A Step in the Right Direction?

[Phoenix Wright]

In a few weeks, Russia and the United States are signing a treaty to reduce their nuclear arsenals. As the years go by, more and more will be gone. Of course, all of them will never be tossed aside, but is this a step in the right direction?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_russia_nuclear

[whase]

a small step for prevention of nuclear wars, a huge step for humanity.

[Zanarkin]

I think it is great, just aslong as other countries follow to do this too i guess. There is no use in winning a war when more than half of the land of your enemy is destroyed.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mordecai

[bunny: spider bitten]

Of course it is. Once all the nuclear weapons are gone, countries can go to War without fear their countries will be eliminated in a second. The United States can go back to it's war profiteering and help end the economic strife.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Of course it is. Once all the nuclear weapons are gone, countries can go to War without fear their countries will be eliminated in a second. The United States can go back to it's war profiteering and help end the economic strife.

Not quite. Even without nuclear weapons, the sheer destructive power of modern weapons could easily cause massive damage. The reason this is prevented is because people have realized that it sure sucks having your civilian population bombed to shit, and gee wouldn't it be nice if we all agreed not to do it. I don't believe nuclear non proliferation will affect this greatly.

[bunny: spider bitten]

I drop a nuke and I'm causing damage to the environment for literally decades. A regular bomb doesn't do that.

Besides, I'm hardly talking about big countries. Little ones like Iran and Israel.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I drop a nuke and I'm causing damage to the environment for literally decades. A regular bomb doesn't do that.

Besides, I'm hardly talking about big countries. Little ones like Iran and Israel.

Yeah. Nuclear non proliferation will probably not make them more likely to war. The only real difference it will make is that Israel will go from only being defeated by a suicidal nation, to just not being defeated period (well, not really, but the basic idea is that it will probably make Israel mildly safer due to the elimination of the possibility of a basket case nation).

[Original Alear]

How exactly will they dispose of these weapons? From what I understand, the half life of the fissile material used will mean it takes longer to dispose of the weapon-grade materials. Does this mean that the US and Russia will be aiming towards disposing of the least damaging weapons (i.e. with least potent materials that decay most quickly) and be keeping the bombs with the worst impacts in terms of radiation etc?

Moreover, another concern (especially in Russia where I've heard weapons-grade uranium has gone unaccounted for from year to year) is whether the nations will be more or less attentive to guarding the remaining weapons, as well as monitoring the weapons-grade material they are trying to dispose of.

EDIT-All in all, it's a good thing, since the US (and Russia) can't feasibly ask other countries to be responsible about nukes while stockpiling so many themselves. Deterrence does, in fact, still continue to this day - note that Israel and the US have both launched pre-emptive strikes against non-nuclear powers in the middle east while India and Pakistan have had no visible "government sponsored" wars since 1971 - and unless the countries with nukes are willing to discard them, they are merely acting in their own self-interest in keeping other countries from obtaining them (but not necessarily the world's interest, though they may sometimes be acting in the world's interest). But, for the moment, I don't think it's enough - it will only matter if reductions continue over time.

Edited March 31, 2010 by SeverIan

[Phoenix Wright]

How exactly will they dispose of these weapons? From what I understand, the half life of the fissile material used will mean it takes longer to dispose of the weapon-grade materials. Does this mean that the US and Russia will be aiming towards disposing of the least damaging weapons (i.e. with least potent materials that decay most quickly) and be keeping the bombs with the worst impacts in terms of radiation etc?

Moreover, another concern (especially in Russia where I've heard weapons-grade uranium has gone unaccounted for from year to year) is whether the nations will be more or less attentive to guarding the remaining weapons, as well as monitoring the weapons-grade material they are trying to dispose of.

EDIT-All in all, it's a good thing, since the US (and Russia) can't feasibly ask other countries to be responsible about nukes while stockpiling so many themselves. Deterrence does, in fact, still continue to this day - note that Israel and the US have both launched pre-emptive strikes against non-nuclear powers in the middle east while India and Pakistan have had no visible "government sponsored" wars since 1971 - and unless the countries with nukes are willing to discard them, they are merely acting in their own self-interest in keeping other countries from obtaining them (but not necessarily the world's interest, though they may sometimes be acting in the world's interest). But, for the moment, I don't think it's enough - it will only matter if reductions continue over time.

That's exactly what was done after the Cuban Missile Crisis, I assumed it would be the same this time as well.

[Original Alear]

That's exactly what was done after the Cuban Missile Crisis, I assumed it would be the same this time as well.

Do you mean up to and including the "most potent weapons kept" part?

[Fayt Zelpher]

How exactly will they dispose of these weapons? From what I understand, the half life of the fissile material used will mean it takes longer to dispose of the weapon-grade materials. Does this mean that the US and Russia will be aiming towards disposing of the least damaging weapons (i.e. with least potent materials that decay most quickly) and be keeping the bombs with the worst impacts in terms of radiation etc?

Well, I can't say for certain what will happen. However, since only certain isotopes of uranium, plutonium, and the like are actually fissile, one way would be simply to combine it with non-fissile isotopes of the material, thus making it hard for a rogue state (or terrorist group or other non-state actor) to actually make a weapon out of the material because that would require re-enriching the uranium/plutonium back to weapons-grade potency.

Does that make sense at all?