When I wrote “this post,”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2102/acronym-institute-on-the-revcon I was unaware that Carol Naughton was also “blogging for”:http://acronyminstitute.wordpress.com/ the Acronym Institute about the RevCon. Credit where it’s due and all that…

I’d be remiss if I forgot to mention “it”:http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/ as a truly outstanding resource for the RevCon.

“New media and the RevCon.”:http://www.nuketweets.net/ I like it, you follow.

[Via ACW.]

I know all 5 people who might read this blog are paying attention to the RevCon, but the WH “recently submitted”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/message-congress-concerning-a-nuclear-agreement-with-australia to Congress a 123 agreement with Australia. There’s also an unclassified Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement, but I’m not sure where, if anywhere, it lives on teh internets.

Obviously following up on my “admonition”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2097/npr-the-whole-thing to geek out with their beaks out, State is apparently trying to steal business from blogs. But since the bloggers in this field are making so much cash, it won’t really matter.

I am, of course, speaking about the “Understanding U.S. Nuclear Strategy”:http://www.america.gov/nuclear_strategy.html site.

There are a couple of apparent quirks that I don’t really understand. For example, neither “this page”:http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/April/20100429170423eaifas0.2791712.html nor “this one”:http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/April/20100429170529eaifas0.3473322.html seem to have links to the entire “Nuclear Posture Review.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2097/npr-the-whole-thing It’s a curious omission, given that the NPR would seem to be a document about both nonproliferation and arms control.

Still, a good resource.

Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute has been doing some great blogging about the RevCon. Her stuff is pretty essential reading. “Take a look”:http://acronyminstitute.wordpress.com/.

“According to DoD,”:http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-05-03_Fact_Sheet_US_Nuclear_Transparency__FINAL_w_Date.pdf that’s the number of warheads in the US nuclear weapons stockpile.

The stockpile, the “fact sheet”:http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-05-03_Fact_Sheet_US_Nuclear_Transparency__FINAL_w_Date.pdf says, includes

bq. both active and inactive warheads. *Active warheads* include strategic and nonstrategic weapons maintained in an operational, ready-for-use configuration, warheads that must be ready for
possible deployment within a short timeframe, and logistics spares. They have tritium bottles and other Limited Life Components installed. *Inactive warheads are maintained at a depot in a non-operational status,* and have their tritium bottles removed.

…”complete with”:http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/statements/statements.shtml crappy video. Have at it.

State has saved us a bunch of time…..”here”:http://www.state.gov/t/vci/trty/126118.htm are all of the official US statements, docs, etc. regarding the new treaty.

The “NPR.”:http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

The “briefing.”:http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4599

The “other briefing”:http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4600 and “associated slides.”:http://www.defense.gov/news/NPR201.ppt

The “background briefing”:http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4598 and “slides”:http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4598 for said briefing.

And Obama’s “statement.”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-release-nuclear-posture-review

Geek out with your beak out.