Obama signs!

[giblets]

I don't think the US would ever totally disarm as long as their are other countries who aren't willing to disarm. Nuclear disarmament depends on resolving several conflicts (Arab-Israeli conflict, India-Pakistan) because countries involved don't feel safe. Also there are countries who don't face any real threat but are paranoid (Russia?) and they won't commit to total disarmament unless their attitude changes. I think perceived safety is huge: South Africa got rid of its nukes after Cuban forces had pulled out of Angola and the Soviet Union was no longer seen as a threat.

[Dinner]

I'm surprised the Republicans are going ape **** over this. We've been signing nuclear arms reduction treaties with the Russians since Nixon's time and Reagan took almost the same position on arms reduction Obama has yet the Republicans are all denouncing Obama as weak and caving in to the Russians. Bush's former UN representative John Bolten has even said the US should be building a whole new generation of nuclear bombs and renouncing old arms treaties. WTF? How many times over do you have to blow up the entire world to feel safe? We're safer with fewer nukes in the world not another nuclear arms race.

[BeBMan]

Anyone here who will define how much strategic nuke warheads the US *needs* assuming we have a situation where noone has a serious superiority in this field over the US that would it make necessary to get much more to keep a balance. Or are we still in a "we need much more nukes to stop a soviet-style tank flood coming towards Paris (since we don't have the best MBT)" mode?

[Ecofarm]

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

We have private companies who could get to the space station. We're using the Russians for diplomacy and because they're cheap.

[giblets]

Anyone here who will define how much strategic nuke warheads the US *needs* assuming we have a situation where noone has a serious superiority in this field over the US that would it make necessary to get much more to keep a balance. Or are we still in a "we need much more nukes to stop a soviet-style tank flood coming towards Paris (since we don't have the best MBT)" mode?

Without at least a thousand warheads the Canadians would probably try something.

[Kidlicious]

Reagan took almost the same position on arms reduction Obama has yet the Republicans are all denouncing Obama as weak and caving in to the Russians.

Yep, it's making for some funny Daily Show.

[Wezil]

Without at least a thousand warheads the Canadians would probably try something.

Won't help. We use stealth tactics and infiltration and nukes are too blunt an instrument to counter that. I mean, what are you going to do? Nuke LA? Oh wait...

[Heraclitus]

I'm surprised the Republicans are going ape **** over this. We've been signing nuclear arms reduction treaties with the Russians since Nixon's time and Reagan took almost the same position on arms reduction Obama has yet the Republicans are all denouncing Obama as weak and caving in to the Russians. Bush's former UN representative John Bolten has even said the US should be building a whole new generation of nuclear bombs and renouncing old arms treaties. WTF? How many times over do you have to blow up the entire world to feel safe? We're safer with fewer nukes in the world not another nuclear arms race.

You don't seriusly expect republicans not to be hypocrites when it comes to making the other side look bad do you?

[Heraclitus]

Yep, it's making for some funny Daily Show.

Link?

[Heraclitus]

I don't think the US would ever totally disarm as long as their are other countries who aren't willing to disarm. Nuclear disarmament depends on resolving several conflicts (Arab-Israeli conflict, India-Pakistan) because countries involved don't feel safe. Also there are countries who don't face any real threat but are paranoid (Russia?) and they won't commit to total disarmament unless their attitude changes. I think perceived safety is huge: South Africa got rid of its nukes after Cuban forces had pulled out of Angola and the Soviet Union was no longer seen as a threat.

I'm not sure. What if the US wouldn't be a superpower anymore? What if the US relied on Israel or Britain for its nuclear deterent?

[Ecofarm]

I'm sure the treaty is entirely perfect and any criticism of it is just racist partisanship. Right? Everyone knows that Obama only does perfect stuff.

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.

Bolded part =

[Heraclitus]

I'm sure the treaty is entirely perfect and any criticism of it is just racist partisanship. Right? Everyone knows that Obama only does perfect stuff.

I never said the Democrats weren't hypocrites. BTW Obama is trying to do a few good things for his people but he has lots of faults, I esp. wonder how his bipolarity will affect the presidency if the downward trend of popularity continues.

[Ecofarm]

Bipolar? I don't get that.

[giblets]

I'm not sure. What if the US wouldn't be a superpower anymore? What if the US relied on Israel or Britain for its nuclear deterent?

It seems to take a long time for former superpowers to give up the mentality. Like when France still tries to be important, which is kind of adorable. So the US will probably not rely on someone else for a deterrent in the next several centuries.

[Heraclitus]

It seems to take a long time for former superpowers to give up the mentality. Like when France still tries to be important, which is kind of adorable.

Britain and Russia have the same problem.