Nuclear Posture Review or...

[TimothyC]

Why Obama is a fool <again>.

Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

That bargain is at the heart of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is up for review next year amid signs it is unravelling in the face of Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.

In an article for the Guardian today, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, argues that failure to win a consensus would be disastrous. "This is one of the most critical issues we face," the foreign secretary writes. "Get it right, and we will increase global security, pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, and improve access to affordable, safe and dependable energy – vital to tackle climate change. Get it wrong, and we face the spread of nuclear weapons and the chilling prospect of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists."

According to a final draft of the resolution due to be passed on Thursday, however, the UN security council will not wholeheartedly embrace the US and Britain's call for eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. Largely on French insistence, the council will endorse the vaguer aim of seeking "to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons".

Gordon Brown is due to use this week's UN general assembly meeting to renew a diplomatic offensive on Iran for its failure to comply with security council demands that it suspend enrichment of uranium. The issue has been given greater urgency by an International Atomic Energy Agency document leaked last week which showed inspectors for the agency believed Iran already had "sufficient information" to build a warhead, and had tested an important component of a nuclear device.

Germany is also expected to toughen its position on Iran ahead of a showdown between major powers and the Iranian government on 1 October. But it is not yet clear what position will be taken by Russia, which has hitherto opposed the imposition of further sanctions on Iran.

Moscow's stance will be closely watched for signs of greater co-operation in return for Obama's decision last week to abandon a missile defence scheme in eastern Europe, a longstanding source of irritation to Russia.

"I hope the Russians realise they have to do something serious. I don't think a deal has been done, but there is a great deal of expectation," said a British official.

Russia has approximately 2,780 deployed strategic warheads, compared with around 2,100 in the US. The abandonment of the US missile defence already appears to have spurred arms control talks currently underway between Washington and Moscow: the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, said today that chances were "quite high" that a deal to reduce arsenals to 1,500 warheads each would be signed by the end of the year.

The US nuclear posture review is aimed at clearing the path for a new round of deep US-Russian cuts to follow almost immediately after that treaty is ratified, to set lower limits not just on deployed missiles but also on the thousands of warheads both have in their stockpiles.

The Obama strategy is to create disarmament momentum in the run-up to the non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, in the hope that states without nuclear weapons will not side with Iran, as they did at the last review in 2005, but endorse stronger legal barriers to nuclear proliferation, and forego nuclear weapons programmes themselves.

"The review has up to now been in the hands of mid-level bureaucrats with a lot of knowledge, but it's knowledge drawn from the cold war. What they are prepared to do is tweak the existing doctrine," said Rebecca Johnson, the head of the Acronym Institute, a pro-disarmament pressure group. "Obama has sent them it back saying: 'Give me more options for what we can do in line with my goals. I'm not saying it's easy, but all you're giving me is business as usual.'"

What was that about Deterrence working?
The genie is out of the bottle, no amount of feel-good rhetoric or treaty can put it back in. This is like saying to an armed robber "I'll put down my gun, if you promise not to pick up that gun on the table". It's stupid.

Edit: and more than Five Ohio Class SSBNs gets us out of "Hundreds" and into "Thousands" of Strategic Warheads.

You Europeans (Brits, French, and Russians excluded), Canadians, and Australians like living under our Nuclear umbrella don't you?

[Stark]

How is your childish metaphor relevant? If the US reduces it's (enormous) nuclear arsenal, they're not giving them away or placing them somewhere people can steal them; they're dismantling a few hundred. How is this related to other countries obtaining nuclear weapons?

I note you ignore the way the move away from ABM has led to further arms-reduction talks. Politics, eh?

[TimothyC]

How is your childish metaphor relevant? If the US reduces it's (enormous) nuclear arsenal, they're not giving them away or placing them somewhere people can steal them; they're dismantling a few hundred. How is this related to other countries obtaining nuclear weapons?

Your analysis of my analogy fails. Reread until you get the point that I didn't say they would pick up the same gun we put down.

I note you ignore the way the move away from ABM has led to further arms-reduction talks. Politics, eh?

The fewer the devices, the more likely it is that opponents would consider a nuclear war "Winnable". This would increase the likelihood of a nuclear conflict. Esspecially if they sit behind a well developed missile shield and we don't.

[Stark]

Oh sorry, so you're just blowing smoke. OMG WE PUT A GUN DOWN NOW SOMEONE ELSE HAS A GUN! You obviuosly draw a link between any 'disarmament' (ps, actually a small reduction) and proliferation without providing any reason these ideas are linked at all. GENIE OUT OF BOTTLE!!!! American paranoia is utterly fucking hilarious, I assure you.

And then you espond to a point regarding disarmament being bad with ludicrious fearmongering about a Russia-US nuclear war. You also claim that reduced nuclear arsenals = stronger likelihood of nuclear war based on nothing, and describe the Russians as 'sitting behind a well developed missile shield' which is fantastic and demonstrates a massive disconnect, since Russian defence = more likely to start war, but US defence != more likely to start war (as many countries fear). This totally ignores the point made elsewhere about laughable understandings of 'politics', since positive political benefits are obviously worthless.

Do you see youself as a patriotic intellectual with all the facts who sees clearly? Because you sound like a raving paranoid. I dare you to respond in the vein of 'one day you'll see I'm right' or alternately 'you'll die in a nuclear war'.

[tim31]

Missile shield indeed. No doubt the Red are going to glass Fleet Bases East and West so they can front up and take our uranium, eh Stark?

[JointStrikeFighter]

You Europeans (Brits, French, and Russians excluded), Canadians, and Australians like living under our Nuclear umbrella don't you?

PS America's nuclear arsenal may be COMPLETELY irrelevant to the security of Australia.

[TimothyC]

You Europeans (Brits, French, and Russians excluded), Canadians, and Australians like living under our Nuclear umbrella don't you?

PS America's nuclear arsenal may be COMPLETELY irrelevant to the security of Australia.

Ever hear of the ANZUS treaty?

[JointStrikeFighter]

You Europeans (Brits, French, and Russians excluded), Canadians, and Australians like living under our Nuclear umbrella don't you?

PS America's nuclear arsenal may be COMPLETELY irrelevant to the security of Australia.

Ever hear of the ANZUS treaty?

Explain how the nuclear arsenal specifically is relevant fuckwad

[TimothyC]

Ever hear of the ANZUS treaty?

Explain how the nuclear arsenal specifically is relevant fuckwad

Because of the ANZUS treaty, an attack on Australia triggers American involvement. Thus a nuclear attack on Australia, would be countered by a nuclear attack, by the US, on the offending nation. It's the same principle as NATO, and is called deterrence.

[loomer]

To add in from another Australian viewpoint...

We do not live under your fucking nuclear umbrella, because we have basically no major enemies worldwide. Pretty much everyone likes us, except a few small nations and terrorist organizations who don't fall under that umbrella.

In fact, the ANZUS treaty has done us more harm than good lately, since it basically obligated us to help out in Iraq (we would have anyway, but it sure as hell didn't help our anti-war movement.) and, though operations with New Zealand have been positive when it comes to peacekeeping, we've had very little support from you yanks in Timor.

Let's look at who hates us and has nuclear weapons that they might use on us or a bigger army that could actually make it to our nation... Let's see...

Oh, right. NO ONE.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Ever hear of the ANZUS treaty?

Explain how the nuclear arsenal specifically is relevant fuckwad

Because of the ANZUS treaty, an attack on Australia triggers American involvement. Thus a nuclear attack on Australia, would be countered by a nuclear attack, by the US, on the offending nation. It's the same principle as NATO, and is called deterrence.

Who the FUCK is going to make a nuclear attack on Australia and not the US! OH SHIT THE RUSKIS AND CHINESE ARE GOING TO GET MARIUS ROI

PS New Zealand s obviously RIPE FOR THE TAKING now that they aren't protected by America's nuclear umbrella HURF HURF DURF

[Starglider]

Russian and American nuclear stockpiles are an order of magnitude larger than any of the other nuclear powers (and that's not even counting 'inactive reserve' warheads). That number of warheads only makes sense in terms of annihilating each other as functioning countries (including extensive counter-force attacks on the enemy's means of making nuclear war). Cutting the number of strategic warheads to a few hundred each would free up funds and reduce the likelihood of an accident without making a nuclear war any more palatable to the Russian or American leadership, or making it realistic for another power to challenge them. Ramping up warhead and launcher production takes time, if anyone (e.g. India) tried to build a massive force then the US and Russia would have plenty of time to expand their own stockpiles to match.

The notion of a world without nuclear weapons is frankly fantasy, at least for the foreseeable future, and from what I gather the notion of keeping existing warheads in service for several more decades is rather dubious. However cutting Russian and American stockpiles by a factor of two to five is quite reasonable - if the Russians are prepared to go along with it.

[Vehrec]

Additionally, parts the US nuclear arsenal is getting a bit long in the tooth. How much of that highly refined plutonium is now lead, and how much of the lithium or tritium in our H-bombs has decayed? If you have doubts about how usable your bombs are, why not get rid of them?

[Starglider]

How much of that highly refined plutonium is now lead

Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,110 years. So an insignificant amount has decayed (to U235, which is also fissionable anyway).

how much of the lithium or tritium in our H-bombs has decayed?

Lithium Deuteride is stable. Tritium decays quite quickly, but it's only used in small amounts in the core of the first stage, and AFAIK all boosted fission warhead designs have a simple means of replenishing it.

The problems with warhead aging are a lot more complicated than simple radioactive decay.

If you have doubts about how usable your bombs are, why not get rid of them?

If you mean 'get rid of the oldest ones as a means of meeting arms reduction treaties', that's what's been happening for the last couple of decades, but I imagine it's limited by the need to keep a reasonable mix of warheads available to preserve strategic options. If you mean 'get rid of all of them' - because if you have no nuclear weapons, and of course no significant ABM shield, nuclear powers can blackmail you with near impunity.

[Stark]

When does that actually happen? The US is involved in wars in non-nuclear countries right now, and they can't 'blackmail' jack shit with the no-threat of nuclear attack.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

When does that actually happen? The US is involved in wars in non-nuclear countries right now, and they can't 'blackmail' jack shit with the no-threat of nuclear attack.

Stark why must you tear apart innocent little Starglider's dreams?

Do you so hate a child's imagination?

[Stark]

Well it's a common and apparently sensible idea; nuclear weapons (especially lots of them, worldwide, with multiple delivery systems like the US) should give you some kind of sabre-rattling megaboost. I think it's that pesky reality thing, where once the US starts using it like this it backfires really fast, even if people believed them (which, without an example, I doubt they would).

[TimothyC]

Additionally, parts the US nuclear arsenal is getting a bit long in the tooth. How much of that highly refined plutonium is now lead, and how much of the lithium or tritium in our H-bombs has decayed? If you have doubts about how usable your bombs are, why not get rid of them?

Without replenishment, the Tritium reserve runs out in 2011. At that point, without replenishment, the stockpile of functional nuclear weapons starts dropping, with it being halved every 12.4 years.

When does that actually happen? The US is involved in wars in non-nuclear countries right now, and they can't 'blackmail' jack shit with the no-threat of nuclear attack.

Because without an example, the threat of nuclear annihilation wouldn't be credible, and right now, turning a nation into a self illuminating parking lot isn't politically acceptable. It should be taken seriously, but the credibility goes way up once it has happened.

I'd like to remind you all that 1000 warheads means that we can only hit about 300 or so targets (thanks to system failures, passive and active defenses, and the need to maintain a reliable and effective force for oth Counter-Force actions, and deterring anyone we didn't hit in the first round.

[Duckie]

Because naturally the US needs to start a nuclear war now? American neoconservatives are hillarious. They simultaneously think the Soviet Union is around (WE NEED ALL THE NUKES WE CAN GET) and that we're in WWII (WE MUST DEFEND ANZAC, THEY WILL THANK US FOR SAVING THEM).

[Mr Bean]

Goal 3 just kills me

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

Hahahahahaha...ahhh

Underling:Well if we can't use SCIENCE! I guess there's only Magic left if we can't test anything nor make new ones, the only thing we can do is try and tap into the Great Beyond, or perhaps Prayer, perhaps some Divine Magic will get that Nuke to go off.

By Xenu I hate President Obama on nuclear issues

[Starglider]

When does that actually happen? The US is involved in wars in non-nuclear countries right now, and they can't 'blackmail' jack shit with the no-threat of nuclear attack.

While I know that you are in fact a sophisticated irony simulation chatbot rather than an actual human being, and that attempting to treat you as the later is generally a fruitless endeavor, this is pretty pathetic even for you. Not only have the explicit and obvious nuclear blackmail attempts by North Korea been plastered across the press at regular intervals for the last decade or so, it's become pretty much impossible to deny the nuclear intentions of Iran now as well. We had a thread on this recently and those were just the obvious ones. In fact in the ABM thread I just posted in, someone quoted a source for Russia's quite explicit threat to target Poland with (more) nuclear weapons if they hosted an ABM site. Yet somehow you think that nuclear weapons aren't potent tools in the political arsenal?

Goal 3 just kills me

The NIF has to get funding from somewhere you know.

[RRoan]

Underling:Well if we can't use SCIENCE! I guess there's only Magic left if we can't test anything nor make new ones, the only thing we can do is try and tap into the Great Beyond, or perhaps Prayer, perhaps some Divine Magic will get that Nuke to go off.

The government is getting a 20 petaflop supercomputer next year to help do just that. How useful will that be? Who knows...

[TimothyC]

The government is getting a 20 petaflop supercomputer next year to help do just that. How useful will that be? Who knows...

The best simulation in the world is no substitute for the real thing. Without a real test we wouldn't know if the simulation is even accurate.

[Duckie]

Good point, MariusRoi. It iisn't like nuclear weapons follow physical laws that are regular and predictable, like any other device. You can't just theoretically design these things without testing and expect them to work: That would have never worked in the Manhatten Project, for instance. We didn't use any namby pamby math to make those damn things.

[Stark]

While I know that you are in fact a sophisticated irony simulation chatbot rather than an actual human being, and that attempting to treat you as the later is generally a fruitless endeavor, this is pretty pathetic even for you. Not only have the explicit and obvious nuclear blackmail attempts by North Korea been plastered across the press at regular intervals for the last decade or so,

Lol and they work so well, and are relevant to the US somehow, etc. It also addresses why the US isn't blackmailing anyone, even when it would be in it's best interest to do so, even when the victims have no nuclear weapons.

it's become pretty much impossible to deny the nuclear intentions of Iran now as well. We had a thread on this recently and those were just the obvious ones.

This is actually quite amusing, but still, are you saying you're honestly afraid of Iran being able to 'blackmail' people with nuclear weapons? Are you saying nations with no nukes are being blackmailed with near impunity, like in Civilization? It's it fascinating that the most credible 'blackmail' here is the threatened attack by Israel. But they're the good guys, right? Hey, maybe Iran figures they're vulnerable to blackmail with impunity until they acquire nukes of their own, especially from nuclear states like Israel?

Isn't this exciting! I guess we WANT some people to be blackmailable.

In fact in the ABM thread I just posted in, someone quoted a source for Russia's quite explicit threat to target Poland with (more) nuclear weapons if they hosted an ABM site. Yet somehow you think that nuclear weapons aren't potent tools in the political arsenal?

Isn't it fascinating that nuclear blackmail is either obviously vacant sabre-rattling, or posturing around nuclear weapons themselves? It's actually quite amusing that you only think this way - ps, scores of countries have NO nuclear weapons. And yet, where is the nuclear blackmail? You stated it was inevitable 'if you have no nuclear weapons'. So why isn't it more prevalent? Why is the only credible example a part of the complex system of credible deterrance among existing nuclear weapon holders?

Or did you just say that ditching all nukes would make your nation mega-vulnerable to being blackmails 'with near impunity' but actually mean 'baseless sabre-rattling nobody really pays attention to'?