Kerry details plans to cut nukes

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-06-02 08:46pm

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2004 ... 51692s.htm

Hmm. Good, good. This is the first step towards getting me to come out of my radiation-proof closet...

[/url]

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-02 09:22pm

Some of what he says makes sense, but I don't know what stopping the development of next-gen nukes is supposed to accomplish. If anything, the United States should dismantle all but a small, extremely advanced nuclear arsenal rather than relying on older weapons.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-06-02 10:14pm

He pledged that as president he would eliminate or secure all unguarded nuclear material in the world within four years.

Stupid son of a bitch.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-06-02 11:16pm

If he thinks he can force the Chicoms or the DPRK to give up thier arms ny means other than arms; then I have some real estate in NYC that I would like to sell to Sen. Kerry.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-02 11:25pm

Yeah, another half assed, seemingly ill considered plan from Kerry.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-02 11:47pm

What a wanker. This is just a wishlist of everything that everyone wants to do, but is UTTERLY impossible, in practice.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-06-03 12:53am

The Kernel wrote:If anything, the United States should dismantle all but a small, extremely advanced nuclear arsenal rather than relying on older weapons.

I doubt that the US military is going to want to part with their SIOP-style nuclear deterrance approach, which by definition requires a relativly large number of warheads. That's why the US doesn't want to go further than the currently ratified START II treaty, which limits the US and Russia to 3,500 warheads each (the Russians proposed a START III treaty which would have further reduced the limit to 2,000 warheads, but the US rejected it).

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-06-03 12:54am

Another reason why I just can't bring myself to vote for Kerry...

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-06-03 01:36am

EmperorSolo51 wrote:If he thinks he can force the Chicoms or the DPRK to give up thier arms ny means other than arms; then I have some real estate in NYC that I would like to sell to Sen. Kerry.

Um, not to insult, but is that coming from your lips or the elephant's lips? just curious...

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-03 01:38am

Ma Deuce wrote: I doubt that the US military is going to want to part with their SIOP-style nuclear deterrance approach, which by definition requires a relativly large number of warheads. That's why the US doesn't want to go further than the currently ratified START II treaty, which limits the US and Russia to 3,500 warheads each (the Russians proposed a START III treaty which would have further reduced the limit to 2,000 warheads, but the US rejected it).

START II is defunct. SORT is now in place. Both the USA and Russian Federation are to reduce their warheads (no mention of delivery systems, allowing Russia to keep it's START-banned weapons like SS-18) to 1,700-2,500 warheads by 2012.

You knew that, right? The US agreed to that.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-06-03 01:44am

Vympel wrote:START II is defunct. SORT is now in place. Both the USA and Russian Federation are to reduce their warheads (no mention of delivery systems, allowing Russia to keep it's START-banned weapons like SS-18) to 1,700-2,500 warheads by 2012.

You knew that, right? The US agreed to that.

No, I didn't, my information seems to be out of date...

BTW, If the Russians get to keep their SS-18s under SORT, I assume the Americans can keep their LGM-118s?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-03 02:36am

Ma Deuce wrote:
No, I didn't, my information seems to be out of date...

BTW, If the Russians get to keep their SS-18s under SORT, I assume the Americans can keep their LGM-118s?

Yes. But they're not.

The SORT isn't very long- it's just a global commitment to reduce warheads by 2012, there's no set schedule, no prohibited delivery systems, etc. This suited Russia very much.

Link

Tiny ain't it?

Article I

Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads, as stated by the President of the United States of America on November 13, 2001 and as stated by the President of the Russian Federation on November 13, 2001 and December 13, 2001 respectively, so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each Party. Each Party shall determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms, based on the established aggregate limit for the number of such warheads.

Article II

The Parties agree that the START Treaty remains in force in accordance with its terms.

Article III

For purposes of implementing this Treaty, the Parties shall hold meetings at least twice a year of a Bilateral Implementation Commission.

Article IV

1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification in accordance with the constitutional procedures of each Party. This Treaty shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification.

2. This Treaty shall remain in force until December 31, 2012 and may be extended by agreement of the Parties or superseded earlier by a subsequent agreement.

3. Each Party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may withdraw from this Treaty upon three months written notice to the other Party.

Note that START is referring to the original START, not START II, which is stillborn.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-06-07 01:22am

How is he supposed to win if he's this fucking dumb.

At least Bush had specific shit he actually delivered in 2000, no matter how bad the timing was and whatnot.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-07 01:30am

As evidence, he cited a new Harvard study that found more unguarded nuclear material was secured in the two years before the attacks than in the two years after.

I just love facts like this which can be spun to either mean "less has been secured recently because of insufficient effort" or "less has been secured recently because we already grabbed a vast fuckload of it starting with the easy stuff and this job isn't fucking simple"

His treaty bullshit is no more then that.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-07 01:36am

What are Kerry's chances now, among you who can vote, now that he's come out with this kind of policy? Has it given you pause, or are you gonna abstain or vote for Bush, or Kerry but not like it, or what exactly?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-07 01:47am

Why does mainstream America detest intelligent people so much!!?

It's almost like knowing that their leader is smarter than them makes them feel scared or envious.

I think I'd still go with Kerry by a really, really small margin, preferring hair-brained foreign and military policies over continuing infringement on civil rights.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-06-07 01:55am

Vympel wrote:Yes. But they're not.

You seem almost ... happy that we're getting rid of the MX force :p

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-07 02:27am

Vympel wrote:
Yes. But they're not.

With warhead levels this low it makes sense, we'd have way too many eggs in fifty baskets if we kept MX in service in a meaningful way, and its higher accuracy isn't too important since we don't have the warheads to go ICBM silo hunting. Anyway Minuteman III can be upgraded to have as many as seven MIRV's (though only about 50kt each IIRC) if we ever have the need and inclination, and restoring the missiles to three warheads would be a quick process.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-07 02:32am

Are Tridents still the US's multi-megaton ICBMs or are there new ones?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-07 02:53am

Shinova wrote:Are Tridents still the US's multi-megaton ICBMs or are there new ones?

Trident has never had a multi megaton warhead. The C-4 missile has eight 100kt warheads and the D-5 Trident II missile has eight 475kt warheads. The USN has never had a multi megaton SLBM, in fact its missile yields have been as low as 50kt with the Poseidon missile. The highest yield was 600kt for the original single warhead Polaris. The last multi megaton US missile was the Titan II which with its single 9 megaton warhead is also by far the most powerful missile ever deployed by the United States. It left service by 1987 with never more then about fifty having been deployed.

The US was never big on huge missile warheads, we had a big fleet of effective heavy bombers to strike at the targets which required such large yields. Those bombers could and did carry quite large warheads, ones of up to 25 megatons. though currently the biggest they have is 1.2 megatons.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-07 03:49am

I was under the impression the largest warheads ever tested by the US were ~15 MT.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-07 03:54am

Shinova wrote:I think I'd still go with Kerry by a really, really small margin, preferring hair-brained foreign and military policies over continuing infringement on civil rights.

I thought that Bush also employs sometimes hare-brained foreign policies?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-07 03:56am

phongn wrote:
Vympel wrote:Yes. But they're not.
You seem almost ... happy that we're getting rid of the MX force :p

But of course. If Russia can't have it's SS-24s, American can't have it's Peacekeepers.

(actually, the SS-24 arsenal has been steady for awhile and they're under no obligation to get rid of them thanks to the death of START II, but since they're all Ukranian based former Soviet technology, there's no way to maintain them past a certain date unless they move the technology to Russia proper. Which they're not going to do.)

Unless you count this:

New Topol-M regiment, new missile in 10 warhead, 4.4 ton payload class (i.e. SS-24 class) to enter service after 2009

(ignore dumbass claims of US 'military experts' who got their expertise from a cereal box calling it a Minuteman III equivalent, unless you're talking "looks kind of like one")

(also ignore "four batches of deliveries" claim- it's actually four regiments- 10 missiles per regiment, worth. Acctual deliveries have been 10 missiles in 1998 and 1999, and 6 missiles every year after that- possibly excluding 2002).

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-07 03:59am

Crayz9000 wrote:
Shinova wrote:I think I'd still go with Kerry by a really, really small margin, preferring hair-brained foreign and military policies over continuing infringement on civil rights.
I thought that Bush also employs sometimes hare-brained foreign policies?

Yeah, but at least it looks like Kerry probably won't be infringing our civil rights any further.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-07 04:02am

Shinova wrote:Yeah, but at least it looks like Kerry probably won't be infringing our civil rights any further.

Yeah.

If there was a way to just vote all jackasses out of power, I'd take it, but alas, no such option seems in the near future. I guess you have to be certifiably insane to become a politician.