Slashdot Mirror
US and Russia Conclude Arms-Control Treaty
reporter writes "According to a report just published by the NY Times, Washington and the Kremlin have finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware. Notably, the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield. Quoting: 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter, and on launchers by half. It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime, replacing one that expired in December. But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe, it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield. ... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries. According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.'"
> 1. Like every country in the world, they're a Competitor for resources. The fact that they have
> warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest.
So we should be doing arms reduction treaties with France? They compete with us and could probably muster as many WORKING warheads as the current Russians. Or how 'bout China? No, we aren't on the brink of world war with the French or the Chinese. And neither are we with the Russians.
> 2. Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country. I'm not anti-Russian,
> but they do have weapons of mass destruction. If the wrong people were in charge, and if desperate
> they could threaten attacks to get resources. Similar to number one.
Yea, so? They have no ability to harm US other than the hope one of their nukes would actually go Foom! Most of their Navy couldn't leave port if the fate of the world depended upon it and their air power is almost as pathetic. I'm all for realizing the reason for NATO's existence is gone and leaving the defense of Europe to the Europeans. Having to fund a military of their own would level the competitive playing field a bit and might just force them to move back toward freedom instead of continuing to drift toward socialism/fascism.
> It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.
Beyond the reason I proposed in the first post there is the need among some people to prop up the reputation of Russia, to pretend they are still a great power. I'll leave the analysis of that as an exercise for the student.
Democrat delenda est