PDA

View Full Version : Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal


nmap
09-21-2009, 12:32
Offered for discussion.

LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/barack-obama-us-nuclear-weapons)



Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal
Pentagon told to map out radical cuts as president prepares to chair UN talks


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.

'A multilateral process in which weapons states agree to radical disarmament': Julian Borger Link to this audio 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.'"

Paslode
09-21-2009, 13:51
I might guess the 'O' posturing for a new achievement benchmark (other than health care reform) to mark his term in office as the man who de-nucked the World....kind of like his buddy and Presidential failure Jhimmy 'Can't We all just Get along' Carter. It might also set the stage to for his next goal as Leader of the World...I mean the UN.

My bet is that like most of these disarmament agreements their will be many like N. Korea and Iran who will carry on business as usual behind the scenes.

Defender968
09-21-2009, 14:53
Our enemies are seeking nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them to our shores, and the one is dismantling our defenses and our ability to respond in kind should the unthinkable happen....it doesn't surprise me but it does sadden and distress me. I know Russia is our friend now and all :rolleyes:, but did I miss the part where they got rid of their thousands of weapons so we can all just get along? I just hope he doesn't start beating our swords into plow shares before the rest of the world disarms.

afchic
09-21-2009, 16:36
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Obama can request to dismantle the nuclear arsenal of the US all he wants, isn't going to happen without the backing of Congress. And even among the democrats, I don't think he has the support he would need to do it. How many congressmen and Senators are going to lose jobs in their districts if this indeed goes through. TOO MANY!!!

He may be able to bring down the numbers from thousands to hundreds, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing. No one has ever been able to accuratly state why we have as many as we do. Is it the missile gap... nope, is it the bomber gap.... nope. For the most part the number we have now is an arbetrary number. There are plenty of those around, who are in the policy, doctrine, and scientific realm of our nuclear strategy, that believe we could very realistically go down to the 600 range and still maintain our current OPLAN needs. There are many ways to utilize much smaller numbers, in much better ways, and maintain a stong nuclear posture.

Do we really need a nuclear triad? Why not a nuclear diad?

I do agree that he is making decisions that may be catastrophic to the security of our nation. The nuclear geanie is out of the bottle, and no matter how many people want to put it back it, it is never going to happen. The security of this nation now depends on our ability to maintain our nuclear arsenal. We may not be looking at the Big Bear any longer, but who is to say in the future we won't need them again?

I think he has a long way to go to understanding international politics if he thinks the rest of the world is going to give them up because the US is giving up ours.

Box
09-21-2009, 17:18
we dont need nukes any more.....
...once our strategy of appeasement takes foot we wont have any more enemies

...then we can spend the rest on clean IV needles and condoms

Richard
09-21-2009, 17:32
...goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

This explains a lot of the tone of the article.

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.

Key words/phrases in green - I have no problem with any of these points as they are all valid - and probably a much needed review...before the USAF manages to give them all to the Taiwanese. :rolleyes:

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.

In the world of strategic nuclear arsenals and deterrence - the numbers mentioned are not the BIG deal in this proposal because of the types and total yield of the weapons we deploy and the accuracy of our delivery systems...the question will always be in the 'will' of the nation to use them defensively if necessary.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Constant
09-22-2009, 04:56
before the USAF manages to give them all to the Taiwanese :rolleyes:


Hey, we're just trying to share the wealth and knowledge of nuclear weapons/delivery systems. :p

As stated by others; not a big deal to go from thousands to hundreds. Just because the amount we have is smaller, does not mean the amount of destruction we can deliver is out of our reach. We can still destroy the world without issue with 600 just as we can with 6000. ;)

Novice Snowflake
09-22-2009, 05:47
It would be wise for Obama to keep the new stockpile of nuclear missiles and get rid of the older nuclear missiles that have leaks, rust or maintenace costs that are getting too expensive etc.

The nuclear missiles are a deterrent and our trump card for so many reasons.

If JFK was alive today, I am sure he would be ashamed of Obama and have a few choice words with him.

JFK knows that Russia will never part with their nuclear stockpile, maybe discard the older ones in favor of the new ones while hiding a few missiles and the Russians will naturally lie about it at the roundtable talks while speaking peace but Russia is really preparing for war.

JFK must be rolling around in his grave at the incredible lack of common-sense Obama is currently displaying before his enemies.

Hopefully, Congress has enough common-sense and more rational and sensible minds says no to Obama because the U.S.A. is going to really need these in the near future.

I don't want to sound like a religious fanatic or anything like that but as a Christian reading Bible Prophecy and the world events that are rapidly taking place makes perfect sense.

It is better for the National Guard units to prepare for tornadoes, hurricanes and helping with the evacuation orders on the homefront while SF takes care of business.

If Bible prophecy events are going to happen then it is better to prepare for these weather emergencies and national security threats like Iran and North Korea and Russia etc.