U.S. considers sharp cuts to nuclear force

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57378154/u.s-considers-sharp-cuts-to-nuclear-force/ ^

[kronos77]

(AP) WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

[InsidiousMongo]

When deterrence falls, so do nations. This is suicide. There are no procurements for new nuclear weapons to replace our aging stockpile. Yet, Russia and China are gladly investing in the R&D for new designs to kill us eventually.

[Hodar]

China doesn't need to invest much in R&D; the Clintons gave them the plans for the low, low cost of some campaign and library donations.

[Menehune56]

How much damage can this administration do in the 10 months they have left? Sounds like it could be a LOT!

[MachIV]

I suspect it’s going to be a lot longer than 10 months. We aren’t going to have a candidate that can beat him.

[MachIV]

I should have added, “unfortunately”.

[Tallguy]

Maybe Obama thinks that this is a just way for the US to assume its place in the peanut gallery of the world’s nations. Trouble is, there are a lot of countries that would probably like to settle some scores with the US.

[DJ MacWoW]

We're also going to try to replace some of our older servers and failing equipment this year so we're going to add a little extra to our FReepathon goals. John is estimating ten to fifteen thousand to do this and I'd like to get it all in place and working before the election cycle is fully heated up, so we'll try to bring in a little more now if we can and the rest next quarter.
Jim Robinson

Click The Server To Donate

Support Activist Free Republic

[LucianOfSamasota]

Obama has already reduced deployed warheads by 70% with the New START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) (Russian: СНВ-III, SNV-III). New START was signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague and entered into force on 5 February 2011.

So this new reduction is 80% of the remaining 30%. Reagan taught 'Peace through strength'; Progressives/Obama practice 'Peace through capitulation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START

[Rappini]

BOHICA

[Myrddin]

Not smart. If you don't have enough weapons to wipe out their ability to launch on you, you're going to be taking lots of hits on your territory. This is unilateral disarmament. Reducing us to fewer warheads than China and 20% of what the Russians have. All that is required is a little cooperation between those two to empty our resources and leave us totally exposed. Stupid.

[servo1969]

I’m sure everything will turn out just fine.

/s

[varon]

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons,

Mr. President, since you are considering reducing our nuclear force, which protects us, by up to 80% will you also at the same time consider reducing your personal and family's security detail by the same percentage???

If not, why not?

Is your family's security more important than mine? If so, why?

[Rudder]

I have yet to see a coherent rationale for this.