Obama to Call for Deep Cuts in U.S., Russian Nukes

[Hissyspit]

Source: CBS News

CBS/AP/ June 19, 2013, 2:21 AM

Obama to call for deep cuts in U.S., Russian nukes

BERLIN President Obama will renew his call Wednesday to reduce the world's nuclear stockpiles, including a proposed one-third reduction in U.S. and Russian warhead arsenals, a senior administration official says.

That would bring the total number of warheads in each country to about 1,000.

Mr. Obama will make his case during a speech at Berlin's iconic Brandenburg Gate. His address comes nearly 50 years after John F. Kennedy's famous Cold War speech in this once-divided city.

The president has previously called for reductions in the stockpiles and isn't expected to outline a timeline for the renewed push. But by addressing the issue in a major foreign policy speech, Mr. Obama is signaling a desire to rekindle an issue that was a centerpiece of his early first-term national security agenda.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57589978/obama-to-call-for-deep-cuts-in-u.s-russian-nukes

[Tx4obama]

1. Obama makes it at last to the Brandenburg Gate

Obama makes it at last to the Brandenburg Gate

Candidate Barack Obama wanted to speak at the Brandenburg Gate back in 2008.

President Barack Obama gets the chance Wednesday.

The German government, which rejected Obama's request five years ago, invited the president this year to speak at the 18th Century triumphal arch that has become a symbol of Berlin's re-unification since the divisions of the Cold War.

Berlin "is a place presidents have gone to talk about the free world," said Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

-snip-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/18/obama-reagan-brandenburg-gate-germany/2434967/

[Hekate]

2. Excellent. We always need more detente -- and more responsible dismantling of the stockpiles.

After the USSR broke apart there were a lot of nuclear weapons left around the rim in places like the Ukraine. The US worked co-operatively with the Russians for awhile, but I have not heard about it in years, so I thought that maybe the Bush/Cheney admin and the GOP Congress had dropped it and/or defunded the program.

I am very heartened to hear that President Obama is bringing it up again.

[graham4anything]

3. Fantastic. And I bet the minor league media will ignore this major peace in the world effort.

now, will Russia and others follow suit?

Will the Peter King's in the republican party out there agree to this?Because they control the funds, and they are republicans.

[Sunlei]

4. make russia state they will not sell their old nuke junk to syria, iran, nk et all

like they're doing with their other garage sale military junk.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Obama calls for US-Russia nuclear weapons cuts in Berlin speech

Mr Obama used his speech to announce that he had determined the US was able to ensure the security of itself and its allies and maintain a credible deterrence by reducing its nuclear weapons by a third from the levels agreed in the New Start treaty in 2010.
...
"We intend to work with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear posturing", he said, adding that the US would also work alongside Nato allies to seek "bold reductions" in the use of tactical weapons in Europe.

The US would also seek to forge a new international framework for the use of peaceful nuclear power, he said, and rejected the nuclearisation of countries like North Korea and Iran.

Shortly before Mr Obama spoke, the senior foreign policy adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin said other nuclear-armed countries would have also have to reduce their stockpiles for such a plan to work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22962873

[I love weed]

6. Sure. We believe you, Obama.

Really we do. It's not like you're just a tool for the Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex or anything.

[TM99]

7. Yes, I believe Obama

because he is now in obfuscation mode.

Hey, look over there at the nukes. Democrats hate nukes. If we can get them interested in an exploratory committee that will oversee the halting of more nukes, then maybe, just maybe, the few of them that still care will stop focusing on the NSA Prism leaks and go back to being good little follower's.

For Democrats, it is things like nukes, the environment, and civil rights. All wonderful and important things in their own right unless they are being used as merely political talking points and stump speeches to focus the attention elsewhere. Republicans do the same with their follower's as well. They just get them to focus on guns, god, and taxes. They are trying to divert attention by pushing their a late term anti-abortion bill because god says every sperm is sacred.

We are not officially in a Brave New World of propaganda and obfuscation all of the time. Who do we ultimately trust?

[JoePhilly]

9. We should cut taxes, shrink the government, and then drown it in a bath tub.

[TM99]

15. No

Read again what I wrote.

[JoePhilly]

17. We can't trust the government.

[TM99]

19. I could not tell from your previous post

if you agreed or disagreed. But yes, in essence, we can not trust the politicians that make up our current system of government. We must scrutinize critically all of their rhetoric especially within the context of other political issues and problems facing us today.

[geek tragedy]

14. So it's your take that Obama hasn't been doing much on the nuke issue

since he took office?

That's an ignorant supposition on your part.

[TM99]

16. Well, you walked right into that one you know.

Read my post again.

A big speech about nukes is not what needs discussing right now with regards to our 'national security'.

Try again.

[geek tragedy]

18. "a big speech about nukes is not what needs discussing right now"

Sez you.

Lots of people disagree.

[TM99]

20. Says you.

But you know what, I lot of people disagree with you as well.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Welcome to DU

and thank you for your wonderful insight.

[geek tragedy]

13. Obama has been working on this issue a long time.

Although you have a point, it's an idiotic point.

[telclaven]

10. I am seriously opposed to this

After a certain level of reduction, a first strike becomes a winning strategy. The reason for having a large number of weapons is to ensure the retaliation of surviving warheads is enough to detere an adversary from contemplating that initial launch.

In the cause of maintaining peace, I think a certain number of active, ready to use warheads need to be maintained. It'll keep BOTH sides focused on conflict resolution instead of conflict initiation.

[Paulie]

11. First strike against a sub fleet is a bit hard

Even half on land and half under sea would keep deterrence just fine. How many MIRV warheads are actually are needed to wipe out civilization on half of the planet? 50? 100? We know 10,000 will, but you can squish a bug only so many times.

[telclaven]

21. Takes more Game Theory math than I am capable of

But I know there's someone smart enough to figure it out. Too few weapons would be more dangerous than too many. Someone might think they could get enough of the other guy's to make any retaliation "acceptable losses" instead of "oh God no".

[sir pball]

22. It's not game-theory complicated at this point, just needs a little knowledge

I suspect most of these cuts would be to outdated and frankly unneeded strategic weaponry, e.g. silo-based ICBMs. They're more or less useless these days, modern MIRVs are accurate enough to take them out quite efficiently. We'll keep the sub-based strategic arm (invulnerable half-megaton warheads with quarter-mile accuracy provide enough second-strike capacity to deter anybody - the Trident II was hugely destabilizing for that reason) and tactical bombs for the Air Force if we ever need battlefield usage. Maybe some Tomahawk-Ns for kicks. Just as effective and muuuch cheaper - silos are pricey!

[ucrdem]

12. Rec, also link to a Telegraph article with videos:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10130273/Barack-Obama-calls-for-nuclear-stockpile-reduction-in-Berlin.html