This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Not disarming, both the US and Russia are in talks to reduce the number of warheads by about 600...
Russia, U.S. Play Down Potential Delays on New START Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 Global Security Newswire
Russia and the United States have sought to alleviate concerns about possible consequences if the sides fail to agree on a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) ahead of the 1991 pact's expiration on Dec. 5, Russia Today reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 16).
U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed in July to cut their nations' respective deployed strategic nuclear arsenals to between 1,500 and 1,675 warheads, down from the 2,200-weapon limit the two states are required to meet by 2012 under another treaty. The leaders also pledged to restrict strategic delivery vehicles on each side to between 500 and 1,100.
Negotiations have reportedly been complicated by differences on several issues, including Moscow's desire to curb U.S. monitoring of Russian mobile ICBMs and to count conventionally armed strategic missiles under the limits of the new agreement.
Little doubt here that the US has been on a long-term program of tearing down the nuclear complex.
You can't maintain, you can't upgrade - eventually you have to dismantle those weapons.
When you dismantle all your weapons, then you've disarmed.
Russia must be experiencing mixed feelings right now.
On one hand they are getting fewer warheads pointed at them and promises of even less if new treaties are ratified.
On the other hand they have an opponent with an aging arsenal whose reliability will increasingly come into question. That could prompt the US to use two warheads instead of one to ensure a kill on a given target - raising the odds of escalation from a limited to full-scale exchange.
If I were them I'd be pushing the US to reduce the count, but upgrade the inventory.
3 comments:
The u.s. is disarming? i wasn't aware that was happening. please tell us more.
Not disarming, both the US and Russia are in talks to reduce the number of warheads by about 600...
Russia, U.S. Play Down Potential Delays on New START
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009
Global Security Newswire
Russia and the United States have sought to alleviate concerns about possible consequences if the sides fail to agree on a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) ahead of the 1991 pact's expiration on Dec. 5, Russia Today reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 16).
U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed in July to cut their nations' respective deployed strategic nuclear arsenals to between 1,500 and 1,675 warheads, down from the 2,200-weapon limit the two states are required to meet by 2012 under another treaty. The leaders also pledged to restrict strategic delivery vehicles on each side to between 500 and 1,100.
Negotiations have reportedly been complicated by differences on several issues, including Moscow's desire to curb U.S. monitoring of Russian mobile ICBMs and to count conventionally armed strategic missiles under the limits of the new agreement.
Little doubt here that the US has been on a long-term program of tearing down the nuclear complex.
You can't maintain, you can't upgrade - eventually you have to dismantle those weapons.
When you dismantle all your weapons, then you've disarmed.
Russia must be experiencing mixed feelings right now.
On one hand they are getting fewer warheads pointed at them and promises of even less if new treaties are ratified.
On the other hand they have an opponent with an aging arsenal whose reliability will increasingly come into question. That could prompt the US to use two warheads instead of one to ensure a kill on a given target - raising the odds of escalation from a limited to full-scale exchange.
If I were them I'd be pushing the US to reduce the count, but upgrade the inventory.
Post a Comment