The bunker complex that is part of the new Beijing Military City, and even the old Western Hills leadership bunker facility that it is meant to supersede is hardened against megaton-range strikes.
Not always, look at THORP in the UK, it's produced a shed-load of weapons grade Pu.
TBH, targets like NORAD and enemy equivalents won't be the main concern, it's killing the enemy's ability to strike you and then their economy. If some men want to hide under a granite mountain or similar, leave them there.
I think they are showing an order of priorities different from yours. Delving into Japanese history probably will not change your point of view, but could confront you with another.
There are a LOT of Japanese very proud of Article 9.
I feel this to be overly harsh.
csbaonline.org
www.defensenews.com
The point is that by being the one to open the discussions, it makes China and Russia look bad if they won't even meet to discuss.
It probably isn't a concern of either Russia or China, but it makes other countries see them in a less positive light.
That's why space-based ABM systems are essentially. Competing merely on nuclear warhead count won't work and will encourage more nuclear proliferation, a space-based ABM system discourages nuclear proliferation before it even begins. Who will spend billions developing a small arsenal of say a dozen strategic nukes if they know they're all guaranteed to be shot down anyway?
It means that anyone developing a nuclear arsenal will avoid ballistic missiles and will instead go for bombs or cruise missiles.
Aircraft and cruise missiles are much easier to stop and difficult to attack over large ranges with and easier to take out with a pre-emptive strike. Also, if the likes of a space-based laser can take out an ICBM in boost phase, what chance do aircraft have? You'd be a fool to go anywhere near one.
US should have a total gloves are off R&D programs into everything and anything.
You want Russia and China to be in a "use them or lose them" situation?
Us has always been open to discussions, Russia and China have not cared one bit.
It becomes pointless though when you already have enough o destroy all life on Earth many times over. In fact, one might argue it is wasted money...and only useful for chest beating bullshit.
Considering that US refused to discuss the limitation of European nuclear weapons?) Do not overestimate the American "openess")
I want them to be in a position where they feel that the vast majority of the nuclear warheads that actually make landfall will be in their country if they start a nuclear war.
I'm talking about national strategic nuclear weapons of UK and France. Both are allies of USA, and both add about 1/3 to USA nuclear capabilities. While during Cold War the European nuclear stockpile was too insignificant to be worthy of special consideration, now the situation is different; the allies of US possess a significant nuclear arsenal that is not counted in any international treaty.
In the current environment, the UK and France are probably slightly relieved to have SSBNs of their own. Chances of them reducing that force at this moment near zero.
And US put zero efforts into pushing them toward reductions, while insisting that China must be involved in all future nuclear limitation talks between US and Russia.
With all respect, Chinese "increased aggression" is still orders of magnitude less than US average level of aggression.
4 subs with a dozen or so birds each is the bare minimum deterrent.
Then probably USA should agree to reduce the number of American deployed warheads on the same number as Britain and France have deployed?
