United States and Russia "Reset"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7977031.stm

The current aim, reached in an agreement between Presidents George W Bush and Putin in Moscow in 2002 (and known as the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty or Sort) is to cut deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 on each side by 2012.

The new aim is to get an agreement to take those numbers much lower. It will still give them both the power to destroy each other several times over.

And why by December? Because that is when a previous treaty known as Start (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) runs out. Start made dramatic reductions in nuclear forces of some 80% but the key point at this moment is that contains binding agreements on verification and when the treaty runs out so do those commitments. They will have to be renewed if arms control is to be under proper monitoring.

That creates a timetable and an opportunity which both leaders have seized.

"The treaty needs political strengthening," said Mark Fitzpatrick. "It is under siege. The last review conference in 2005 was a failure and non nuclear-armed states are losing faith that the nuclear states are fulfilling their side of the bargain."

However, the reality is that the nuclear-armed states might disarm partially but will not disarm completely.

They are all in the process of modernizing their forces which will reduce them in numbers - but not eliminate them. A nuclear weapons-free world remains pie in the sky because there are - and will be - missiles in the sky instead.

So the United States and Russia are going to push the "Reset Button". No - not the misworded one that Hillary presented to the Russian foreign minister, but a metaphorical one.

The idea that either the United States or Russia are going to reduce their arsenal are ridiculous. Neither the U.S. or Russia are likely to actually use nuclear weapons on their enemy. Having a strong conventional weapons stockpile prevents the direct need for nuclear weapons. I find it interesting that the majority of countries that seem the most worried about a U.S. or Russian stockpile, are those most likely to actually use them.

A dating scenario can be used here to illustrate my point. Relationships require a lot of responsibility. You have to look out for two people, not just yourself. People who suspect the worst are often those who contemplate the worst. Sometimes you have a woman or a man that is constantly worried that their partner is going to cheat. This means that the person questioning the their partners motives constantly has cheating on the brain. This doesn't mean that they have, or will cheat, but that cheating in some form or another is occupying their thought process.

Gun control advocates often follow the same path. Those most afraid of firearms generally tend to be those who know the least, or do not trust themselves with that kind of power.

I think this is similar to the concerns of countries which seem worried about the number of weapons massed by the U.S. and Russia.

The truth is that both countries are already in the midst of reducing the number of nuclear weapons. They don't need as many now as they used to. With the implementation of MIRV technology (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle). each missile consists of multiple warheads. So a reduction in the number of deployment vehicles doesn't really matter when one vehicle can disperse a large number of warheads.

This action by the U.S. and Russia is just an exercise to pacify those who do not understand the issue.

--> My two cents...

Another point to consider: with Iran on the way to having a nuclear weapon and many rogue nations already having nuclear weapons, the U.S. and Russia would both be fools to let their defenses down now. If any country can be trusted with nuclear weapons, it's the U.S. and Russia.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.