Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US, Russia Reach Nuclear Arsenal Agreement

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-can't-hug-your-children-with-nuclear-arms dept.

The Military 413

Peace Corps Library writes "The United States and Russia, seeking to move forward on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war, announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on cutting each country's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons, effectively setting the stage for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), a cold war-era pact that expires in December. Under the framework, negotiators are to be instructed to craft a treaty that would cut strategic warheads for each side to between 1,500 and 1,675, down from the limit of 2,200 slated to take effect in 2012 under the Treaty of Moscow (PDF) signed by President George W. Bush. The limit on delivery vehicles would be cut to between 500 and 1,100 from the 1,600 currently allowed under Start. Perhaps more important than the specific limits would be a revised and extended verification system that otherwise would expire with Start in December. The United States currently has 1,198 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and bombers, which together are capable of delivering 5,576 warheads, according to its most recent Start report in January, while Russia reported that it has 816 delivery vehicles capable of delivering 3,909 warheads. 'We have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of danger that weapons proliferation is presenting today,' said President Obama."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Fallout (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606547)

boooo, there goes my hopes of one day having a child that would roam the wastelands and be the savior of all humanity.

Re:Fallout (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606735)

Since having a child would require sexual congress with a female, I think your hopes (as well as those of the rest of us slashdotters) have always been nonexistent...

Re:Fallout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606785)

the way Russia looks like a democratically elected government but is actually run by a bunch of organized criminals, i fear that you might get your wasteland

Re:Fallout (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606909)

Don't worry...there are still plenty of ways to create wastelands. The trinity of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical is still around. You can add robot and grey goo to the mix in a few decades/centuries.

Re:Fallout (2, Funny)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606965)

Don't worry if they both keep cutting their arsenals like this they will just leave themselves at the mercy of China. BTW this child saviour of yours does he have a talking dog?

Re:Fallout (4, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607163)

China is also reducing its arsenal, it's the trendy thing since the people like it and you can still keep enough weapons to destroy your enemies several times over.

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607169)

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.

Re:Fallout (1)

tarius8105 (683929) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607343)

If you hear news of a 80 foot tall walking robot named Liberty Prime, I would say start walking to your designated vault-tec vault and prepare for the apocolypse.

i really like slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606555)

hi there

Mines bigger (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606559)

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

  • Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
  • Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
  • Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com]!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual [goatse.fr] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware [redhat.com] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual [goatse.fr] practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake [slackware.com] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.

Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals [goatse.fr] preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, [mandrake.com] an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis [rotten.com], glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual [goatse.fr] 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

And Red Hat [debian.org] is secret homo [comp-u-geek.net] slang for the tip of a penis [rotten.com] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other [comp-u-geek.net] automatically.

The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously/anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no/opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows [amiga.com] users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!

Even the title 'Slashdot [geekizoid.com]' originally referred to a homosexual [goatse.fr] practice. Slashdot [kuro5hin.org] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals [goatse.fr] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org].

The editors of Slashdot [slashduh.org] also have homosexual [goatse.fr] names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement [pboy.com]. (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis [rotten.com] discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, Slashdot [notslashdot.org] runs on Apache!

The Apache [microsoft.com] server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual [goatse.fr] activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS [apple.com] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'


What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo [comp-u-geek.net]-calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual [goatse.fr] child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. -- mighty jebus [slashdot.org], Slashdot

Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina [bodysnatchers.co.uk] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator [hitler.org].

ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson [rotten.com] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism [zillabunny.com].

Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?) -- double_h [slashdot.org], Slashdot

Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the PS2 [xbox.com] sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT [linux.com] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church [atheism.org]. Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

Secondly, this message is for every man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man [stileproject.com] . Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. -- phee [slashdot.org], Slashdot

Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl [python.org] (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'

One scary thing about Perl [sun.com] is that it contains hidden homosexual [goatse.fr] messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other! As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual [goatse.fr] queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'

And PHP [perl.org] stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. -- Eimernase [slashdot.org], Slashdot

Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual [goatse.fr] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

*sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord [atheism.org]'s work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)

In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation [slashdot.org]. Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???

If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity [catholic.net] that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman [geocities.com].

Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

What the fuck?

I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos [comp-u-geek.net] tend to be full of. Thank you again. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well bugger me!

ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Fuck right off!

IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD [linux.org], which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain [icopyright.com]. You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL [apple.com] (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted [rotten.com] cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat [adultmember.com], but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.

Current changes: This version sent to FreeWIPO [slashdot.org] by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?

Previous changes: Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.

ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!

Oh please .. (1, Insightful)

terbo (307578) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606563)

Just destroy your selves so we can go back to our huts and tipis, thanks.

Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606567)

The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations. - Robert S. McNamara

Slightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday [nytimes.com]. It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies. He was Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968. Although I did not agree with a lot of his views he shaped a lot of the nuclear buildup during the cold war. I believe he was responsible for abandoning Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation in the event of a nuclear war. He was first tasked by Kennedy of explaining nuclear fallout [wikipedia.org]. McNamara favored non-nuclear power and one of the books I read "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" shed a lot of light on the Vietnam war for me.

If you haven't seen Erol Morris' "The Fog of War [wikipedia.org]" you should.

Rest in peace Robert Strange McNamara. You revealed to me the horrors that leadership must face during war.

Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (2, Insightful)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606693)

That's ok, the entire article is off topic for /. unless someone wants to argue that nuclear war would put an end to all modern technology and other nerdly pursuits so news about nuclear disarmament is nerd news. Meh

Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (2, Interesting)

readin (838620) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606883)

Slightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday [nytimes.com]. It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies

Don't feel too bad. He did get to see the far more important breakthrough agreements negotiated and signed by Presidents Reagan and Bush 41.

Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009 (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607509)

I've really got to love our society. A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country. A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.

This is good news for science... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606569)

This could mean even more cheap launch vehicles for satellites, since launching missiles is a good way of reducing their numbers...

Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (4, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606615)

BBC radio is reporting this will bring the USA and Russia down to owning a mere 95% of the world's nuclear weapons. Go USA! Go Russia!

Seriously, good work both countries for making a step in the right direction. But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (3, Interesting)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606653)

Is there really that much difference in having a thousand or having a dozen? Could the country with a dozen warheads not fuck any other country beyond repair or redemption just as well as one with a thousand nukes?

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606719)

As one of the Rand Corporation's stone cold game theorists said, those would be "tragic, but distinguishable, outcomes".

Nuclear weapons are powerful, extremely so by the standards of just about anything else(short of real sci-fi stuff, or fuel air bombs representing a week of the western world's refinery output); but they are hardly powerful enough that a dozen and a thousand are the same.

Even if we overestimated and supposed that, for ease of calculation, a single nuclear strike could completely eliminate a city, all but the very smallest countries have substantially more than 12 cities, and a fair amount of hinterland. Not to mention the fact that unpleasant side effects like nuclear winter and social chaos, which would presumably do most of the killing after the first couple of days, would be far more severe with more warheads rather than fewer.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606881)

As one of the Rand Corporation's stone cold game theorists said, those would be "tragic, but distinguishable, outcomes".

General Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got 20 million people killed, and the other where you got a 150 million people killed.

President Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!

General Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606999)

Forget game theory. Consider the consequences of agency theory - a 5% reduction in arms is a 5% budget cut to the department responsible for the nukes. It benefits nations to reduce arms significantly (through multilateral treaties) to the point where they are only left with a reasonable deterrent, and enough ground troops to respond to disasters. But no defense department would recommend it, or push for the treaties.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607061)

Actually the problem with nuclear warheads is that they're supposed to destroy an enemy's capability of war - they're not meant to simply destroy lives. Putin, after all, prefers to use proxy countries for that.

The problem is that a nuclear weapon is actually quite limited. A 10 megaton nuclear warhead will only destroy all infrastructure within a circle of 200-300 meters. Especially things like roads and rails are very, very hard to destroy, yet they are the backbone of a country's military efforts, since they represent the supply lines. If you cut supply lines to an army, you have won the war. That's what nuclear weapons would in reality be used for : creating a (tiny) zone of inaccessible land between an army and it's supporting country or bases.

Btw: The effects of a nuclear warhead decrease with the square of the distance (at best), or with the third power of the distance. A 100 megaton nuclear warhead only increases the destruction distance by a factor of 2. A 250 megaton warhead (the largest in existence) will only destroy a bunker when exploded less than 500 meters from it's walls. A 250 megaton warhead, will only destroy a modern office building at less than a kilometer.

Therefore, to transform a tiny, rural city with some 2000 inhabitants into permanent wasteland you'd need a 100 megaton bomb. A hiroshima bomb would simply not do the job (completely). To destroy a city like New York, you need more than a few thousand 250 megaton devices.

And another salient detail : fallout may be deadly, or at least a carcinogen to humans, it really helps plants and animals grow. Some plants are capable of directly harnessing radiation from radioactive decay. Another observation : It will not lead to three-eyed fish, or even slight mutations in all but the largest possible animals. Sensitivity to fallout is directly proportional to the size of the animal (and the way of contamination : ingesting radioactive material is worse than sleeping on it). Humans are simply too large and too sensitive a system to take much fallout, but cats will take amazing amounts without breaking a sweat. Mouse, rats and others are all but unkillable by radiation.

Nuclear weapons aren't the world-ending devices their reputations claim them to be. Nor do they totally destroy the environment. They are certainly not capable of changing the world into barren wasteland, no matter how many are fired.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (0, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607367)

That's very reassuring. When (not if) a major metropolitan area gets nuked by some cult nutjobs, remind me to look you up and put you on the cleanup crew, then relocate you to - what did you say? - 300 metres from the centre of the blast.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607511)

Unfortunately, from the perspective of a radiation-sensitive soft target, who is arguably part of its host nation's ability to make war(i.e. a human), that is notably uncomforting.

Since, as you say, doing serious damage to thinks like roads, rails, and heavier buildings is extremely difficult, that pretty much leaves the humans that operate them as the logical weak link.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607553)

Putin, after all, prefers to use proxy countries for that.

Sure he does. Does it mean that the US don't?

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (2, Insightful)

tpjunkie (911544) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607577)

You are neglecting to factor in the damage caused by the over pressure wave created by the blast, as well as the radiative damage caused by the blast. The shockwave created by a moderately sized nuclear detonation will create an overpressure effect that can be incredibly damaging to structures not designed to withstand it; see Hiroshima, which had an area of near complete destruction a mile in radius, excepting a single concrete structure which can best be described as "bombed out." This was produced by a 20 kiloton bomb. Assuming more robustly built structures in a modern city, I would still suspect that a 10 megaton bomb, releasing 50 times more energy would be much more destructive than 200-300 meters. Secondly, radiative damage would be devastating, as that becomes an increasing factor with bomb strength. Nuclear weapons can release the equivalent amount energy as radiation as the actual explosion; in fact it is the X-ray pressure of the fission primary that is responsible for ignition of the fusion secondary in a hydrogen bomb. This means that for the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki, objects three miles from the blast site were severely burned or ignited from the thermal radiation of the blast. Again, extrapolating to a multi megaton device today results in a somewhat significantly larger burn radius, although this is constrained by the fact that the radiation travels in a direct line of sight and in a dense city, assuming a near ground level detonation this radiation will likely be absorbed well before dispersing to a "safe" level. Of course, with an air blast, the damage inflicted will be significantly higher, with the added bonus that much of the terrain directly below the blast will be heavily irradiated then sent airborne, dispersing fallout throughout the area.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (3, Insightful)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606745)

I don't think a dozen nukes would cripple the US beyond repair... not by a long shot. It would be like a dozen hurricane Katrina's and the economy would go to shit but for the most part, the survivor's lives would still be better than 95% of the rest of the world's and we'd still be eating at restuarants and driving nice cars to work. it's not like we'd be roaming the wastelands eating Iguana-on-a-Stick or anything like that.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606865)

it's not like we'd be roaming the wastelands eating Iguana-on-a-Stick or anything like that.

Hah-hah, I played that game TOO! Please, everyone, keep making references to it, they are always so funny and never get old. Evar!

iguana is tasty (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606893)

you insensitive clod

You underestimate the shock and the logistics (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607025)

The flooding of New Orleans affected mainly low-lying and poorer areas. It had considerable human effect, but it really had no effect on the productive, organisational and so on capacity of the United States. Now imagine 12 warheads that hit 12 major cities, killing perhaps 30 million people over the next 6 months to a year. You've basically taken out most of the people who know how to organise things and keep them going at a high level. It might be a while before everything collapsed, but I suspect it would do so sooner or later. Modern society is just too dependent on organisation and logistics. You won't be driving nice cars for long because the spares and fuel infrastructure will break down quickly, and the food and fuel shortages will cause hoarding and panic.

Then there's the psychological effect. In historical war terms, 9/11 was a nonevent. 25000 people are believed to have been killed in one air raid on Dresden in WW2, maybe three times that in a short period at Hiroshima. Yet the psychological effect on the US was tremendous. If a tenth of the population died in an hour, and maybe another tenth over the next year, that shock would be multiplied many times over.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607041)

What? No "killah cockroaches"?! This post-nuclear-holocaust world is sounding less and less appealing every day.

Besides, I'm not so sure a dozen nukes wouldn't cripple the U.S. Those flatworms in Congress and the White House are doing their best to cripple to U.S. over global warming, the bad economy or the fact that a small percentage of the country doesn't have proper health coverage.

p.s. Apologies to flatworms.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

Pros_n_Cons (535669) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607525)

What? No "killah cockroaches"?! This post-nuclear-holocaust world is sounding less and less appealing every day.

cockroaches surviving radiation is bullshit anyway.
I tested the theory in a microwave and it died pretty good.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607191)

I suspect it would be rather worse than a dozen Katrinas. Katrina's damage to the area's energy production and refining capacity was nontrivial; but much of it was back online fairly quickly. Most of the rest of the impact was either to the local economy(severe; but not really a broader issue) or psychological(most of those hardest hit have been treated as essentially expendable for years; but we usually didn't have to see it). The actual death toll was only a few thousand.

Any nuclear strike on a decent sized city would, at a minimum, cause deaths in the range of a few hundred thousand, likely topping a million in the larger cities(particularly once you take things like the resultant fires into account). Furthermore, unlike a hurricane, nuclear strikes would presumably be deliberately aimed for maximally important targets, not just ones that happen to be on the wrong bit of coast at the wrong time. Major population and industrial centers would be essentially certain to make the list.

It would be survivable(for some people), certainly; but it'd also be pretty damn grim.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607587)

Depends on which cities you hit I suspect:

Washington DC (mostly because that'd take out the politicians)
New York
Los Angeles
San Antonio
San Diego
San Jose

These are the 11 largest cities in the US [infoplease.com] plus DC. If that killed everyone in those cities (unlikely) it'd cost 26.4 million lives in the US.

The economic outcome would be horrible, but taking out New York takes out all the Wall Street brokers and most of the bankers, so it'll probably come out as a wash

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607243)

Is there really that much difference in having a thousand or having a dozen? Could the country with a dozen warheads not fuck any other country beyond repair or redemption just as well as one with a thousand nukes?

In addition to the factors others have mentioned there is this - when the number of warheads is reduced, each remaining one becomes proportionally more valuable.
The practical effect of this is that it increases the pressure on the 'trigger'. Back during the Cold War, losing a single SSBN (for example) meant losing maybe 1-2% of the available force. Damaging, but not fatal. Under a 500 launcher regime, losing a single SSBN means the loss of nearly 20% of the available force. This increases the pressure to 'use it or lose it'. (For 'SSBN' you can also substitute 'bomber base' or 'missile squadron'.)
Another effect is that as the number of launchers and warheads goes down, missile defense becomes more attractive. Thousands of incoming warheads are essentially impossible to stop or event blunt. When you drop that to dozens, such an attack is much easier to blunt and to possibly even all but stop. Which is why the US has deliberately sharply limited the number of missiles and deployment locations for it's current system - while it can blunt or stop an attack from China or stop one from one of the rogue states, it can barely blunt an attack from the Russians. That balance changes with these current reductions, and is one of the reasons the Russians have objected so greatly to expanding the system.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a nuclear strategist by profession, nor do I play one on TV... But I have informally studied it for a couple of decades now.)

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607497)

Yes, there is. You launch a thousand missiles, fifty get shot down, you own your enemy. You launch a dozen missiles (all you have), all of them get shot down... then what? Or even better, the enemy easily destroys your 12 missile silos with the first strike and you don't even have anything to start with.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (4, Insightful)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606827)

But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.

I don't buy that. One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.

It's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea, it's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards. Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607001)

"Our presidents get in trouble..."

good one.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607173)

One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.

One nuke in American hands justifies the arsenal of every madman out there. As long as America holds a single nuke, any dictator can point to it and argue that he has a sovereign right to self-defense against American aggression. Do as I say, not as I do never works. It's far more dangerous to have these things than to not have them. We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607451)

Do as I say, not as I do never works

Actually it works great. I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of the dangerously naive comment, other than to say that showing kindness to a dictator only inspires contempt.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

zorg50 (581726) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607477)

We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.

It's a lose-lose situation. Sure, the double-standard argument is true, but that's only half of it. If the US or another world power were to actually disarm completely, how long do you think it would take for some dictator or terrorist group to take advantage of that opportunity? When mutually assured destruction is no longer an issue, we'll have the most to worry about. The only exception, of course, would be if we had some way to determine, with 100% certainty, that no nuclear weapons were possessed by anyone, and I don't think that's going to happen.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (5, Insightful)

readin (838620) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607535)

Madmen dictators are not 4-year-olds. They don't decide whether to build nukes based on their dad setting a good example for them. The calculate their self-interest and make their decision. Or they calculate whatever mad purpose they have (genocide against Israel) and make their decision. They don't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes. Building nukes for themselves increases the risk of being a victim of a US nuke attack. The only kind of attack the dictator's nukes deter are conventional attacks - and that has nothing to do with the US already having nukes. The US abandoning nukes would make it even more attractive for smaller countries to build them. Right now, NK's nukes merely deter a conventional American attack. Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation, and suddenly NK's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors. Americans and western Europeans need to give up their patronizing attitudes toward other countries. Those other countries aren't children who will imitate our adult ways like a child imitates his parents. Those other countries are ruled by adults who calculate their self-interests the way an adult does.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607635)

We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.

Oh, well, that's ok because the US has tons of double-standards. (Or maybe I parsed that sentence wrong...)

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (0, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607291)

our leaders are held to certain standards. Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid

Yes, "certain" standards. Forgetting to say "God bless the separation of Church and State", sure, 10 points from Gryffindor. Invading the fuck out of a sovereign nation that posed no threat at all, direct or indirect, to the USA, not so much trouble.

Tell a big enough lie, or start a big enough war, and no one dares call you on it. You're a Statesman.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607395)

Invading the fuck out of a sovereign nation that posed no threat at all, direct or indirect, to the USA, not so much trouble.

Right, nobody called out Bush on the invading of Iraq.

Seriously, his party lost practically all power in every branch of government.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607521)

... after his re-election.

[captcha: tyranny]

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

Skillet5151 (972916) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607445)

One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.

So in other words it's ok for your leaders to have as many as they want, just not anyone else? I think that's what a lot of people in countries like Iran see in the US's strong opposition to any development of nukes: not a spirit of genuine concern against proliferation but a fear of any challenge to (Anglo-)American dominance. Bitterness is understandable, especially in consideration of the fact that the US effectively allows Israel free rein with regards to its nuclear production.

On a side note I find it embarrassing that the American media constantly implies Israel will be immediately obliterated if Iran is allowed to develop a primitive first nuke, while making no mention of the fact that Israel reportedly has hundreds of nukes with modern delivery vectors. Sigh, what ever happened to logic or reason?

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607551)

"Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause."

The American leaders never advocate genocide publicly, but it happens all the same.

See Guatemala (150,000 dead to protect commercial interests), Cambodia (750,000 dead through bombing), Afghanistan etc.

Which is worse, to be honest and threaten genocide, or to lie and commit genocide?

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607641)

Keeping in mind the long list of US invasions (which were carried out both under Republicans and under Democrats in nearly equal measure AFAIK), would you bet that the current administration won't launch a surprise attack against Russia as soon as their nuclear arsenal can be taken care of with the US antimissile defenses? I know that I wouldn't...

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606955)

You're selling them short. In two and a half decades, the two nations have dismantled most of the world's entire nuclear stockpile. Compared to the Cold War era it's some kind of miracle. There's a hell of a lot left to do - if the US would ratify the CTBT* it would be an even bigger step in preventing nuclear warfare - but there's a hell of a lot that's been done.

* (They're the most prominent annex II state that has not yet ratified the CTBT, and conversely their ratifying the treaty would be a big political impetus to getting the other holdouts on board. China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan are the other annex II states whose signing and ratification would make the CTBT come into force.)

Quick agreements are often bad agreements. (2, Interesting)

reporter (666905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607435)

Please read the essay titled "Arms Control Amnesia [wsj.com]" and published by the "Wall Street Journal".

A member of the bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission -- headed by former secretaries of defense William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger -- warns that the preliminary agreement signed by Barack Obama guts part of the American nuclear arsenal but does not demand significant gutting of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Two points of serious note are (1) nuclear launchers and (2) tactical nuclear weapons.

Nuclear launchers are mechanisms for launching the intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Russians are demanding that we Americans reduce the number of our launchers to 500, but the Russians were already (before the signing of this agreement) planning to reduce the number of launchers to close that number because they cannot afford to replace the launchers that must be shutdown due to reaching the end of their operational life. In other words, the Russians do not make any sacrifice on this matter but demand that the Americans make all the sacrifices.

As for tactical nuclear weapons, the Russians successfully insisted that these weapons be removed from coverage in this preliminary agreement. The Russians have a 10-to-1 advantage over us Americans in tactical nuclear weapons.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals! (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607569)

Yeah, I know - I can't wait for more nations to get nuclear weapons, because it will put the USA in its place. The Islamic Republic of Iran would never use its weapons against Israel, for instance.

woohoooo take that!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606643)

now you fuckers can only destroy the world once over! ...ooooh wait a second.

Russia and the US have already done this before... (4, Informative)

phoxix (161744) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606677)

Its called Nunn-Lugar [wikipedia.org]/CTR.

Basically the United States gave Russia a billion or so and tactical/technical/administrative support every year to reduce their weapons stock pile.

So even when Bush and Putin had their panties bunched up, great work was being done cooperatively by both sides. [nytimes.com] The program considered pretty successful by government standards.

I know, I know, the idea of good news from government is a scary one!

Re:Russia and the US have already done this before (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606811)

The program considered pretty successful by government standards.

Meaning what, a lot of rich fucks got richer, and almost nothing actually got done?

Re:Russia and the US have already done this before (1)

readin (838620) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607045)

Russia and the US have already done this before...

Well yeah. Anyone ever here of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start_Treaty/ [wikipedia.org]? Let me quote the Wikipedia article: START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States' President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.

Would any country ever give up ALL their nukes? (5, Insightful)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606729)

I think not! These weapons are with us for good.

Re:Would any country ever give up ALL their nukes? (1)

tilandal (1004811) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607283)

You just have to invent a smaller, cheaper, more mobile weapon which is capable of wider-scale destruction to replace those nukes. Do your part for nuclear disarmament, study physics.

Re:Would any country ever give up ALL their nukes? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607365)

During the 1970s and 1980s, South Africa pursued research into weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Six nuclear weapons were assembled[1]. With the anticipated changeover to a majority-elected government in the 1990s, the South African government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons, the only nation in the world to date which voluntarily gave up nuclear arms it had developed itself.


Re:Would any country ever give up ALL their nukes? (1)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607503)

There are two historical examples.

The first is Ukraine, which inherited some fraction of the Soviet stockpile, which they turned over to Russia in exchange
(IIRC) for Russia assuming Ukraine's portion of the Soviet Union's international debt and various treaty obligations.

The second is much more interesting, and less widely known -- South Africa. The Apartheid South African government developed a nuclear capability in the 1970s, primarily as a deterrent (they only ever had a few bombs), and made it known through secret channels that, were the Union of South Africa threatened militarily (e.g. by Communist forces in Angola), they were prepared to strike back hard. The government later joined the NPT, and dismantled their nuclear capability, and no longer have an arsenal. They do still have the capability and materials, of course.

There was a good write-up in "Foreign Affairs" magazine several years ago, and the FAS has this [fas.org] on the topic (which doesn't exactly match my summary above, so I may have mis-remembered it...)

It's just MAD not to assure mutual destruction (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606731)

In this day and age of missiles that can shoot down missiles, you need more missiles not less so that an unstoppable barrage of nuclear death is assured to break through any possible defense.

Still plenty. (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606743)

The new limit works out to roughly one warhead per seventeen thousand square miles of the Earth's land-mass. That's an area a bit larger than the Netherlands. While I'm glad that we'll be spending less in the long run on maintaining and securing the decommissioned armaments, this doesn't really change the picture should the shit really hit the fan someday.

Theory: why no aliens have ever visited us (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606751)

Any species that figures out how to travel in space also invents powerful weapons and blows itself up before it can visit other inhabited worlds.

Really?!? (3, Insightful)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606779)

But John R. Bolton, who was ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Obama was going too far. "The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low," he said.

Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect? Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there. I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first. If that's the case, 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it. France, China, and the UK seem to be pretty secure with even less.

Re:Really?!? (4, Interesting)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606991)

Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there.

'Launch vehicles' also includes aircraft. B-1, B-2, B-52, and F-16. All of these can also be used with conventional munitions. So bringing down the total number of 'launch vehicles' to 500 will, of necessity, bring the numbers of these aircraft down to some very low, possibly unsustainable, number.

I'd fully agree with bringing down the number of actual warheads. But when you include aircraft that can also be used for other functions, we may be getting into a place where the conventional forces are too small to do anything.
The argument could be made that this is a good thing, but that's a discussion for another day.

Re:Really?!? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607403)

Although this treaty does seem to limit launch vehicles, reducing them may not be as detrimental as you fear to conventional vehicles. For the F-16 for example, can launch a nuke but it's main purpose was as an air-superiority fighter. The new F-22 and F-35 does not have launch capability as far as I know. So the F-22 and F-35 probably do not count towards the 500 vehicle total.

Also bear in mind, the aircraft you listed are being replaced anyway with newer aircraft/weaponry. B-2 is replacing the B-1. New aircraft/weaponry tend to be more expensive but more effective than previous generations and as such the Air Force and Navy are using smaller fleets. This had nothing to do with the treaty but how warfare has changed.

For example the B-52 was designed for both saturation bombing and nuclear strike. For conventional bombing you might have had to send 2 or 3 B-52s in the past to hit a target with iron gravity bombs. These days a B-52 to hit a dozen targets with precision weapons.

Also the treaty might allow these hybrid conventional/nuclear vehicles not to be counted if they are simply converted not to be nuclear again.

Re:Really?!? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607407)

I really doubt they meant that in this context. START-I, START-II, and the Treaty of Moscow define launch vehicles as ICBM missiles, SLBM subs, and nuclear bombers. Each of these has a particular limit under those treaties. Currently, less than 100 bombers are permitted, and the Treaty of Moscow would make that even less, so it obviously can't be including F-16s. The current number of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s only just barely makes it under there. A total limit of 500 wouldn't be very strict either: the Treaty of Moscow will set a total launcher limit of under 800, down from about 900 under START-II.

The trick with limiting warheads but not launch vehicles is that you then have a great difficulty in keeping tabs on where the warheads actually are, which is one of the main reasons that nuclear disarment has got this far.

Re:Really?!? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607547)

Those limits numbers are probably off by the way, I'm trying to remember them. I may have confused them with figures for the actual deployed hardware, which is probably close to the limits anyway.

Re:Really?!? (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607649)

Yes, START I & II specifically stated 'heavy bombers'. B-1, B-2, B-52 would be included, and not F-16/18/35.
So...we reduce the overall number of launch vehicles to 500. Once you include sub and ICBM vehicles, the aircraft component could come down to some very low number.

It will be interesting to see exactly what this treaty says.

Re:Really?!? (1, Informative)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607075)

Sort of. That figure does include MIRVs, but those are also trying to be reduce/removed as well. Launch vehicles means missiles, but missile is not the only method by which to deliver a nuclear device. Remember in the 1950s when we have B-50s with nukes on board flying in the air for hours, periodically being refueled? Aside from being a show of force, it was a nuclear arsenal that couldn't be touched by a Soviet nuclear strike. Anyway, we still have aircraft delivered nuclear warheads, and the plane that can deliver a warhead doesn't count against the launch vehicles limit.

Re:Really?!? (2, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607261)

Anyway, we still have aircraft delivered nuclear warheads, and the plane that can deliver a warhead doesn't count against the launch vehicles limit.

Under START I & II, aircraft did count as launch vehicles. Verifiable destruction to include slicing the wings off B-52's, and leaving the carcass outside long enough to be photographed by a Russian satellite. Also, onsite inspections at various air bases and missile launch facilities on both sides.

Re:Really?!? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607539)

Aircraft do not count as launch vehicles. A launch vehicle is a rocket based delivery system. Both missiles and aircraft count as delivery vehicles. The devil is in the details, unless they're using some abnormal definition of launch vehicle. STARTI had separate provisions regarding the number of aircraft each side could deploy.

Re:Really?!? (1)

readin (838620) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607175)

Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect? Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there. I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first. If that's the case, 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it.

That may be true for most potential adversaries, but China has historically shown a shocking disregard for the lives of its people, especially during wartime. Even in peacetime they don't seem to care. Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in the death of some 20 million Chinese (as many people as are in entire countries like Australia and Taiwan) during the Great Chinese Famine, yet Mao's portrait still hangs in an honored place at the entrance to the Forbidden City. I'm not sure 1500 nukes landing in China would have the intended effect. And that's assuming they haven't buddied up with Iran, NK, Russia and other states causing the US to have to divide the nuke strikes amoung several nations.

Re:Really?!? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607223)

Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there.

A few are probably armed with Death's Heads too.

Re:Really?!? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607603)

Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect?

Start w/ 500 theoretical vehicles. 25% are non operational due to regular scheduled maintenance, waiting on spare parts, reconstruction/rebuilding, waiting on trained personnel to do a simple repair, paperwork screwed up, whatever.

Of the remaining 375, we could attack with, we'd like to split into four distinct missions. Immediate counterattack/attack. Delayed counterattack, as in stop this foolishness or we pound you just as hard in a half hour. Deterrence against other "enemies" (so, we're fighting the Chinese today, but we'd like to deter the N.K. from starting a fight tomorrow). Finally a quarter or so for reserve, for who knows what, spare parts or alien invasion or blasting a new panama canal or literally who knows, that's the whole point of a reserve.

Of the remaining 90 for an actual attack, figure maybe 1/2 won't even work. Built by the lowest bidder. Maintenance dude was hung over that day. The Chinese spies that seem to effortlessly steal all our secret designs, were equally successful at inserting a failure mode into the designs. Enemy fighter shot down the bomber. Sub sunk by enemy sub while in the long tedious process of launching. Probably 1 in 10 unmanned rockets blow up shortly after launching when no one is in a particular hurry, so the odds will be worse in wartime.

Of the remaining 40 or so "kabooms", figure we really are hot for destroying certain targets not just make big random bangs that may or may not do stuff. So, figure on targeting 2 "kabooms" per target to make sure the target is most certainly going to get smooshed.

So, figure that starting with 500 treaty permitted vehicles, we might actually destroy 20 targets.

Now, 20 destroyed targets in Cuba is quite impressive, doesn't leave much left standing, definitely a demonstration of your "refried beans effect". 20 vaporized targets in China, not so impressive, not much of your "refried beans effect", in fact most of the country will be untouched and frankly unaffected as long as they don't listen to radio/TV/propoganda.

Therefore with only 500 treaty vehicles, the USA will no longer be able to deter large countries like China from attacking us. I hope they are nice enough not to, but hope in one hand and ____ in another and see which hand fills up first... We don't need to deter the little countries since the conventional military can smoosh them all on their own.

So, in a weird way it makes nuclear deterrence obsolete. Therefore we will go back to world wars every generation or two. Hope we all enjoy WWIII while we can!

So does this mean... (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606795)

...that America and Russia don't want to set the world on fire - they just want to start a flame in your heart?

Anyone know (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606813)

Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is? What has that really accomplished?

Re:Anyone know (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606927)

Diplomacy. It's basically two new administrations getting to know each other in areas that they more or less agree on. The US can reduce stockpiles a long way with no significant military compromise, and Russia just needs to reduce its costs. And it looks very good to the masses.

Re:Anyone know (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606975)

Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is?

700 nukes.

What has that really accomplished?

It distracted attention away from Honduras, the fact that what happened there was not a coup but actually the application of the rule of law (the removal by force of a wannabe dictator who illegally refused to leave office when his legal term limit had been reached), and the fact that the US president publically supported this wannabe dictator who tried, unsuccessfully and quite obviously, to illegally stay in power (that is, what he did was clearly against the laws/constitution of Honduras). A US president speaking out against the rule of law. Now you'd think that would really be newsworthy and certainly more interesting. Instead we get endless coverage about Michael Jackson and this difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes.

Re:Anyone know (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607129)

700 each. If you can't see that 1400 fewer 100kT+ nuclear weapons is a significant reduction, then you're being blinded by something and need to think about it a bit more. You'd be naive to think that the number will ever go to 0. It's not going to happen. You're also not going to get a single massive reduction to a small (100's) number. It's going to happen in steps, like this.

We've dropped from a peak of > 21,000 nuclear weapons, nearly evenly distributed between the U.S. and the old U.S.S.R. Keep that in mind.

Re:Anyone know (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607371)

If you can't see that 1400 fewer 100kT+ nuclear weapons is a significant reduction, then you're being blinded by something and need to think about it a bit more

I don't think he's being blinded by anything. Without knowing how much damage each nuke can cause, or how many nukes it would take to wipe out the earth's population, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 700 nukes may not be a "significant" reduction. It's a step in a good direction, sure, but I think the OP wanted details about how much destruction was literally prevented. Saying we're "700 nukes safer" is like telling me how many libraries of congress your hard drive can store.

Wrong thing for the right reasons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606853)

Not so sure this is a good thing in the short term - in the long term we're all better off with less nukes about the place.

My worry is that Russia will use the money, released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal, to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state. Their economy isn't looking too healthy, and what better way to detract the population from economic issues than an exciting little war? Putin's not exactly a tree-hugging, peace-loving type, and his puppet Medvedev was happy to go along with the incursion of Georgia.

Obama's good intentions may just end up haunting him.

Re:Wrong thing for the right reasons? (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607109)

Hmmm sorry I read that and suddenly it occurred to me that you could switch Russia for America and Ex-Soviet for Islamic and your statement would still be just about as accurate.
Apologies for being a troll

Re:Wrong thing for the right reasons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607147)

Nice to know that the mass media brainwashing machine is operational.

Keeping Count (4, Informative)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#28606879)

START requires only that the weapons be deactivated, not destroyed. The US currently has over 4,000 "deactivated" nuclear weapons. Believe someone who used to shove them up a Buff's (B-52) belly, they can be reactivated in short order.

Also, START is 'Strategic' Arms Reduction Treaty. It says nothing about tacticals, either battlefield or ship based weapons, or EMP devices.

Re:Keeping Count (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607125)

Funny (or not so funny) - I was thinking the same thing. Tactical nukes can range from being used in artillery shells, mines, depth charges, or shoulder fired missiles (i.e. - these are the "suitcase nukes" you sometimes hear about) to being a bit larger - with a yield greater than the bombs used at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I am sure that the US (as well as Russia) has some nukes in their "back pocket" that can be activated in time of need.

Wow - Obama got just what he wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606907)

Do you realize how much it is costing to maintain our nuclear arsenal? And that our reactors for making the fissionable and fusionable parts are deteriorating, with little hope of getting a new one approved thanks to the "consortium of idiots afraid of anything nuclear so we'll keep burning natural gas".

So, this is a win-win.

Re:Wow - Obama got just what he wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607077)

This is a (US)loses-(Russia)wins.

US reduces, Russia increases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28606971)

Russia never reduces its stock of nukes, american fools.

Getting rid of obsolete weapons (2, Interesting)

hessian (467078) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607211)

Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses. This makes many of these weapons obsolete, as they no longer have a guaranteed first-strike capability.

The old arms race was big missiles and bombers; the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles.

But it was a nice press opportunity for both men to come out smelling like roses while they quietly plan each other's destruction.

The inevitable tiring from the indefensible (2, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607235)

We have been told that because others in the West - and their advocates are here tonight - carry the fearful burden of a defence which terrorises as much as the threat it counters, we too must carry that burden. We are actually told that New Zealanders cannot decide for themselves how to defend New Zealand, but are obliged to adopt the methods which others use to defend themselves.

Lord Carrington [the Secretary-General of NATO] made a case in Copenhagen recently against the creation of nuclear weapon free zones. He argued that if the people of the United States - as advocated by my friend over there - found themselves bearing the burden alone, they would tire of bearing it. Now that is exactly the point. Genuine agreement[s] about the control of nuclear weapons do not cede the advantage to one side or the other: they enhance security, they do not diminish it. And if such arrangements can be made, and such agreements reached, then those who remain outside those arrangements might well and truly tire of their insecurity. They will reject the logic of the weapon and they will assert their essential humanity. They will look for arms control agreements which are real and verifiable.

DAVID LANGE, Oxford Union debate, 1985 [publicaddress.net]

Hopefully, not too far down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28607335)

I would MUCH rather that Russia and USA be armed to the point where an ABM site can interfere with a high percentage. In particular, China is now over 600 nuclear-tipped launchers, and appears to be building many more (and may actually already be up to 1000).

The simple fact is, that MAD prevented the cold war turning hot. Now, with China on a major defensive buildout, mostly space and nukes, the west (and russia) MUST keep its number up. Otherwise, this will encourage a few ppl in China to decide to turn things hot.

Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the 80's? (2, Interesting)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607541)

The only winning move is not to play

How about a nice game of chess?

Welcome Back Carter... (1)

hargrand (1301911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28607625)

It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency). Still, I find it a bit disconcerting that he appears not to have noticed that there are now other players in the nuclear proliferation game beyond the US and Soviet Union. I hope he plans to give some recognition to that fact soon, since those other players are not nearly as rational and level headed as the USSR.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account