Greendruid
May 3rd 2010, 11:42 PM
My attention was caught today by this event (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050302089.html). I suppose residing in me is this little built-in statistician that I awakened at some point in my undergraduate years that looks for missing data and holes in any numbers that are presented to me, or even in those qualitative data that are capable of being rendered in quantitative terms.
While a reduction in arms at some future date when Obama is no longer capable of being president is a laudable effort and one that a younger version of myself would have suggested is necessary, the apparent and current reduction pact is producing some meaningless numbers for me that no one seems to be commenting on so far. For instance in the above article we learn that:
UNITED NATIONS -- Shattering a taboo dating from the Cold War, the Obama administration revealed Monday the size of the American nuclear arsenal -- 5,113 weapons -- as it embarked on a campaign for tougher measures against countries with hidden nuclear programs. and that:
Shortly after Clinton's speech, the Pentagon issued a fact sheet saying that the number of working U.S. nuclear warheads had plummeted from a peak of 31,255 in 1967. In addition to the functioning weapons, thousands more have been retired and await dismantlement, the Pentagon said. Analysts estimate that number at about 4,500. This is all well and good but there are some MAJOR pieces of information missing here. Let's start with the megatonnes that each of these weapons is set to deploy. I'm sure they weren't all built at the same time in history, with the same design nor with the same delivery mechanisms even. This necessarily differentiates the megatonnes with which each weapon is equipped. The second point is precisely the delivery mechanisms. There is no mention of range or type. Are we talking about ICBMs or long range surface to air or some kind of space missiles that were the wet dreams of the Reagan administration? I see the current reduction rhetoric as a clean-up of an already necessary task to update and "flush" the old systems so that they don't go off unexpectedly. A cleaning out of the expired milk from their nuclear arsenal fridges if you like. My suspicion is that the "milk" that's still good is faster, longer range and deadlier stuff all around. After all, improving on delivery technology is just something we (humans) have always done since the end of WWII.
A nice gesture by the big-guns but I believe a nuclear-free world when there is full disclosure of all information to all citizens. The likelihood of that happening is about as likely as my apple trees sprouting mangoes tomorrow. But hey, wouldn't that be nice?!?
While a reduction in arms at some future date when Obama is no longer capable of being president is a laudable effort and one that a younger version of myself would have suggested is necessary, the apparent and current reduction pact is producing some meaningless numbers for me that no one seems to be commenting on so far. For instance in the above article we learn that:
UNITED NATIONS -- Shattering a taboo dating from the Cold War, the Obama administration revealed Monday the size of the American nuclear arsenal -- 5,113 weapons -- as it embarked on a campaign for tougher measures against countries with hidden nuclear programs. and that:
Shortly after Clinton's speech, the Pentagon issued a fact sheet saying that the number of working U.S. nuclear warheads had plummeted from a peak of 31,255 in 1967. In addition to the functioning weapons, thousands more have been retired and await dismantlement, the Pentagon said. Analysts estimate that number at about 4,500. This is all well and good but there are some MAJOR pieces of information missing here. Let's start with the megatonnes that each of these weapons is set to deploy. I'm sure they weren't all built at the same time in history, with the same design nor with the same delivery mechanisms even. This necessarily differentiates the megatonnes with which each weapon is equipped. The second point is precisely the delivery mechanisms. There is no mention of range or type. Are we talking about ICBMs or long range surface to air or some kind of space missiles that were the wet dreams of the Reagan administration? I see the current reduction rhetoric as a clean-up of an already necessary task to update and "flush" the old systems so that they don't go off unexpectedly. A cleaning out of the expired milk from their nuclear arsenal fridges if you like. My suspicion is that the "milk" that's still good is faster, longer range and deadlier stuff all around. After all, improving on delivery technology is just something we (humans) have always done since the end of WWII.
A nice gesture by the big-guns but I believe a nuclear-free world when there is full disclosure of all information to all citizens. The likelihood of that happening is about as likely as my apple trees sprouting mangoes tomorrow. But hey, wouldn't that be nice?!?