In2 No Nukes ?

Well I guess it would actually be less nukes.

Saw a news report on multiple wires about the diplomats working out the pre meet work on further nuke reductions between the USA and Russia. The two nations are currently already under a treaty (SORT) for reductions to be completed by 2012. The Obama Administration is flirting (as well as others)) with further reductions.

I find this a real fluffy kind of story. Lefties are probably getting the warm and fuzzies and Righties are probably getting ready to start screaming about the destruction of our defenses etc.

All in all it’s a bullshit kind of thing since the arsenal will still be in the thousands for some time. I dare say both sides will fudge the reductions one way or the other with upgrades.

On a side note many of the stories just had to plug the BHO crew with credit for getting 189 countries signing onto refreshing the Non Proliferation Treaty. Although this is nice headline candy ,especially given the diplo-circus that is the Iran nuke issue this too is BS methinks.

Out of the 189 countries how many could actually build,deploy and use a nuke ?

Fluff. Good on a sandwich,sucks on a headline.

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Marc says:

    Post this again despite WordPress having an epic fail on my first attempt to post.

    The NPT requires that signatories without nukes agree to not buy, receive or make any nuclear weapons. Israel and N. Korea not being signatories, that leaves the only possibly violation to be Iran, and evidence that they are making weapons specifically is sketchy at best. 1 violation of out 189 ain’t bad.

    Especially when you consider 33 nations have reactors/refine fissable materials for reactors – meaning they could make their own bombs.

  2. Alfie says:

    I could’ve included more but I was in short and sweet mode. Seriously thought he NPT is kind of a joke. The costs financially,environmentally,politically and on and on of nukes really makes signing a pretty easy thing to do. So I just don’t stock the same faith you might. See what I’m saying ?

  3. Marc says:

    The cost of making a nuke is high – the cost of buying one – maybe not so much. Besides, NPT means alot more than that, it means a shared framework for cooperation on Nuclear Nonproliferation. As treaty signatories, all the nations are supposed to cooperate in providing intelligence when the others break the rules. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but I’ll take some cooperation over none at all.

  4. Alfie says:

    Well in my last comment I meant nuclear anything not just weapons. I’m hearing you and no disrespect intended but I’m unmoved.
    I think of South Africa. Probably the best story of a nation achieving the means and backing away (weapons wise especially) I then have to think of India who rather articulately makes it’s case for it’s weapons program.
    Again expanding on the fluffy feel goodness. Yes we have reduced the number of warheads. We’ve also replaced them all with higher yield and more accurate systems. This is what makes me laugh at those that take “reduction” at face value.
    Last thing for this. More nations seem to be getting back to the nuclear power thing. The potential for security lapses are troublesome for me. A “dirty bomb” is bad enough I think you’d agree.
    All in all I do appreciate you making an effort though. I’m tres cynical this week. I’ll add that I’m in the camp that say Asian countries will actually be the real trial for NPT in the near future not Iran & other Islamic ones

Comments are closed.