Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on May 13, 2002, 11:42:16 AM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020513/ts_nm/russia_usa_arms_dc
!!!
-
So now each side will have only enough nukes to kill the world 10 times instead of 100? Ah, well, its a beginning anyway..:)
-
Now we have to quickly buy those surplus russian nukes before someone else does...
miko
-
Miko, I'll offer you a good bargain for 3 150Kt warheads, only $200,000 each. I can also give you a small nuclear reactor as a bonus if you'll buy all three.
Warheads are in vegetable stock facility in Moscow, customs is your problem. The reactor is right outide my window, Moscow, Kosygin str. 2, you'll have to disassemble and pack it yourself, and I suppose you'll not take the water from the refrigirating pond.
How fast can you deliver cash to Moscow?
-
1 nuke is to much for any country they should dismantle all of them .
-
1 nuke is to much for any country they should dismantle all of them .
Ok. Who disarms first?
:D
-
It's a delicate diplomatic position when you're telling everyone that you will not allow the development of (insert Texas drawl) weapons of mass distruction by "rogue" states while having thousands of your own at your disposal.
It's all part of the plan to keep Dubya from sounding like a hypocrite while he plans attacks on pissant third world countries that don't comply with his wishes.
Of course... he keeps throwing that "nuclear option" term around and we'll have a few countries labeling us as a "rogue state."
Oh... wait a minute... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Miko, I'll offer you a good bargain for 3 150Kt warheads, only $200,000 each. I can also give you a small nuclear reactor as a bonus if you'll buy all three.
You think I am stupid? With thousands of warheads coming to the market soon, modern and more powerfull stuff will become available for less money - including services of experienced nuclear missile control officers and crews that will be kicked out from the army.
Should have sold your stuff sooner - before the incoming glut.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok. Who disarms first?
:D
Oh no! It's the Prisoner's Dilemma! :eek:
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's a delicate diplomatic position when you're telling everyone that you will not allow the development of (insert Texas drawl) weapons of mass distruction by "rogue" states while having thousands of your own at your disposal.
It's all part of the plan to keep Dubya from sounding like a hypocrite while he plans attacks on pissant third world countries that don't comply with his wishes.
No it's not. Weapons are just tools. There is a big difference who wields them and very little one in their effect.
US military can easily reprodice the effect of a 20kt nuke by dropping about 5 thousand tonns or less of conventional explosives. Our thousands of nukes did not hurt anyone after the end of WWII but most likely preserved peace.
At the same time hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, in Africa were hacked to death with machetes.
We do not have to give up our nukes in order to dislike authoritarian regimes having them. If we ever become a rogue state, we can raise hell on earth without nukes - at least until we elect few more pacifist democrats for presidents and find ourselves military worth a spit.
Heck, how many tens of millions of people would die within a year if we just cut the food and monetary help that goes towards feeding the world's poor?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You think I am stupid? With thousands of warheads coming to the market soon, modern and more powerfull stuff will become available for less money - including services of experienced nuclear missile control officers and crews that will be kicked out from the army.
Should have sold your stuff sooner - before the incoming glut.
miko
Miko, it's the best price in the market. And it will rise soon. Russia is about to destroy it's nukes and "means of delivery", while USA simply removes warheads from missiles and stores them separately. It's American idea for nuclear disarmament. Do you expect warheads with English operating instructions to appear in the market and drop the prices for solid and reliable Soviet production? ;)
I wonder, what must happen to make that villagers understand hey are not the world's most clever nation and have to be responsible for their own stupidity?...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I wonder, what must happen to make that villagers understand hey are not the world's most clever nation and have to be responsible for their own stupidity?...
Probably a nuclear meltdown in Ukraine, an attempted coup, and the retreat of communism from most points of the globe. Oh wait, even that didn't work.
-Sikboy
-
Ok. Who disarms first?
well you both disarm at the same time in a joint effort (transport all the nukes from both sides to somewhere non involved and dimsmantle all of them there at the same time)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
well you both disarm at the same time in a joint effort (transport all the nukes from both sides to somewhere non involved and dimsmantle all of them there at the same time)
The logistic and security considerations make this scenario unlikey in my opnion. As it stands, we have a fairly good system for dissarmamant in place through various bi-lateral and multi-lateral treaties. Issues such as compliance and transparency have been worked out through an evolutionary process starting with the NPT, and culminating in the latest agreements. I do not know what protocols have been adopted for this measure, but I assure you that they are there. most of what you might want to look at is availabe in english from the US State Department (http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/bureau_ac/factsheets_ac.html) For best results find the exact treaty language, and not just the fact sheet (in case you worry that the US Government is lying to you)
-Sikboy
-
Actually, I reckon this is a smoke-and-mirrors exercise: the warheads they'll be removing will be significantly dud - look at the half-life of Pu and think of when the first Pu warheads were deployed.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok. Who disarms first?
:D
That one who belive in those words.
-
The real story (http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/nukes.shtml)
-
Wilfrid, is it an American humor or what?
Again: US idea of "disarmament" is removing the warheads from the missiles and storing them "for good days", leaving missiles operational too. How much does it take to mount a warhead onto a modern ICBM? Who are they trying to fool?
-
Just get superman to throw them all into the sun!
Tronski
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Wilfrid, is it an American humor or what?
Again: US idea of "disarmament" is removing the warheads from the missiles and storing them "for good days", leaving missiles operational too. How much does it take to mount a warhead onto a modern ICBM? Who are they trying to fool?
Its much less about money than it is about time. The time it takes to mount a nuclear warhead in storage to a delivery system (wich may or may not exist I haven't seen the treaty yet) that is important to many. The idea is that creating a longer timeframe for a nuclear buildup will allow for more diplomatic manuvering before these weapons would/could be used. The US and Russia are trying to get away from the Mutually Assured destruction model, and keepping everything on a hair trigger. Warheads without a delivery system are useless as strategic weapons.
Boroda, The other option was this: "Let the Russians wither on the vine." That was the exact phrase uttered by a former US General and Russian Policy expert during a congressional hearing in 2000. The Bush administration seemed to be fully ready to follow this advice. They have constantly said "We will make unilateral cuts, that we feel are within our national security framework, but we will not enter into arms control agreements with Russia." The very fact that they entered into ANY agreement is a pretty big statement about the value Bush and his administration place on Putin and the Russians. Considering that two years ago I recall people on Capitol Hill wispering about Putin and "Weimar Russia" goes a long way to showing how far this relationship has evolved.
Russia has no choice but to make cuts in the strategic rocket forces. The economic collapse has forced their hands. The Russians have been changing their nuclear doctrine to fit a smaller force of land based missiles. The Topol M program is reflective of that.
I'm about as pro-Russian as you're going to find in the US, but your assertion that the US is "Pulling a fast one" here is a bit off base in my opinion. They extended a hand of friendship to a Russian leader who has some US Public Relations problems (his connection to the KGB and the War in Chechnya concern some Americans, both Democrat and Republican). Everyone wins here.
-Sikboy
Here is a paper, written a year and a half ago on the Nuclear situation between the US and Russia. The case study gives a deeper investigation into the current and future status of Russian nuclear forces. Sorry for the rigid structure of the paper, my hands were tied when it came to format.
Russian Nuclear Strategy: To Deter or Disarm (http://home.earthlink.net/~acesarz3/papers/nuclear.htm)
-
Good stuff Sikboy. I'd give it an 86, the lyric is good but the beat is hard to dance to. :D
Is that an Undergrad paper? If so it is quite good IMHO.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is that an Undergrad paper? If so it is quite good IMHO.
Yes, and Thanks.
-Sikboy
-
Yep Boroda it's American humour, but treats both sides equally don't you think?
-
From SatireWire.com (http://satirewire.com/news/may02/nukes.shtml)
Damn, saw Wilfred beat me too it.
:p