Master Index of Archived Threads


START III (Actually IV)

Edgy DC Apr 08 2010 08:52 AM

De-commissioning one third of our nukes. What the vice president might call a big fuckin' deal, right? I pretty naturally like this by itself. But I didn't like scrapping the missle defense shield, and I guess it's pretty obvious that that was a pre-requisite.

Valadius Apr 08 2010 09:52 PM Re: START III (Actually IV)

We didn't so much as scrap the missile defense shield so much as we moved it from Poland and the Czech Republic to Romania.

MFS62 Apr 09 2010 08:53 AM Re: START III (Actually IV)

Has one of those things actually shot a missile down? (Not counting the short range SCUDS in Iraq)? Later

Edgy DC Apr 09 2010 08:57 AM Re: START III (Actually IV)

I'll let you know when World War III starts.

Nymr83 Apr 09 2010 11:51 AM Re: START III (Actually IV)

yes they've shot down missiles in tests. i think we'd all prefer they didn't have to be used outside of tests. as for START, whatever. The Russians never met their obligations under the old treaties (safely taking apart thousands of nukes isn't easy or cheap) and does it really matter how many times we can blow the world up? 1/3 less nukes doesnt change much.

Edgy DC Apr 09 2010 12:04 PM Re: START III (Actually IV)

Well, to some extent, no. To another extent, it (1) reduces the vulnerablitity of nukes falling into the wrong hands, (2) reduces the vulnerablitiy to malfunction in aging stockpiles, (3) hopefully reduces the burden on the military budget (someday), (4) gains (again hopefully) Russia's favor as a partner in international relations, as they are at a strategic disadvantage militarily relative to the US. What'll happen in the real world, I can't say.