[Scape]

The thread is about the summit and the GOP reaction to it. In your dissertation your stating that the START treaty is pointless because there is no means to enforce it. I understand your concern but such efforts are not done in isolation but in concert and this summit reflects that collective effort.

In so far as there is a significant amount of weaponined uranium already, much is not secured, that agreement is attempting to secure all known quantities of it. In so far as NK or Iran is concerned they may have some limited access to it but almost no means of producing it themselves currently. So their impact on this ratification process is moot.

As far as the agreement to draw down the current stockpiles that is a separate issue from NK and Iran because the amount of the stockpiles dwarf anything those nations have or would ever be capable of and would destroy the planet several times over. They will agree to draw down and will work where as possible to prevent other nations from accessing such means to produce such stockpiles.

There is no way to stop a nation determined to becoming a nuclear power if they are bent on doing so. The only thing these agreements can do is by offering incentives for non-nuclear clients to not pursue such a path. Such incentives can be very persuasive, such as in the case of the former soviet republics, Ukraine and Chile. So it has a proven track record of effectiveness. To argue against such measures to be taken because there are states that will not be as easily swayed seems a little naive to say the least.

[Teikiatsu]

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" (latin) - "If you wish for peace, prepare for war"

Republicans and Conservatives do not want war. It is immature beyond description to hold to that belief. However, one must stay ready and prepared to respond to any acts of hostility. Mistake this atittude for bloodthirsty warmongering if you want, you're the fool.

I realize the US nuclear readiness should not be affected, especially if we can count one bomber loaded with nukes as a single nuclear weapon, but the fact of the matter is Obama is not gaining the US any kind of security out of this. Russia will not lose out of this. The bad guys who want to supply terrorists with nukes will not hand over their supply. The point of a compromise and treaty should be that America gains something if we are willing to give something up. This is not adding to prestige or trust in America, if anything it makes us look weak with a naive and unprepared leader.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Teikiatsu wrote:

I realize the US nuclear readiness should not be affected, especially if we can count one bomber loaded with nukes as a single nuclear weapon, but the fact of the matter is Obama is not gaining the US any kind of security out of this.

But security is not lost either, is it.

Teikiatsu wrote:

Russia will not lose out of this.

Should it?

Teikiatsu wrote:

The bad guys who want to supply terrorists with nukes will not hand over their supply.

But not reducing the US nuclear arsenal would not advance that goal either. Was this used as a justification for the treaty anyway? If not, why bring it up?

Teikiatsu wrote:

The point of a compromise and treaty should be that America gains something if we are willing to give something up.

Both US and Russia will gain in the form of lessened fiscal burden caused by their nuclear arsenals.

Teikiatsu wrote:

This is not adding to prestige or trust in America, if anything it makes us look weak with a naive and unprepared leader.

In my eyes it doesn't make US look weak.

[Scape]

However, you have to take into consideration the ageing stockpiles are well beyond their expected serviceable lifespans and will have to be replaced no matter what sort of agreement is in the works. No one is going to agree to more nuclear tests so modernization of current stockpiles with be problematic to say the least without a new agreement. The US could go the way of Israel and just make the bombs and just not publicly acknowledge the fact but then that will just mean other nations will outright ignore any dictates by the US to not follow the same path. We want to slow down and draw down stockpiles, not create a crescendo where everyone is making their own bombs. Brazil has their own space program with long range missiles, do they need nukes as well?

Also, nuclear weapons technology is very expensive, hard to keep a secret and hard to find resource for. Even if everyone knew how to assemble a bomb not everyone would make one. Nuclear deterrence in a pluralistic multi-polarized world no longer dominated by 2 superpowers is a white elephant that only a superpower can afford to maintain. How long will China extend credit to the US if the US decides to expand and modernize their program? I think that line of credit only goes so far and that is where agreements are forged and time is not infinite here. Pakistan does not want to leave its stockpiles unsecured but can not afford to do the cleanup by itself and India has their own problems with that insecurity. Rather then stick to the current path of obliteration by omission it is time to secure what is out there and lock down the means of production and then grandfather out the ageing stockpiles for smaller, more pinpoint weapon systems that are much easier to budget and maintain.

[Psudo]

I have a hard time conceiving how either course of action (reducing our nuclear arsenal or maintaining it) would change much.

Sure, it costs money to maintain. How much?

The Nuclear Threat Initiative, an anti-Nuke organization, estimates total US expenditures on nuclear weapons from 1940-1996 to be $5.5 trillion (adjusted for inflation, 1996 dollars). That includes research, development, and manufacture for the entire Cold War era; presumably this represents a ceiling, a high-ball estimate of merely maintaining the existing US nuclear program. It also comes to just under $100 bn/year. The US Federal Government budgeted $3.5 trillion for 2009 expenditures [source, pdf], which adjusts to about $4.9 billion in 1996 dollars [conversion source]. That means the US nuclear program costs something less than 2% of the annual federal budget.

The $100 bn/2% figure is inherently a high-ball estimate. Yes, right-wingers, it's probably significantly less than that now. Yes, left-wingers, there's plenty of room in that estimate to include maintenance, repairs, and eventual dismantling of old-model nuclear arms. If anyone has a more modern figure for the costs of nuclear arsenal maintenance (after the collapse of the USSR would be good!), I'll be happy to rework the math.

According to this chart, it's approximately the same as the budget for the (allegedly perpetually underfunded) US Department of Education. (I like that particular chart because it includes all spending; on- and off-budget, discretionary and mandatory. There are plenty of other federal budget charts online that pick and choose; select any one you like, and the results will be similar.)

With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (eg, the Bailout), Obama signed into law about 8 years worth of US nuclear spending [$787 billion, source]. There's a contradiction that needs defending if you're fine with ARRA but not with nuclear spending. They both arguably help the country in their various ways, and both have critics that say they don't help. But one is 8 times the size; mathematically, it should require 8 times as good an argument to defend.

A similar argument could be made comparing the nuclear program to the new government health coverage bill, which also might negatively affect GDP by increasing the costs of doing business; maintaining a nuclear arsenal seemingly won't.

I'm annoyed at government spending generally (there's way too much of it, and unlike many conservatives I even support some military spending cuts), but nuclear weapons spending isn't very high on the list of huge, expensive government programs. As long as it's costs remain relatively insignificant, I have a hard time getting riled about this particular expense above and beyond my annoyance at expense generally. In fact, I'm a little bit less irritated about nuclear weapon spending since the nuclear arms race helped pressure the USSR into bankruptcy, a very positive result at any price. Let's see your Department of Housing and Urban Development (5% of the budget) do that!

[bootlegga]

Quote:

From 1940-1996, the United States spent a minimum of $5.5 trillion on its nuclear weapons program.[2] The lack of data for some programs and the difficulty of segregating costs for programs that had both nuclear and conventional roles mean that in all likelihood the actual figure is higher. This figure does not include $320 billion in estimated future-year costs for storing and disposing of more than five decades' worth of accumulated toxic and radioactive wastes and $20 billion for dismantling nuclear weapons systems and disposing of surplus nuclear materials. When those amounts are factored in, the total incurred costs of the U.S. nuclear weapons program exceed $5.8 trillion.[3]

Of the $5.8 trillion, just seven percent ($409 billion) was spent on developing, testing, and building the actual bombs and warheads. To make those weapons usable by deploying them aboard aircraft, missiles, submarines, and a variety of other delivery systems consumed 56 percent of the total ($3.2 trillion). Another $831 billion (14 percent) was spent on command, control, communications, and intelligence systems dedicated to nuclear weapons. The United States also spent $937 billion (16 percent) on various means of defending against nuclear attack, principally air defense, missile defense, antisubmarine warfare, and civil defense.

The amount spent through 1996—$5.5 trillion—was 29 percent of all military spending from 1940 through 1996 ($18.7 trillion). This figure is significantly larger than any previous official or unofficial estimate of nuclear weapons expenditures, exceeding all other categories of government spending except non-nuclear national defense ($13.2 trillion) and social security ($7.9 trillion). This amounted to almost 11 percent of all government expenditures through 1996 ($51.6 trillion). During this period, the United States spent on average nearly $98 billion a year developing and maintaining its nuclear arsenal.

It is very difficult to comprehend figures of this magnitude. To provide some perspective, consider the following:

* $5.8 trillion divided equally among everyone living in the United States equals a bit more than $21,000 per person.
* $5.8 trillion in one dollar bills stacked one atop another would stretch 459,361 miles (739,117 kilometers), to the Moon and nearly back.
* If you attempted to count $5.8 trillion at the rate of $1 a second, it would take almost 12 days to reach $1 million, nearly 32 years to reach $1 billion, 31,709 years to reach $1 trillion and thus about 184,579 years to reach $5.8 trillion.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_atomic_audit.html

That's what I found. For me, the key to understanding nukes and their costs is this sentence;

The amount spent through 1996—$5.5 trillion—was 29 percent of all military spending from 1940 through 1996 ($18.7 trillion).

So, while it was a small amount of the entire budget, it was roughly one third of the defence budget each year. That ain't cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not an anti-nuke guy, but given that their is no arms race or MAD strategy in place, there is no need to maintain massive stockpiles of weapons. The few thousand spelled out in this agreement is still more than anyone else has.

The real bonus is that it frees up considerable funds to be spent on other conventional weapons systems, which are getting more and more expensive everyday.

[commanderkai]

Scape wrote:

The thread is about the summit and the GOP reaction to it. In your dissertation your stating that the START treaty is pointless because there is no means to enforce it. I understand your concern but such efforts are not done in isolation but in concert and this summit reflects that collective effort.

That's not what I said either. START is enforceable because it is between the US and Russia. The NSS is another matter, but my entire starting point was about how START will do nothing to make the planet any safer from global nuclear war because A) The chance of this war happening between Russia and the US were nil before this START treaty, and B) Rogue states and terrorism are more likely to carry out a WMD attack upon the United States and/or her allies.

Everything I have stated is related to START, rogue states, and the move away from the threat global nuclear war, to the threat of nuclear terrorism. START does not change this. The NSS does, but most Republican contentions have been with START, and not the NSS (that I know of.)

Quote:

In so far as there is a significant amount of weaponined uranium already, much is not secured, that agreement is attempting to secure all known quantities of it. In so far as NK or Iran is concerned they may have some limited access to it but almost no means of producing it themselves currently. So their impact on this ratification process is moot.

But this has NOTHING to do with START, which was the main point of my posts. You brought in weaponized uranium reserves, which isn't in START, but rather in the NSS.

So, no matter how much you attempt to ignore it. This (START) has nothing to do with the NSS. START does not secure weaponized uranium. START reduces nuclear weapons and their delivery systems between the US and Russia.

Quote:

As far as the agreement to draw down the current stockpiles that is a separate issue from NK and Iran because the amount of the stockpiles dwarf anything those nations have or would ever be capable of and would destroy the planet several times over. They will agree to draw down and will work where as possible to prevent other nations from accessing such means to produce such stockpiles.

My contention with START is that it has no impact on more dangerous threats of the proliferation of nuclear weapons by rogue states, but rather focuses on a non-existing threat of nuclear war between the US and Russia. As such, reducing nuclear weapons between the US and Russia is not the great feat it was during the Cold War, when people saw nuclear war between the two said states as something that can happen at any moment.

You are attempting to make this about the NSS, when all I was discussing was START. If you want to make this about the NSS, fine, but that does not take away from the legitimate criticisms of START.

Quote:

There is no way to stop a nation determined to becoming a nuclear power if they are bent on doing so. The only thing these agreements can do is by offering incentives for non-nuclear clients to not pursue such a path. Such incentives can be very persuasive, such as in the case of the former soviet republics, Ukraine and Chile. So it has a proven track record of effectiveness. To argue against such measures to be taken because there are states that will not be as easily swayed seems a little naive to say the least.

Scape. Enough. Stick to what I've said. I never, ever said, that NSS was a bad idea. I didn't even say START was a bad idea. Stop attempting to put words in my mouth, because it's extremely tiring.

The START treaty reduces nuclear weapons between the US and Russia. This is good because it'll save both states a decent amount of money, and because it might improve relations between said states. However, START will not reduce the chance of a nuclear exchange between said states (Because, as I have said, the chance of such before this START treaty was nil) nor will it improve global security due to the growth of proliferation by rogue states.

The NSS, with the LITTLE I have said on it, because it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with START, or reducing nuclear weapons/delivery systems between the two states, sounds like a good plan. However, once again, it does not do anything against proliferation by rogue states. So, reducing the weaponized uranium stockpiles within former Soviet Republics, the Ukraine, and Chile, amongst others, will possibly increase global security, but it won't stop proliferation by states who are already in the process.

[Psudo]

bootlegga wrote:

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_atomic_audit.html

That's what I found. For me, the key to understanding nukes and their costs is this sentence;

The amount spent through 1996—$5.5 trillion—was 29 percent of all military spending from 1940 through 1996 ($18.7 trillion).

So, while it was a small amount of the entire budget, it was roughly one third of the defence budget each year. That ain't cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

That's the same data I was looking at. It dates back to 1940. Between the 1940s and the 1980s, it made pretty good sense to spend a large portion of the military budget on nukes since we were in a nuclear arms race with the USSR. That exaggerates the average dramatically. That 29% figure was also distorted by the fact that the government generally was smaller in the first half of that year range.

You know why they stopped tracking in 1996? The USA hasn't had active development of nuclear weapons since the arms reduction treaties of the 1980s and started sharply reducing our nuclear arsenal in the mid 1990s because there wasn't a Soviet Union to race anymore [Wikipedia]. I calculated an average of $100 billion/year between 1940 and 1996. That link says the cost was $35.1 billion in 1998 (that's $26.27 billion in 2009 dollars). They cut 2/3rds of the cost of the nuclear program already. If that same budget was repeated in 2009 and adjusting for inflation, that'd be 0.75% of that year's budget. Other inflation-adjusted figures [source for budget figures]:

Total 2009 income tax receipts were 46 times that size.
The 2009 Social Security budget was 36 times that size.
The 2009 bailout/recovery bill was 30 times that size.
The 2009 Department of Defense budget was 19.6 times that size.
The 2009 Medicaid/SCHIP budget 2009 was 8.5 times that size.
The 2009 Department of Energy budget was 95% that size.
NASA's 2009 budget was 2/3rds that size.

Is that small enough for us to not give a crap? Can we care about the hundred larger government programs first?

I was looking for some post-Soviet numbers. In responding to you, I stumbled onto one post-Soviet annual figure. It's a start. Thanks.

[BartSimpson]

When looking at the US 'nuclear weapons' budget a lot of leftist/pacifist groups tend to associate *any* weapons platform associated with nukes as a 'nuclear weapons expenditure'.

An aircraft carrier is not a nuclear weapon yet because it can carry such things it is included in the line items. Same goes for the F-14 because it could load the Phoenix missile, which could carry a small nuke. Pretty much every submarine is included because all of them (attack subs, too) can carry a nuke in a Tomahawk. And etc.

Nuclear weapons themselves have been under the Department of Energy budget since 1980. The DoE manages the production and reprocessing of the devices and the costs are nowhere near the $5.5 trillion figure - which is almost the entire 1946-1996 defense budget.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

Note that the 1946 budget is as approved and it was cut substantially after WW2 ended.