Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Spaghetti Cat

Nuclear Disarmament

Recommended Posts

Spaghetti Cat

Ok, so earlier this month during the G-20 meeting in London President Obama and the President of Russia, Dimitry Medvedev, agreed to re-start the START talks. More Info Here

 

The START Treaty will expire in December of this year. In a nutshell it reduces both the nuclear warheads and delivery systems for the United States and the former Soviet Union. The upper limits for both sides were set at 6,000 warheads and 1,600 deliverable systems (ICBM's, SLBM's, and long-range bombers) During the G.W. Bush administration both sides signed the "Moscow Treaty" which further reduced the number of warheads to 2,200.

 

Then, during a speech in the Czech Republic, President Obama made this statement:

 

Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st. And as a nuclear power - as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon - the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it.

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

First, the United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.

To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies - including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding, and sufficiently bold.  This will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.

 

The full text can be found here...

 

This may have gotten to the back page of my local paper. I know the national or 27/7 news stations made a casual mention of this change. As far as I am aware, this is an important change in the nuclear doctrine. Yet it has not gained much notice. So, I was wondering what everyone else thinks about this change. Is it good, bad, or just plain ugly?

 

NOTE: Sorry if was a little dry, but it's the first topic I've created here, yay for me smile.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

Short answer:

 

Idealistic suicide.

 

Long version:

 

Okay, imagine we sign the treaty tomorrow. Next week/month/whatever, everyone announces they've disarmed. Ten minutes later, Russia or whoever says "just kidding," points a few dozen nukes at us, and demands we surrender our sovereignty to them or else they'll wipe out all our major cities. Oops.

 

North Korea and Iran would undoubtedly ignore such a treaty. If they were the only ones with nukes, I'm sure they would love to hold Israel, South Korea, and Japan hostage. Or simply wipe them out. Preventing that, then, would require large conventional wars. And with no nukes for deterrent, neighboring countries would be emboldened, thus risking larger regional conflict.

 

Or, assuming everybody did go along with it, China could then invade and conquer us by sending wave after wave of conscripts until we ran out of bullets and conventional bombs.

 

Either way, you can't put the genie back in the bottle now. Without a total ban on nuclear energy, it will only take one disgruntled, newly unemployed weapon designer (think AQ Khan) to help a rouge state or non-state actor build a nuke. Even with a ban on all fissile material, what happens when a new leader in a country unilaterally disregard the treaty? Like the old saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

 

Seeing as he thinks the civil disarmament policies in DC and Chicago have been "successful" even though they're two of the most violent cities in the country, his credibility in this department is, well, lacking. To put it nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft

He has chosen his language very carefully here. At the same time he satisfies those opposed to nuclear weapons, and calms those who are for them. Phrases like "perhaps not in my lifetime" would suggest that not a lot will come from this. It's a political move, but for what cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

You also have to consider that the United States will never fully disarm their nuclear armory. The goals here are purely diplomatic; leaning pressure and world opinion against rogue states. The opinion of the world matters if there should ever be a third world war.

 

But even morseso, the United States now needs to call on her allies to help dig free of this recession - and allies are won by gestures.

 

Finally, when you're talking of mutual missile disarmament out of one side of your mouth, and a missile defense grid out of the other - it's plain to see that no one holds any illusions over the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

People must understand that if major countries are armed, it's a Mexican standoff and only true idiots would launch nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Breaking Bohan

No Nukes!

 

No Nukes!

 

No Nukes!

 

Shifty41s_beerhatsmilie2.gif

biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge
No Nukes!

 

No Nukes!

 

No Nukes!

 

Shifty41s_beerhatsmilie2.gif

biggrin.gif

No more posts like this please; they're basically spam, and you've left a few of them scattered around D&D in the last couple of days. They detract from the discussion, and only serve to make you look a bit stupid. If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, don't post at all. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
Short answer:

 

Idealistic suicide.

 

Long version:

 

Okay, imagine we sign the treaty tomorrow. Next week/month/whatever, everyone announces they've disarmed. Ten minutes later, Russia or whoever says "just kidding," points a few dozen nukes at us, and demands we surrender our sovereignty to them or else they'll wipe out all our major cities. Oops.

 

North Korea and Iran would undoubtedly ignore such a treaty. If they were the only ones with nukes, I'm sure they would love to hold Israel, South Korea, and Japan hostage. Or simply wipe them out. Preventing that, then, would require large conventional wars. And with no nukes for deterrent, neighboring countries would be emboldened, thus risking larger regional conflict.

 

Or, assuming everybody did go along with it, China could then invade and conquer us by sending wave after wave of conscripts until we ran out of bullets and conventional bombs.

 

Either way, you can't put the genie back in the bottle now. Without a total ban on nuclear energy, it will only take one disgruntled, newly unemployed weapon designer (think AQ Khan) to help a rouge state or non-state actor build a nuke. Even with a ban on all fissile material, what happens when a new leader in a country unilaterally disregard the treaty? Like the old saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

 

Seeing as he thinks the civil disarmament policies in DC and Chicago have been "successful" even though they're two of the most violent cities in the country, his credibility in this department is, well, lacking. To put it nicely.

That's probably the only time I've ever agreed with you on the forums biggrin.gif Very good post, and what illspirt said is pretty much exactly how I feel. You cannot just disarm all nuclear weapons, especially in superpowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lioshenka

Well, as someone said on this forum before, and I have reasons to believe him - USA can destroy Earth 32 times and Russia can do it 29 times. So what if they reduce their nuclear arsenal 5 times, they still can have 6 goes each. Wouldn't make much difference, especially that both countries posess vacuum bombs which are as powerful as nuclear ones.

 

Lots of words and paperwork, no sense - that's my opinion tounge.gif

 

Obama is just scared that his coutry can't afford keeping them rockets rust-free while all of his potential enemies can and Medvedev wants to look and nice, white and furry.

 

Why not harass North Korea instead, they are being naughty!

Edited by ˸øåíüêà

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

I'm sure everyone here knows that when two countries have nukes, nothing will happen, etc. etc. Now the problem is that Obama doesn't want to start nuclear war, but he doesn't want to look like he is backing down or keeping a giant ass arsenal. I give him credit for keeping everything check and not letting everything go to hell. I highly doubt a soft country like Russia would attack us as compared to North Korea (the whining baby of the world) or Iran (the bat sh*t crazy person of the world), who no matter what we say would only accept for ours to begone so they attack, and if we didn't get rid of them, they would attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

Hi, thanks for all the great posts guys. icon14.gif

 

First off...this is not a pro-Obama post, nor is it an anti-Obama post. I do not always agree with our president, but when he does something right I'll give credit where it's due. I felt the same way when G.W. Bush reduced the warheads in the Moscow Treaty. So hopefully this new treaty will be more of that.

 

Now, a few facts about the numbers of weapons can be found here...

 

If you want to see what would happen if just one of these warheads exploded near you, this google maps mash-up can be found here...

 

There are 10,000 warheads on active alert as I'm writing this post. More than enough to kill every single person on the Earth several times over. Reducing that number would be in everyones interest.

 

Anyways, thanks again

 

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Complete disarmament is a bad idea. Threat of mutual annihilation makes people a lot more civilized. However, I'm all in favor of reducing arsenal.

 

The proper amount of nuclear warheads in the world is such that their use would throw our civilization into a bronze age, but not cause irreversible damage to ecology that would cause extinction of our species. Knowledge of what happened must be preserved. Of course, it'd be nice if world powers would actually decide not to use them, but just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
Well, as someone said on this forum before, and I have reasons to believe him - USA can destroy Earth 32 times and Russia can do it 29 times. So what if they reduce their nuclear arsenal 5 times, they still can have 6 goes each. Wouldn't make much difference, especially that both countries posess vacuum bombs which are as powerful as nuclear ones.

 

Lots of words and paperwork, no sense - that's my opinion tounge.gif

 

Obama is just scared that his coutry can't afford keeping them rockets rust-free while all of his potential enemies can and Medvedev wants to look and nice, white and furry.

 

Why not harass North Korea instead, they are being naughty!

Actually, it's the other way around. Russia have far more nuclear weapons than America do.

 

user posted image

 

Both countries still have way more nukes than is neccessary though. I agree with K^2, nuclear arsenals need to be reduced but there still needs to be nuclear weapons around so that the threat of mutual assured destruction lingers on people's minds and nobody's tries anything stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Once again, just because a politician says something - and especially in such vague language - does not make it true.

 

Furthermore, I think you all gravely overestimate the effects of a full-out nuclear war, especially considering nuclear stockpiles are less than half of what they were at the start of the cold war. Yes, millions would die in the attacks. Billions would die in the following decade as the result of cancer, nuclear winter, and lost crops. But civilization would not crumble that far - look at scenarios such as the Black Death for an example. We'd be set back a hundred years at most, as we adapt to a decade of cooler temperatures and sparse resources. In fact, I'd venture to say that life in some places wouldn't change very much at all.

 

The truth is that most of us would survive the bombs, at least. Dangerous times would follow, but far from these doomsday scenarios where every dies and the few survivors learn to live with sticks and stones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

I've actually read a detailed report on the effects of full out nuclear war, it made it seem that America gets it worse then Russia. I wouldn't consider it overestimation of the effects though, humanity would survive, in fact entire swaths of population would live relatively unharmed. But by the end of it US population is reduced to 40 million, and then there are is no effective way of farming afterward. Life is pretty bleak if you survived.

 

This Obama thing is complete utter bullsh*t though, I'm not so much opposed to it as much as I don't believe it. Not in Obama's lifetime pretty much means it is never happening, and there are so many reasons why we wouldn't be able to disarm. It's just idealistic, it will never happen responsibly or safely.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

Yeah I think that is the one I read. Pretty interesting stuff, except in the future it'll be China we'll have a nuclear exchange with (if Fallout is to be believed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

Thanks for the replies guys, keep em up!

 

Trying to respond to some of the earlier post about the aftereffects of a war, I found this report while searching the topic on the intertubes. It's kinda long so I'll tighten in up a bit:

 

 

Our calculations show that the smoke produced by a regional nuclear exchange of 100 15-kt weapons in the subtropics would severely deplete ozone columns over populated areas. The magnitude and duration of the predicted ozone reductions are greater than those calculated in the 1980's for global thermonuclear war scenarios involving yields that exceed the ones we considered by factors of >1000. At the time, global models had limited vertical extent, and did not adequately represent the rise of the smoke plumes into the upper stratosphere, nor the consequent temperature changes. The earlier models also did not run long enough simulations to detect the effects of temperature changes on reaction rates, nor rearrangement of gases on the sources of NOx, but instead depended on NOx injections and the short term redistribution of ozone itself.

 

Basically, the earlier models didn't account for the raging fires that would result from incinerating several urban cities. The smoke would push higher into the atmosphere causing massive ozone loss. Which is bad news for humans, but also bad for the crops we depend on as food.

 

So a limited war (think India and Pakastan) would still result in harm to people living half-way around the globe.

 

@ Otter: nice link man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

There was a point though where several larger fusion bomb and fusion boosted bombs were being tested in a relatively short timespan, and that didn't give us too much trouble.

 

Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 Mt (theoretical yield of 100 Mt), which is roughly 3000 times more powerful then Little Boy in Hiroshima. Why didn't that have hugely detrimental effects on the atmosphere?

 

The US detonated a few 15 Mt nukes too, not much came of it. Well that's not true but still nothing noticed outside of the region.

Edited by Mike Tequeli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

All modern nuclear arms are either fusion bombs or fusion-boosted bombs. There is no reason not to boost an implosion bomb. It's extremely simple and cheap, now that Lithium-Tritium compound is used. A pure fission bomb does not yield much more than 20kT. Nearly all warheads today are ranging from 200kT to 3MT.

 

And yes, devices up to 50MT have been tested. It's hard to call them bombs, because these things were rather on the large side. They also have proven to be ineffective. Most of the energy ends up deflected into space, and does not significantly increase destructive power of the device. After about 5MT there really is no point to make the bomb bigger. And even prior to that point, it's a lot more useful to carry multiple smaller warheads. Hence, most ICBMs are designed to carry a number of smaller warheads, at about 500kT-1MT each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

I don't see why we don't reduce our arsenlas down to 500 each and 500 to the U.N from each country (u.S and Russia). THere's nothing wrong with that. We don't even need 5000? What would you do with that many nukes?? And as far as North Korea and Iran we can deal with them in another way. Plus there needs to be an international missile defense system so everyone on earth is protected. It would be hard for everyone involved. But in the end we could save 40 million people, 15 trillion dollars worth of infrustrcute and vabule land period. It would be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I don't know. 500 sounds a bit low. 1500-2000 sounds more reasonable. As long as there is no limitation on yield and range, that should be enough.

 

Edit: Part of the reason why I'm saying that this is a bit low, is that if US has a need to nuke someone, they'd probably only need to nuke Russia and/or China, and they'd have UN missiles to back them. For that, 500 for US and UN each is enough. But if Russia or China needs to defend self, they'd need to nuke everyone. Russia would have to nuke US, most of Europe, and China. 500 nukes is a bit short for that.

 

As I said above, mutual annihilation is necessary for nuclear arms to perform their purpose. Current arsenals are a bit high. They can cause more damage to the planet itself than is necessary.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

^^Really don't see the U.N. getting nukes. Kinda goes against their whole non-violence agenda.

 

 

MOSCOW (AP) — The first full-format talks by Russia and the United States on devising a replacement for the START arms-reduction treaty will take place May 18-20 in Moscow.

 

The goal is to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, before it expires in December. The deal capped the number of warheads and reduced ways of delivering them. Both sides have said they are ready for further cuts.

 

The new treaty is considered the first step in the no-nuclear agenda embraced by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in a joint April 1 declaration.

 

LINK

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

^^^^^

F*@! the U.N and there non voilence crap!. Sometimes threats are the only way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
^^Really don't see the U.N. getting nukes. Kinda goes against their whole non-violence agenda.

Oh, wow. I meant to type in EU for European Union. I have no clue how that twisted into United Nations in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

o well yeah the E.U and Canada are both pretty much for non violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

ok sorry for the bump, but I found this little piece of info. Offers a slightly different point of view:

 

 

President Obama has pledged to work for the global elimination of nuclear weapons, but until that happens, to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable deterrent force. The conditions that might make possible the global elimination of nuclear weapons are not present today and their creation would require a fundamental transformation of the world political order.

 

The Congressional Commission on the Stratigic Posture of the United States executive summary.

 

 

 

 

@K^2: It's easy to get them confused, kinda goes against the EU policy too lol.gif

 

***Edit***

 

Figured I'd edit this rather than being a posting whore...

 

Anyways this is an update on the talks that are on-going:

 

 

Alexander Pikayev, a top arms control expert at Russia's Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said that the talks starting Tuesday could shape U.S.-Russian relations for years ahead.

 

"If they manage to strike a deal, it would be a major breakthrough boosting relations in other areas," Pikayev said. "But if the talks drag on and run into a deadlock, it will have a strong negative effect."

 

While Obama has put Bush's plan for a missile defense in Europe on hold, Russia wants the U.S. to scrap the anti-missile system altogether.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, still perhaps Russia's strongest political figure, warned last week that Russia would link the arms control talks with the U.S. missile defense plan — something Washington has refused to do.

 

Retired Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, a veteran Cold War arms control negotiator who helped write START, said it's too early to judge how flexible Russia might be in the talks.

 

"They may say something in the agreement's preamble about taking (the missile defense) into account, or they may take a tough approach and say there will be no agreement until the plan for a missile defense is canceled," Dvorkin said.

 

Source

 

Follow on talks are set for early June.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Spaghetti Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

...and we've hit the first speed bump.

 

 

President Medvedev has said Russia is willing to make deeper cuts in its nuclear arsenal, but only if the United States addresses Russian concerns over U.S. plans for a missile defense system in central Europe.

 

A U.S. State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly, Monday reaffirmed that the United States sees no link between the proposed missile-defense system and the size of each side's strategic nuclear arsenal. 

 

Source

 

Speaking of bumps, it's been a while! biggrin.gif

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1066ant

On the above note, the USA has no right to have any sort of missile base in Europe unless it has a patch of USA land in Europe, and even then, it would be a move that screames "I am superior, I can have a missile base wherever the f*ck I want".

In my opinion it makes complete sense the nuke reduction and missile base are connected, so following the idea. Russia disarms a fair ammount of nukes, and the USA builds a missile attack system right on their borders.

 

Not really much of a good sounding proposal, "you, disarm your nukes, we'll build a missile base accorss the road". What gives America the right to build and a missile base in Europe, I don't reckon Russia would be allowed to build one in Mexico under any circumstances.

 

The might sound very pro Russia, but I try to see things from a neutral view. And in my opinion America gets away with a hell of alot of sh*t that other countries wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

 

...the USA has no right to have any sort of missile base in Europe unless it has a patch of USA land in Europe, and even then, it would be a move that screames "I am superior, I can have a missile base wherever the f*ck I want"...

 

Poland and the Czech Republic both agreed to have missile defense sites in their respective countries. It's not like we are taking over Poland, though it would be so easy. j/k tounge.gif

 

The Russians do have a point, but I believe they are blowing it way out of porportion as a negotiaton tactic. The START Treaty deals not only with warheads, but also delivery systems (bombers, ICBM's, and SLBM's). Right now site three, as it's known, is intended to shoot down threats from the mid-east. Iran specifically. Russia could easily overwhelm this system with the hundreds of missiles they already have. If, however, START lowers that even further, then a missile defense in Europe may be of concern.

 

It all boils down to lower numbers. Several warheads can be fitted to a single missile, called MIRV's. If the numbers of warheads reaches below one hundred or so, then the number of missiles is reduced into the teens or twenties. A missile defense could possibly be used as a shield, covering any retaliation for a first strike against Russia. However, I don't foresee the numbers getting that low anytime soon. More likely it will be 500 or so per side, but that's just a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.