http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/06/fulfilling-a-promise-prague

Quote :

" One year ago yesterday in Prague, I outlined a comprehensive agenda to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them. I look forward to advancing this agenda in Prague this week when I sign the new START Treaty with President Medvedev, committing the United States and Russia to substantial reductions in our nuclear arsenals. Today, my Administration is taking a significant step forward by fulfilling another pledge that I made in Prague—to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and focus on reducing the nuclear dangers of the 21st century, while sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent for the United States and our allies and partners as long as nuclear weapons exist. The Nuclear Posture Review, led by the Department of Defense, recognizes that the greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states. Moreover, it recognizes that our national security and that of our allies and partners can be increasingly defended by America’s unsurpassed conventional military capabilities and strong missile defenses. As a result, we are taking specific and concrete steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons while preserving our military superiority, deterring aggression and safeguarding the security of the American people. First, and for the first time, preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is now at the top of America’s nuclear agenda, which affirms the central importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have aligned our policies and proposed major funding increases for programs to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Our nuclear security summit next week will be an opportunity for 47 nations to commit to specific steps to pursue the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years. And next month in New York, we will work with the wider world to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime to ensure that all nations uphold their responsibilities. Second, we are further emphasizing the importance of nations meeting their NPT and nuclear non-proliferation obligations through our declaratory policy. The United States is declaring that we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. This enables us to sustain our nuclear deterrent for the narrower range of contingencies in which these weapons may still play a role, while providing an additional incentive for nations to meet their NPT obligations. Those nations that fail to meet their obligations will therefore find themselves more isolated, and will recognize that the pursuit of nuclear weapons will not make them more secure. Finally, we are fulfilling our responsibilities as a nuclear power committed to the NPT. The United States will not conduct nuclear testing and will seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads or pursue new military missions or new capabilities for nuclear weapons. As I stated last year in Prague, so long as nuclear weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the United States, reassures allies and partners, and deters potential adversaries. To that end, we are seeking substantial investments to improve infrastructure, strengthen science and technology, and retain the human capital we need to sustain our stockpile, while also strengthening the conventional capabilities that are an important part of our deterrent. The nuclear strategy we’re announcing today therefore reaffirms America’s unwavering commitment to the security of our allies and partners, and advances American national security. To stop the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent nuclear terrorism, and pursue the day when these weapons do not exist, we will work aggressively to advance every element of our comprehensive agenda—to reduce arsenals, to secure vulnerable nuclear materials, and to strengthen the NPT. These are the steps toward the more secure future that America seeks, and this is the work that we are advancing today."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/06/obama.nuclear.weapons/index.html

Quote :

"The position "provides a road map" to help achieve Obama's "long-term goal of a nuclear-free world," Gates added. It removes a "calculated ambiguity" in past U.S. nuclear policy while making clear that "this is a weapon of last resort," he said. Gates also noted, however, the new policy sends a "strong message" to states such as Iran and North Korea. "If you're going to play by the rules [of the nonproliferation treaty], we will undertake certain obligations to you," he said. "But if you're not going to play by the rules ... all options are on the table.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36185431/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

Quote :

"Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those adopted by his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China. "

Quote :

"The release of the new strategy, known as the “Nuclear Posture Review,” opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama’s plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit on nuclear security."

I think I'm noticing a trend between this, and the expanding drilling thing (with some environmental safeguards) on negotiating tactics. In the past, with health care, the President let the legislature come up with something and then he tried to tie it all together. Now he seems to be taking bold actions first and setting the table for negotiations. If things go according to plan, we'll be living in a world with more nuclear power (as a part of an everything approach to energy) and less nuclear weapons as a result of this administration's actions.

McCain has already issued an attack statement.

4/6/2010 10:23:11 PM

Considering that Obama's been shown to be limp wristed in dealing with Iran's ambitions this statement doesn't mean much.

4/7/2010 12:52:24 PM

Yeh. Russia is really gonna scrap their spare nukes..


Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrre they are.

4/7/2010 1:21:51 PM

i don't see the point of stockpile reductions as long as we have enough to destroy the planet several times over.

we are going to be SOL when we need ~10000 nukes to divert an asteroid on a collision course with earth and there are only 1000 left between the US and Russia.

4/7/2010 1:38:03 PM

The only reasonable excuse to decrease our stock piles is if we're reprocessing it for use in modern reactors.

4/7/2010 1:44:20 PM

^agreed. Otherwise we're just throwing money away.

4/7/2010 2:48:52 PM

Iran aint scared... seems the opposite
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6362IJ20100407

Quote :

"His changes to U.S. weapons policy were announced before a nuclear summit in Washington next week. He renounced the development of new atomic weapons and ruled out the use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear armed states. But this came with a condition. Countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and North Korea would thus not be protected and be potential targets. "

Quote :

""Obama made these latest remarks because he is inexperienced and an amateur politician," Ahmadinejad said on Iranian television. "American politicians are like cowboys. Whenever they have legal shortcomings, their hands go to their guns." "

really Supplanter? this is your idea of a good plan?

Quote :

"If things go according to plan, we'll be living in a world with more nuclear power (as a part of an everything approach to energy) and less nuclear weapons as a result of this administration's actions. "

All that has been said is that we promise not to use our nukes on you if you don't pursue nuclear capability. Where is the incentive there?

Quote :

"The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads or new capabilities for nuclear weapons. "

So I take this to mean we are going to stop our R&D on nuclear weaponry and cross our fingers that other countries do the same. No wonder Ahmadinejad calls him an inexperienced and an amateur politician. This is either a terrible bluff to appease liberals or an incredibly stupid military strategy... take your pick

4/7/2010 3:21:12 PM

Considering how our existing nuclear arsenal could obliterate any country no matter how much R&D they do I don't see the purpose of continuing to make more. You get MAD at a certain number of nukes and we're past that point. Plus you know the moment that russia or anyone else breaks the treaty we would too and start developing more.

Quote :

"The only reasonable excuse to decrease our stock piles is if we're reprocessing it for use in modern reactors."

Agreed. I wouldn't want to reduce it past the point where MAD is feasible though as that would be disastrous.

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2010 3:43:22 PM

This is all fine with me. It's nothing we can't change our minds about as soon as it becomes a problem.

There's really no reason to dump money into nuclear R&D. We've hit the ceiling -- you can't kill more than "everybody." The only thing to keep an eye on is other countries developing missile defenses, and we seem to be the only ones into that.

Quote :

"The only reasonable excuse to decrease our stock piles is if we're reprocessing it for use in modern reactors."

Although I'd rather be recycling the material, there is something to be said for taking a step towards stockpile reduction in hopes that other countries will follow suit. Every nuke we convince the Russkis to disarm or destroy is one less nuke that can fall through their corrupt, incompetent fingers and into the hands of terrorist organizations.

4/7/2010 3:51:00 PM

we could develop smaller and more penetrating nuke weapons, so yes, there is a lot more development that could be done on nuclear weapons.

4/7/2010 4:12:25 PM

no no... he's right
heck we've got enough bullets to kill "everyone" we should just stop there. No sense in going any further, the rest is just ridiculous excess.

Quote :

"Plus you know the moment that russia or anyone else breaks the treaty we would too and start developing more. "

so you agree that this is just a bluff and nothing more than rhetoric.
the only thing accomplished will be setting ourselves back 10 years on R&D... assuming that you believe that we will actually stop.

We can already wipe Iran off the map with or without nukes - they have no reason to care either way. However, for them, they can inflict maximum damage with minimum investment with a single nuclear weapon. This offer to them from the US in no way makes them more secure as a country if they believe we are out to get them either way. It is an empty offer.

4/7/2010 4:57:41 PM

Quote :

"Although I'd rather be recycling the material, there is something to be said for taking a step towards stockpile reduction in hopes that other countries will follow suit. Every nuke we convince the Russkis to disarm or destroy is one less nuke that can fall through their corrupt, incompetent fingers and into the hands of terrorist organizations."

very true, and the only real reason to spend the money on disarmament

4/7/2010 4:58:28 PM

Quote :

"heck we've got enough bullets to kill "everyone" we should just stop there. No sense in going any further, the rest is just ridiculous excess."

First of all, we don't have that many bullets.
Second of all, we go through bullets regularly even in training.
Third of all, countermeasures against bullets are common and are developed relatively often. All you can do about nuclear weapons is try to stop their delivery systems (which as I understand it we are still able to research and develop) or dig deeper.

Quote :

"so you agree that this is just a bluff and nothing more than rhetoric."

I'm not sure how you got that from what you quoted. We are doing this to try to get the other guy (Russia) to reduce his stockpiles and keep them reduced. Probably other incentives will have to be discussed for all parties, but us agreeing to step down is a necessary (if not entirely sufficient) condition.

If it doesn't work, we have the option to change our minds. It's not just a bluff, it's not just rhetoric. It is a move designed to elicit an outcome from another party.

Quote :

"However, for them, they can inflict maximum damage with minimum investment with a single nuclear weapon."

Minimum investment? If they nuke us we will nuke them. A comparably-sized nuclear strike on Iran would be far more devastating, because they have a smaller population and fewer centers to target.

Quote :

" we could develop smaller and more penetrating nuke weapons, so yes, there is a lot more development that could be done on nuclear weapons."

We already have small, tactical nukes. Get much smaller and you might as well use conventional bombs. As far as penetrating, how familiar are you with how well our current warheads accomplish this?

4/7/2010 6:11:30 PM

during our initial bombing of the caves in Afghanistan, it became clear that our bunker busting capability is far below adequate. Really the only way to ramp that capability up is to research lower yield nukes and to make them reliable after penetration and to reduce the fallout they produce. We will not achieve any of these goals without research.

4/7/2010 8:07:48 PM

With a ban on testing I doubt we'll ever see any new designs aside from a reliable replacement warhead-type initiative. Which is disappointing since I'd really like to see one go off.

4/7/2010 8:23:53 PM

Quote :

"Yeh. Russia is really gonna scrap their spare nukes.. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrre they are."

Apparently you've never heard of the concept of "trust but verify." There's a reason why they have these people called "inspectors" that monitor and observe destruction of bomb material.

But hey, don't worry about reading the articles or anything. I'm sure you know more about disarmament than the military.

4/7/2010 10:56:29 PM

Quote :

"during our initial bombing of the caves in Afghanistan, it became clear that our bunker busting capability is far below adequate. Really the only way to ramp that capability up is to research lower yield nukes and to make them reliable after penetration and to reduce the fallout they produce."

I doubt that your second statement is all that certain. We can build better conventional bunker-busters. I hope it goes without saying that we couldn't have gotten away with nuking Afghanistan in any capacity.

But you seem to miss the bigger point. Nuclear weapons are about deterrence. That deterrence isn't built on being able to decapitate a country's leadership. It's about being able to say, "If you fuck with us we will make it so that when you crawl out of your cave you will rule a barren, uninhabitable heap of radioactive ash."

Russia was led by people at least as woefully misinformed as our own leadership during the Cold War. They didn't nuke us during the Cuba crisis. They didn't nuke us during Able Archer. They didn't nuke us during other flukes and accidents. You know why? Nobody wants to get the ass-hammer of a superpower's nuclear arsenal shoved up their ass. Until a country is able to hide most of its population in secure underground bunkers we have our deterrence, which is far, far more important than superior first-strike ability.

4/8/2010 12:39:52 AM

The signing has just been completed, both Presidents are speaking and taking questions now.

4/8/2010 7:13:49 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure how you got that from what you quoted. We are doing this to try to get the other guy (Russia) to reduce his stockpiles and keep them reduced. Probably other incentives will have to be discussed for all parties, but us agreeing to step down is a necessary (if not entirely sufficient) condition. If it doesn't work, we have the option to change our minds. It's not just a bluff, it's not just rhetoric. It is a move designed to elicit an outcome from another party. "

Quote :

"Russia was led by people at least as woefully misinformed as our own leadership during the Cold War. They didn't nuke us during the Cuba crisis. They didn't nuke us during Able Archer. They didn't nuke us during other flukes and accidents. You know why? Nobody wants to get the ass-hammer of a superpower's nuclear arsenal shoved up their ass. Until a country is able to hide most of its population in secure underground bunkers we have our deterrence, which is far, far more important than superior first-strike ability. "

I understand why there is a big PR focus on this deal with "Russia"
But I don't understand why you think this move strategically has anything to do with Russia.
As was stated before, we both have plenty of nukes and reducing them wont change the fact that we can still destroy "everything" and have nukes to spare.
The "Russia" part of this deal is a PR stunt. Yay look at us reducing nukes & making the world a better place. In one quote you said it is designed to elicit an outcome from another party and in another have basically said that we have nothing to fear from that party as history has proven(deterrence).
The rest is aimed at giving countries that do not currently have nukes the incentive to not pursue them.
We are promising not to use nukes on you if you don't have them. And I have already stated why this is laughable in the case of Iran or N. Korea.

So please tell me what this will actually accomplish? What quantifiable return are we getting from agreeing to stop our testing and development?

4/8/2010 10:50:29 AM

Quote :

"But I don't understand why you think this move strategically has anything to do with Russia."

They have more nukes than anybody except us (or possibly including us). In the world of nuclear weapons, there are two very big boys trailed distantly by some very minor players.

Anything we do with nuclear weapons has some strategic relationship with Russia.

Quote :

"As was stated before, we both have plenty of nukes and reducing them wont change the fact that we can still destroy "everything" and have nukes to spare."

My concern here is that every "spare" nuke is one that can potentially fall into the hands of stateless actors. This is, of course, especially true in Russia, where security has not always been so great. Every warhead that we and the Russkis destroy is one less that end up in a shipping crate in New York harbor.

Quote :

"In one quote you said it is designed to elicit an outcome from another party and in another have basically said that we have nothing to fear from that party as history has proven(deterrence)."

I didn't say we had nothing to fear. I said that deterrence has worked on state actors and we should continue to present an unquestionable nuclear deterrent for that reason. But what we have now goes way beyond that into the realm of crazy, and leaves everybody with a lot of surplus nuclear bombs.

I love how I'm suddenly a raging peacenik because I don't feel the need to cling to surplus nuclear bombs.

Quote :

"We are promising not to use nukes on you if you don't have them. And I have already stated why this is laughable in the case of Iran or N. Korea."

You have stated some inane bullshit that makes no sense.

There is no reason to use nuclear weapons on a country that doesn't have serious WMD -- nukes of their own, mostly. The only reason to use nukes period is to retaliate against someone else using them first. Any other deployment of those weapons would be incredibly stupid.

Quote :

"What quantifiable return are we getting from agreeing to stop our testing and development?"

Russia will reduce its stockpiles, and with them the number of nuclear weapons that can fall into the wrong hands.
We will save money that would otherwise have been spent on needless improvements to the most powerful arsenal in the history of the world.

4/8/2010 1:48:18 PM

Dumbest move Obama has made so far.

We don't need to do anything to appease weaker nations. They want us to weaken ourselves so that we're all on the same level and I see no reason to play that game. The only way we should be decreasing our stockpile is by using our nuclear weapons on every single fucking country that asks us to decrease the stockpile.

"There ya go buddy, we took a few more out of service for ya."

4/8/2010 2:37:37 PM

It is very obivious now that you have been blinded by the PR shit storm.

Quote :

"My concern here is that every "spare" nuke is one that can potentially fall into the hands of stateless actors. This is, of course, especially true in Russia, where security has not always been so great. Every warhead that we and the Russkis destroy is one less that end up in a shipping crate in New York harbor. "

With respect to "spare nukes"...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-04-08-obama-us-russia-nuclear_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29

Quote :

" The new treaty will shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country over seven years. That still allows for mutual destruction several times over."

This makes you feel safer? or some how alleviates your concerns over spare nukes?

You do understand that this Treaty is a gift to Russia in exchanged for backing sanctions on Iran...
right?

Quote :

"You have stated some inane bullshit that makes no sense. There is no reason to use nuclear weapons on a country that doesn't have serious WMD -- nukes of their own, mostly. The only reason to use nukes period is to retaliate against someone else using them first. Any other deployment of those weapons would be incredibly stupid. "

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6362IJ20100407

Quote :

"Obama is urging U.N. Security Council members to back new sanctions against Iran. His changes to U.S. weapons policy were announced before a nuclear summit in Washington next week. He renounced the development of new atomic weapons and ruled out the use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear armed states. But this came with a condition. Countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and North Korea would thus not be protected and be potential targets. "

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/04/obama-medvedev-sign-new-start-treaty/1

Quote :

"Obama is lobbying Russia and China to agree to new global sanctions on Iran over its nuclear activities, an issue Obama stressed in remarks after the formal signing. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-04-08-obama-us-russia-nuclear_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29

Quote :

"Some Russian arms control analysts say Russia badly needed the deal to ease the burden of replacing a large number of Soviet-built missiles which need to be decommissioned for age. "This treaty is in Russia's best interests," said Sergei Rogov, the head of the USA and Canada Institute, an influential think tank that advises the Kremlin on foreign policy. "

You seem to have Grand delusions of what this will do in the way of reduction...
And are completely blinded from seeing what is actually going on.

Again please show me where anything is gained from this? We get one more country to agree to "consider additional sanctions" on Iran? There are still huge surpluses of nukes. And now we have to stop all development and testing.

4/8/2010 2:47:49 PM

Quote :

"This makes you feel safer? or some how alleviates your concerns over spare nukes?"

Is 1,550 less than the current number each country has? If so, then yes, it makes me feel a little bit safer and alleviates my concerns just a tad.

Quote :

"Again please show me where anything is gained from this?"

We aren't guaranteed to benefit at all. If everything goes just right, there are fewer nuclear weapons in the world, we retain our nuclear deterrent, we save money that would otherwise be spent on largely needless R&D, and we increase pressure on Iran.

If things go wrong and Russia renegs or Iran continues to get a free pass from the Kremlin, we just say "Fuck you" and go back to the way things were a week ago. Big fucking deal.

4/8/2010 2:57:52 PM

Quote :

"We aren't guaranteed to benefit at all. If everything goes just right, there are fewer nuclear weapons in the world, we retain our nuclear deterrent, we save money that would otherwise be spent on largely needless R&D, and we increase pressure on Iran. "

so nothing... got it.

Quote :

"If things go wrong and Russia renegs or Iran continues to get a free pass from the Kremlin, we just say "Fuck you" and go back to the way things were a week ago. Big fucking deal. "

This goes from "historic treaty" to "big fucking deal" in to time flat..
PR stunt... got it.

But hey, at least B.O. will get to parlay this into some sort of pseudo-evidence that he deserved that nobel prize.

4/8/2010 5:23:00 PM

Quote :

"so nothing... got it."

What would qualify as "something?" Those things are all clear benefits. Is your problem that you disagree that they are benefits, or you think we won't get any of them?

Quote :

"This goes from "historic treaty" to "big fucking deal" in to time flat.."

A treaty can't be historic until it's got some history. Right now we don't know if this move will achieve its desired goals. This is true of everything ever, because you can't see the fucking future.

If it works, we get something, and if it doesn't work, we lose essentially nothing. I can't fathom what your problem with such a situation is.

Quote :

"PR stunt... got it."

You yourself stated that this move had a goal other than public relations -- throwing Russia a bone so they'll help us with Iran. That in and of itself means that this is more than a "PR stunt."

4/8/2010 5:56:44 PM

I'm lifting this from thegoodlife3 who posted this in the Fox News thread b/c of its appropriate subject matter for this one:

4/9/2010 12:50:05 PM

^I'm not sure that was relevent to the discussion here at all. None of the falsehoods from that clip are beinging aserted here.

On topic however, Iran is calling Obama's bluff today...
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/09/world/international-uk-iran-nuclear-centrifuges.html

Quote :

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, taunting the United States for trying to halt Iran's nuclear programme, unveiled a new centrifuge on Friday which officials said would enrich uranium much faster then existing models."

Quote :

"U.S. President Barack Obama, who is seeking tougher U.N. sanctions against Tehran, acknowledged that such measures would not necessarily work, but said sustained world pressure could over time prompt Iran to revise its nuclear calculations. "

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad, in a speech to mark Iran's annual nuclear day, called the nuclear arms reduction treaty that Obama signed with Russia this week "a masquerade" hiding his true intentions. "

Quote :

""Iran's nuclear path is irreversible. The Iranian nation has reached a new point where no power can deter it from moving full speed ahead to reach peaceful nuclear energy." "

4/9/2010 1:16:23 PM

Quote :

"But I don't understand why you think this move strategically has anything to do with Russia."

Yeah, I view at least the posture review as more about Iran, and to an extent, North Korea, than about Russia. It's a carrot as well as a stick.

4/11/2010 2:23:10 PM

Quote :

"PR stunt... got it"

The US could use some more PR stunts since we are pretty much universally hated.

4/11/2010 6:34:32 PM

4/12/2010 9:47:30 AM

Quote :

"Reagan knew that to eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, you must first start to eliminate the dependence — both ours and others’ — on massive nuclear attack as the guarantor of security. That is why Reagan’s first priority was to build up U.S. conventional forces and introduce missile defense. That allowed his negotiators to approach arms control agreements from a position of strength. President Obama has done the exact opposite. He has cut our national defense, including acquisition of the F-22, removed missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, and cut missile defense development programs. His lawyer-like NPR weakens America’s deterrence credibility by broadcasting our intention not to respond in kind if we are hit by weapons of mass destruction. And his New START agreement not only clearly links our missile defense shield with Russian missile reduction, but it also limits our own conventional weapons capabilities as well. Reagan’s sound vision for “rendering nuclear weapons obsolete” started with first ensuring robust defenses, then reducing the nuclear stockpile appropriately. Obama has taken a “reduce first, beef up defense later (if ever)” approach. It’s a path that leads to even greater danger, not to “zero.” Doubtless President Obama is motivated by the very best of intentions. But in a world of proliferating nuclear power, we should remember where a road paved only with good intentions leads. -Heritage"

4/12/2010 10:46:54 AM

^^ Exactly.

That's what I'm saying...this isn't about Russia so much as it's about Iran and North Korea.

4/12/2010 11:42:56 AM

the F-22 was stupid and a waste of money. it couldn't even compete against the newest Mig fighters (I know, blasphemy to the USA #1 crowd, but true)....

It's a far better use of money to invest in unmanned arial drone development.

4/12/2010 11:59:43 AM

[NO]

The Raptor is a class of one. Nothing else can touch it.

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM. Reason : and i'm not sure how F-22 and UAVs fit in with nuclear treaties]

4/12/2010 12:12:20 PM

I'm just responding to that quote by Heritage.

And yea, the russian migs could eat the F-22 lunch in a dogfight. They are far more maneuverable.

But it doesn't matter either way. Even if the F-22 was the baddest fighter out there, its still dumb. Drones are cheaper, better, and show much more potential for improvement than a multi-billion dollar airplane whose wings have literally been clipped to accommodate the human frailty of the pilot.

4/12/2010 1:09:45 PM

My understanding was that the F-22 was never supposed to be in a dogfight -- that it was supposed to use its stealth, speed, and long-range weapons to kill the enemy before the enemy knew they were there.

That said, I agree with your conclusion that we should have spent most of the money on drones instead, primarily because they're more useful in the conflicts we are in presently and are likely to find ourselves in the near future. Al-Qaeda doesn't have an air force. I like that we've researched the F-22, I like that we have a few around, and I like that we could build more if we had to, but we certainly don't need to build more and probably didn't need to build as many as we did.

4/12/2010 4:03:09 PM

^ I agree with that 100% - that's what I'm trying to say.

But if we could spend billions of dollars developing drones, we could probably create "fighter drones" that could team up and take out a human powered fighter jet with ease. Right now, human powered fighter jets maneuverability is restricted by the human body... A pilotless drone would FAR more maneuverable, much stealthier (super small size), and a lot cheaper so just throw five drones at an enemy and see what sticks.

unmanned drones have direct relevance to our counter-terrorism conflicts at the moment, and applicability to future state vs. state conflicts as well.

4/12/2010 4:13:51 PM

I do like the deals I've been hearing recently where the US is taking in HEU and LEU from various countries. Good work, Obama

4/12/2010 6:59:01 PM

^^, ^^^, ^^^^

F-22 could easily be its own thread. It is BAD ASS.

As far as dogfighting goes:

1. I'm not convinced the FSU stuff would touch it. Legacy Fulcrums and Flankers? No fucking way. Some of the barely fielded thrust-vectoring variants? Maybe. I kinda doubt it. I won't say any more, due to classification, and the fact that dogfighting theory could also take up a page or two of writing. There's more to it than you guys realize (and not that I'm an expert on it as a Prowler guy, but I do have some experience with it).

2. With high off-boresight missiles like the ARCHER and AIM-9x, there isn't likely to be much of a dogfight, even if things somehow get to (or near) the merge.

3. With the capabilities that the F-22 has as its disposal, I think a dogfight (even one of the "bang, you're dead" at the merge-type) is really unlikely. Really, almost all of their kills should be BVR.

____

Oh, and of course it's not for OIF/OEF. As far as I know, it hasn't been used in either place in years. It's for other threats...and most of all, it's to keep us a step ahead and address future threats.

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM. Reason : hmm...not classified, but i took some info out. no need to talk about it publicly.]

4/12/2010 10:26:55 PM

Quote :

"Even if the F-22 was the baddest fighter out there, its still dumb. Drones are cheaper, better, and show much more potential for improvement than a multi-billion dollar airplane whose wings have literally been clipped to accommodate the human frailty of the pilot."

4/13/2010 1:00:05 PM

I believe I heard on NPR that is the largest gathering of world leaders in the US organized by a President since the founding of the UN. The President has certainly put the bully pulpit to use on this one. While obviously there is more work to be done, this is a significant shift from the Bush approach to world affairs. I guess diplomacy is back in style for dealing with issues that reach beyond our borders.

This is the guy Bush put in place as our ambassador to the United Nations:


whitehouse.gov

Quote :

"The Nuclear Security Summit Just as the United States is not the only country that would suffer from nuclear terrorism, we cannot prevent it on our own. The Nuclear Security Summit highlights the global threat posed by nuclear terrorism and the need to work together to secure nuclear material and prevent illicit nuclear trafficking and nuclear terrorism. The leaders of 47 nations came together to advance a common approach and commitment to nuclear security at the highest levels. Leaders in attendance have renewed their commitment to ensure that nuclear materials under their control are not stolen or diverted for use by terrorists, and pledged to continue to evaluate the threat and improve the security as changing conditions may require, and to exchange best practices and practical solutions for doing so. The Summit reinforced the principle that all states are responsible for ensuring the best security of their materials, for seeking assistance if necessary, and providing assistance if asked. It promoted the international treaties that address nuclear security and nuclear terrorism and led to specific national actions that advanced global security. The Communiqué The Summit Communiqué is a high-level political statement by the leaders of all 47 countries to strengthen nuclear security and reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism and: * Endorses President Obama’s call to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years, and pledges to work together toward this end; * Calls for focused national efforts to improve security and accounting of nuclear materials and strengthen regulations – with a special focus on plutonium and highly enriched uranium; * Seeks consolidation of stocks of highly enriched uranium and plutonium and reduction in the use of highly enriched uranium; * Promotes universality of key international treaties on nuclear security and nuclear terrorism; * Notes the positive contributions of mechanisms like the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, to build capacity among law enforcement, industry, and technical personnel; * Calls for the International Atomic Energy Agency to receive the resources it needs to develop nuclear security guidelines and provide advice to its members on how to implement them; * Seeks to ensure that bilateral and multilateral security assistance would be applied where it can do the most good;and * Encourages nuclear industry to share best practices for nuclear security, at the same time making sure that security measures do not prevent countries from enjoying the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy. The Work Plan The Summit Work Plan represents guidance for national and international actions to carry out the pledges of the Communiqué. This detailed document lays out the specific steps that will need to be taken to bring the vision of the Communiqué into reality. These steps include: * Ratifying and implementing treaties on nuclear security and nuclear terrorism; * Cooperating through the United Nations to implement and assist others in connection with Security Council resolutions; * Working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to update and implement security guidance and carry out advisory services; * Reviewing national regulatory and legal requirements relating to nuclear security and nuclear trafficking; * Converting civilian facilities that use highly enriched uranium to non-weapons-usable materials; * Research on new nuclear fuels, detection methods, and forensics techniques; * Development of corporate and institutional cultures that prioritize nuclear security; * Education and training to ensure that countries and facilities have the people they need to protect their materials; and * Joint exercises among law enforcement and customs officials to enhance nuclear detection approaches. Country Commitments In addition to signing on to the Communiqué and Work Plan, many Summit Participants have made commitments to support the Summit either by taking national actions to increase nuclear security domestically or by working through bilateral or multilateral mechanisms to improve security globally. These specific commitments will enhance global security, provide momentum to the effort to secure nuclear materials, and represent the sense of urgency that has been galvanized by the nature of the threat and the occasion of the Summit. Many of these commitments are outlined in National Statements. Next Steps In preparation for the Summit, each participating entity named a ?Sherpa? to prepare their leadership for full participation. This cadre of specialists, each of whom has both the expertise and leadership positions in their countries to effect change, is a natural network to carrying out the goals of the Summit. The Sherpas plan to reconvene in December to evaluate progress against Summit goals. Additionally, Summit participants plan to reach out to countries who were not able to attend the Washington Summit to explain its goals and outcomes and to expand the dialogue among a wider group. In 2012, leaders will gather again—this time the Republic of Korea—to take stock of the post-Washington work and set new goals for nuclear security."

Quote :

"I want to commend my partners for the very important commitments that they made in conjunction with this summit. Let me give some examples. Canada agreed to give up a significant quantity of highly enriched uranium. Chile has given up its entire stockpile. Ukraine and Mexico announced that they will do the same. Other nations -- such as Argentina and Pakistan -- announced new steps to strengthen port security and prevent nuclear smuggling. More nations -- including Argentina, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam -- agreed to join, and thus strengthen, the treaties and international partnerships that are at the core of our global efforts. A number of countries -— including Italy, Japan, India and China -— will create new centers to promote nuclear security technologies and training. Nations pledged new resources to help the IAEA meet its responsibilities. In a major and welcomed development, Russia announced that it will close its last weapons-grade plutonium production reactor. After many years of effort, I’m pleased that the United States and Russia agreed today to eliminate 68 tons of plutonium for our weapons programs -— plutonium that would have been enough for about 17,000 nuclear weapons. Instead, we will use this material to help generate electricity for our people."

[Edited on April 13, 2010 at 11:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2010 11:11:57 PM

Check out the image on the table in the picture above based on the image of a hydrogen atom. Fox is saying its Obama's secret Muslim message.

4/14/2010 11:20:51 PM

A very pretty table for the nuclear circle jerk. Obama and these other leaders are all worried about nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. THEY ALREADY HAVE!

Iran, North Korea ...hello?

4/15/2010 9:57:44 AM

^ You can thank India for that.

4/15/2010 10:26:50 AM

Quote :

"this is a significant shift from the Bush approach to world affairs. I guess diplomacy is back in style for dealing with issues that reach beyond our borders. "

That's interesting considering that Iran, Syria, and North Korea were not even invited.
He hasn't done anything different than Bush other than put on a bigger show.

All that's missing is the "Mission Accomplished"

4/15/2010 10:47:52 AM

Moving from appointing an ambassador to the UN who gets audibly angry at the idea that the UN even exists, to the largest gathering of world leaders by a president since the founding of the UN, I think is fair to say is not enough, but I don’t think calling it just a circle jerk or just the Iraq War minus the mission accomplished sign is fair unless you are just looking for something bad to say.

4/15/2010 12:27:44 PM

This magnitude of an event is not justification for it's merits. But I guess you believe Obama was deserving of his Nobel Prize at the time of his nomination.

I wasn't calling it the Iraq War or even trying to draw a comparison. I was referencing the notion that we a pretending like something was accomplished when we all know this didn't change anything. None of the "players" that pose a threat were invited to this summit or even discussed. The net result of the agreements made there is 0, because no one there realistically intends to ever use nuke for anything other than a talking point.

4/15/2010 3:07:49 PM

OH NOES, THE SYMBOL FOR THIS MEETING LOOKS LIKE THE ISLAMIC CRESCENT!!! THAT EVIL MUSLIM PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!

4/16/2010 4:35:15 PM

John Bolton owned

4/16/2010 4:46:26 PM