Is it true Russia is allowed 10,000 more warheads than we are?

haha! Belly's got some of ya'll dancing!

Mr. 300;611793 wrote:Is it true Russia is allowed 10,000 more warheads than we are?

Not 10,000, but partially true and it needs explanation.
The new treaty limits both sides to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. The U.S. has around 1,960 currently and the Ruskies around 2,300. So, that brings them down for that. Strategic weapons are the long range missiles, sub launched missiles and B-2 and B-52 bombers.

Tactical/ non-strategic/ battlefield weapons are not covered by the treaty for good reason. While the Russians do have around 2,600-3,600 tactical weapons, they are really either classified as mortars, anti-sub weapons, short range missiles, and even anti-aircraft/ missile systems (yes, we even had that, Nike). Most of the weapons are stored inside the country or in Siberia tightly guarded thanks to Nunn-Lugar agreement on 93. Also, most of the weapons if deployed in the field would only threaten Russia and are not far enough to deploy against other countries. Even if they did deploy or launch them, the U.S. would probably respond in kind with strategic weapons, a long policy.

Now, why is it not in this treaty? Practical reasons. This treaty was a bridge between START I (which no one wanted to extend) and a future treaty that would cover all nuclear weapons. It was never expected to deal with tactical weapons as the negotiations would be historic. and last years. Plus, the Russians would have never agreed to any limits now. And having a bridge agreement where we can at the very least monitor their strategic weapons that can destroy the U.S. was more important.

Also, any discussions on reducing Russians tactical weapons would force the U.S. to give up something, as the U.S. only has 500-1,000 total tactical weapons. Any discussion would have had to have dealt with the Russian perception of a stronger NATO against them, and would have involved a reduction of NATO forces in Europe, especially eastern Europe. The administration was never going to agree to that now, nor should they have, and if they even had, the R's would have nailed them on selling our our European allies. (Rightfully so). SO, the administration said no way, not now. In a future treaty, where talks will probably begin now.

Finally, verification for a reduction in tactical weapons would have been insanely complex, it would have forces U.S. inspectors into Russians facilities never before allowed, and how would the U.S., verify all were destroyed? Any agreement on that will take many years.

That is why the administration said, it is a concern the Ruskies have more tactical weapons, but it is more important to get a basic treaty that continues the successful START inspections on strategic weapons.

Two sort of similar arguments are made here, warning really wonky (nerdy)
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3399/s-is-for-strategic-t-is-for

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_12/%20Pifer

Well imagine that, Russia decides to wait on ratifying their end of it.

Mr. 300;612492 wrote:Well imagine that, Russia decides to wait on ratifying their end of it.

Yeah, the two countries agreed to try and ratify near the same time. The Ruskies had the treaty to ratify in the fall, but pulled it when they doubted the Senate would let it pass. Now, they moved it forward and should ratify it soon. Treaty was never in doubt with them.

Well I'm hijacking another thread, Ptown I tried to send you a PM and it didn't work. One of my closest friends is in the area visiting from SF (his girlfriend went to Greenup Co. HS), he's asking for dinner recommendations - I couldn't help him. Do you have any suggestions?

Manhattan Buckeye;612537 wrote:Well I'm hijacking another thread, Ptown I tried to send you a PM and it didn't work. One of my closest friends is in the area visiting from SF (his girlfriend went to Greenup Co. HS), he's asking for dinner recommendations - I couldn't help him. Do you have any suggestions?

Just sent a reply.

Here is what Senator Kerry said before the final vote. I'd argue his best speech he has made. I would also say this was his finest hour. He refuted all of the Republican anti-treaty talking points. provided real leadership in the chamber and really pushed for dialogue, debate and bipartisan discussions.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator. I know he has
curtailed his remarks. I have cut mine. But I do want to say a couple
of things as we try to wind down here. I want to thank the Senator from
Arizona for helping to get us to a point where we can vote now. I want
to thank Senator Wyden who, 48 hours after surgery, has made himself
available to come here and to be able to vote. We are appreciative of
that.
As we end our debate on the New START treaty, I believe we can say
the Senate has done its duty, and done it with diligence, serious
purpose, and honor. And I am confident that our Nation's security--and
that of the world--will be enhanced by ratifying this treaty.
When we began this debate 8 days ago, I quoted Chris Dodd's farewell
address, in which he reminded us that the Founding Fathers had designed
the Senate with these moments in mind. I think over the past week we
have lived up to our moment. Senators have had opportunity to speak and
debate. The fact is, we have considered this treaty--a less complicated
or far-reaching treaty than START I--for longer than we considered
START I and START II combined.
Admiral Mullen summed up our interests in this treaty in a compelling
way. He said:

I continue to believe that ratification of the New START
Treaty is vital to U.S. national security. Through the trust
it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it
preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which
we in the military have been charged to do: protect and
defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident
in its success as I am in its safeguards. The sooner it is
ratified, the better.

I think that is exactly right, and it is important to keep our
fundamental charge to protect America foremost in our minds.
But I think there is something more to think about now. In the back
and forth of debates like this, as we dispute details and draw dividing
lines, it is easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the decision we are
making.
Because sometimes, when we repeat and repeat and repeat certain words
and phrases they become routine and ritual, and their true meaning
fades away. When we argue about the difference between 700 delivery
vehicles and 720, we may forget that in the final analysis, regardless
of where we stand on the START treaty, this is one of

[[Page S10979]]

those rare times in the U.S. Senate, one of the only times in all our
service here, when we have it in our power to safeguard or endanger
human life on this planet. More than any other, this issue should
transcend politics. More than any other, this issue should summon our
best instincts and our highest sense of responsibility. More than at
almost any other time, the people of the world are watching us because
they rely on our leadership and because this issue involves not simply
our lives and the lives of our children but their lives and the lives
of their children as well.
So it is altogether fitting that we have debated and now we decide
not in a campaign season, but in a season that celebrates and summons
us to the ideal of peace on Earth. Yes, we have contended about
schedules. Yes, the constant chatter on cable speculates about whether
we would approve the treaty in time to get out of here for Christmas.
But the question is not whether we get out of here for a holiday; the
question is whether we move the world a little more out of the dark
shadow of nuclear nightmare. For whatever our faith, the right place
for us at this time of year, no matter how long it may take, is here in
the Senate where we now have a unique capacity to give a priceless gift
not just to our friends and family, but to our fellow men and women
everywhere. When Robert Oppenheimer left Los Alamos after the atomic
bomb was dropped, he said, ``The peoples of this world must unite or
they will perish. This war, that has ravaged so much of the earth, has
written these words. The atomic bomb has spelled them out for all men
to understand. . . . By our works we are committed, committed to a
world united, before this common peril, in law and in humanity.'' That
is what brings us to this moment.

Last night, a friend called my attention to the meditation of Pope
John Paul II when he visited Hiroshima. He said that from the memory of
those awesome mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki we must draw
the ``conviction that man who wages war can also successfully make
peace.'' This month in homes across this land, Americans are honoring
moments in the history of faith that enshrine the values that guide us
all regardless of faith. We in the Senate, only 100 of us in a world of
billions, should be humbled and proud that in this month we have the
privilege of reducing the risks of war and advancing the cause of
peace.
So think of what is at stake here and of the role we now have to
play, not only in the governing of our country but literally in the
life of the world. Here more than ever our power to advise and consent
is more than some arcane procedural matter. The Framers of the
Constitution created the Senate with a vision of statesmanship, that
here narrow interests would yield to the national interest, that petty
quarrels would be set aside in pursuit of great and common endeavor.
The best of our history has proven the wisdom of that vision. There was
that defining moment when Senator Daniel Webster stood at his desk in
this Chamber to address the fundamental moral issue of slavery. The
words with which he started were stark and simple, and they should
guide us today and every day. He said: ``I speak not as a Massachusetts
man, nor a northern man, but as an American.'' This is the very
definition of what it means to be a Senator. To speak not for one State
but for one America. To remember that the whole world is watching. So
it is now, and so it has been across the decades during which so many
Presidents and Senators of both parties, citizens in every part of the
country, have struggled and at critical turning points succeeded in
pushing back the dark frontier of nuclear conflict. The efforts have
not always been perfect; nothing in life or policy ever is. But as we
end this debate now, let us take our own step forward for America and
for the world. As stewards of enormous destructive power, we too can
become the stewards of peace.

I don't understand why anyone would be against this. Few people on this site (if any) knows more about the START Treaty than I do, and I can tell you this is a good thing.

brutus161;612845 wrote:I don't understand why anyone would be against this. Few people on this site (if any) knows more about the START Treaty than I do, and I can tell you this is a good thing.

Know it all.

I Wear Pants;612958 wrote:Know it all.

Lol. I may not know much, but nuclear weapons is one thing I do know a ton about.

brutus161;613116 wrote:Lol. I may not know much, but nuclear weapons is one thing I do know a ton about.

I would assume then you are probably or were on an Ohio class sub, or did some work on the D5, Trident II.
Thanks for your service in an area that does not get a lot of attention in the overall military discussions. The decline of nuclear weapons policy since the end of the Cold War is somewhat of a lost art.

I work on the policy items related to nukes, but no where close to the actual maintenance, service or deployment of this special destructive weapons.
Thanks again.

ptown_trojans_1;613154 wrote:I would assume then you are probably or were on an Ohio class sub, or did some work on the D5, Trident II.

You are correct, sir.