New Strategic Arm Reduction Treaty?

[govols]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/26/new-usrussia-nuclear-pact_n_514528.html

So we are going to cut our nuclear arsenal almost in half, perhaps an OK measure, but rumor has it that launch platfroms will also be included (watched CNN this morning). if we are reducing our launch platforms which, according to the news this morning, would include mobile launchers, subs, planes and stationary sites.

I don't like the idea of limiting our number of platforms, and am slightly uncomfortable at the thought of further reducing our nuclear arsenal (although we already have 40% of all nukes)

what say you?

 

[Angels]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/26/new-usrussia-nuclear-pact_n_514528.html

I don't like the idea of limiting our number of platforms, and am uncomfortable at the thought of further reducing our nuclear arsenal

Agreed.

 

[RHPF]

I used to have that same opinion. Now, I honestly think DOD budget cuts are going to continue, and given the amount of money spent on that (Nuclear launchers/weapons), it seems like a good place to start. Of course, we can't reduce our capability, if they don't. The fact that we are going to do another treaty with them is a good thing in my opinion. It lets both countries reduce the money spent on something neither is planning to use. I hope we don't cut things we cannot replace, especially dual purpose weapons (B-52's for example, which have proven useful in our current wars in a obviously non-nuclear capacity).

 

[SkywardET]

Depending on how this plan is carried out, this could be great news for our economy, our military, and our diplomatic relations.

I agree with you RHPF, but I'm wondering how long can B-52's remain in service anyways? I remember hearing that the long-term outlook for the Air Force was that B-52's would be in service over 100 years after their production. That seems incredible, but unless there's some black project to replace them currently in the works, then that probably is the case. I don't know if any flying system can be maintained for 100 years (and it would be a testament to ingenuity and engineering capabilities if it could). If we can get a deal by retiring things that we might otherwise retire unilaterally, I think that's a net positive. Turning a situation into an opportunity, and all.

 

[helolumpy]

(All Open Source material in this post)

Since the Peacekeeper missiles (formally known as MX) were shut down in 1991 version of the START treaty, that leaves on Minuteman III missiles in the land-based ICBM part of the stategic triad.

The gov't can cut missiles by deactivating the Minuteman III systems, and save a lot of $$$. The MMIII system came on line in in the 1970's and went through a SLEP process for the motors in the 1990's. They're old missiles and they're expected to be retired NLT 2040.

The SLBM capability with the latest verion of the Trident family was updated in 2005 so those missiles are newer, therefore they'll have a longer shelf-life.
The SLBM deterrance threat is as strong if not stronger than land-based missiles, so the ability to withstand a first stike and still respond is viable.

Also since most of the air-dropped systems are old, this will allow the US to retire some of the older weapons and save money there. I remember seeing some open source discussions on the US contremplating developing a new generation of smaller weapons for air-dropped systems but have no idea what the gov't is actually doing.

Of course like the last treaty, Congress doesn't actually have to ratify it for us to go along with the tenents of it...

 

[phrogdriver]

Reducing the number of platforms is now bad, per se. Nukes are a relatively small part of the defense budget, but an important one. The nuclear triad concept has served us well as far as survivability, and thus deterrence, so I hope that some form of it is retained. Other than that, I don't have a problem with cutting them to as low a level that can effectively deter an attack and be survivable if one comes. Any extras are just wasting money and assets.

 

[RHPF]

The new treaty would reduce the nuclear weapons levels from 2,200 currently allowed, down to 1,550. I would venture a guess that 1,550 is more than sufficient to survive and respond in turn. I am not advocating against the MADD concept, just saying we over built and it is currently a waste of money to maintain as much of it as we do.

Speaking of a waste of money, DDX, CSAR-X, KC-X, LCS, ABL, etc. anyone?

Edit: That list of 'wastes' includes things I think are useful just executed poorly, and resulted in a waste of money. Given the budget constraints, hopefully those things get smoothed out and better prioritized in the future.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Well I know of one guy who would have liked to cut far more than this treaty proposes to:

 

[squorch2]

Now, I honestly think DOD budget cuts are going to continue

What budget cuts?

 

[helolumpy]

I don't know if it will be budget cuts per se, as much as the GWOT pot is drying up.
Back in 2003 we could list almost anything as GWOT expeditures and get it funded. Today, it's much more tightly managed.

Additionally, once Iraq and Afghanistan wind down and the DOD needs to recapitalize all the stuff that has been run into the ground in CENTCOM AOR, that funding needs to come from somewhere.
If I was a betting man, I would expect there to be a significant cut in everything (spare parts, gear, paper, etc.) to help offset the cost of replacing all the stuff that will need to be replaced over the next 10 years.

 

[Fog]

Sounds like a great idea: Russia has a long track record of honoring its treaty commitents . . . . Not !!!

 

[jmcquate]

It’s my understanding that the Russians are at or near the levels laid out in the treaty due to attrition after the fall of the Soviet Union. What it would do is bring us down to their level.
Obama’s goal is a Nuclear Weapon free world. I’ve always had a simple question about that. If the raw material and knowledge to produce a Nuclear Weapon, or anything else for that matter, exist…….how can it ever go away?

 

[squorch2]

Obama's goal is a Nuclear Weapon free world.

I can't find that in any of his policy statements... can you show me?

 

[jmcquate]

I can't find that in any of his policy statements... can you show me?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/

There are many more statements like the one above both pre and post election and I believe that SecState Clinton reinforced the goal in her remarks about the treaty last week.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it would be a good thing, but my question still stands, how does knowledge go away?

 

[squorch2]

Thanks for the links!