新削减战略武器条约内容是什么
美俄拥有全世界核武器数量的90%以上，《新削减战略武器条约》旨在对两国的核武器装备进行限制。根据该条约，美俄两国需要将已经部署的洲际弹道导弹、部署的潜射弹道导弹和重型轰炸机上携带的导弹降至700枚，核弹头数量降至1550枚，并将用于发射核弹头的已部署和未部署发射工具数量降至800个。此外，该条约还设有核查机制，美国和俄罗斯的核查小组每年可以对对方国家的核设施进行18次临时通知核查，以确认对方是否履行了条约。《新削减战略武器条约》与美苏之间签署的《反导条约》《中导条约》一并被认为是国际核裁军体系的三大支柱。在美国先后宣布退出《反导条约》和《中导条约》之后，《新削减战略武器条约》成为美俄之间唯一军控条约。对于这次俄罗斯宣布暂停履行《新削减战略武器条约》，总台特约评论员苏晓晖认为，这是俄罗斯在向西方国家发出警告的信号，并非俄罗斯要启动新一轮的核军备竞赛。西方在对俄罗斯不断紧逼的时候，俄罗斯必然要进行反弹。如果将俄罗斯“逼入墙角”，形势可能会出现急剧变化。在释放这些信息的时候，俄罗斯也希望西方更多地回应俄方的诉求。
美国和俄罗斯将在下月交换战略核武库数据吗？
2月5日，美国国务院表示，美国和俄罗斯均在过去7年内履行了核裁军条约要求，两国将在下个月内交换战略核武器库数据。美国国务院发言人诺尔特当天发表声明说，新版核裁军条约《削减和限制进攻性战略武器条约》中对美俄核武器库的中心限制条款当天正式生效。过去7年间，美俄每年都依据条约规定互换两次核武器库数据。双方下月内将再次交换战略核武器库数据。诺尔特说，根据条约规定的核查机制，美俄可对双方军事基地和设施实施突击现场检查，美国依此对俄罗斯提供的战略核武器库数据进行了核验，这让两国得以了解彼此战略核运输体系、核弹头和核设施情况。2010年4月，美俄元首在捷克首都布拉格签署新版核裁军条约《削减和限制进攻性战略武器条约》。条约规定，双方应在7年内将各自部署的核弹头削减至1550枚以下，部署的运载工具不超过700件。该条约于2011年2月5日生效。
我想问下问题 美国和苏联为什么 要 削减和限制进攻性战略武器条约 欧洲常规武装力量条约 欧洲常规力量条约
进攻性战略武器就是核武器，里面指的是陆基弹道导弹，海基弹道导弹，空基弹道导弹。
其中陆基弹道导弹容易侦查容易被第一波核打击摧毁是威慑力最小的。
海基弹道导弹就是战略核潜艇平台，这其中最有名的就是俄罗斯的台风级和美国的俄亥俄级。这种平犹豫隐藏在海面以下难以侦查，是现在最为有效的2次核打击手段，其威慑力巨大。中国目前在这方便短板很明显，虽然有但是性能不好。
空基弹道导弹目前各个国家都没有，现在有的都是空基巡航导弹，效果不佳。
犹豫现在美国在全球的常规军事力量是无可比拟的，所以美国式最希望限制核武器的国家。俄罗斯由于受到各方面巨大的压力，在有的方面不得不做出妥协。这就和现在的5常国签署的核武器不扩散条约一样，谁也不希望再有其他国家掌握这种威力巨大的武器了。有优势的国家自然不希望其他国家发展这种可以同归于尽的武器，因为这样他就不能再称霸全球了。
中国在这方面的力量和美国和俄罗斯差的太远。
为什么要防止核扩散?
核扩散的危害
一、众多中小国家拥有核武器会导致核战争危险的增大
很多人赞成核扩散的一个理由是为什么美国可以有核武器，别的国家就不可以拥有。且不说当前拥有核武器的国家除了美国外，还有中国、俄罗斯、英国、法国、印度、巴基斯坦、以色列，朝鲜也可能拥有核武器。先从历史上看，核武器的横空出世是与二战期间反对德意日法西斯是分不开的。当时，世界几大强国英国、美国、德国、苏联以及日本都在发展核武器。法西斯主义要统治世界，毁灭世界，因此，采取一切手段战胜法西斯是全世界人民的心愿。美国抢在德意日法西斯之前研制出核武器确实是一件幸事。虽然今天对美国对日本广岛使用原子弹仍有争议，但仔细分析，如果没有原子弹，美国进攻日本本土，我估计至少会造成1000万日本人的死亡和20-50万美军的伤亡。更重要的是，以日本人的武士道精神，战争可能会旷日持久。而有了原子弹，只用了30万日本人的性命就挽救了这么大的损失。这难道不是上策吗？不过，可怕的潘多拉魔盒一旦打开就在也合不上了，战后，只有美国一家拥有核武器，但好景不常，1949年苏联核试验成功，紧接着是中国、英国、法国，还有以色列秘而不宣，南非、巴西也曾拥有核武器，1998年印度、巴基斯坦核试验成功，拥有核武器的国家越来越多，而且还有众多的中小国家在秘密发展核武器。因此，在当前几大国还不愿销毁核武器的前提下，我们所能做的只能是亡羊补牢，防止核武器再进一步扩散。
虽然几大国都拥有核武器，但我们看到，由于他们之间势均力敌，而且由于核武器的毁灭性后果，他们只是将核武器作为一种威慑手段，至于对小国，由于国力上的悬殊，根本就不需要用核威慑。试问大家，美国对格林纳达、南联盟、越南以及伊拉克核威慑过了吗？而且大国政治稳定，国力雄厚，对核武器的管理、保卫及使用都极为严格，擦枪走火的概率极小。不过由于苏联解体，俄罗斯的事例属于例外。但对于小国就不同了。小国由于国力薄弱，一旦拥有核武器，极易拉平与大国之间的差距。因此，他们更可能将核武器作为一种威慑力量并将之用于实战。那样，世界秩序将会打乱，地球毁灭也将为时不远了。比如，如果萨达姆获得了核武器，那他吞并科威特就将成为事实，他统治整个阿拉伯世界也将成为可能。甚至于他可以为所欲为，将原油价格定为100美元一桶，导致整个世界经济萧条。对国内的库尔德民族扔一颗原子弹也是可能的。有谁愿意看到这样的后果呢？
最危险的是核武器与恐怖主义的结合。大家也许认为恐怖主义打击的只是美国等少数西方国家，这可就大错特错了。由于美国等西方国家安保措施的严密，恐怖分子基本已无可能在美国等西方国家境内发动大规模的攻击，就转而向美国的境外利益下手。实际上，我们可以看到，一年来，大规模的恐怖袭击基本上都是在伊拉克、印尼、印度、巴基斯坦、阿富汗、突尼斯等第三世界国家发生。虽然攻击的是美国利益，但伤亡的却大都是这些国家的平民，经济损失也大都是这些国家。如果恐怖分子获得核武器，他们会毫不犹豫的将之用于实战，而且，由于美国安保措施的严格，恐怖分子又缺乏远程投送能力，到最后，遭殃的也许不一定是美国，而是某个第三世界国家。今天巴基斯坦的局势就让人很担心。巴基斯坦国内宗教极端主义盛行，穆沙拉夫控制局势的能力有限，而且军方、政府及情报局内都有很多宗教极端势力的同情者。因此，我认为，当前的巴基斯坦还不能实行民主。因为没有一个强有力的政权，极端宗教势力肯定会得势，到时可能会爆发与印度的战争，并有可能将世界拖入一场核战争之中。但我最担心的是穆沙拉夫遇刺，局势一片混乱，恐怖分子及极端势力浑水摸鱼，很容易窃取或控制核武器，造成更大的灾难。所以，天将将大人于斯人也，穆沙拉夫，祝你平安，一路走好！
二、拥有核武器能给国家带来安全与发展吗？
很多中小国家都把拥有核武器作为提升国力，扩大国际影响力以及保障安全，促进发展的利器，事实果真如此吗？以色列是一个秘而不宣的有核国家，但以色列赢得安全与发展了吗？南非80年代拥有核武器，却与安哥拉及其背后的支持者古巴及苏联打了多年战争，知道90年代销毁了核武器，才赢得了周边国家的和解，真正实现了和平与发展。由此可见，核武器并不能带来和平与发展。其实道理也是简单易懂的。核武器只是一种威慑力量，对小国使不上，犹如高射炮打蚊子；对大国，你的这点核力量只是杯水车薪，还不能强迫大国就范。如果你对大国使用，可能毁灭的反而是你。看如今朝鲜勒紧裤带发展核武器并要挟美国，到头来很可能是竹篮打水一场空。
三、核扩散给中国造成的危害
没有永远的朋友，也没有永远的敌人－－－邱吉尔语
很多人认为当前研制核武器的都是美国所指的一些无赖国家，而且与中国关系都较友好。且不说这些国家是不是真的与中国友好，比如朝鲜，我现在经常看到朝鲜难民及军队国境杀人，抢粮、抢银行的消息。就算目前友好，但国际形势风云变幻，本国的国家利益才是第一位的。真保不准这些所谓的友好国家那一天会象越南那样，调转枪口。到那时，才是搬起石头砸自己的脚。其实，与美国对抗的方式有多种，我们没必要冒这么大的风险，支持一些无赖国家的核扩散。在这方面，美国的做法值得我们借鉴。
众所周知，中国发展核武器后，为与大陆抗衡，国民党蒋介石集团也秘密发展核武器。如果照这些人的逻辑，美国与中国为敌，那不就应该鼓励国民党发展核武器，与大陆在军事上拉平吗？可美国却不是这样，美国的政策是，我可以给你提供保护伞，但不许你自行发展核武器。所以在侦知台湾的核武器政策后，美国毅然派出核查小组，并当着台湾人的面销毁了核反应堆。否则的话，以台湾的科研实力，恐怕早就拥有了核武器（关于这一点，看看美国阿拉莫斯国家实验室里有多少台湾籍科学家便知）。那么，今天我们的武力威胁都将变得苍白无力，台湾恐怕也早就毫不犹豫的独立了。
周边国家拥有核武器对我也不利。比如朝鲜如果拥有核武器，对美敲诈不成进攻韩国，势必与美国打一场核战争。到时，朝鲜必定会前方百计将我拖入这场战争。即算核战争在朝鲜半岛打响，对我国东北的影响必定大也。还有巴基斯坦，穆沙拉夫的地位岌岌可危，如果极端势力上台，必定会对印度发动进攻，在常规军事力量失利之后，必然会动用核武器，导致两国核武器大战。这一场发生在西南边陲的核战争，对我国影响几何？我国又为何为别国的纷争遭殃呢？
所以，无论从那个角度来说，作为一个负责任的大国，我国都不应该支持核扩散。而且，阻止核扩散并最终销毁核武器，应该是全世界人民共同的任务
如何阻止核扩散
首先，就是保证联合国作为人类唯一最高权力机构的权威、核心作用，在处理面对可能威胁其他邻国的时候必须保证联合国拥有唯一的超越国家主权的权力。
简单的说：一个国家或几个国家对另外一个国家或几个国家动武，必须得到联合国的授权与监督，否则就是非法的赤裸裸的侵略行为。
而联合国的授权行为必须是在经过众成员国充分的讨论、民主的投票之后作出的。
其次，经世人所公认的5个核大国须作出不向无核国家使用核武器的国家承诺！
最后，如果还有强权国家希望再获得核武器，那么全世界在联合国的指导下应坚定予以制裁，当然须保证其平民的生存权利。
冷战结束后，美国为什么仍然视俄罗斯为敌人？
1，宗教：美国和西欧主要信仰基督教，俄罗斯信仰东正教，虽然都信上帝，但是分歧很大。
2， 经济：美国和俄罗斯都是以军工为支柱产业的国家，军火是世界贸易中比重最大，利润最丰厚的产业，其中以飞机舰船的利润最大，美俄两国是最激烈的竞争对手。
3， 战略冲突：美国的战略是地球的支配者，而在地球上，只有俄罗斯在人口数量，人口素质，陆地和海洋面积，资源储量，工业科技实力等最为接近。而其他国家和美国相比都在几个方面远远落后于美国，包括中国在内。虽然苏联解体，但是俄罗斯仍然在软硬实力上相当接近美国。
4， 俄罗斯没有完全向美国开放：就是俄罗斯没有顺从的进入美国领导的世界体系。没有像中国这样让美欧大公司近乎垄断自己的诸多产业！
俄罗斯真是太牛了：为什么不怕美国新冷战分析？ (1)
俄罗斯总统梅德韦杰夫说，将尽全力避免一场新冷战，但不惧怕冷战。他呼吁西方国家理解俄方承认南奥塞梯和阿布哈兹独立，与俄方保持合作。俄罗斯总统梅德韦杰夫的话有两个含义：一是即使有新冷战，俄罗斯也不怕，这是俄罗斯对美强硬的底线。言外之意，俄罗斯对美国的新冷战威胁已不屑一顾。二是俄罗斯呼吁西方国家理解自己，并保持合作。之所以呼吁，说明心里有底。那么对谁呼吁呢？当然是欧盟。科索沃问题，俄欧有很好的合作；格鲁吉亚问题，合作就越有可能了。俄罗斯为什么不怕美国新冷战？我们可以四个方面来分析这个问题：一是旧冷战的特点。二是当前国际局势的特点。三是新冷战的模式分析。四是俄罗斯可能的对策。一、旧冷战特点。二战后，美国组建了北约集团，苏联组建了华约集团，世界形成了两极争霸的冷战格局。具体来说，旧冷战具有以下特点：1.美苏选择盟友，一益一损。从盟友的选择上，就注定前苏联冷战失败的命运。欧盟和日本，这些国家在二战前都有很好的技术和知识积累，美国稍微提供一些资金贷款，他们就迅速发展起来，源源不断地为美国的发展和强大补充血液。而前苏联的盟友，大多是第三世界国家，这些国家没有很好的技术和知识积累，国家安全不能自保，完全依靠前苏联的资金、技术来发展，不断地需要前苏联为他们输入新鲜血液，拖垮了前苏联。一益一损，谁胜谁败，一目了然。2.军备竞赛，一益一损。美国使用的冷战手段：一是威胁前苏联盟友或者打代理人战争，消耗前苏联的有限资源。因为前苏联承担这些盟友的安全防护责任，所以不得不大力对外进行支援，这大大消耗了前苏联的有限资源。二是大造威胁，吸引俄罗斯将大量资金投入到国防建设中。对一个国家来说，资金投入到国防领域的多了，投入到扩大再生产领域势必减少，影响国家整体发展。美国大造战争威胁，迫使前苏联将有限的资金大多投入到国防领域，制造大量的飞机、大炮、导弹、核弹、坦克等武器装备，结果战争没有发生，5年乃至10年后，这些制造的武器装备逐渐老化成为废铁，大大消耗了前苏联有限资源，降低了资金使用效率。我们看到前苏联垮台后，大量老化的核弹、核潜艇、舰艇需要处理，而轻工业品严重不足，这就是畸形发展导致的恶果。前苏联的盟友都是穷国，即使卖武器给他们，也得不到资金回流。
派克钢笔属于什么档次的
派克笔属中高档品牌。派克笔在售商品依据书写模式可分为：超滑笔，墨水笔，宝珠笔，原子笔，中性笔五大类，共22种颜色，六个系列，分别为：世纪，首席，卓尔，精英，都市，派克IM。派克笔产品系列详情如下：1、世纪世纪系列优秀的质量及永不过时的设计，一直是令派克成为世上最受爱笔人士推崇的重要元素。派克借着新颖独特的笔尖新标志——黑桃A，为旗舰系列提升非凡价值及尊贵气派。黑桃A是世纪系列显赫地位的时尚标志，是卓越、信心与名望的象征，真正体现出派克的本质。2、首席派克首席系列，以其富有个性及创新的设计，为派克笔久负盛名的家族又添新篇章。派克笔拥有120年的精湛工艺及珍贵的专业技艺，而意大利著名设计师Beatrice Fontana的加入，更为此品牌添加了与众不同的设计理念，使其拥有内敛的高贵气质并极具现代感。选择全新的派克笔首席系列，用它讲述你我的故事。3、卓尔派克卓尔系列拥有卓尔不群的优雅外形及独树一帜的现代风格，手感一流，书写顺畅；不论内涵还是外形，都是卓越名士的不二之选；所以，一直为派克追随者带来难以抗拒的诱惑。卓尔系列把派克的优良传统发挥得淋漓尽致：不朽的雪茄形外形，千锤百炼的卓越品质，精致华丽的装饰及热情进取的态度，令卓尔系列成为二十世纪最具影响力的经典设计象征。4、精英突破性地Parker 5派克第五元素超滑书写科技的笔尖灵动顺滑，与精致的雕饰而成的金属笔尖在设计上相映生辉。这一创新技术为使用者带来无与伦比的书写感受，充分体验到毫不费力即可让笔尖在纸上顺滑游走的触感。5、都市都市是冷峻个性的创意之笔，突破了当代书写艺术。反传统的子弹型笔身，结合艺术及工效学，营造恰到好处的轻巧感及完美无瑕的对称感。独一无二的外形与无可挑剔的品质，造就划时代的名笔。6、派克IM派克又一经典之作IM，突破性地把惊艳造型及卓越功能巧妙地结合起来：从箭形笔夹到拉丝笔基，到不锈钢手握，每一个细节都表现得恰如其分；恪守简约的设计原则，省略一切不必要的枝节，确保百分百舒适的手感，纯粹使用的性质及顶尖智能的风格。IM彰显派克飞跃时空的简约时髦本质，代代传承。
派克钢笔是哪国的？
派克钢笔是美国的。派克钢笔是乔治·派克在1888年创立的。乔治·派克出生于1863年，美国威斯康辛州的舒尔斯堡。为了贴补他可怜的工资，乔治·派克成为了一名中间商，主要帮约翰·霍兰的钢笔公司销售钢笔给他的学生。他把每一支笔拆开，修理好后再还给学生。乔治·派克为了根除这些缺陷，凭借其在机械方面的经验，他设计并制造出了自己的钢笔——派克笔。并于1888年创立了派克公司。派克认为，只有“使产品更臻完善，人们才会购买”。这个经营哲学一直指导着派克公司致力于制造“更好的笔”。扩展资料：派克钢笔的历史：在1891年，George Stafford Parker建立了派克品牌。早期的派克钢笔采用一种细长的传统笔舌设计，称为“幸运曲线”，即笔舌尾端延伸出一截弯管，弯管尾部向储墨器壁弯曲并紧贴壁上。该设计派克拥有独家专利，理论上这会使墨水在钢笔停止使用时沿弯管回流到储墨器内。1920年代的钢笔市场竞争激烈，“幸运曲线”是派克的优势之处。1922年推出的Duofold世纪系列，占据了派克1920年代的高端产线。豆腐是一支威风堂堂的大型钢笔，笔尾是方形的。一些稀缺的颜色（尤其是Mandarin Yellow满大人黄）在今天非常具有收藏价值。1990年代有一段时间，派克被Gillette吉列公司收购，但派克现在属于Rubbermaid乐柏美旗下的Sanford三福公司，乐柏美旗下同时还有Waterman威迪文。跟以前的一些大型美国钢笔公司一样，派克现在常驻海外，总部在英国。参考资料来源：百度百科-派克钢笔参考资料来源：派克中文官网-品牌历史
一叶知秋意思解释
一叶知秋的意思是从一片树叶的凋落，知道秋天的到来。比喻通过个别的细微的迹象，可以看到整个形势的发展趋向与结果。一叶知秋其实是说从一片树叶的凋落，人们就可以知道秋天的到来了，通常人们比喻通过个别的细微迹象，充分看到某个事件的整个形势，发展趋向与结果，告诉人们日常生活中，干任何一件事都要细心观察，从小的细节发现，善于总结。出处：刘安《淮南子说山训》中写道：“尝一脔肉，知一镬之味；悬羽与炭，而知燥湿之气，以小明大。见一叶落，而知岁之将暮；睹一壶之冰，而知天下之寒：以近论远。”一叶知秋的小故事分享：战国末年有一位住在深山里的隐士，名叫天机子。他在家附近开垦了一块小田地，除了下山买日常用品，其余时间都不下山。一天，一位叫作赵政的赵国贵族，跑到山上来散心，听到附近的人说，这座山上有个隐士，就前来察看。赵政和天机子聊天的过程中，他发现虽然天机子很少下山，却知道天下大事，而且还能够推测未来将会发生的事情，他不禁好奇地问：“先生不用下山，却能知道天下事，莫非先生是神仙，或是通晓厉害的占卜之术。”这时候，只见天机子哈哈大笑说：“我既不是神仙，也不懂占卜，我只是会从细微的迹象中，推敲出事情后续的发展和结果。就像我们看到叶子落下，就知道秋天来临了，天气会越来越冷一样。而当我看到秦国灭了韩国之后，就知道赵国也难以保全了。先生，听我一句劝，不要回国，在这住下吧。”不久后，秦国果然灭了赵国，接着又陆陆续续灭了其他国家。
一叶知秋的意思和造句 一叶知秋的意思和造句介绍
1、一叶知秋是一个汉语成语，意思是从一片树叶的凋落，知道秋天的到来。比喻通过个别的细微的迹象，可以看到整个形势的发展趋向与结果。
2、出处： 《淮南子·说山训》：“见一叶落而知岁之将暮。”宋·唐庚《文录》引唐人诗：“山僧不解数甲子，一叶落知天下秋。”（山里的和尚并不计算年月，但从一片落叶便可知天下已是秋天了）。
3、造句:
(1)叶知秋，队员一上场就兴奋不起来，这场球必输无疑。
一叶知秋，一笑定情，一支红杏可以带出春天，一个细节可以反映全面。
(2)俗话说一叶知秋，又到了赏红叶的.时节，周末不妨驾车出游，看层林浸染，领略秋的韵味。
(3)肖雄文说，一叶知秋，任何事情和参与力量最终都会反映在盘面上。
美国与俄罗斯的关于大规模杀伤性武器削减对于当今世界有何积极影响？
[大国战略]美俄削减战略武器条约能否给我们带来稳定(转载)
作者：独天行崖 ��奥巴马政府同俄罗斯关系中最主要的挑战之一就是如何处理将在2009年12月到期的《削减战略武器条约》。
美国和苏联在上个世纪80年代就《削减战略武器条约》进行谈判，1991年，美国总统老布什和苏联国家主席戈尔巴乔夫在条约上签字，条约在1994年生效。
*条约内容和作用*
这是第一个要求清除美国和苏联，即现在的俄罗斯的核武器系统的条约。条约规定，每个国家所拥有的战略核弹头，即远程核弹头不得超过六千枚。条约还规定每个国家的轰炸机、地基和海基导弹等战略运载工具不得超过1600个。
独立研究公司“军控协会”的负责人金博尔说，《削减战略武器条约》还有一项特别的意义。
他说：“《削减战略武器条约》确立了非常严格的审核条款。它允许到双方核武设施现场进行检查。它要求双方分享自己的核武器库存详情，并通过检查证实这些信息。此外，条约还允许两国使用国家技术手段，也就是间谍卫星和其它手段来进一步确认对方所宣称的核武信息。”
金博尔说，《削减战略武器条约》所规定的审核措施对两国都十分重要。
他说：“如果没有这些确认条款，那么美国情报机构就必须从反恐战争、阿富汗战争和中东地区抽走资源，把更多的注意力集中在俄罗斯上。而俄罗斯可能无法知道美国的核武库到底是什么样子的，因为俄罗斯的卫星和情报系统在过去20年里已经严重老化了。”
美国明尼苏达大学的军控问题专家安德烈森说，《削减战略武器条约》同另外一个核武条约有联系。
他说：“《削减战略武器条约》还为监督和审核2002年莫斯科条约奠定了基础。莫斯科条约进一步减少了两国可以部署的战略、进攻型核弹头的数量，这一新的上限是1700枚到2200枚。莫斯科条约是一个比较短的协议，只有两、三页纸，它本身并不包含监督和审核条款。因此，目前依然生效的《削减战略武器条约》不仅为监督莫斯科条约的执行情况提供了基础，也为监督美俄两国目前的战略核能力提供了基础。”
*条约过期作废的后果*
美国和莫斯科都遵守了《削减战略武器条约》。不过，这一条约将在2009年12月5号到期。
在过去几年中，俄罗斯和美国的有关官员一直试图达成新的条约，不过并没有取得什么进展。有关专家说，一个主要的障碍是新条约是否要具备法律约束力。俄罗斯希望新的条约具备很强的法律效力，而美国希望条约能宽松一些。
分析人士说，在布什总统明年1月20号卸任后，就要看奥巴马政府如何同俄罗斯继续谈判并达成妥协了。
美国哥伦比亚大学的俄罗斯问题专家莱格沃尔德说，让《削减战略武器条约》过期将带来灾难性后果。
他说：“如果《削减战略武器条约》不能延期，或者在2009年12月之前没有新的条约来取代，那么，从基本上看，战略核武机制也就全面瓦解了。而奥巴马政府是不愿意看到这一现象发生的。”
*延期+继续谈判?*
明尼苏达大学的安德烈森说，在奥巴马政府继续同俄罗斯谈判时，奥巴马有几种选择。第一个选择就是让条约过期。第二个是把条约有效期延长五年，第三个就是继续谈判。
他说：“尽管如此，我们认为对双方最有吸引力的选择可能是把条约延期五年，同时继续进行谈判并在以后达成某种协议，并以这种协议取代《削减战略武器条约》。”
虽然美国和俄罗斯在核裁军问题上存在许多重大分歧，但是分析人士们认为，新的协议还是能够达成的，因为两国在继续谈判和进一步削减核武器数量方面都有政治意愿。
就近期社会热点问题 ，写一篇1000字英语文章
Old soldiers never die Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress:I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride -- humility in the weight of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this home of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia's past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom.Mustering half of the earth's population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support -- not imperious direction -- the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war's wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism.Of more direct and immediately bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the literal line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack.The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we held it. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Mariannas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore -- with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore -- and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific.Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort.* No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this literal defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies.Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism.There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies.I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists' support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time.The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war's wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice. Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race.Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war's terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them -- as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited. On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines.With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President's decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.Such decisions have not been forthcoming.While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China's coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff. I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:"Men since the beginning of time havesought peace. Various methods through theages have been attempted to devise aninternational process to prevent or settledisputes between nations. From the verystart workable methods were found in sofar as individual citizens were concerned,but the mechanics of an instrumentality oflarger international scope have neverbeen successful. Military alliances,balances of power, Leagues of Nations,all in turn failed, leaving the only path tobe by way of the crucible of war. Theutter destructiveness of war now blocksout this alternative. We have had our lastchance. If we will not devise somegreater and more equitable system,Armageddon will be at our door. Theproblem basically is theological andinvolves a spiritual recrudescence andimprovement of human character that willsynchronize with our almost matchlessadvances in science, art, literature, and allmaterial and cultural developments ofthe past 2000 years. It must be of the spiritif we are to save the flesh." But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.In war there is no substitute for victory.There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative."Why," my soldiers asked of me, "surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?" I could not answer.Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis.The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy's sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description. They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: "Don't scuttle the Pacific!"I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety. Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that "old soldiers never die; they just fade away."And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.
