Nukes for hamburger meat....

[Bevo16]

Great deal Mr. President....

I really wish this guy would stick to running car companies and fixing the weather.

Someone pull our pants back up please.


Hey, we are copying their economy, why not copy their military while we are at it?

 

[Jynx]

Great deal Mr. President....
Hey, we are copying their economy, why not copy their military while we are at it?

Yep, our economy is increasingly like theirs...aka a very limited number of very influential people able to change laws as necessary to protect their interests and monopolies, only to have the government buy their bad investments in the guise of saving the overall economy. The Goldman Sachs cabal that somehow managed to benefit from AIG bailouts and have people all over the Bush and Obama administrations could give lectures to Abramovich and his oligarch buddies any day of the week.

My real question is why the hell are we giving them anything after they just raised import tariffs on our agricultural exports and equipment? Deere, for example, just lost 50% of sales year on year over there because they had to double prices.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Just means we'll be killing them all the old fashioned way.

 

[DanMa1156]

Look, I'm not a huge fan of several moves the President has made, but I think this is a good step forward. Even if we go to the lower end of the deal for strategic force launchers, which was 500, I mean, that's still 500 different ways we can shoot a nuke at someone. It's costly and the money saved could be used in other places in the military.

 

[lowflier03]

Look, I'm not a huge fan of several moves the President has made, but I think this is a good step forward. Even if we go to the lower end of the deal for strategic force launchers, which was 500, I mean, that's still 500 different ways we can shoot a nuke at someone. It's costly and the money saved could be used in other places in the military.

Except for the part where those strategic force launchers are also used for conventional weapons. Is he just going to reclassify them or actually get rid of them. Another good point that was made is that Russia's forces are shrinking whether we agree to their deals or not. They can't afford to maintain those aging systems or purchase new ones, so they really are losing nothing and gaining everything.

 

[Bevo16]

Look, I'm not a huge fan of several moves the President has made, but I think this is a good step forward. Even if we go to the lower end of the deal for strategic force launchers, which was 500, I mean, that's still 500 different ways we can shoot a nuke at someone.

Look, you don't park your BMW just because your neighbor can't fix his broken down Pinto. When you have all of the aces, you don't chop the pot. This is amature hour here. Jimmy Carter is loving this. Finally, he will not be known as the weakest president in US history.

It's costly and the money saved could be used in other places in the military.

Right. What are the odds of that? You think that we are just going to roll the money for those programs?

 

[Jynx]

Just to add numbers to the debate,

Russia is pushing for about 500 launchers, the low end of the START range. They and we have about 1500 apiece. However, we will be able to maintain 1500. They will be forced to drop to about 500 due to budget cuts within ten years.
Bevo is right. If I can keep my 335i in gas, why park it because you can't maintain the '80s Chevette on blocks in your yard?
If we need them, keep them. Or, if we don't need them, get rid of them. But don't get rid of them because someone asks, get a price for them. Maybe we should get it in writing that they'll stop helping Iranian efforts towards the bomb, or lowered tariffs against our products. Or we can get something from Europe by insisting that Russia be more reliable with their gas supplies west, instead of using those deliveries as extortion every winter.

 

[Junkball]

Except for the part where those strategic force launchers are also used for conventional weapons. Is he just going to reclassify them or actually get rid of them. Another good point that was made is that Russia's forces are shrinking whether we agree to their deals or not. They can't afford to maintain those aging systems or purchase new ones, so they really are losing nothing and gaining everything.

Bevo and lowflier are right on.


It looks like President Obama is backing up his words from this clip:

The Russians are getting concessions for nothing in return since these weapon systems they are "cutting" would be headed for scrap anyway (7th paragraph down). Check that, actually. Obama is getting some fine newspaper headlines about arms control. I'm sure his lefty leaners will be happy. USA 1 USSR 0!!!!

 

[HH-60H]

I guess I don't understand the entire arguement. Even if Russian are sending some of their systems to the scrap heap, aren't they developing new ones? Or are the new ones part of the 500 total that will be sustainable in the future.

 

[exhelodrvr]

This appears to be a very poor decision. Making the maximum amount a significantly smaller figure makes it much easier (less expensive) for the Russians to maintain parity. Why reward them with that? After what they have done the past 2-3 years?
And what about the numbers vs China?

 

[et1nuke]

Except for the part where those strategic force launchers are also used for conventional weapons. Is he just going to reclassify them or actually get rid of them. Another good point that was made is that Russia's forces are shrinking whether we agree to their deals or not. They can't afford to maintain those aging systems or purchase new ones, so they really are losing nothing and gaining everything.

I don't know about these new agreements but I remember when I was on the USS Kamehameha which was a SSBN->SSN we were still looked at as nuclear capable even though we couldn't shoot ANY nuke or conventional weapons out of the old tubes. We had to comply with the flyover and inspection requests just like an actual nuke boat despite the complete change of mission. The big picture I think is that more unecessary restrictions will be placed upon the US military ultimately costing the tax payer and at what political gains. Is it really worth it?

 

[Flash]

This is a pretty good win-win for both sides. We are facing great costs in re-capitalizing our nuke forces as well, from launchers to launch vehicles to the warheads themselves, and reducing the amount we have 'redo' is a good thing.

The number of warheads and launch vehicles that we will end up with will be more than sufficient to destroy any and all targets of all our enemies several times over. We won't run out any time soon.

Except for the part where those strategic force launchers are also used for conventional weapons. Is he just going to reclassify them or actually get rid of them. Another good point that was made is that Russia's forces are shrinking whether we agree to their deals or not. They can't afford to maintain those aging systems or purchase new ones, so they really are losing nothing and gaining everything.

With few exceptions you are wrong about launchers being dual use right now. Sure, you could put a conventional warhead on a ICBM but it is not done presently and probably will not be possible in the near future. Even if they went so far as to try and 'reclassify' them the previous START treaties had pretty rigorous verification mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening, just as this one certainly will.

This appears to be a very poor decision. Making the maximum amount a significantly smaller figure makes it much easier (less expensive) for the Russians to maintain parity. Why reward them with that? After what they have done the past 2-3 years?
And what about the numbers vs China?

The PRC numbers are pretty insignificant compared to ours and Russia's.

Ladies and gents, this is nothing new or unusual and goes with the long term trend. It continues a trend that has been Nixon started and that was vigorously pursued by Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Fewer nukes is a good thing.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Fewer nukes is a good thing.

While I can see the plusses of the argument from both sides, what I don't like is the image of the President seemingly agreeing with his entire side of the treaty. Sure, the President is probably going to have the arsenal reduced, but we need to be doing it on our terms, not theirs. In my opinion this made the President (and the U.S.) look weak in an attempt to placate Putin.

 

[Flash]

While I can see the plusses of the argument from both sides, what I don't like is the image of the President seemingly agreeing with his entire side of the treaty. Sure, the President is probably going to have the arsenal reduced, but we need to be doing it on our terms, not theirs. In my opinion this made the President (and the U.S.) look weak in an attempt to placate Putin.

How are we doing it on his terms? Both sides want nuke stockpiles drastically reduced, it just so happens that we agree with the Russians on this. How is that a bad thing?

 

[exhelodrvr]

How are we doing it on his terms? Both sides want nuke stockpiles drastically reduced, it just so happens that we agree with the Russians on this. How is that a bad thing?

Who gets the most out of this, especially considering recent actions? How will this be viewed by other nations? Seems pretty clear that Russia comes out ahead.