http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/08/obama_medvedev_sign_treaty_to_cut_nuclear_arms/
QuotePRAGUE—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.
Finally, some GOOD news...
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...)
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 09, 2010, 08:50:53 PM
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.
:lulz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
and
China's nuclear policy is minimal deterrence
anyway.
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.
QuoteAccording 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."
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 08:57:47 PM
China's nuclear policy is minimal deterrence anyway.
Why is that?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 09:21:35 PM
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)
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 09:21:35 PM
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.
QuoteAccording 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.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 09, 2010, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 08:57:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 09:43:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 09:21:35 PM
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.
QuoteAccording 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]
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 09:43:26 PM
Quote from: CramDID 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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 11:18:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 09:47:17 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 09, 2010, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 08:57:47 PM
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?
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 11:18:11 PM
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.
A 50 megaton bomb is probably the most hilarious thing I can imagine. My sense of humor may be malfunctioning.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 10, 2010, 03:50:16 AM
A 50 megaton bomb is probably the most hilarious thing I can imagine. My sense of humor may be malfunctioning.
I'm more amused by the 50 Megatron bomb.
Quote:
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.
SHAM
and
MORE CRAP
1) The pact will shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country
2) That still allows for mutual destruction several times over
3) But it is intended to send a strong signal
4) Russia and the U.S. -- which between them own more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons
THIS WHITEWASH
has been ramping up for months. Both nations need to get rid of a certain percentage of defunct nuclear war technology, this is an empty, slight of hand gesture.
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 09:43:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 09:21:35 PM
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.
QuoteAccording 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.
A 50 megaton bomb centered around Philadelphia would be enough to kill our infrastructure. Get another one to hit LA and Colorado Springs and this country would be toast.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 10, 2010, 03:50:16 AM
A 50 megaton bomb is probably the most hilarious thing I can imagine. My sense of humor may be malfunctioning.
BABY'S GOT AN ATOM BOMB
A MOTHERFUCKING ATOM BOMB
AT TWENTY TWO MEGATONS
YOU NEVER SEEN SO MUCH FUN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fYimf1sAXY
that song rocks soooo much
There used to be a 50-Megaton bomb, you know. The Russians built it as proof of concept (Also, they had an island that was blocking their view).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Tsar_photo11.jpg)
Some fun facts about the "Emperor of Bombs":
-The single most powerful device ever utilized by humanity. Ever. The total energy produced during the fission-fusion process was 5.4 yottawatts, or 1.4% of the average output of the Sun.
-The construction of the bomb's parachute actually put a noticeable drain on the Soviet nylon industry.
-The mushroom cloud was 40 miles high, 7 times the height of Everest.
-The bomb was dropped here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Ivan_bomb.png/300px-Ivan_bomb.png)
It shattered windows in Sweden.
-The blast was enough to cause third degree burns at a distance of 100 km, and blast damage at 1,000 km.
-50 Megatons is the equivalent of all the munitions and explosives used in WWII, set off all at once. Times ten.
And, get this:
-This was the scaled down version. The original design called for a 100-Megaton yield.
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 10, 2010, 04:00:25 AM
Both nations need to get rid of a certain percentage of defunct nuclear war technology, this is an empty, slight of hand gesture.
That's what I was thinking.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 10, 2010, 03:15:08 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 09:47:17 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 09, 2010, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 08:57:47 PM
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?
It doesn't go away. China retains a second-strike capacity, however it only keeps enough weapons to seriously damage a large country, as opposed to being able to destroy the world. Which means, despite certain claims of nuclear ambiguity that some strategists believe China holds, China likely wont start a nuclear war because they cannot be sure they will destroy all the opposing side's weapons without suffering massive casualties in return. They are therefore for deterrence, but China is striving to avoid the problems of the security dilemma (ie; are they building up a nuclear stockpile for defensive or aggressive reasons?).
It's much harder to tell where the US stands, because the US has a stated policy of first-strike, which it has never renounced, and many of the battlefield conditions where a US commander can request a nuclear strike under the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations could be offensive in nature.
hm...
the posturing surrounding world-destructive capabilities is interesting...
have you ever heard about the hand written letter from the Britain's PM that is sealed in a safe, that is sealed in a safe, that is sealed in a room aboard the ballistic missile type nuclear submarines you have? it contains the command that is given to the captain in the event that a nuclear attack has occurred and England is totally destroyed.
a story that i heard on NPR (this american life, i believe) once was discussing the oddities of that letter. the paradoxes, ironies, and absurdities that it represents. also, you are apparently the only nation that has something like that.
I have heard bits about that, yes. Apparently in the event the UK is destroyed, British nuclear subs are to hand themselves over to Australian or, failing that, American command.
QuoteAlthough the final orders of the Prime Minister are at his or her discretion, and no fixed options exist, four known options are often presented to prime ministers by military advisors when writing such notes of last resort: (i) Captain ordered to respond to the nuclear attack on the UK by launching submarine's nuclear weapons; (ii) Captain ordered not to respond with nuclear weapons; (iii) Captain ordered to use own judgement whether to return fire with nuclear weapons; (iv) Captain ordered to place himself and ship under the command of Her Majesty's Government of Australia, or alternatively of the President of the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
Quote from: Cain on April 10, 2010, 04:13:51 PM
I have heard bits about that, yes. Apparently in the event the UK is destroyed, British nuclear subs are to hand themselves over to Australian or, failing that, American command.
wait, are you saying the letter's contents are currently known to be that option? i'm dubious. that would make the letter
totally pointless...
No, but it'd be the smartest option, since anyone who nukes the entire UK probably wont be very popular (with France at the very least) and having some rogue submarines firing nukes at the same time as everyone else may cause unfortunate accidents.
Remington, that article scared the hell out of me. I can totally understand the cold war nuke fears now.
Really? I thought that was awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom).
Quote from: LMNO on April 11, 2010, 12:13:25 AM
Remington, that article scared the hell out of me. I can totally understand the cold war nuke fears now.
The numbers of the thing kind of drive it home.
The thing is, though, the Tsar Bomba was too big to be actually militarily useful. Multiple distributed warheads (MIRV-type systems) would be more useful and more easily deployed in real-world situations: the Tsar was essentially a political statement.
Quote from: Remington on April 11, 2010, 05:46:10 AM
Quote from: LMNO on April 11, 2010, 12:13:25 AM
Remington, that article scared the hell out of me. I can totally understand the cold war nuke fears now.
The numbers of the thing kind of drive it home.
The thing is, though, the Tsar Bomba was too big to be actually militarily useful.
This is part of why I find it hilarious. The other part is just the sheer absurdity of so much power behind a single button.
The other other part, of which I could only find a small reference in the discussion tab, were the ecological consequences of this bomb.
Afaicr, I read somewhere that whacking a hole in our atmosphere like that had some unpredictable side-effects. Though that part of the story might be bullshit, it also seems to make sense somehwta.