https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5

The last four strategic nuclear arms treaties between the USA and Russia have been totally ignored.

The START II treaty limited active strategic nuclear warheads to 3,500 per country by the year 2003 – didn’t happen.

The START III treaty was never signed.

The SORT treaty of George W Bush limited active strategic nuclear warheads to 2,200 per country by the year 2007 – didn’t happen.

The New START treaty of Obama limited active strategic nuclear warheads to 1,500 per country by the year 2017 – Trump called Putin in 2017 to cancel it.

Total active strategic nuclear weapons of the USA now about 4,000.

“In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty. In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was.

“New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers. (Trump) asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.

“It’s impossible to overstate the negligence of the president of the United States not knowing basic facts about nuclear policy and arms control.”

What’s the penalty for Trump breaking the law in this way?

mollwollfumble said:

What’s the penalty for Trump breaking the law in this way?

The same penalties as Trump has suffered for his other transgressions of the law.

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

What’s the penalty for Trump breaking the law in this way?

The same penalties as Trump has suffered for his other transgressions of the law.

I wish he’d never been impeached. The gloating when the republicans deny all articles… Ergh!

Divine Angel said:

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

What’s the penalty for Trump breaking the law in this way?

The same penalties as Trump has suffered for his other transgressions of the law.

I wish he’d never been impeached. The gloating when the republicans deny all articles… Ergh!

Yes, the Democrats were too impatient. His first term has only some months to go. Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has. That would have made a successful impeachment early in his second term a lot easier (assuming he wins re-election)/.

captain_spalding said:

Divine Angel said:

captain_spalding said:

The same penalties as Trump has suffered for his other transgressions of the law.

I wish he’d never been impeached. The gloating when the republicans deny all articles… Ergh!

Yes, the Democrats were too impatient. His first term has only some months to go. Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has. That would have made a successful impeachment early in his second term a lot easier (assuming he wins re-election)/.

> Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has

What could be more stupid than removing the limit on the number of Russian nuclear weapons allowed to target the USA?

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

Divine Angel said:

I wish he’d never been impeached. The gloating when the republicans deny all articles… Ergh!

Yes, the Democrats were too impatient. His first term has only some months to go. Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has. That would have made a successful impeachment early in his second term a lot easier (assuming he wins re-election)/.

> Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has

What could be more stupid than removing the limit on the number of Russian nuclear weapons allowed to target the USA?

Beyond a small number of missiles the number is irrelevant.

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

Yes, the Democrats were too impatient. His first term has only some months to go. Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has. That would have made a successful impeachment early in his second term a lot easier (assuming he wins re-election)/.

> Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has

What could be more stupid than removing the limit on the number of Russian nuclear weapons allowed to target the USA?

Beyond a small number of missiles the number is irrelevant.

Wouldn’t the number of missiles required to kill everybody be quite large?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Between now and the election, he was bound to do something even more stupid and self-serving than what he already has

What could be more stupid than removing the limit on the number of Russian nuclear weapons allowed to target the USA?

Beyond a small number of missiles the number is irrelevant.

Wouldn’t the number of missiles required to kill everybody be quite large?

The US were proud when they invented the cobalt bomb. They claimed only 30 would be needed to wipe out all human life.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Beyond a small number of missiles the number is irrelevant.

Wouldn’t the number of missiles required to kill everybody be quite large?

The US were proud when they invented the cobalt bomb. They claimed only 30 would be needed to wipe out all human life.

I wonder if whoever came up with that number got his sums right.

Do they have more than 30 cobalt bombs anyway?

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Beyond a small number of missiles the number is irrelevant.

Wouldn’t the number of missiles required to kill everybody be quite large?

The US were proud when they invented the cobalt bomb. They claimed only 30 would be needed to wipe out all human life.

So what ever happened to the neutron bomb?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Wouldn’t the number of missiles required to kill everybody be quite large?

The US were proud when they invented the cobalt bomb. They claimed only 30 would be needed to wipe out all human life.

I wonder if whoever came up with that number got his sums right.

Do they have more than 30 cobalt bombs anyway?

According to TATE, they don’t have any:

“ cobalt bomb is a type of “salted bomb”: a nuclear weapon designed to produce enhanced amounts of radioactive fallout, intended to contaminate a large area with radioactive material. The concept of a cobalt bomb was originally described in a radio program by physicist Leó Szilárd on February 26, 1950. His intent was not to propose that such a weapon be built, but to show that nuclear weapon technology would soon reach the point where it could end human life on Earth, a doomsday device. Such “salted” weapons were requested by the U.S. Air Force and seriously investigated, but not deployed. In the 1964 edition of the U.S. Department of Defense book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, a new section titled radiological warfare clarified the “Doomsday device” issue.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Wouldn’t the number of missiles required to kill everybody be quite large?

The US were proud when they invented the cobalt bomb. They claimed only 30 would be needed to wipe out all human life.

I wonder if whoever came up with that number got his sums right.

Do they have more than 30 cobalt bombs anyway?

It wasn’t the bang it was the radioactive cobalt.

mollwollfumble said:

What’s the penalty for Trump breaking the law in this way?

What law? Which one?

Woodie said:

mollwollfumble said:

What’s the penalty for Trump breaking the law in this way?

What law? Which one?

The way I read it. He didn’t sign on to a treaty his predecessors from Regan onwards also didn’t sign.

Tamb said:

Woodie said:

mollwollfumble said:

What’s the penalty for Trump breaking the law in this way?

What law? Which one?

The way I read it. He didn’t sign on to a treaty his predecessors from Regan onwards also didn’t sign.

I’m not aware that “treaties” have any penalties in them, for not abiding by them.

Woodie said:

Tamb said:

Woodie said:

What law? Which one?

The way I read it. He didn’t sign on to a treaty his predecessors from Regan onwards also didn’t sign.

I’m not aware that “treaties” have any penalties in them, for not abiding by them.

My point exactly. DT’s opponents are just as inept as the man himself.

From what I heard, the US pulled out to permit it to develop certain mid-range weapons that was not permitted in the agreement, whereas Russia has excelled in this area as mid-range weapons are more important in its area of concern. The US was initially more involved with long-range weapons, possibly due to its distance from possible nuclear aggression.

PermeateFree said:

From what I heard, the US pulled out to permit it to develop certain mid-range weapons that was not permitted in the agreement, whereas Russia has excelled in this area as mid-range weapons are more important in its area of concern. The US was initially more involved with long-range weapons, possibly due to its distance from possible nuclear aggression.

Dunno about that.

There’s only 55 miles/88km between the US and Russia.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

From what I heard, the US pulled out to permit it to develop certain mid-range weapons that was not permitted in the agreement, whereas Russia has excelled in this area as mid-range weapons are more important in its area of concern. The US was initially more involved with long-range weapons, possibly due to its distance from possible nuclear aggression.

Dunno about that.

There’s only 55 miles/88km between the US and Russia.

Don’t think they keep any nukes there or anywhere close.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

From what I heard, the US pulled out to permit it to develop certain mid-range weapons that was not permitted in the agreement, whereas Russia has excelled in this area as mid-range weapons are more important in its area of concern. The US was initially more involved with long-range weapons, possibly due to its distance from possible nuclear aggression.

Dunno about that.

There’s only 55 miles/88km between the US and Russia.

Don’t think they keep any nukes there or anywhere close.

I ought to be able to check that out, from the US side in 2001. From the following table, Turkey would be by far the closest US nuclear weapons to Russia, followed by Germany. Let’s look in detail at Balikesir, Murted and Incirlik.

Balikesir is 711 km from Russia.
Murted is 505 km from Russia.
Incirlik is 824 km from Russia.

Now to more pleasant matters.

Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. United Nations inspired, 2017.
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by the Conference (by a vote of 122 States in favour ( with one vote against and one abstention) at the United Nations on 7 July 2017, and opened for signature by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 September 2017. It will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth instrument of ratification.

As of end of 2019 it was signed by 80 countries, not including Australia. Not including any member of the nuclear club.
Not including any European country that has US nuclear weapons stationed on it. Only one member of the former Soviet Bloc.
Signatories do include former and hopeful nuclear nations Kazakhstan, Brazil and Libya.

Text of the treaty.

Article 1. Prohibitions

Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

• Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
• Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
• Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
• Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
• Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

I suspect I’m very lucky living in Essendon. We’re right next to the City of Moreland and it declared itself a nuclear free zone many years ago. The bombs start flying and I’ll just duck over there.

sibeen said:

I suspect I’m very lucky living in Essendon. We’re right next to the City of Moreland and it declared itself a nuclear free zone many years ago. The bombs start flying and I’ll just duck over there.

!!

sibeen said:

I suspect I’m very lucky living in Essendon. We’re right next to the City of Moreland and it declared itself a nuclear free zone many years ago. The bombs start flying and I’ll just duck over there.

The ‘People’s Republic of Moreland’ thank you very much!

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Thanks. Has crashed in four out of the last four Russian tests.

The USA has cruise missiles with an enormous range, as far as a long range bomber and as far as a long range ICBM. Thousands of them.

Could it be that the USA has already had nuclear powered cruise missiles for even as long as the last 20 years or so?

If they have, they’ve done well to keep it dark.

And that surprises you? They even keep their presidents in the dark.

The two US cruise missiles in 2007 weren’t nuclear powered.

Damnit, I’m sure that the cruise missiles from some country had a very long range. Nope. Not according to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cruise_missiles

“To replace the ALCM, the USAF planned to award a contract for the development of the new Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) weapon in 2015.” Details of the LRSO still seem to be top secret. 150 kT warhead. “The designations YAGM-180A and YAGM-181A have been allocated to prototypes for the Long Range Stand-Off Weapon”. Nothing to say what they mean by “long range”.

> If they have, they’ve done well to keep it dark.

Or perhaps the US haven’t kept it in the dark.

The Russian cruise missile is powered by a RTG, radioactive thermal generator, right.

The RTG material of preference in the USA IS 238-Pu because it’s an alpha emitter with a suitable half life and very little in beta and gamma.

U.S. production of 238-Pu resumed recently. “In January 2019, it was reported that some automated aspects of its production were implemented at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, that are expected to triple the number of plutonium pellets produced each week. The production rate is now expected to increase from 80 pellets per week to about 275 pellets per week, for a total production of about 400 grams per year. The goal now is to optimize and scale-up the processes in order to produce an average of 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) per year by 2025.”

Now this is not the 238-Pu that NASA needs for its deep space spacecraft. The NASA 238-Pu is being produced by Canada, by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and its venture arm, Canadian Nuclear Partners.

So why the massive build-up in the production of 238-Pu if not for powering nuclear-powered nuclear warhead cruise missiles?