The Moscow Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty Arms Control at its Worst

....namely a President who signs away American superiority ever few months in a host of areas....

Who? Bush!! Why he wouldn't do anything like that. [/sarcasm]

I would like to know where the money that Bush is proposing in his 50% increase in foreign aids over the next 3 years is going to go. I know where it is coming from - our pockets - but where is it going to go?

Based on the facts I'd like ot disagree with you in the following areas...

When I come up with some facts that point to a flaw in your logic I'll get back to you.

Bush has willingly and unilaterally decided to abrogate long-term American superiority over the Russians, without any major concessions on our part.

First of all, Russia enjoyes nuclear superiority over the US today with more warheads and more delivery systems (missiles and bombers) with a significantly greater throw weight per warhead and a significant advantage over the US in terms of total numbers of first-strike capable systems. They also have a massive national missile defense system which I noticed you neglected to mention. Furthermore, they are building "thousands of nuclear warheads a year" according to sworn testimony to Congress by former Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger in 1997. Sure, the US could have outbuilt them in theory, but the fact is that we didn't.

Adding to your oversight of the massive advantage Bush signed away, you've put only a minor sentence regarding China's immediate threat. By 2012, China will be superior to the US in manufacturing capabilities of nearly 70% of all weapon systems. Qualitatively, they will only be on average 10 years behind on those weapon systems. By 2012, they will have superiority in nuclear weapons. Added with their massive superiority in numbers, China will be equal to the US in global military power.

China's immediate threat in terms of nukes is somewhat next to nil relative to the threat posed by the vast nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation. Yes, the PRC enjoys a superior quantitative manufacturing capability than the US today and is only 10 years behind in most systems. It will not have nuclear superiority over the US by 2012. It will take them until 2020 to accomplish that barring additional US nuclear reductions which the Bushies have said they oppose.

Given Russia's manufacturing restructuring and growing technology prowess added to China's superiority, in 10 years, the US will be finished as a unipolar power and will have to contend with two alien, and historically hostile nations as competitor.

Yes, I have said this in my earlier posts. The Sino-Russian alliance will surpass the US in geopolitical military power somewhere in the 2007-2012 timeframe thanks to Bush's planned evisceration of our nuclear arsenal. By 2012, the US will be facing two nuclear superpowers to one and Russia may have a nuclear arsenal that is literally ten times as large as our own.

In overall weapons systems, they will have 3-1 advantage in nuclear weapons. Naval warship wise, their superiority will be 3-2, giving them overwhelming naval supremacy in the Pacific. Airplanes they will have a 2-1 advantage, giving them the potential of dominating the Western Coasts of the US if we don't concentrate our forces there. In tanks they will have 5-1, and be capable of sweeping away all opposition on the Korean peninsula within 7 days. In artillery 6-1 advantage making them the Queen of any battlefield in the entire Asian Continent.

Wow and I thought I would be accused of saying the sky is falling. You point an even more pessimistic picture. There is no way that the ChiComs will have a 3-1 nuclear superiority over the US by 2020. There is also no way that they will attain naval superiority over the US by that time barring massive US naval reductions in our carrier fleet. Of course, they will probably enjoy massive advantages over the US in tanks and artillery since the Bushies seem intent in following the Clinton unilateral conventional disarmament plan to abolish our own by 2024. I do not share your pessimistic assessment that by 2020, Communist China will have transformed itself into an unchallenged, undefeatable global military superpower running roughshod over the US. Master of the East Asia perhaps, but certainly not global hegemon.

It's military will consist of 300,000-500,000 men organized as light-infantry. It's warships will total 300 ships, with 70% of them 15 years or older. It's air force will be 300,000 men, with 60% of it's warplanes being 25 years or older.

The US military of 2020 downsized to 300,000-500,000 men or about 25-41 percent of our total force structure of which the vast bulk are USAF and only a few are light infantry and sailors? That is simply unfathonable. Talk about being a doomsayer. As for your stats on our navy and air force that is going to happen by 2005.

Overall, by 2020, the US will cease being even a major power and undoubtedly, at current trends, no longer even hold any Pacific territories since Haiwai, California, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Colorado will be majority Mexican or non-white and most likely part of some new regional group dominated by the Mexican Government. With China's massive power, the US will be forced through diplomacy to surrender all of the aforementioned states once the non-white population uprises against the government.

40% of the US annexed to Mexico by 2020 thanks to ChiCom nuclear blackmail with the US struggling for influence on the North American Continent? That has got to be one of the most pessimistic projections I have ever heard.

Overall, you are overlly focused on Russia and completely missing the more immediate and deadly problems we face, namely a President who signs away American superiority ever few months in a host of areas, an all conquering foreign colonization of the nation, and an rapidly rising Sino-Islamic Axis capable of ruling the entire world within 20 years. Getting stuck on whether the Russians will have a 3-2 or 2-1 majority in nukes which are rapidly disintergrating, is pointless.

I am not overly focused on Russia. It just so happens that the President is preceding on at least three different fronts to appease Russia all in the same two week period. The consequences of said appeasement will be the loss of US superpower status and our ability to deter Russian nuclear attack. It may well mean the loss of our independence and even our survival as a country. I do not share your overly optimistic viewpoint that Russia is an ally against the 'Sino-Islamic Axis'. Russia is an indispensible ally of the Sino-Islamic axis against the US. Without Russia coordinating said alliance such an alliance would likely collapse or be ineffectual. Russia enjoys between a 3-1 and 5-1 nuclear superiority over the US today. A decade from now it will be more like 8-1 or 10-1 while our superiority over the PRC will be whittled down to 3-2.

Size doesn't matter Though the Guardian is a bit to liberal for me, the quotes from the Los Almos paper say it right. Sub 5 kilotons would be used to knock out a bunker complex. 9 mega tons is almost 200 times bigger. Do the math.

As for showing humility, let me give you a little quote to munch on: "Judge not, least you be judged yourself and found wanting. Why do you pick at the mote in your brother's eye when you have a plank in your's...."

So, do the math and figure our how many missiles they will have AFTER their remaining systems disintergrate over the next 10 years. Do the math and figure how many warheads they will have AFTER their current warheads fall apart. In short, if the US had continued it's nuclear program, we would have strategic nuclear superiority over the Russians by 2015.

While it is true that older Russian missiles were designed for about 15 years of service, these missiles have recently undergone a life extention doubling their projected lifetime. It is further conceivable that their lifespan could be even more extended once that time period ends. While you are correct that most of the thousands of modern miniaturized nuclear warheads being produced in Russia's 20 or so still-secret nuclear cities are to replace older warheads being decommissioned, to say that the Russian nuclear arsenal is somehow on the verge of evaporating is preposterous.

Senator Sam Nunn and former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker have reported that the Russians have an estimated 40,000 nuclear warheads vs. the 8,000 US warheads reported by the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. While it is true that most of the Russian warheads are tactical battlefield weapons, such weapons have an inherent capability to be used atop strategic missiles. Indeed, the Russians developed a tactic to pack a large quantity of tactical warheads in their MIRVd missiles which they refer to as the "barrage" tactic. This was reported by the American Foreign Policy Council in 1998.

You forget to also mention their control of the Panama Canal in your litany.

You do the math, and learn to read a little more carefully. The article is NOT saying that smaller nuclear devices are BETTER at going after super-hard targets than BIGGER nuclear bombs. What it is saying that sufficiently small nuclear devices may be substituted in conventional wars for conventional bombs against the more difficult targets such as Saddam Hussein's bunkers.

To repeat it another way: Those 'bunker-busters' are for the new SUPER-ACCURACY guided munitions for CONVENTIONAL, not full-scale nuclear war use. I.e., regular, non-nuclear war conflicts with super-small nuclear devices used against small hardened targets. They are essentially 'Conventionalized'. The hardened bunkers they are talking about taking out are Saddam Hussein's...not the Russian ones under mountains. And they (the new mini-nuke bunker busters) require direct hits, not a statistical Circular Error Probable. The old Titan IIs had a CEP of about a thousand feet away from the target. Over intercontinental range, not bad back then, but as we say, close but no cigar. Thus, a nine megaton bomb was required back when the Titan II was designed to go after the mountain complexes and other very-deep, very-hard Soviet targets, with any chance of successfully disrupting or destroying them. Wouldn't hurt to have some of them today, even with our new guidance systems, against certain targets.

Your confusion of what we MAY be able to do in the future has been retroverted into confusion about what were able to do in the PAST. Conclusion: You don't know if you are coming or going. :-)

And I should further point out that, in fact, GWB has been sitting on the mini-nuke idea and nothing is in fact being done to either produce or deploy same.

Finally let me just add a note on your professed religiosity, as I have said before, I make no bones about my failings, or my need for repentance, do you? You and your pal who has disappeared off this thread were the ones who started casting stones.

He forgets to realize that at some point with all of the manufacturing and agricultural imports supposedly coming into the country, that the US economy will have collapsed over the next 15 years or so, so that the new-immigre's who he purports to be undermining our countries unity and armed forces will be leaving the country in droves (for the better-paying jobs in Mexico, no doubt).

He is right about the feminization of the military however, at likely 30%. GWB has shown no hint of a backbone to cure that problem. The military would wash many of them out if they could, so they restore a minimum combat potential. Note they never sent regular army in...with women 'soldiers'...to do the fighting in Afghanistan. They sent the special forces MEN in.