A world with out nuclear weapons is not a joke?

[usman_1112]

Arsenal can be maintained and improved without testing? A nuclear world is not in the national security interest of the United States and Russia.

The NPT Ratification will Promote disarmament, prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and "reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. START I is due to expire in December 2009 and the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty will end in 2012. It stressed “the need for more progress in reducing these nuclear arsenals through appropriate follow-on processes

"President of USA Barak Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."The disarmament treaty currently being negotiated between the US and Russia applies to deployed strategic warheads, along with their delivery systems, but that leaves out most of the weapons both countries are sitting on. The Obama strategy is to create disarmament momentum in the run-up to the non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, to reduce arsenals to 1,500 warheads each side.

From a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. Many of the "decommissioned" weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed. As of 2009, the total number was expected to continue to decline by 30%-50% over the next decade.
The administration is hoping the Security Council meeting helps build support for another key nuclear-arms agreement, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The treaty was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1996 but hasn't yet taken effect, because some countries that have nuclear reactors have not yet ratified it.

The United States is one of those nations. Ratification of the treaty has been at the center of a long-running dispute; although the U.S. has observed a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing since 1992, the Senate rejected the treaty in 1999, and the Bush administration showed no interest in trying again.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution on Thursday September 24 2009 aimed at encouraging nations to scrap their nuclear weapons arsenals. The resolution passed among growing calls for more international pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program and concerns about North Korea, which has tested nuclear weapons.

Countries that have openly tested nuclear weapons and are not parties to the NPT are India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel, which has not declared that it is a nuclear-armed state but is believed to have a substantial number of atomic warheads, also has not signed the pact.

Although Iran is a party to the NPT, the U.S. and other Western nations have charged that it is using its nuclear program as a springboard to developing a bomb.

All five permanent members of the council are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus are committed to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and reducing their own atomic arsenals, while supporting the right of any country to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

At the 2005 review conference, France and the United States argued that they felt no longer bound by the 13 practical steps on nuclear disarmament contained in the 2000 consensus final document because the global context had changed so dramatically after September 11, 2001. Yet, even nuclear-weapon states disagree on this point. Thus, Duncan reaffirmed in Vienna the United Kingdom’s commitment to “the unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the relevant disarmament measures contained in the 1995 Review Conference decisions and in the 2000 Final Document.”

Several non-nuclear-weapon states, while agreeing with Washington that decisions by review conferences are not legally binding, flatly rejected the U.S. line that review conferences only make suggestions.
U.S. presentation of “A Work Plan for the 2010 Review Cycle: Coping With Challenges Facing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty” as Washington’s attempt at least to appear more constructive than at past NPT meetings.

“The United States was more forthcoming and prepared to engage where previously it was sitting back much more,”
Negotiated in the 1990s, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty specified 44 nuclear-capable countries that must give formal approval before it can take effect. Eight countries besides the United States have yet to ratify the treaty: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan

But later except only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and withdrew from it in 2003.

The administration needs 67 votes in the 100-member Senate to ratify the test ban treaty, which means it will need support from some of the 40 Republicans. No Republican has yet declared support, and key Republicans remain skeptical.

Short-range, tactical weapons like nuclear artillery shells, depth charges and anti-ballistic missiles, of which the US has an estimated 500 and Russia has about 2,000. Such warheads, being smaller, are arguably easier to steal.

The distinction between deployed, reserve and retired warheads. The new deal, like the 2002 Moscow Treaty, deals with deployed warheads that are installed a top missiles ready to fire, or in the form of bombs ready to load on to planes.

Russia has approximately 2,780 deployed strategic warheads, compared with around 2,100 in the USA.

But there is a lot more destructive force sitting in the American and Russian warehouses in the form of reserve arsenals. Much of the disarmament of recent years has involved warheads being removed from missiles and stored in bunkers, under constant maintenance.
They can be reunited with their missiles in a matter of days or weeks. In the case of gravity bombs, the distinction between deployed and reserve stockpiles is even more blurred. In the American case, for example, it depends on whether they are stored on 'forward' air bases in Europe Isreal, or back in the US.

The third category is 'retired for dismantlement'. The warheads are separated from their delivery systems and warehoused without maintenance.

The US has 4,200 such warheads and is only dismantling them at the rate of 270 a year. Russia is thought to have about 8,000 non-deployed warheads, but it is unclear how many are in reserve and how many retired.

"Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city," Obama said, "be it New York or Moscow; Tokyo or Beijing; London or Paris — would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life."

Number of war heads 2009.
(1)Russia has Intercontinental Missiles1355, Short range Missiles -576, Bombs 856.Submarines/Non Strategic-2050, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -8150.Total Number-12987.Total in 2000-21,000.

(2)USA has Intercontinental Missiles-550, Short range Missiles-1152, Bombs-500.
Submarines/Non Strategic-500, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -6700, Total Number-9552.Total in 2000-10,577.

(3) France has Intercontinental Missiles-0, Short range Missiles -0, Bombs 60.Submarines/Non Strategic-240, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -0.Total Number-300.Total in 2000-350.

(4) Israel has Intercontinental Missiles-0, Short range Missiles -0, Bombs 0.Submarines/Non Strategic-0, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -0.Total Number-200.Total in 2000-0.

(5)UK has Intercontinental Missiles-0, Short range Missiles -0, Bombs 0.Submarines/Non Strategic-192, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -0.Total Number-192.Total in 2000-195.

(6) India has Intercontinental Missiles-0, Short range Missiles -0, Bombs 0.Submarines/Non Strategic-0, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -0.Total Number-75.Total in 2000-0.

(7) Pakistan has Intercontinental Missiles-0, Short range Missiles -0, Bombs 0.Submarines/Non Strategic-0, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -0.Total Number-90.Total in 2000-0.

(8) China has Intercontinental Missiles-121, Short range Missiles -0, Bombs 55.Submarines/Non Strategic-192, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -0.Total Number-176.Total in 2000-400.

(9) North Korea has Intercontinental Missiles-0, Short range Missiles -0, Bombs 0.Submarines/Non Strategic-0, In Reserve/awaiting Dismantlement -0.Total Number-2.Total in 2000-0.

China, with its long-range ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), is in a different league altogether. Its road-mobile DF-31A missile, for instance, can hit targets 11,200 km away, while JL-2 SLBM has a reach beyond 7,200 km.

The Pokhran test of 1974, whose explosive yield was officially claimed to be 12 to 14 kilotons (a kiloton is the equivalent of 1,000 tonnes of TNT, or trinitrotoluene). India conducted five nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998, at the Pokhran range in the western state of Rajasthan. These included a 45- kiloton (kt) thermonuclear device, also called a hydrogen bomb. Other tests on May 11 included a 15-kt fission device and a 0.2-kt sub- kiloton device. The two simultaneous nuclear tests on May 13 were also in the sub-kiloton range - 0.5 and 0.3 k.

The mother of all bombs was tested by Russia (50 MT), followed by US (15 MT), China(3.3 MT), UK (3 MT) , France (2.6 MT) . The bomb dropped on Japan (Little bomb0 was an atom bomb (18KT). If that caused so much destruction, you can imagine what the hydrogen bomb would do. Pakistan produced a total yield in the range of 40 to 45 kilotons nuclear tests on May 28 of boosted devices made with highly enriched uranium (HEU),

India, of course, has no ICBM or SLBM. While it's developing the 3,500- km Agni-III and 5,000-km Agni-V ballistic missiles, the only missiles available to armed forces as of now are Prithvi (150 to 350-km range), Agni-I (700-km) and Agni-II (2,500-km). But they, too, have not undergone the rigorous testing nuclear-capable missiles should undergo.

Moreover, the nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant, which was launched on July 26, will take at another two to three years to become fully operational. And it will be equipped only with 700-km range missiles to begin with.

According to the bipartisan 2009 Council of Foreign Relations Report on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy co-chaired by Bill Perry and Brent Scowcroft While a state could develop a first-generation Hiroshima-type nuclear bomb without nuclear testing, the CTBT would prevent a state from gaining guaranteed technical assurance through nuclear testing that advanced nuclear weapons would work reliably. The political benefit of the CTBT is that it has been strongly linked to the vitality of the nonproliferation regime. The Task Force believes that the benefits outweigh the costs and that the CTBT is in U.S. national security interests.

FMCT is essential to capping global stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile materials, and thus is an important part of a broader effort to reduce those stockpiles and prevent their transfer to other states or terrorist groups. But it will take time to negotiate this treaty at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva. In the meantime, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France should announce moratoria on the production of fissile materials for weapons and seek agreement from China, India, Pakistan, and Israel to do the same.

Other states including Iran, Egypt Brazil and Syria specifically mentioned the decision by members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to exempt India, a non-member to the NPT, from NSG guidelines. Switzerland stated that "these discussions can be perceived as a double standard which is not helpful when it comes to encouraging some States Parties to keep accepting the principles of the fundamental bargain on which the NPT is based.

" Iran vehemently made clear that having access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy was the main reason for accepting the bargain of the NPT, and Egypt stated that without it the treaty is "fundamentally lopsided" and unbalanced. It is worth noting that Austria tabled its long-awaited working paper on multilateralization of the nuclear fuel cycle proposing a non-discriminatory multilateral framework of supervision of all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle "from the cradle to the grave." This approach seems to have attracted more interest from developing countries than proposals that focus on the supply side only.

Measures leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons," including the CTBT, FMCT, verified reductions, greater transparency, reducing operational status, and refraining from qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's motive for pursuing a nuclear weapons program is to counter the threat posed by its principal rival, India, which has superior conventional forces and nuclear weapons. Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). "Pakistan remains steadfast in its refusal to sign the NPT, stating that it would do so only after India joined the Treaty. Consequently, not all of Pakistan's nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards.

Pakistani officials have stated that signature of the CTBT is in Pakistan's best interest, but that Pakistan will do so only after developing a domestic consensus on the issue, and have disavowed any connection with India's decision."

Need to talk with India, Pakistan ,North Korea and Israel. Many tough questions remain. The map we have to a nuclear weapons free world--incomplete as it may be--is good enough to start the journey.
Usman karim based in Lahore Pakistan lmno25@hotmail.com

 

[usman_1112]

The National Intelligence Strategy report -- compiled every four years -- says Moscow and Washington share the goal of securing their nuclear weapons to keep them out of the wrong hands. But it also says that Russia "may continue to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence in ways that complicate U.S. interests."
It's also an enormous nuclear power and looms over Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Central Asia, in ways that make many uncomfortable the United States cannot risk not closely monitoring its former Cold War foe.

"When you look at what is still the world's second-largest nuclear power and second-largest military power and a key exporter of military technology and a country with vast international influence, to not look at it as a potential risk would be unrealistic and a failure on the part of the intelligence community,"
during the height of the cold war, in September 1961, President John F. Kennedy addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations. “Every inhabitant of this planet,” he said, “must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness.”
Yet Kennedy’s warning still resonates. The world remains a very dangerous place, and the threat of a nuclear catastrophe is still very real. The next U.S. president, whether Republican or Democrat, must face this threat head-on by rebuilding the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, which has been grievously weakened by the Bush administration

 

[usman_1112]

In 1987, when the United States began reducing its nuclear arsenal, it contained 24,000 warheads. By 1992 that number had been cut to 10,500 warheads. In 2002 the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT, required the United States and Russia to reduce their “operationally deployed” strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012. SORT, however, permits each side to retain thousands of additional warheads in a reserve stockpile for redeployment if necessary. As a result, by 2012 the U.S. nuclear arsenal will still contain 4,600 warheads. Russia is expected to have about the same number.'
Perhaps the most blatant example of President Bush’s disregard for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the nuclear deal he signed with India in July 2005. India, which never signed the N.P.T., became a nuclear weapon state in 1974. Nevertheless, the agreement calls for the United States to sell civilian nuclear materials to India, thereby formally acknowledging that country as a weapon state and in effect rewarding it for producing nuclear weapons.

 

[ISRO2]

Sir in short a world without nuclear weapon is disaster. America will chew up every nation on this planet. Todays world without nuclear weapon would be easy target for america. Why did japan lost war? Who defeated japan? Was it america? Nope. It was nuclear bomb and fear of nuclear bomb. Nuclear weapon are danger but its also securing security of the nation. Think about your country without nuclear weapons. India not war pakistan recently due to simple thing and that thing is nuclear bomb. So in a way nuclear bomb is life line of country sir. Thank you.

 

[Penguin]

Sir in short a world without nuclear weapon is disaster. America will chew up every nation on this planet. Todays world without nuclear weapon would be easy target for america. Why did japan lost war? Who defeated japan? Was it america? Nope. It was nuclear bomb and fear of nuclear bomb. Nuclear weapon are danger but its also securing security of the nation. Think about your country without nuclear weapons. India not war pakistan recently due to simple thing and that thing is nuclear bomb. So in a way nuclear bomb is life line of country sir. Thank you.

Japan would have been defeated anyway, with or without A_bomb. But it would have taken longer and would have cost more US/Allied lives.
It is just a matter of economic resources and industrial potential. An those of the US are far greater than those of Japan. And with Germany and Italy out of the picture, the Russians would also have brought their weight to bare. There is no way Japan would have been able to resist the combined forces of US + USSR.
Which other nations defeated Japan? It was almost solely USA that broke the back of Japan.

Your point is a world without nukes is an easy target for US. Well, even with nukes, it is. US got the nukes and used them in part because they feared the Russian military-industrial potential at the end of WW2. And rightly so! Without nuke, Western Europe would be speaking Russian .

 

[Kamakazi 69]

Nope. Nuclear weapons are deterrents. It seems idealistic, but can't happen. Probably the time when the world becomes nuclear weapons free will be when the world becomes WEAPON FREE and we as a species have a long road to go before we reach that.
But still we must applaud Obama for taking the initiative.

 

[Aeri-Eye]

Will we ever live in a world without Nukes? I dont think so. Do you guys really think world will give up nukes? US might be a 'superpower' but they are no way near enough to force the world to give up nuclear weapons. China, Russia, UK, Pak, India etc will never give up nukes. And why should we anyway?

I dont know what Obama thinks of himself, we will reduce our nukes, we will live in a nuke free world. I was listening to his 'bakwass' other day and as soon as he started talking about nukes i turned my tv off. I dont even know why this poor fellow is wasting his & other's time by giving such useless conferences.

Or i guess he & the so called 'United Nations' are doing this to stop Iran getting Nuclear .......

 

[usman_1112]

An Islamic nuclear arms race .there are 8 middle east and nort african countries ,Saudi arabia,TURKEY,UAE,JORDAN,ALGERIA,MOROCCO are going for nuclear enegry.
Iranian nuclear weapon frightens the Saudis "to their core" and would compel the Saudis to seek nuclear weapons,Over the past three years, a dozen Middle East countries have declared their intent to pursue civilian nuclear programs, including Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Turkey. Sixty years after the nuclear age began, these states have suddenly become interested in nuclear power.We are witnessing the beginning of a Middle East nuclear arms race. Iran's rivals do not want Tehran to gain the military, political, and diplomatic advantage that nuclear weapons convey.
In September 2006, Egypt became the first Sunni Arab regime in recent years to declare interest in developing a civilian nuclear power programme. President Hosni Mubarak and other Egyptian officials announced they would restart their country's programme, which has been in abeyance for two decades following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Turks and Persians have battled with each other for centuries over dominance in the Middle East. If Iran develops nuclear weapons and becomes the power in the region, Turkey will quickly follow suit; it will not have another choice.

Luckily for the Turks they are supported by the West. They can count on even more support at the moment Iran gets its hands on weapons of mass destruction. The United States especially will encourage Ankara to take all necessary steps to restore the balance of power and to push the Iranians and their sphere of influence back.
A preliminary agreement on nuclear power cooperation was signed with the U.S. in April 2008 after the UAE released a white paper that represented the coordinated views of a wide spectrum of UAE government entities, inputs from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the governments of France, the U.S., Britain, Russia, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea.

there is a better case for double standards in the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation deal, signed in October 2008, under which the U.S. got the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant a nuclear trade waiver to India, a self-declared nuclear weapons state.

The implementation of this waiver makes India the only country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the NPT and yet allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the 45-member NSG,its really a gangerous practice of USA and EU and other NATO countries.

 

[usman_1112]

But with at least 40 developing countries around the world, 11 of them in the Middle East, signalling interest in civilian nuclear programmes, many in the U.S. and outside are concerned about the possibility of proliferation, resulting in an arms race.
The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.new $BILLION OF dollars business going to start in muslim world,it's is USA interest to give time to iran for having nukes,it's will bring $billion of dollars investment for forgien companies.UAE $41 BILLION DOLLARS nuclear industry,turkey $23 billion dolars ,so $125 billion dollars business is going to start in middle east.

 

[Aamirkhan(ssg)]

Without Nuclear wepons World will be safe but in Destruction of Weopons Pak donot do Quick Decision because its for safety of pakistan.

 

[abbasniazi]

I don't think anyone with Nukes would give it up, there is only one possibility and that is if they make a more effective, lethal and reliable weapon then N-bombs or H-bombs...

 

[Guest]

a joke? off course not!

it is estimated that by the year 2050, all the major powerhouses will have their effective orbit missile defence system, giving them the BM immunity. and the airborne laser system will provide them the CM immunity. therefore, nuclear missiles would be nothing but junks.

secondly, those whos giving up nuclear testing did not done it because they are enthusiastic environmentalist. its because 1) they have collected enough data to run nuclear simulations on their super computers. 2) they have found something cleaner but more devastating , such as the neutron and EMP bombs. although they are nuclear triggered now, conventional cores are being develop to replace the nuclear ones.

 

[Aeri-Eye]

it is estimated that by the year 2050, all the major powerhouses will have their effective orbit missile defence system, giving them the BM immunity. and the airborne laser system will provide them the CM immunity. therefore, nuclear missiles would be nothing but junks.

I doubt if we will live that long to see the that day. They will probably be a nuclear war well before 2050.

 

[usman_1112]

Since the Cold War the U.S Missile Command and the U.S Air Force have continually focused their efforts on designing an Airborne Laser Weapon. Whilst this idea may still seem like science fiction but it's reality 2day.Boeing and the US Air Force keep advancing in their airborne high-energy laser weapon, the modified 747-400F that is designed to shoot down missiles as they fly to their targets. 1 Sept. 2009. Laser weapons experts from Boeing and the U.S. Air Force defeated a ground target from the air with the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) aircraft Aug. 30 in ATL's first air-to-ground, high power laser engagement of a tactically representative target.
fired its high-power chemical military laser through its laser weapon beam control system while flying over White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The beam control system acquired the ground target -- an unoccupied stationary vehicle -- and guided the high energy laser beam to the target to defeat the vehicle.
The ATL industry team also includes L-3 Communications/Brashear, which built the laser turret; HYTEC Inc., which made a variety of the weapon system's structural elements; and J.B. Henderson, which provides mechanical integration support.
A powerful Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) has been mounted in a turret-like array on the nose of specially modified Boeing 747-400 air freighters. The Airborne System’s (ABL) primary mission will be to locate and shoot down enemy ballistic missiles

 

[usman_1112]

"Mutually Assured Destruction", or MAD, is the logical reductio ad absurdum of these bizarre excesses of deterrence theory. But when one side in the uneasy equilibrium of forces seeks to rewrite the rules by deploying a missile defence system, the other sides are impelled to increase their offensive capability. The underlying principle is the old nuclear age dictum consecrated by Cold War ideologues like Robert McNamara: that a good offence can beat any defence.
the Arab states that are signatories to the NPT have been insisting that Israel must be brought on board the treaty as a non-NWS. The U.S. has consistently opposed the singling out of Israel. On security assurances, the c onsensus among most non-NWSs is that signatories to the NPT must be assured of immunity from nuclear attack in a legally enforceable manner. The U.S., for its part, prefers a highly qualified variant of these so-called "negative security assurances". In terms of its current nuclear weapons doctrine, as enshrined in Presidential Decision Directive 60, the U.S. will consider the application of nuclear weapons against states that have prospective nuclear weapons capability, states that possess chemical or biological munitions, and states that engage in an act of war against an ally of the U.S. in league with a NWS.
Although ostensibly designed to defend American territory against missiles launched from the putative "rogue states" that the U.S. has designated around the globe, the NMD programme involves the amendment or abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM ) Treaty signed with the Soviet Union in 1972. As the designated successor, Russia believes that the ABM Treaty retains its validity, while right-wing elements in the U.S. Senate, insist that it has lapsed with the break-up of the Soviet state. And even if this far-fetched interpretation were to be discounted, Senate Republicans are pushing for the amendment of the ABM Treaty or its unilateral abrogation, in order to enable development work to proceed on an NMD system.