Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama signs!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama signs!

    ...nuclear treaty! Mevedev too! Does this reveal a major US-Russian conspiracy??? Also, they probably acted under European influence, why else would they have met in Prague!?!

    US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, have signed a landmark nuclear arms treaty in the Czech capital, Prague.

    The treaty commits the former Cold War enemies to each reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 - 30% lower than the previous ceiling.

    Mr Obama said it was a key milestone, but only the "first step on a longer journey" of nuclear disarmament.

    Mr Medvedev said the deal would create safer conditions throughout the world.

    If ratified by lawmakers in both countries, the treaty will replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) of 1991, which expired in December.

    Missile defence

    The US and Russian leaders signed the New Start treaty at a ceremony attended by hundreds of officials in the lavishly decorated Spanish Hall of Prague Castle, the Czech president's residence.


    TREATY LIMITS
    Warheads: 1,550 (74% lower than the 1991 Start Treaty and 30% lower than the 2002 Moscow Treaty)
    Launchers: 700 deployed intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments

    Global map of nuclear arsenals
    Q&A: New Start

    Under the pact, each side is allowed a maximum of 1,550 warheads, about 30% lower than the figure of 2,200 that each side was meant to reach by 2012 under the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Sort).

    They are also allowed, in total, no more than 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear arms.

    The new limit on delivery systems is less than half the current ceiling of 1,600 - though each heavy bomber counts as one warhead irrespective of the fact that it might carry multiple bombs or missiles.

    On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the New Start treaty marked a "new level of trust" between the countries.


    ANALYSIS
    jonathan marcus
    By Jonathan Marcus, BBC News, Prague

    Numbers here are not hugely important though in the sense that these arsenals are still far in excess of what might be needed to deter each other or, for that matter, any other potential nuclear competitor.

    This agreement really is a starting benchmark; a formal treaty that sets the scene for much more significant reductions in the future. Indeed, much of the new agreement's importance is in its collateral benefits.

    It marks an important improvement in US-Russia relations and it gives President Obama in particular an important boost ahead of next month's review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Bolstering this agreement, which is the central pillar of efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is a high priority for him.
    Nuclear milestone on a long road

    He said the original Start treaty, which expired in December, was "born from the Cold War" and contained much that was "discriminatory" towards Russia.

    Mr Lavrov noted that the new pact explicitly acknowledged a direct link between offensive nuclear weapons and missile defence systems, and warned that his country could opt out if it felt threatened by US plans.

    "Russia will have the right to abandon the Start treaty if a quantitative and qualitative build-up of the US strategic anti-missile potential begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russia's strategic forces," he added.

    It was Moscow's concerns over Washington's plans to base interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic that helped delay the new treaty. President Obama shelved the idea in September.

    Mr Lavrov said Washington's current plans - which include ground-based interceptor missiles in Romania - seemed acceptable.

    The White House has said it hopes and expects the US Senate to ratify the treaty this year. Senate ratification requires 67 votes, which means it must include Republicans.

    The Russian lower house of parliament, the State Duma, must also approve the treaty, but as long as the Kremlin supports it, ratification there is expected to be a formality.

    Disarmament vision

    BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus, who is in Prague, says the real significance of this deal is that it marks a warming of US-Russian ties and heralds, perhaps, tougher Russian action on Iran's nuclear programme.


    FROM BBC WORLD SERVICE

    More from BBC World Service

    It also gives Mr Obama a disarmament success that he hopes will strengthen his hand at next month's review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), our correspondent says.

    An overhaul of the 40-year-old pact is seen as the central pillar of the US president's efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

    However, much more significant cuts in long-range nuclear weapons could take years of negotiation with the Russians, who do not share Mr Obama's ambitious disarmament vision, our correspondent says.

    Nuclear weapons are in fact looming larger in Russia's security equation at a time when their role in US strategic thinking is becoming more circumscribed, he adds.

    On Tuesday, President Obama unveiled the new Nuclear Posture Review, which narrows the circumstances in which the US would use nuclear weapons.

    "The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations," it said.

    Countries which the US regards not complying with the NPT, including Iran and North Korea, will not be spared a nuclear response.

    North Korea pulled out of the NPT in 2003, while the US claims Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, which Tehran denies.

    Mr Obama also pledged not to develop any new nuclear weapons, a move pushed through in the face of resistance by the Pentagon.
    BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service
    Blah

  • #2
    Come September we're bumming rides from the Russians to the Space Station. How long before we're renting nukes from our future overlords?!

    Comment


    • #3
      Mr Obama said it was a key milestone, but only the "first step on a longer journey" of nuclear disarmament.



      I really hope Obama doesn't actually believe this.
      KH FOR OWNER!
      ASHER FOR CEO!!
      GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Drake Tungsten View Post
        I really hope Obama doesn't actually believe this.
        I'll lay bets he does.
        I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
        For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Drake Tungsten View Post
          Mr Obama said it was a key milestone, but only the "first step on a longer journey" of nuclear disarmament.



          I really hope Obama doesn't actually believe this.
          It could happen. Although it would depend on things that Obama can't control.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'd be happy if stockpile numbers could be reduced to a number somewhere shy of obscene.
            "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
            "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #7
              Doesn't the senate have to ratify it?

              EDIT: Bah, yes it does, mentioned in the OP. It'll never get ratified.
              If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
              ){ :|:& };:

              Comment


              • #8
                Why wouldn't it? Other nuclear reduction treaties has been ratified, with margins around 95-5 or so.
                "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HalfLotus View Post
                  Come September we're bumming rides from the Russians to the Space Station. How long before we're renting nukes from our future overlords?!
                  Russia ownling all land around the arctic ocean and holding sway over all of Northern Eurasia and America would be the awesomest thing ever.
                  Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                  The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                  The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
                    I'll lay bets he does.
                    Madness.
                    Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                    The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                    The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by gribbler View Post
                      It could happen. Although it would depend on things that Obama can't control.
                      The only country to ever give up nuclear weapons was South Africa. Unless we see a regime change and Americans will be afriad of the new group misusing the weapons I can't see this bein replicated.
                      Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                      The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                      The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I thought some of the former soviet republics gave up nuclear arms to Russia?

                        JM
                        Jon Miller-
                        I AM.CANADIAN
                        GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Heraclitus View Post
                          The only country to ever give up nuclear weapons was South Africa. Unless we see a regime change and Americans will be afriad of the new group misusing the weapons I can't see this bein replicated.
                          The history of nuclear weapons is only 65 years or so. Just because something hasn't happened yet is no reason to assume it can't happen.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                            I thought some of the former soviet republics gave up nuclear arms to Russia?

                            JM
                            The Soviet Union had several succesor states.


                            If the US was to collapse and lets say Alaska, Utah and California where to give up weapons and hand them over to the New Union comprised of lets say 45 something states would that really be disarnament in any meaningfull geostrategical sense of the word or would it be just averted proliferation of nuclear weapons?
                            Last edited by Heraclitus; April 9, 2010, 08:48.
                            Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                            The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                            The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gribbler View Post
                              The history of nuclear weapons is only 65 years or so. Just because something hasn't happened yet is no reason to assume it can't happen.
                              Very well. I can think of one plausible scenario where the US gives up nuclear weapons:

                              -Social programs become more expensive eating into the military more and more up to the middle of the 21st century

                              -The US reduces nuclear stocks as does Russia untill they are at about China's level

                              -The US suddenly gets a strong pacifist & isolationist urge due to no longer being able to project power sometime in the 2070's and disarms in a major international treaty together with another country (Britain or perhaps Russia seem likley, France not so much unless we see the country collapse) other old nuclear powers perhaps reduce their arsenal as well (China, France). This would be more likley if North Korean or Iranian regime where somehow to hold on to life and nukes untill then and give up its nukes too creating an ilussion of a possibly nuclear free world. Israel, Pakistand and India if they still exist in their present form would keep their stockpiles as they are and perhaps discreetly increase them in size (esp. Israel if it still exists).

                              What would be your hypothetical scenario?
                              Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                              The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                              The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X