There Are Reports Obama May Say Something Sensible at the State of the Union

There is a lot of speculation about what Obama is going to say in this evening's State of the Union. While much of what the president is rumored to be planning to say will be of little reassurance to those of the libertarian persuasion there is one proposal that Obama might make that I would welcome. According to The Telegraph Obama is expected to call for a drop in the number of nuclear weapons we have.
From The Telegraph:
Although Mr Obama is not expected to give precise numbers in his speech, reports yesterday claimed that the number of warheads could be cut from 1,700 to as low as 1,000, if a mutual agreement can be secured with Russia.
Mr Obama believes that "pretty radical reductions" can be made to the arsenal, a left-over from the Cold War, and US military leaders have "signed off" on the proposed reductions, the New York Times reported, citing anonymous administration officials.
I still think 1,000 nuclear weapons still sounds a little excessive, but some progress is better than none.
Cuts to our nuclear arsenal would accelerate compliance with the NEW START treaty with Russia, which requires the U.S. and Russia reduce the total number of warheads both countries have to 1,550 by 2018.
America's greatest external threats are not nations that have their own nuclear weapons. Terrorists that are not a part of any military or loyal to any nation are more of a danger to American national security than a nuclear Iran or North Korea. In the unlikely event of a terrorist detonating a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil it is far from obvious what the target of our nuclear response should be. Even were Russia and China threats to our national security 1,000 nuclear weapons are still an effective deterrent. The U.S. is fighting wars that are very different to the wars that were being fought during the Cold War; it is time that we adapted our arsenals accordingly. Cutting back on our nuclear arsenal is especially worth doing now considering the state of the American economy.
Don't forget to follow me and others from the Reason crew tonight as we live tweet the State of the Union. Reason senior editor Peter Suderman has put together drinking game rules for the occasion especially for those who prefer to experience these sorts of things through the bottom of bottles and shot glasses.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Reports" as in "the office poll"?
You know, I read something that suggested that the U.S. is the only real nuclear power, in that no one could first strike us and survive, but we could first strike all of the other nuclear countries and get away with it. There's apparently some real question as to the viability of the aging Russian arsenal, and Chinese capabilities remain limited.
I'm not advocating anything, just noting something I've heard.
I believe this to be true, myself. Scary, in the opposite way the Cold War (RIP) was scary.
Thanks goodness our elected leaders are of such unimpeachable character that I don't ever worry that they'd do something stupid with that much power and advantage over the rest of the world.
This is exactly the kind of thing I really worry about. That advanced, massive nuclear arsenal ain't going anywhere. We'll have that when the rest of our military begins to weaken as our economic decline continues. The temptation to do evil with it seems all too easy for the evil, venal fucks we allow to rule us to succumb to.
yepper - zackly
I'd like to be the first to welcome our Canadian, Cuban, and Mexican slaves.
Well, we spent so much money developing, operating, and maintaining those missiles it would be shame not to use them on someone. Otherwise it's all a big waste. /eveil, venal fuck
But when there was a Cold War we had to publicly prove that we were better than the Soviets about rights and freedom.
Here's a question. If you somehow possessed a nuclear weapon and the means to deploy it, would you use it?
I can't quite explain why, but I think I would. I don't even know where or why, but there is something just so overpoweringly awesome about nuclear bombs that I don't think I could resist.
I respect that level of self awareness. Props
That's why anarchy doesn't work. Because of your lust for nuking, Zebulon.
Yes. My one fatal flaw.
There's always the Moon. Which was made for us to nuke.
If I had a big enough rocket, I think that would satisfy my nuke-lust. But those are hard to come by. I wonder how far straight up an ICBM would go?
But those are hard to come by.
If by "hard to come by" you mean "impossible" then correct. There's no more Saturn Vs and no launch vehicle or missile currrently in service is anywhere near powerful enough to reach the moon.
Although if you were a Bond villain wanting a moon rocket to hold the world hostage for... 1 MILLION DOLLARS! I know a few aerospace engineers who may be willing to work on it if the price is right.
Huh? Then how the hell are they getting all those roboprobes to Mars? Remember, we're not talking about a manned mission, just a few hundred pounds for the warhead.
Fuck, you got me there.
*dons dunce cap*
Yes, it would be a lot easier to get a couple hundreds pounds worth of warhead to the moon.
As for Mars probes, on those the spacecraft has its own propulsion system that takes over once the launch vehicle has lobbed it into orbit. Technically so did the Apollo spacecraft. The Service Module took over propulsion duties once the third stage of the Saturn V was expended. Some people somewhat mistakenly refer to the SM as the "fourth stage", which is technically not correct.
We choose to nuke the moon. We choose to nuke the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
Why? Because we like to blow shit up.
I am sure that there are rockets in service capable of reaching the Moon.
What? You say you also want to come back?
I would use it to declare the political sovereignty of my family farm. I might take my neighbor's farm as well, as her cats continue to aggress against my cars and bird feeders.
No kidding, there's probably a federal study out there on the utility of nuclear explosions in large-scale farming.
Back in the 50's they looked into using small nukes for mining operations. Though I suppose a nuke would be good at leveling rainforest too...
Good for plowing.
That's about the only advantage to having one, absent global delivery capability.
Of course the government would probably not be content to just let you be.
How about a low yield, maybe 4 kt bomb, detonated tonight at say... 21:15 at the Grant memorial...
Sadly Ted Nugent will be killed along with the rest of the kleptocracy, but I can live with that.
Other than maintenance costs, I'm not sure why the absolute number really matters once you're north of 10.
Yeah, doesn't a single ballistic sub have enough nukes to destroy the world a few times over?
Not the Earth, no. Maybe one of those little planets the Little Prince visited, though.
No, maybe not. But I'd bet that one boomer could kill the majority of all citizens in any single country in the world, with the possible exceptions of China and India.
There's no good reason to use nuclear weapons, especially on any large scale. Unless aliens invade or something.
There's no good reason to use nuclear weapons
Personally, I think they make a dandy deterrent to the NORKs and the Pakis (and, soon, the Iranians) letting some of their uranium and/or bombs sort of fall into the wrong hands.
Actually China and India are easier to kill the majority.
What matters is how widely spread the population is, not how many people there are.
India is so densely packed that even a few dozen warheads would kill the majority of the country, China is not quite as bad but with the majority of the interior being uninhabited mountains or desert you still wouldn't need more than 80 or 90 warheads to get ~70% of their people
They are densely packed, but even if you take out 10 clusters of 10M each, you've still only hit 10%.
But regardless, one boomer to rule them all.
Well, an Ohio class SSBN carries up to 192 warheads on 24 missiles, so you can hit 96 targets in China, with 96 left over for India.
People vastly overestimate the power of nuclear weapons, particularly tactical nukes.
The Earth is surprisingly resilient. We could launch everything we've got and it would come nowhere near the damage done by the K-Pg asteroid (that killed the dinos). We could, at best, cause a minor extinction event. Pandas and a bunch of other nearly extinct species would be kicked over the edge. Mankind and the more resilient species would be hurt bad, but would survive.
We lack the capability of exterminating life, and I doubt we could do much (if any) permanent damage to the Earth itself. I suspect we could figure out a way to utterly destroy the planet (and certainly the ecosystem) if we really put our minds to it.
No, not even close.
The Ohio class Sub carries 24 SLBM's with up to 8 Warheads each.
24 x 12 = 288 warheads
Each warhead has a blast power in the 300 - 400 KT range, just enough to level a mid sized city, large cities however would require 2 or even 3 warheads to completely destroy (if you dropped one on Lower Manhattan there would be survivors in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx)
So, while 1 Nuke Sub can completely destroy a country by wiping every significant population center off the map it wouldn't even make the country uninhabitable, forget "destroy the earth"
Further, contrary to popular belief even at the height of the cold war we never possessed the ability to actually cause our own extinction with nuclear weapons, there are simply too many people scattered across wide uninhabited areas, blown ourselves back to the stone age, sure, but not driven humanity to extinction.
Correction, the older subs held 8 warheads per missile, the newer ones 12, hence the discrepancy.
But the arsenal of a single boomer could make large areas uninhabitable for generations, and cause millions of cases of cancer worldwide.
Many of the living would envy the instantly-vaporized dead.
"There Are Reports Obama May Say...."
I've never understood this desire and need to speculate on what someone's going to say or do in a couple hours. If you're wondering, why not just watch/listen and see what he ACTUALLY says - NO SPECULATION REQUIRED! Cause the speculation is utterly useless - before and after the actual speech.
Just like everyone wants to figure out their bonus now - "you can't just wait to you actually GET your bonus in March?" So you know a couple weeks in advance - now what?
I dunno - don't get it. Just me, I suppose - I can wait with no anxiousness. And in the instant case, I don't GIVE a fuck what our President says, so all the more reason the speculation is just wasted breath/ink/bytes.
I predict your next post is even more ranty.
I suspect that most the 700 missile reduction could probably be met by simply retiring a lot of our older missiles that probably wouldn't work anyway. While solid rocket fuel is a lot more storable than liquid propellant, there is still a shelf life.
How many of our missiles depend on heavy hydrogen? Because that stuff decays pretty quickly, so you'd have to replace that portion of the warhead every few years. If we still have a bunch of those around, then we could simply stop replacing them for a little while and hit our goal. (Killing jerbs in the process!)
Depends on how heavy, doesn't it? Deuterium is stable. Don't most of the H-bombs use lithium deuteride or something?
I thought tritium was commonly used. According to wikipedia we do use tritium in nukes and we are currently producing it, but I didn't research enough to figure out much we depend on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
I'm not sure. I was just recalling something I had read about it a while ago.
I also suspect that decommisioning those missiles could end up being a large chunck of the the sequester without affecting any continuing war efforts or development programs.
Of course, the day after N. Korea tests a nuclear device may not be the best time to announce a reduction in our nuclear arsenal.
I recall reading something about the shaped charge plastic explosives in the detonator slowly decaying over time and needing replacement every decade or so. Not sure how difficult or expensive it is, though.
"Our country needs to maintain about a thousand city-destroying bombs in its arsenal."
How is that even remotely sensible? It's only sensible in the sense that it is somewhat less senseless than saying we need to keep 1700 of the fuckers around.
There are a hell of a lot of nuke-worthy military targets that aren't cities.
And when the aliens invade, we have to be ready to build an Orion (the real one).
There are a hell of a lot of nuke-worthy military targets that aren't cities.
Sure. But the collateral damage of a nuclear strike is almost always going to preclude the use of nukes for anyone against the initiation of force. Maybe you could get away with hitting a naval fleet in the open ocean. But that would be about it. From a libertarian perspective I think we're better off targeting belligerent nations with strategic, conventional munitions. And then only in a way that virtually eliminates the death of innocents.
I'm not entirely convinced that North Korea is something we can safely ignore as not-quite-ready for prime time. We massively underestimated the size of the Russian nuclear stockpile during the Cold War, for instance, so there is a precedent for us underestimating a nations nuclear capabilities. North Korea has successfully tested a ballistic missile (sort of) and recently they tested a nuclear device, although the success has only been registered in Richter scales.
I'm not saying the Norks would use it, but that regime is fucking balls out crazy, and it's my belief that you don't ignore the crazy ones. If anything you make sure that there is no way the crazy one can do anything.
If anything you make sure that there is no way the crazy one can do anything.
Short of an invasion, it's not clear what you're proposing.
Sooner or later, NY is going to get nuked. I don't see how that's avoidable.
Sure, but one ICBM with independently targeted warheads could wipe NK off the map. They might be crazy enough to do that, but it would be the last thing they did.
That's the thing. Short of Global Empire, you can't stop crazy. You can only disincentivize it.
I still think 1,000 nuclear weapons still sounds a little excessive, but some progress is better than none.
Why should Americans give a fuck what some Limey peace creep thinks is "excessive"? Nukes are like firearms. If you know how many you have, it's not enough!
Sensible, maybe, but important?
Not in the least.
So we'll have 1000 warheads instead of 1700 or whatever. What difference will that make, to anything?
This is so symbolic and pointless, I really can't work up much of a care about it one way or another.
Just another arm-waving distraction from all the horribility of this adminstration, is my take.
He been talking about reducing nukes since he ran for office his first term. Maybe he means unilaterally.
Good thinking! That's the way to preserve freedom - disarm yourself!
I want new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
I want the ability to depopulate continents. Squared. And cubed. Plus one.
There will always be war. Good idea to be the winner - just ask the Japanese.