The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction treaty expires in December. US President Obama has met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the Kremlin to discuss renewing the treaty. The renewal is tentative right now and calls for each nation to further reduce its nuclear arsenal.

What's on the table would require the US and Russia to each scale down to no more than 1,675 strategic warheads and no more than 1,100 strategic delivery vehicles. Both nations would have 7 years to meet the goals with the last 3 of the 10 year treaty being used to verify the goals were met.

The US is believed to have around 2,200 deployed strategic warheads and Russia more than 2,700.

The Russians are not budging on their position against US missile defense installations in Europe, especially those closest to the Mother Land. The US still wants to keep talks of missiles and missile defense separate.

If he nuclear powers want other countries not to acquire nuclear weapons they must reduce their own stockpilies. Why should Iran, North Korea or other countries not try to developed nuclear weapons when Russia and the USA have seveal thousand nuclear weapons.


Nuclear war is madness. That why the weapons have not been used for sixty years. It will be outlaw one day like gas warfare. In the meantim a reduction in weapons is a good first step.

I'm sorry, Aus, but that simply doesn't compute. I mean, it's a nice thought, but it belongs to the Kumbaya School of Diplomacy. If Iran and North Korea are determined to have a nuclear weapons capability then the U.S. and Russia reducing their stockpiles won't do a thing to keep others from developing them.
Let us try a little logic here. If you're saying that Iran and North Korea want to develop nuclear weapons only because the U.S. and Russia have them, then (as you are suggesting) they would give up their nuclear ambitions if only the U.S. and Russia got rid of their nukes. I fear I don't find that argument persuasive.

What about Britain? France? China? India? Pakistan? Have they agreed to give up their nuclear capabilities? Isn't anyone calling for them to give up their nuclear capapbilties in order to persuade Iran and North Korea to abandon their programs? If not, why not?
Makes sense. But then I haven't heard too many testimonials to the rationality of the Iranian or North Korean leadership. THEY keep doing all this warlike saber rattling and I don't see why we shouldn't take them at their word when they continually threaten annihilation upon their "enemies."
Right. And of course that fact that using poison gas is against international law is the only reason Saddam Hussein refrained from using it against the Kurds. Oh wait! Never mind.
A first step toward what? That's the question.

Maybe it's the first step toward gaining an ally rather than fostering a belligerent. IMHO, our president has done more in foreign relations than was ever expected of him as the man who had 'no credentials' for the job of President.

I'm not sure bowing to Soviet Russian demands is a good way to ensure trust between equals.
Really? Perhaps you could remind me of what has Obama "done" other than bow and scrape and apologize? What concrete anything has he accomplished?