U.s., russia to cut nukes

[Guest]

President Bush announced today that the United States and Russia have agreed to a treaty that will substantially reduce their nuclear arsenals. "This is good news for the American people," Bush said, saying the agreement will make "the world more peaceful, and put behind us the Cold War once and for all."

CNN Article

They are talking about a cut down from about 6000 to 2000 warheads.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They are talking about a cut down from about 6000 to 2000 warheads. <span id='postcolor'>

Somehow, I don't feel any better.

[Guest]

The interesting part is that it is not just a cosmetic cut. It is too big to be a maintenence cut too - what is the probability that both the US Minuteman III and the Russian SS-24 (RT-23) are leaking.

Perhaps it is a political deal to calm the Russians down over the SDI thing. Anyway, I think it is a welcome development. I hope that we sooner or later get rid of thos damend things.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Somehow, I don't feel any better.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, 2000 warheads can still do quite a mess, so i don't really feel better too. Nukes are one of that things that never should have been invented.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

The worst thing is, russia actually wanted to get rid of all warheads... but sadly the US didnt agree

[RedRogue 0]

Deterance still has its place in world affairs Especto. I would never expect nor want the United States to destroy all its nuclear weapons. That would be an open invitation for some country or lunatic fanatic to use one. The US will always have them or the next step up. Even if they could design a 100% effective missile shield I would expect some ICBMs and tactical nuclear weapons to be fielded, as nothing is 100%.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Yay, now the world can't be blown up 8 times over anymore, now we can only do it 3 times over

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ May 13 2002,17:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Deterance still has its place in world affairs Especto. I would never expect nor want the United States to destroy all its nuclear weapons. That would be an open invitation for some country or lunatic fanatic to use one. The US will always have them or the next step up. Even if they could design a 100% effective missile shield I would expect some ICBMs and tactical nuclear weapons to be fielded, as nothing is 100%.<span id='postcolor'>

Deterance has its use, but it is still a very fucked up logic. I hold a gun to your head and you hold a gun to my head. If we get into an argument we count on that we both only use our fists to fight. It is all based on the premissis that the person holding the gun is calm and sane. I think that it is more then we can guarantee for any future government of the countries in the nuclear club.

I think a global ban on nukes could be possible. We are talking about a limited number of countries: USA, Russia, UK, France, Pakistan, India, China and Israel. The likelyhood of terrorists getting nuclear weapons is very small since they are still hard to manufacture. Rogue countries (I don't think that there are any today) that somehow managed to develop nukes of their own don't have any delivery system to pose any serious threat. Nukes have been around for over 50 years and the greatest threat of using them has come from the United States and the Soviet Union.

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 13 2002,18:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nukes have been around for over 50 years and the greatest threat of using them has come from the United States and the Soviet Union.<span id='postcolor'>

And anyone playing RedAlert