Originally posted by: poohbear
lol alot of folks are mentioning japan and they're completely ignorant of the fact that japan's constitution explicitly forbids the ownership of any nukes or even having nukes on japanese soil (american bases are forbidden from holding nukes, which is a why alot of anger erupted when a nuclear sub was stationed at one of the american bases there to refuel).
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
South Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1975. At that point, they agreed to not produce nuclear weapons, and shut down all research in that area.
Your topic is a little misguided since the U.S. hasn't developed a new nuclear weapon since the 80s. In fact, we are the only nuclear power that hasn't/isn't currently modernizing it's nuclear weapons, nor do we even have the current capability to produce new nuclear warheads. Russia and China are both hard at work at modernizing and developing new weapon systems.
We also aren't the only nation that gets involved with trying to prevent more countries from developing nuclear weapons. Even though the U.S. and Russia account for 95% of the world's nuclear weapons, we arent "the one holding all the nukes while telling others not to do it." Seven nations have operational nuclear arsenals, and none of them would agree it's a good idea to add more to the list.
As far as involvement in trying to prevent other nations from producing them goes, it has very little to do with having a political advantage, and a lot to do with simply trying to avoid yet another Cold War type era. We want to continue to disarm, as we have been doing for 20+ years, and dont need more reasons for us and others to keep them.
I always find the NPT argument to be sort of poor. True plenty of countries have signed the NPT, which in theory should prevent non-nuclear nations from pursuing nuclear weapons. That part is talked about and enforced all the time. The thing is that the treaty also calls upon the nuclear nations to take concrete steps to eliminate their arsenals... which of course we never do.
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
Can we get rid of religion while we're at it? A healthy clean sweep. I'm sure we humans will find other reasons to want to kill other humans.Originally posted by: cubeless
problem solved... bo say he's gonna do it...
bo going to get rid of nukes...
i certainly feel safer...
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Can we get rid of religion while we're at it? A healthy clean sweep. I'm sure we humans will find other reasons to want to kill other humans.Originally posted by: cubeless
problem solved... bo say he's gonna do it...
bo going to get rid of nukes...
i certainly feel safer...
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
You're right, 'never' is the wrong word. I sincerely doubt we have ever planned on completely disarming though... and particularly with the last administration's stated position on the development of new nuclear weapons I don't think we have complied with the NPT too terribly well.
Yes, but a religion with it's panties in a bunch can encompass multiple countries.Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Can we get rid of religion while we're at it? A healthy clean sweep. I'm sure we humans will find other reasons to want to kill other humans.Originally posted by: cubeless
problem solved... bo say he's gonna do it...
bo going to get rid of nukes...
i certainly feel safer...
Nationalism is the disease I worry about the most TBH
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
You're right, 'never' is the wrong word. I sincerely doubt we have ever planned on completely disarming though... and particularly with the last administration's stated position on the development of new nuclear weapons I don't think we have complied with the NPT too terribly well.
What are you talking about? We haven't been developing new nuclear weapons in a looooong time.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
You're right, 'never' is the wrong word. I sincerely doubt we have ever planned on completely disarming though... and particularly with the last administration's stated position on the development of new nuclear weapons I don't think we have complied with the NPT too terribly well.
What are you talking about? We haven't been developing new nuclear weapons in a looooong time.
The Bush administrations Nuclear Posture Review in 2002 specifically called for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear tipped bunker busters and the like.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
You're right, 'never' is the wrong word. I sincerely doubt we have ever planned on completely disarming though... and particularly with the last administration's stated position on the development of new nuclear weapons I don't think we have complied with the NPT too terribly well.
What are you talking about? We haven't been developing new nuclear weapons in a looooong time.
The Bush administrations Nuclear Posture Review in 2002 specifically called for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear tipped bunker busters and the like.
Tell the full story..
"A 2001 nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress canceled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request."
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
You're right, 'never' is the wrong word. I sincerely doubt we have ever planned on completely disarming though... and particularly with the last administration's stated position on the development of new nuclear weapons I don't think we have complied with the NPT too terribly well.
What are you talking about? We haven't been developing new nuclear weapons in a looooong time.
The Bush administrations Nuclear Posture Review in 2002 specifically called for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear tipped bunker busters and the like.
Tell the full story..
"A 2001 nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress canceled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request."
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
You're right, 'never' is the wrong word. I sincerely doubt we have ever planned on completely disarming though... and particularly with the last administration's stated position on the development of new nuclear weapons I don't think we have complied with the NPT too terribly well.
What are you talking about? We haven't been developing new nuclear weapons in a looooong time.
The Bush administrations Nuclear Posture Review in 2002 specifically called for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear tipped bunker busters and the like.
Tell the full story..
"A 2001 nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress canceled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request."
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.
My point? What are you, dense?
You said we were continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
I proved we aren't.
That's it. THE END.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AFMatt
I wouldnt say we "never" do. I happen to work on ICBMs and obviously know, first hand, the steps we have taken to disarm in the past 20 years. We have reduced our ICBM force by 60% (we are currently at 450 deployed ICBMs...which is 400 fewer than START allows, btw), reduced MIRV counts per missile (some held as many as 10), dramatically cut overall deployed warhead counts amongst all nuclear forces, made a huge cut to SLBMs, and haven't produced a new nuclear weapon since the 80s.
Of course we have wanted to eventually reach the point where this wouldnt be an issue since drawdown first kicked it off with SALT/START, but it's been a slow process. If you look at the big picture, however, it isn't so much us who have made it slow. During the time we have spent drawing down, Russia has made token efforts in reducing some counts but has continued to make huge improvements to their nuclear weapon systems, in both delivery and warhead effectiveness, and developed brand new systems. With that issue, and the threat of other's possibly trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we havent been able to just completely disarm.
You're right, 'never' is the wrong word. I sincerely doubt we have ever planned on completely disarming though... and particularly with the last administration's stated position on the development of new nuclear weapons I don't think we have complied with the NPT too terribly well.
What are you talking about? We haven't been developing new nuclear weapons in a looooong time.
The Bush administrations Nuclear Posture Review in 2002 specifically called for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear tipped bunker busters and the like.
Tell the full story..
"A 2001 nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress canceled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request."
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.
My point? What are you, dense?
You said we were continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
I proved we aren't.
That's it. THE END.
Speaking of dense, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Looks like you got excited to show off your knowledge about something and didn't take the time to actually read what I wrote.
Whoops! Don't worry though, we all make mistakes. That's why pencils have erasers.
I never said we were continuing to develop nuclear weapons, and your 'proof' didn't address the argument I made. My argument was that the US has not complied with the NPT very well, as demonstrated by the Bush administration's decision to call for new nuclear weapons development despite the NPT.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah, sure, whatever. You can make a point if you think one groups quest to up our stance can outdo the nations actions on the whole.
In fact you should read up on the NPT, as it isn't ABOUT a complete disarmament of American Nuclear Capabilities. In fact we have done more to abide by the treaty than basically any other nation (China and Russia for example).
Just because you made an invalid point doesn't mean you should keep digging the whole deeper.
Move on, you were wrong about something, it happens.
Now unless you have an actual point to make, I'm done arguing with you about nothing.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah, sure, whatever. You can make a point if you think one groups quest to up our stance can outdo the nations actions on the whole.
In fact you should read up on the NPT, as it isn't ABOUT a complete disarmament of American Nuclear Capabilities. In fact we have done more to abide by the treaty than basically any other nation (China and Russia for example).
Just because you made an invalid point doesn't mean you should keep digging the whole deeper.
Move on, you were wrong about something, it happens.
Now unless you have an actual point to make, I'm done arguing with you about nothing.
It's not my fault you can't comprehend what you read. I made a perfectly valid point, you failed to read and understand what you were reading, and so you composed a rebuttal that countered an argument nobody made. Now you're desperately flailing around to avoid admitting it. When you're wrong, it's way better to admit it and move on, it's far less embarrassing in the long run and it makes people more inclined to listen to you in the future.
The NPT's disarmament provision, while vague, clearly compels the states which are signatory to move in the direction of disarmament. Calling for the development of new nuclear weapons is not moving in the direction of disarmament. This isn't rocket science. (har!)
EDIT: Look to AFMatt on how to debate this like a normal person.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah, sure, whatever. You can make a point if you think one groups quest to up our stance can outdo the nations actions on the whole.
In fact you should read up on the NPT, as it isn't ABOUT a complete disarmament of American Nuclear Capabilities. In fact we have done more to abide by the treaty than basically any other nation (China and Russia for example).
Just because you made an invalid point doesn't mean you should keep digging the whole deeper.
Move on, you were wrong about something, it happens.
Now unless you have an actual point to make, I'm done arguing with you about nothing.
It's not my fault you can't comprehend what you read. I made a perfectly valid point, you failed to read and understand what you were reading, and so you composed a rebuttal that countered an argument nobody made. Now you're desperately flailing around to avoid admitting it. When you're wrong, it's way better to admit it and move on, it's far less embarrassing in the long run and it makes people more inclined to listen to you in the future.
The NPT's disarmament provision, while vague, clearly compels the states which are signatory to move in the direction of disarmament. Calling for the development of new nuclear weapons is not moving in the direction of disarmament. This isn't rocket science. (har!)
EDIT: Look to AFMatt on how to debate this like a normal person.
Oh, I'm sorry I'm not giving you points you can "win" to make you look "smarter".
The United States has been moving in the direction of disarmament for a long time, here are some recent stats:
"The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). It maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52, B-1B, and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[13] Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.[14][15]
Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions ("SORT"), the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired or dismantlement by then.[16]
The future nuclear stockpile under SORT will be based on:
* 450 Minuteman III ICBM with 500 warheads. 400 with a single warhead and 50 with 2 MIRVs. There will be 200 W78 warheads and 300 W87 warheads.
* 12 operational Ohio class Submarines with another 2 in overhaul. Each has 24 Trident II missiles with 4 MIRV warheads of the W76 and W88 warheads, that will be a total of 1152 warheads. There will be 384 W88 and 768 W76 warheads for submarines.
* 94 B-52 and 20 B-2 strategic bombers with 540 warheads of the AGM-86 and B61 and B83. There will be 528 nuclear AGM-86B cruise Missiles with 300 active and 228 in reserve. Along with the 528 ALCM there will be 120 B61-7, 20 B61-11 and 100 B83 nuclear bombs for the bomber fleet."
Anything else?
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.
On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah, sure, whatever. You can make a point if you think one groups quest to up our stance can outdo the nations actions on the whole.
In fact you should read up on the NPT, as it isn't ABOUT a complete disarmament of American Nuclear Capabilities. In fact we have done more to abide by the treaty than basically any other nation (China and Russia for example).
Just because you made an invalid point doesn't mean you should keep digging the whole deeper.
Move on, you were wrong about something, it happens.
Now unless you have an actual point to make, I'm done arguing with you about nothing.
It's not my fault you can't comprehend what you read. I made a perfectly valid point, you failed to read and understand what you were reading, and so you composed a rebuttal that countered an argument nobody made. Now you're desperately flailing around to avoid admitting it. When you're wrong, it's way better to admit it and move on, it's far less embarrassing in the long run and it makes people more inclined to listen to you in the future.
The NPT's disarmament provision, while vague, clearly compels the states which are signatory to move in the direction of disarmament. Calling for the development of new nuclear weapons is not moving in the direction of disarmament. This isn't rocket science. (har!)
EDIT: Look to AFMatt on how to debate this like a normal person.
Oh, I'm sorry I'm not giving you points you can "win" to make you look "smarter".
The United States has been moving in the direction of disarmament for a long time, here are some recent stats:
"The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). It maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52, B-1B, and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[13] Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.[14][15]
Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions ("SORT"), the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired or dismantlement by then.[16]
The future nuclear stockpile under SORT will be based on:
* 450 Minuteman III ICBM with 500 warheads. 400 with a single warhead and 50 with 2 MIRVs. There will be 200 W78 warheads and 300 W87 warheads.
* 12 operational Ohio class Submarines with another 2 in overhaul. Each has 24 Trident II missiles with 4 MIRV warheads of the W76 and W88 warheads, that will be a total of 1152 warheads. There will be 384 W88 and 768 W76 warheads for submarines.
* 94 B-52 and 20 B-2 strategic bombers with 540 warheads of the AGM-86 and B61 and B83. There will be 528 nuclear AGM-86B cruise Missiles with 300 active and 228 in reserve. Along with the 528 ALCM there will be 120 B61-7, 20 B61-11 and 100 B83 nuclear bombs for the bomber fleet."
Anything else?
Right, once again what's your point?
*sigh* I can already see that you're going to be one of those people.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah, sure, whatever. You can make a point if you think one groups quest to up our stance can outdo the nations actions on the whole.
In fact you should read up on the NPT, as it isn't ABOUT a complete disarmament of American Nuclear Capabilities. In fact we have done more to abide by the treaty than basically any other nation (China and Russia for example).
Just because you made an invalid point doesn't mean you should keep digging the whole deeper.
Move on, you were wrong about something, it happens.
Now unless you have an actual point to make, I'm done arguing with you about nothing.
It's not my fault you can't comprehend what you read. I made a perfectly valid point, you failed to read and understand what you were reading, and so you composed a rebuttal that countered an argument nobody made. Now you're desperately flailing around to avoid admitting it. When you're wrong, it's way better to admit it and move on, it's far less embarrassing in the long run and it makes people more inclined to listen to you in the future.
The NPT's disarmament provision, while vague, clearly compels the states which are signatory to move in the direction of disarmament. Calling for the development of new nuclear weapons is not moving in the direction of disarmament. This isn't rocket science. (har!)
EDIT: Look to AFMatt on how to debate this like a normal person.
Oh, I'm sorry I'm not giving you points you can "win" to make you look "smarter".
The United States has been moving in the direction of disarmament for a long time, here are some recent stats:
"The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). It maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52, B-1B, and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[13] Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.[14][15]
Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions ("SORT"), the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired or dismantlement by then.[16]
The future nuclear stockpile under SORT will be based on:
* 450 Minuteman III ICBM with 500 warheads. 400 with a single warhead and 50 with 2 MIRVs. There will be 200 W78 warheads and 300 W87 warheads.
* 12 operational Ohio class Submarines with another 2 in overhaul. Each has 24 Trident II missiles with 4 MIRV warheads of the W76 and W88 warheads, that will be a total of 1152 warheads. There will be 384 W88 and 768 W76 warheads for submarines.
* 94 B-52 and 20 B-2 strategic bombers with 540 warheads of the AGM-86 and B61 and B83. There will be 528 nuclear AGM-86B cruise Missiles with 300 active and 228 in reserve. Along with the 528 ALCM there will be 120 B61-7, 20 B61-11 and 100 B83 nuclear bombs for the bomber fleet."
Anything else?
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.
On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.
Ayup, that is what the MOAB was all about, can't kill them with nukes, kill them with a bigger bomb.