U.S. announces arms control treaty with Russia

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/start.treaty/index.html?hpt=T1

    Co-winners of next years peace prize? Ha, sorry, I thought I might get some of the anti-Obama people riled up. I'm just kidding! This seems like it has some good stuff in it, and considering START was expiring, it was necessary.

    (especially in light of story about Russian bombers being intercepted in UK/Sweden)
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    GREAT news. From what I've read this will further reduce nukes on both sides from around 1,700ish to around 1,500 each. That is a BIG deal.

    Chalk that one up for Obama.
     
  3. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #3
    It's not that big a deal,no nukes will be destroyed but at least it may lead to further talks which may lead to a actual reduction.
     
  4. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #4
    I think Obama sees this as the start of worldwide reductions. It had to start with the big two. Makes a refreshing change from George Warmonger Bush.
     
  5. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #5
    In all fairness to GW, the START treaty was set to expire, so the new treaty had to be done on this time frame. I would guess that there would have been something done under GW if the treaty expired earlier. (Although, I personally don't think it would have been as favorable, but that's just my personal bias against GW).
     
  6. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    Well, at least, he would have done something to earn it.;) Winning an election, is not grounds for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

    That said, I think it is a good thing that the number of nuclear weapons will be reduced by this treaty.
     
  7. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #7
    1500 is still too many imo
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #8
    There's no way this can be seen as a bad thing.

    Which means someone will come along any moment now and tell us how horrible this is for our country simply because Obama is involved. :D
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    Well DUH. You try getting the two world nuclear super powers to let go of their aces. It's a start.
     
  10. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #10
    Not only is one too many but nothing is being destroyed they're just being put in storage,something that can be reversed pretty quickly.
     
  11. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #11
    DUH, just made a comment.

    True. Stil enough to blow up the world many times over
     
  12. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #12
    I still see a problem with removing nukes completely. What about potential asteroid and comet deflection? Refit enough ICBMs for deep space and use them as tools rather than weapons--the technology does have a noble purpose.

    I am fine with storage but the concept of complete elimination is very short sighted.
     
  13. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #13
    And it looks as though the so-called party of Reagan is going to kill a very modest arms reduction treaty.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  15. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #15
    If an asteroid is large enough to pose a threat to life and people on the earth, wouldn't it have far too much kinetic energy to be stopped by anything we have?

    I'm just asking here.
     
  16. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #16
    Thus the "so-called."

    I would have fewer issues if Republican opposition to the treaty was based on the premise that it didn't go far enough in reductions, but the purely political posturing behind it is just disgraceful.
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    Probably, but we can have Kirok go into the temple again, and repel that asteroid.
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    To be stopped, yes probably, but deflection is a possiblility.
     
  19. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #19
    I wish I was naive enough to believe this was true.
     
  20. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #20
    If intercepted far out enough, a space tow or a gravitational tow would be the best bet. At a great enough distance, a small alteration in the course is enough. Nukes make better movies, however, so Hollywood will veto it.
     
  21. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #21
    Problem with nukes is, if you discover the danger, you should have launched 10, 20, 30, whatever, years ago, to get the angle of deflection correct.

    Time is dependent on the mass and speed of the object, the speed of the nukes, and the destructive force in play at the time of launch.
     
  22. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #22
    There is also the chance that you create a bigger problem than you originally had by simply fracturing the object into many smaller objects with unknown trajectories. Nukes are only the answer in Hollywood. Real solutions are more mundane.
     

Share This Page