offline  
post #26 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-07-2009, 01:00 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ellis County
Posts: 18,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Wrong, to detonate 50,000 nukes would require blowing up 2 a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year since 1945!!!!

The total number of nuclear tests have been more like 2000 . 2/3 of which were underground. And how many tests were done on populated areas? None....

Here's the rundown of tests

USA 1054
USSR 715
France 210
UK 45
China 45
India 6
Pakistan 6
N Korea 1
Looks like N Korea has it figured out. "Well Wong, did shit blow up?"
"Hai!"
"It works. No more testing is necessary."

CHL holder and Conservative...AKA "Domestic Terrorist"
Vertnut is offline  
post #27 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-08-2009, 01:00 AM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Looks like N Korea has it figured out. "Well Wong, did shit blow up?"
"Hai!"
"It works. No more testing is necessary."
That's a pretty dangerous way to look at it. Imagine dropping a nuke on DC which failed to fire. Just contemplate what would happen to the country responsible. Precisely why the most powerful devastating weapon in the world must positively, unequivocally function.
CJ is offline  
post #28 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-08-2009, 09:00 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Wrong, to detonate 50,000 nukes would require blowing up 2 a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year since 1945!!!!

The total number of nuclear tests have been more like 2000 . 2/3 of which were underground. And how many tests were done on populated areas? None....

Here's the rundown of tests

USA 1054
USSR 715
France 210
UK 45
China 45
India 6
Pakistan 6
N Korea 1
Well refuted sir!
Fox466 is offline  
post #29 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Wolverines!!!
 
SlowLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 1st Civ Div
Posts: 9,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbaearl View Post
we do not need russia for an enemy . we need them as friends . for 50 years we spent way too much time and resources screwing with russia. the world super powers need to pull together and put an end to bullshit like iran . and it is coming. ragheads are causing trouble all over the planet. china has had enough and now russia is getting fed up with it. nukes mean nothing any more. cant use them anyway. our navy is what scares hell out of everybody. i'm waiting to find out what isreal finds on that ship . if it's loaded with iranian weapons it'll be game on .
I'm game for another cold war, what do you think spurred on all the technological innovation?
SlowLX is offline  
post #30 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-09-2009, 07:39 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The hooker Hotel
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon View Post
Wrong, to detonate 50,000 nukes would require blowing up 2 a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year since 1945!!!!

The total number of nuclear tests have been more like 2000 . 2/3 of which were underground. And how many tests were done on populated areas? None....

Here's the rundown of tests

USA 1054
USSR 715
France 210
UK 45
China 45
India 6
Pakistan 6
N Korea 1

Saying 50k nukes was a deliberate exaggeration; like saying "I've told you a million times".
svo855 is offline  
post #31 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-09-2009, 08:15 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
how much does it cost to keep these warheads? guarding, inspecting, housing, testing, ect. 10 billion a year? do we really need to be able to destroy the world 5 times over?

cannonball996 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome