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.'"
Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact. You're good. I wonder how McCain/Palin would've handled the situation.
Boy would that stink if I can't nuke everyone with ballistics in one turn.
Assuming their nuclear arsenal is at the caps mentioned in this article, I'd say they're super power enough.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Interestingly theres just now happening something between North Korea and South Korea.
A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea early Saturday, prompting the South's military to rush vessels to the site to rescue its sailors and raising fears of an attack by the North.
Earlier Friday, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes," including a nuclear attack, in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.
After the ship began sinking, President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers, including the defense minister and other top military officials.
Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea, raising fears of an exchange of gunfire.
Are you honestly willing to assume that their warheads are now all duds? Regardless of any political or environmental views or feelings, it seems naive to assume that all those weapons out there "probably wouldn't even go foom."
We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.
The President has actually requested a $624M increase for NNSA Weapons Activities in FY2011, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
China is no superpower and the US remains one.
China has very limited abilities to project power. Russia currently has only the ability to project a few bombers and a couple warship a few thousand miles. On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.
Chinese military power projection is very limited, a handful of nuclear subs, most of which spend years at dock between deployments, no carriers and they lack the capability to move land forces across the Straights of Taiwan.
The US on the other hand, well, 10 nuclear carriers, 8 amphibious assault ships, dozens of bombers capable of deployment in a few hours notice, the ability to deploy paratroopers, helicopter assault forces or Marines anywhere on the planet in 2-3 days.
And even if you look by how people now a day define third world countries etc, Russia still ranks as "First World Country".
On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.
Are you seriously saying that a superpower is only a superpower if they go having wars around the world all the time? If my country were in a constant war with everyone all around the world and had troops deployed all the time, I would feel ashamed and a bully, not a "superpower".
I'm sure both Russia and China are capable of deploying all around the world in a few days. Just because they don't usually do that but are a peace-loving countries, doesn't mean they cant.
Pay more attention to Russia: They've found the resources they need to raise all the capital they need to maintain their military at any level they choose. They've discovered they have petroleum riches comparable to the middle east... I'd argue that their nuclear industry is in better shape than that in the United States. They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market. Their space industry rivals, and in some ways exceeds, the technological capability of both the United States and European Union. But, your first point is correct, we're not really enemies any more.
I know, and without the ability to project power the People's Liberation Army will sit in the People's Republic and polish their QBZ-95s.
If the PLA could project power they would be in Taipei right now.
"Conclude" means "bring to an end." They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant). And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
(1)North Korea has a huge army. They might not have resources but, because of the size of their army, even on foot with nothing but rifles, they could cause significant trouble for a while. (2)Seoul, South Korea's capital city, is within artillery range of North Korea... N. Korea could sit on their side of the border and lob shells, again doing considerable damage before, Yes, we would stop it; but, they have a significant amount of firepower parked there, waiting. (3) South Korea is a significant financial and manufacturing power center. Anything that affects South Korea will have an impact on the world market. Point is, you should be concerned about that saber rattling paranoid megalomaniac sitting in power in North Korea.
1.We aren't enemies anymore. Right?
We negotiate treaties with non-enemies regularly, holding treaties with the UK, Canada, and Mexico. It isn't always meant to solve disputes, but in some cases to head them off before they can become a problem.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
North Korea could most likely nuke Japan. While that would result in the end of their current government its still a threat.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
"A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power."
Russia no longer has a leading position, its in the G8 sure and on UNSC, but it is failing. China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.
They can not however project power. China and Russia lack sealift and airlift.
China can't get forces to Taiwan, they sure couldn't get PLA forces to San Diego if they wanted to. On the other hand the US could get Marines to Hong Kong in a few days.
"BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!
EVERYONE: The People's Liberation Army?!
BRIAN: No, no! The Romans!"
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Oh c'mon....we've ONLY used them twice, and that was a LONG time ago for a good reason, and they were new then...we really didn't know what exactly these new shiny weapons would do!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
An important thing to note here is that a busy military is an experienced military. It may not be wonderful what they do, but these low level conflicts do test new technology and tactics.
This is actually very important. Most of us here (me included) are too young to remember. But our parents generation lived in fear of a nuclear war. Tensions were very high and the nuclear build up was huge. Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament won't happen quickly, but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
For those that don't know, one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs. This is known as MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). Each one can be aimed at different target. Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?
Thanks.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
They can damage South Korea, but they are not set up in a way that they could effect a war beyond the range that their current artillery is stationed.
North Korea is a one trick pony and we know what that trick will be if they ever decide to play it. They will not play it.
North Koreans are taught that the rest of the world has it worse than them, that dear leader has their best intentions at heart. The moment that the North Koreans were to reach Seoul the North would lose those soldiers. North Korea would only be able to sustain an attack for a few days at best, after that the North would be invaded and there would finally only be one Korea. (mass suicide of North Koreans would follow unfortunately)
Their nuclear program is a joke at best, there have been larger fertilizer explosions than what North Korea test fired.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
They do not have the ability to create a launch-able nuclear weapon.
Their test bomb was not small enough to launch, they could put it on a ship and bring it to harbor and blow it up maybe.
They could though launch a conventional warhead against Japan though. It would be more likely to go boom also.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
On note from the article, I don't really see how that is that important. Yes there are less Nukes, but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over. It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.
There's never been enough nuclear weapons to "destroy" the world a few times over. And the huge reductions in the nuclear arsenal greatly reduces the maximum damage from a short term nuclear war. This especially includes secondary effects like fallout and nuclear winter which are more likely to harm third parties.
Nuclear weapons are extraordinarily destructive, but even that can be greatly exaggerated. For example, in the movie, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, a cruise missile with a five kiloton warhead wipes out a large US city. The only problem? That bomb is only a fraction of the explosive power of the only nuclear bombs used in war, Hiroshima (13 kilotons) and Nagasaki (21 kilotons). Even Nagasaki wouldn't have wiped out that city (there'd still be plenty of mostly intact zombies running around, for example).
For whatever reason, people like to exaggerate the effects of nuclear weapons yet at the same time downplay their effectiveness as peacekeeping tools.
In modern warfare, numbers aren't that important anymore. It's all about force multipliers. The United States may have a (comparable) small military, true, but even the lowliest of their grunts is a highly trained and well equipped specialist. Just look at the last few wars the US has fought in (and I mean *actual* wars, not peacekeeping/stabilizing which involves fighting guerillas) - every time, relatively few US troops have inflicted major casualties with minor losses.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.
There is a huge misconception about the size of China's military. Something like 30% are old women and children. Literally. Furthermore, over half quarters are are simply factory workers who wear uniforms. Yes, those guys who make goods in factories. That means, realistically, something like an effective fighting force, versus a real military, of only 4000,000 - 500,000 or so. Not to mention, all of China's real talent has typically been Russian.
The modern US military has extremely powerful force multipliers. A squad of guys (8-16) today is roughly equivalent to something like 30-100 soldiers during WWII. No joke. And generally speaking, much of N. Korea's tech base hasn't evolved much since the Korean war. Sure they have pockets of their own special forces with modern weapons, but by in large, most of their forces are still using modernized WWII to Vietnam era weaponry; reflective of accuracy and capability. In a nut shell, when compared to modern US forces, China's force is VERY ROUGHLY comparable to 100,000 US troops.
You need to remember, with one ground spotter, one airplane, and one cluster bomb, the US Air Force can take out an entire armored division of armor. Literally. To date, only one has actually been used in combat. It was dropped in Iraq. Ponder that for a second or two. That's what force multipliers are all about.
Realistically, and no jokes, maintaining enough ammo on hand is typically the biggest logistics issue a modern, Western, military would have in opposition to a conflict with China. That's not to say there wouldn't be deaths on the Western's side, but China is far from the big, nasty, million-man-plus boogy man everyone tries to make him out to be. In a toe to toe with the West, China would be missing its toes, feet, and ankles really quickly. And if you can't stand...you've lost.
Kim Jung Il maybe a megalomaniac, but the idea that he can do everything that crosses his mind is wrong. Lose the support of the top ranked officers of the army and his opinion will be irrelevant (or he'll stop having one at all).
Even a dictator relies on a chain of command, and can't do anything if it breaks.
Dilbert RSS feed
Pretty well afaict, afaict there are far more enemies dying than there are people dying on our side.
The real problem in iraq was not winning the war itself, it's dealing with the mess left behind afterwards. That costs more lives than many of us westerners are willing to stomach for a war we see as having little direct affect on us (but still not very many compared to other wars).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Congradulations, you have managed to be wrong in pretty much all you points.
1. Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level. The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as much as possible since everything else is in disrepair. In fact, they are cutting close to 30% of staff because of lack of money. Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.
2. Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.
3. There is no manufacturing capacity as of note. Maybe dozen plants here and there again all staffed with guys in sixties.
4. There is no space _industry_. There are old thirty year old designs on life support.
5 Maybe Russia is not american enemy if you could read russian, you would know that USA and NATO is still their enemy number one on official and laymen level. They seem to be very nostalgic about russian/soviet empire. There is a Kremlin-sponsored campain to whitewash Stalin's name. Yes, the guy who directed killing of more people than Hitler ever did.
For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missle that never flew as expected in like 10 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava
Yes, China has a bubble.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031002636.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032503777.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/business/global/05yuan.html
The projection of military power is not just about Carriers and assault ships. More important then the hardware is the logistics and training. Russia has this, China does not, thus Russia is still able to project power especially in their sphere of influence (Central Asia and Eastern Europe). Russia's army can be moved, fed and replenished far from Russian borders, China's army however is not trained nor equipped to operate outside China's borders, even if China had 5 nuclear powered carriers they do not posses the logistics capacity required to operate them (how many tenders in the US fleet, how many base sharing arrangements does the US have with other governments).
Even the Euro-powers have a far greater capacity to project power, despite only having a few outdated fleet carriers and a few light carriers (most light carriers are in the RN) they have a navy and air force that can operate from bases far outside Europe and the agreements with several non-European governments (South Africa, Australia, Thailand, Japan and so forth) to be able to operate logistics operations and in many cases combat troops from these nations. This is in addition to training programs that can rapidly replace losses with a high calibre of recruit, China on the other hand cannot replace professional soldiers with a high quality of recruit (and the nepotism/internal politics of the Chinese army will come back to bite it in this scenario).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Since you are maybe not a troll, I'll reply to you then as a Russian who reads both Russian and International news. I am definitely not brain washed, I understand my country is not perfect.
> 2. Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.
Not quite sure what is meant by 'nuclear industry' here exactly but the civilian nuclear industry is alive and well. The current plans call for the construction of 20 new nuclear reactors at the pace of 1 or 2 per year. Ten are currently under construction and the first two reactors have been very recently completed.
Plus we are building new reactors all over the world, a deal to build 16 new reactors in India has recently been signed.
Skilled factory jobs now pay more than entry level paper shifting 'manager' jobs aka 'office plankton' so there are many more younger people at the factories now.
> For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missile that never flew
> as expected in like 10 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava
The missile had 5 successful tests out of 11. It is hardly a complete failure and it's shortcomings will be fixed in the near future. How about Ares-1? Billions over budget and then canceled? This kind of cherry picking negative information and obsessing over it is why most Russians dislike the tiny but vocal (in front of Western cameras) pro Western minority. Why not write about the very successful civilian Sukhoi Superjet project or Sukhoi PAK FA next generation plane, both of which are partially assembled at the Sukhoi factory in my home city.
>Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level. The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as
>much as possible since everything else is in disrepair. In fact, they are cutting close to 30% of staff because of lack of >money.
Again you do not know what you are talking about. Russian military doctrine calls for reduction of manpower gradually to allow discharged officers to have dignified existence outside of the army (like providing them with civilian skills and free housing). The amount of new equipment delivered to the military has been increasing every year. The conscription period has been reduced to one year. Russia is well on it's way to have a modern, mobile, well equipped professional army. And we can fight, just recently we totally humiliated in battle superior numbers of trained to NATO level Georgian troops who dumped their western made weapons and ran to Tbilisi like scared girls.
>Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.
Even the most basic research would tell you this is also a lie. In the last 10 years Russia has been paying it's foreign debt ahead of schedule, managed a balanced budget (unlike some other country that is well past bankrupt and is sustained by China) and on top of that accumulated nearly a trillion dollars in the stabilization fund and gold reserves which were then partially used to dampen the effects of American initiated world wide recession. I know Russia is not exactly a pillar of democracy and Putin does have authoritarian tendencies but accusing him of being a thief does not do justice to a rational person.
> 4. There is no space _industry_. There are old thirty year old designs on life support.
Russia has a very successfully Soyuz design that is now basically the only way to deliver people and payload to the ISS. And we are a major player in commercial launches. Solar system exploration projects nearly have been restarted with a major project (Phobos-Grunt) being launched soon. What does America have? A space agency in permanent crisis, a canceled Constellation program, and given a new wave of anti-intellectualism in general a very uncertain future.
To summarize - all what you wrote wa
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil