DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Alice_Medichi34** · 10-04-2010, 09:47 PM

The issue was using conventional ICBM's. I did a quick research and found some old articles :
ArmsControlWonk (August 2005), Aerospace Power Journal (Fall 2001), "abovetopsecret.com" (April 2007).
I assume from these that conventional missiles is already an old tendency, and more the will of military people than politicians. Again, from RTI : globalsecuritynewswire. May be that they are exploiting the START treaty to get what they wanted since a couple of years.

As for politics : New York Times. Both worries about antimissile systems and modernization are raised (not sure on the latter), while those conventional missiles don't seem to bother anyone.
I must admit, I have been surprised to learn that MIRV had been slowly abandoned after Cold War. Now it's only a detail, impacting the effectiveness of missiles. If no one cares, then sounds good.

On another note, is it really the treaty that prevents modernization ? Or is it a decision solely made by the DoD ? I didn't read the treaty itself.

It will be the decision of the president to institute changes in policy regarding modernization and use of our nuclear capabilities. Congress must approve funding for proposed programs. The treaty is a policy matter and only changes modernization, etc. as long as such things are conducted within the terms of the treaty. Historically, treaties function more as a political tool than as a real prophylactic to war.

10-04-2010, 09:47 PM	#24
Alice_Medichi34 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 606 Senior Member	The issue was using conventional ICBM's. I did a quick research and found some old articles : ArmsControlWonk (August 2005), Aerospace Power Journal (Fall 2001), "abovetopsecret.com" (April 2007). I assume from these that conventional missiles is already an old tendency, and more the will of military people than politicians. Again, from RTI : globalsecuritynewswire. May be that they are exploiting the START treaty to get what they wanted since a couple of years. As for politics : New York Times. Both worries about antimissile systems and modernization are raised (not sure on the latter), while those conventional missiles don't seem to bother anyone. I must admit, I have been surprised to learn that MIRV had been slowly abandoned after Cold War. Now it's only a detail, impacting the effectiveness of missiles. If no one cares, then sounds good. On another note, is it really the treaty that prevents modernization ? Or is it a decision solely made by the DoD ? I didn't read the treaty itself. It will be the decision of the president to institute changes in policy regarding modernization and use of our nuclear capabilities. Congress must approve funding for proposed programs. The treaty is a policy matter and only changes modernization, etc. as long as such things are conducted within the terms of the treaty. Historically, treaties function more as a political tool than as a real prophylactic to war.
	Quote