Russia US plan to avert nuclear arm race

KimPossible

Power Poster
Well this is welcoming news. Here's to hoping cooler heads will be able to prevail and show this through to the end.

Besides last thing I want is my tax dollars going towards building new missiles and nukes we will never use.
 

RebekahD

Member
Besides last thing I want is my tax dollars going towards building new missiles and nukes we will never use.
I respectfully disagree with this notion. I own several firearms along with the associated ammo. I practice with them, and I conceal carry. It was an investment I made in the hopes I would never have to use them.

American ICBMs should be thought of in the same manner. For decades, they have been one major factor keeping us alive.
 

KimPossible

Power Poster
I respectfully disagree with this notion. I own several firearms along with the associated ammo. I practice with them, and I conceal carry. It was an investment I made in the hopes I would never have to use them.

American ICBMs should be thought of in the same manner. For decades, they have been one major factor keeping us alive.
Right I'd say yes if we didn't have nukes, not enough, or good enough. But they are all those things, what we have is more than enough and no need to make more or new ones.
 

RebekahD

Member
Right I'd say yes if we didn't have nukes, not enough, or good enough. But they are all those things, what we have is more than enough and no need to make more or new ones.
I would like to see us modernize what we DO have. I have no idea if this is being done or not. I know from Russian news reports that they are modernizing their nuclear forces. I just pray we are doing the same with both the cores and delivery vehicles. I agree with you that there is only a finite amount needed. My belief is that if Russia were to pose a first strike, they would use enough to blanket East Coast US Cities and tactical targets, leaving much of the US intact and unspoiled. they would have plenty of ICBMs left over to turn to Europe and say "stick em up!" it would also leave them enough to tell China "Dont even think about it." Assuming we have the same numbers, and they are in modern working condition, I would agree we have enough.
 

KimPossible

Power Poster
To sum up I don't think that we shouldn't have nukes but rather we have more than enough and there still pretty top of the line. Modernizing nice but think there are other pressing needs that need funding before that.

If anything we should be full heatedly just dumping truck loads of flaming government funds to missile defense technology and hopfully maybe one day make nuclear missiles a thing of history.

Though if US does upgrade or add to it's arsenal I hope we keep floppy disks. No hacking floppy disks.
 
Last edited:

Drumboy44

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed arms control and other issues Friday as Moscow has signaled readiness to include some of its latest nuclear weapons in the last remaining arms control pact between the two countries if Washington accepts the Kremlin's offer to extend it.

The State Department said the two top diplomats discussed the next steps in the bilateral strategic security dialogue. Pompeo emphasized that any future arms control talks must be based on U.S. President Donald Trump's vision for a trilateral arms control agreement that includes China along with the U.S. and Russia, the State Department said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered to extend the New START arms control treaty, which expires in February 2021. The Trump administration has pushed for a new pact that would include China as a signatory. Moscow has described that goal as unrealistic given Beijing's reluctance to discuss any deal that would reduce its much smaller nuclear arsenal.

Separately, the State Department on Friday sent to Congress a report on Russian compliance with the treaty. The report said that although Moscow is abiding by its terms, the accord does not cover enough weapons systems and leaves China with a free hand. It added, however, that the administration has not yet made a decision on whether to renew the treaty.

"Whether continuing implementation of New START remains in the national security interests of the United States depends on a policy judgment taking into account a number of factors," the report said, listing several considerations including the impact that withdrawal would have on both the U.S. and Russian arsenals as well as the impact on American allies.

"The administration is seeking arms control that can deliver real security to the United States and its allies and partners and has not yet made a decision on whether and how extension of the New START Treaty will be an element of that effort," said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

 

Obreid

Power Poster
It’s not a bi-polar world anymore. I see no advantage to negotiating arms control treaties with Russia alone.
All three of the powers are aggressively pursuing hypersonic tech to subvert missile defense and redefine what a first strike might look like.
Subs and ICBMs are nothing anymore but a world ending deadmans switch with questionable performance issues.
ASAT and cyber warfare are additional unknowns that are constantly evolving.

Nuclear deterrence and warfare doctrine today don’t play by the same rules they did in the 80’s.
Rather than the prospect of two bullies getting into a fight on the playground now it’s more akin to a full blown riot erupting.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
I don’t know how we negotiate limitations with tech like hypersonic missile defense, ASAT and cyber weapons. It is all evolving so quickly and secretly.
I suppose if the base line goal of negotiations is to simply limit launchers and warheads it ok.

It always good to talk you can learn a lot about what someone is up to by what they don’t want to talk about or give up.
 

willrod1989

Well-known member
It's foolish to agree to arms control with Russia when China isn't aboard. Why limit yourself when China is out there doing whatever they want?
Because if we can begin to repair our relationship with Russia, through concrete, verifiable, trust-building treaties, then maybe we can drive a wedge between them and China. If we can convince the Russians that the Chinese are on the wrong side of history, and repair our traditional alliances, then we will be in a much better position to isolate them internationally.

Richard Nixon did the same thing by visiting China and repairing our relationship with them. Unfortunately for us, he picked the wrong side. But the principle is just the same. With this pandemic, hopefully, the Russians will begin to realize that they have more in common with the west, especially culturally, than with a foreign regime that values "saving face" more than saving lives.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
It’s really sad to, chines historians have since discovered that the CCP was on the verge of collapsing in 73.
Even Mao reportedly told confidants the system had failed. The agreement reached with Nixon was a Hail Mary by them to get investments trade and technology.
Henry Kissinger has done more to ruin the US with his hair brained globalist vision than anyone person in the 20th century.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
Because if we can begin to repair our relationship with Russia, through concrete, verifiable, trust-building treaties, then maybe we can drive a wedge between them and China. If we can convince the Russians that the Chinese are on the wrong side of history, and repair our traditional alliances, then we will be in a much better position to isolate them internationally.
Too many "maybes" and "ifs" in there. Does China really care if they are on the "wrong side of history"? Or do they believe that the winners are the ones who write history.

Assume for a moment that the US and Russia disarm. And China doesn't. What then?

And considering that China has shown absolutely zero interest in any arms control agreement, by what reason does anything think they would suddenly turn around and agree to one if Russia and the US did.

Remember, the US and Russia already had an agreement and China just kept on developing their weapons. There is no reason to this that this time is going to be the magic moment where China sees the light.

All that has happened is that the US reduces its military power, Russia ignores any treaty and goes on developing and deploying, and China goes on doing exactly what they have been doing.

The US has been the only loser in this agreement.

I understand the theory, and it would be great to get everyone on board. No one wants a world where three countries are building up their nuclear weapons. But we have a world where two countries are, and the US better get into the game.
 
Top