Nuclear Treaty Signed

[Cramulus]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/08/obama_medvedev_sign_treaty_to_cut_nuclear_arms/

PRAGUE—Seeking to end years of rancor, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday signed the biggest nuclear arms pact in a generation and envisioned a day when they can compromise on the divisive issue of missile defense...

The pact will shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country over seven years. That still allows for mutual destruction several times over. But it is intended to send a strong signal that Russia and the U.S. -- which between them own more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons -- are serious about disarmament.

obama's speech on the matter, in prague, is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8609298.stm

Global Disarmment, fixing the strained relationship with Russia, a unified front discouraging Iran from arming itself... I think this is what the nobel peace prize comittee was waiting for.

[Dimocritus]

Finally, some GOOD news...

[Elder Iptuous]

i thought these were just discussions they were having....
did congress already give their stamp to the START treaty?

this is a good thing!  (if only for the cost savings, as MAD is still in place...)

[BabylonHoruv]

I think we may have reached the point where a nuclear Russia is actually a good thing, assuming they can keep track of their nukes.  They help keep China in line.

[Cain]

I think we may have reached the point where a nuclear Russia is actually a good thing, assuming they can keep track of their nukes.  They help keep China in line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

and

China's nuclear policy is minimal deterrence anyway. 

[Cramulus]

Nuclear Disarmament is a good thing. SUCH a good thing.

DID YOU KNOW?
it would only take 10 Megatons (400 Hiroshima-size bombs) to destroy the US.

There are now bombs with a payload of 50 megatons.

According to a report published by the U.S State Department in April, 2009, Russia has 3,909 nuclear warheads, while the US has 5,576 warheads

WHYYY do we need enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world over 100 times over?

Douglas Hofstadter said it really well:

The Nuclear Arms race is like two guys standing in a pool of gasoline up to their chests, saying "HAH! I have more matches than you."

[Elder Iptuous]

China's nuclear policy is minimal deterrence anyway. 

Why is that?

Douglas Hofstadter said it really well:

The Nuclear Arms race is like two guys standing in a pool of gasoline up to their chests, saying "HAH! I have more matches than you."

Heh...
that's pretty good. 
of course if missile defense technology becomes workable, then the shit's on again, i guess.  (of course, i haven't done my homework on missile defense, and i know some think it's impossible)

[Kai]

Nuclear Disarmament is a good thing. SUCH a good thing.

DID YOU KNOW?
it would only take 10 Megatons (400 Hiroshima-size bombs) to destroy the US.

There are now bombs with a payload of 50 megatons.

According to a report published by the U.S State Department in April, 2009, Russia has 3,909 nuclear warheads, while the US has 5,576 warheads

WHYYY do we need enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world over 100 times over?

Douglas Hofstadter said it really well:

The Nuclear Arms race is like two guys standing in a pool of gasoline up to their chests, saying "HAH! I have more matches than you."

While I agree with you, your numbers are off. A single 50 megaton bomb would totally destroy an area with a radius of 35 km, and have effects 100s of miles around, but it would not destroy the whole united states.

400 Hiroshima's? Yeah, that could end this country, if dispersed properly. One 10 megaton? Not likely.

[Cain]

China's nuclear policy is minimal deterrence anyway. 

Why is that?

As far as I can tell, the Chinese government believes, not unreasonably, that protracted nuclear pissing matches retard economic growth due to their high price tags and make nuclear war more likely because the continual drills, exercises, with ever increasing numbers of weapons increase the chances of something going wrong.

[Payne]

Nuclear Disarmament is a good thing. SUCH a good thing.

DID YOU KNOW?
it would only take 10 Megatons (400 Hiroshima-size bombs) to destroy the US.

There are now bombs with a payload of 50 megatons.

According to a report published by the U.S State Department in April, 2009, Russia has 3,909 nuclear warheads, while the US has 5,576 warheads

WHYYY do we need enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world over 100 times over?

Douglas Hofstadter said it really well:

The Nuclear Arms race is like two guys standing in a pool of gasoline up to their chests, saying "HAH! I have more matches than you."

While I agree with you, your numbers are off. A single 50 megaton bomb would totally destroy an area with a radius of 35 km, and have effects 100s of miles around, but it would not destroy the whole united states.

400 Hiroshima's? Yeah, that could end this country, if dispersed properly. One 10 megaton? Not likely.

[threadjack]

I keep reading Megaton as "Megatron", and therefore failing to see why any of this is a bad thing at all.

TEN MEGATRONS!

[/threadjack]

[Cramulus]

DID YOU KNOW?
it would only take 10 Megatons (400 Hiroshima-size bombs) to destroy the US.

There are now bombs with a payload of 50 megatons.

While I agree with you, your numbers are off. A single 50 megaton bomb would totally destroy an area with a radius of 35 km, and have effects 100s of miles around, but it would not destroy the whole united states.

400 Hiroshima's? Yeah, that could end this country, if dispersed properly. One 10 megaton? Not likely.

ah, thank you for clarifying. I meant to say that the total payload needed to destroy the US is only like 10 megatons, a tiny fraction of the power of the US or Russia's nuclear arsenal. Didn't mean to imply that it could be done with a single bomb.

[Cain]

If it was a single, ten megaton bomb that was actually the size of the United States, I reckon that could do it.

Anyway, nukes are great weapons.  Guerrilla warfare wouldn't have become so popular without them.

[Kai]

If it was a single, ten megaton bomb that was actually the size of the United States, I reckon that could do it.

Anyway, nukes are great weapons.  Guerrilla warfare wouldn't have become so popular without them.

The best thing about nukes is they work best when they are never used.

[Elder Iptuous]

China's nuclear policy is minimal deterrence anyway. 

Why is that?

As far as I can tell, the Chinese government believes, not unreasonably, that protracted nuclear pissing matches retard economic growth due to their high price tags and make nuclear war more likely because the continual drills, exercises, with ever increasing numbers of weapons increase the chances of something going wrong.

that all sounds perfectly reasonable to me...
but why does the deterrent effect go away without continual drills, exercises, etc. that cost so much?
i mean, the relations of the US with any nation that acquires the bomb immediately changes regardless of how badasss they really are, right?
just knowing that a nation has one, (or hundreds) and they are on icbm's pointed at you, is the deterrent, right?  the saber rattling is just saber rattling, no?

[BabylonHoruv]

If it was a single, ten megaton bomb that was actually the size of the United States, I reckon that could do it.

Anyway, nukes are great weapons.  Guerrilla warfare wouldn't have become so popular without them.

I am now imagining a really really big bomb and trying to figure out how it would fire.