Russia Building Up Its Nuclear Arsenal

[Mister D]

The Senate approved the treaty in December anyway, and New START won’t expire until 2020. The information that’s become available since then has only supported the critics’ arguments. Russia is indeed below New START’s caps, and is working to build its nuclear capabilities.

On June 1, the State Department confirmed that Russia was below both the limit of 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed delivery vehicles: Russia declared 1,537 and 521, respectively. Thus, we traded 25 percent of American operational nuclear missiles for a Russian nuclear buildup — and Russia is already working to modernize and grow its nuclear arsenal. This is a direct result of the Obama administration’s weak approach to arms control, in which diplomatic agreement for its own sake, not advancing the national interest, becomes the objective.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rk-b-schneider

[Conley]

At what point does it not matter how many nukes a country has?

On one hand, the more nukes a country has perhaps the more likely one is to go 'missing' -- that would be my concern with Russia.

On the other hand Reagan got a lot of credit for bankrupting the USSR by encouraging them to build up their arsenal.

But back to the point the fact of the matter is that Obama's team screwed up here...

[Mister D]

At what point does it not matter how many nukes a country has?

On one hand, the more nukes a country has perhaps the more likely one is to go 'missing' -- that would be my concern with Russia.

On the other hand Reagan got a lot of credit for bankrupting the USSR by encouraging them to build up their arsenal.

But back to the point the fact of the matter is that Obama's team screwed up here...

I know what you mean. I was thinking the same thing. I mean they already have 1500 plus nukes...

[Conley]

At what point does it not matter how many nukes a country has?

On one hand, the more nukes a country has perhaps the more likely one is to go 'missing' -- that would be my concern with Russia.

On the other hand Reagan got a lot of credit for bankrupting the USSR by encouraging them to build up their arsenal.

But back to the point the fact of the matter is that Obama's team screwed up here...

I know what you mean. I was thinking the same thing. I mean they already have 1500 plus nukes...

Yeah, in a way assuming the nuclear material is secure (big IF) I would rather they use their military spending on that sort of thing rather than smaller arms or research into weapons that might actually be used against our forces. When terrorists get a stray nuke it's not going to be because of the difference between 1500 and 2000 warheads, and it's probably not going to be Russian in origin either. All the more reason to start locking down our harbors and borders. I really do think it's only a matter of time. Neither Dubya nor Obama have done a thing about it either. Pisses me off just to think about it...going to be 100% preventable just like 9/11.

[Mister D]

At what point does it not matter how many nukes a country has?

On one hand, the more nukes a country has perhaps the more likely one is to go 'missing' -- that would be my concern with Russia.

On the other hand Reagan got a lot of credit for bankrupting the USSR by encouraging them to build up their arsenal.

But back to the point the fact of the matter is that Obama's team screwed up here...

I know what you mean. I was thinking the same thing. I mean they already have 1500 plus nukes...

Yeah, in a way assuming the nuclear material is secure (big IF) I would rather they use their military spending on that sort of thing rather than smaller arms or research into weapons that might actually be used against our forces. When terrorists get a stray nuke it's not going to be because of the difference between 1500 and 2000 warheads, and it's probably not going to be Russian in origin either. All the more reason to start locking down our harbors and borders. I really do think it's only a matter of time. Neither Dubya nor Obama have done a thing about it either. Pisses me off just to think about it...going to be 100% preventable just like 9/11.

I think it's more likely to be a cheaper version like the infamous "dirty bomb" we hear so much about. Forget Russia. The fact that Pakistan was able to produce nukes is scary and it's these states (i.e. poor, Third World states) with their 2 or 3 nukes that worry me the most when it comes to this. Political instability and extremism... :-\

[Conley]

right.....I don't give two squirts about START really.

to make a dirty bomb they don't even need a traditional nuclear weapon, just waste from a nuclear plant. how long until iran has that?

[Mister D]

right.....I don't give two squirts about START really.

to make a dirty bomb they don't even need a traditional nuclear weapon, just waste from a nuclear plant. how long until iran has that?

Yeah, and it's not like the Mullahs have any compunctions about handing the stuff out...

[Mister D]

Conley, I think these attempts at nuclear disarmament are best captured by the phrase symbolism without substance.

[Conley]

Conley, I think these attempts at nuclear disarmament are best captured by the phrase symbolism without substance.

possibly, although in my mind these attempts are even worse than 'lacking substance', as they actively take away from the very real threats we are facing. the NR makes a good point about the dangers of pursing diplomatic agreements as an end in and of itself.

[Mister D]

Conley, I think these attempts at nuclear disarmament are best captured by the phrase symbolism without substance.

possibly, although in my mind these attempts are even worse than 'lacking substance', as they actively take away from the very real threats we are facing. the NR makes a good point about the dangers of pursing diplomatic agreements as an end in and of itself.

That's kind of what I mean. They just want to look they are doing something that matters when in reality it's just a meaningless gesture.