Nuclear Weapons & Deterrent - POLITICS

[Rickshaw]

It appears that some are unwilling to answer the questions I have asked. I wonder why?

Thank you, Marauder2048 for answering my questions. Your answers are very interesting.

We don't know the number of aimpoints (designated ground zeroes), their hardness, the
prelaunch survivability estimates for US weapons, the probability of weapon penetration,
weapon reliability etc. to drive towards an analytically derived number.

In even with those numbers the desire to hedge against the uncertainties inherent in warfare
tend to shift the quantity outcome higher.

Higher but to unacceptable heights? Do you need 1 more warhead than your supposed enemy or 1 million more warheads to deter their (supposed) desire to attack?

I have studied deterrence and nuclear strategy for decades and in few of the more "hawk-like" treatises is that question ever asked or answered. It is simply given as "more".

From the perspective of a citizen of a non-nuclear power, my questions have always been about the reasons why people adopt the positions they do. It has always struck me as how fearful the Hawks are, compared to the Doves. The Hawks fear that unless they have, in their view, "sufficient" warheads, their entire political system will be overthrown and they will be made subject slaves of their opponents. There appears to be a disconnect between how they perceive their (supposed) enemy and their own motives.

Nuclear weapons are IMHO "weapons of last resort". They are to be used only when everything else has failed. They are not to be used to enforce a nation's will on other, usually, non-nuclear, nations. They are intended to defend against a nuclear attack. Most Hawks, I think would agree with that viewpoint?

Yet, the Hawks see their (supposed) opponents as war-mongers, as people who seek to use their nuclear weapons not for defence but offence. To impose their will on other, usually, non-nuclear, nations. They are intended to be used for offensive, not defensive purposes. Again, most Hawks, I think would agree with that viewpoint.

For the Americans it appears as if another, new Pearl Harbour is just around the corner. Their nation will be surprised, this time their enemy will be successful. For Russians/PRC/UK/France/Israel/India/Pakistan/DPRK they also fear being surprised. For them, the enemy hordes are poised on their borders/across the Channel/etc. ready to pounce.

The more the world changes, the more it stays the same. Yes, surprise is always an element but as the Cold War showed, surprise can also be simply an unannounced defence exercise in which signals traffic increases and becomes encrypted. It can also be a stray computer signal which needs to be interpreted either as a stray computer signal or an enemy launch which requires an immediate counter-launch. That was why the "Hot-line" was established between Washington and Moscow, to prevent mistakes occurring.

If Trump wants to defuse the DPRK situation, he needs to be an honest dealer and not to subscribe to the worst nightmares of the Hawks about what the DPRK is up to. He needs to negotiate with P'yon Y'ang, honestly, with the Congress by his side and not likely to renege on any deals he enters into, honestly, as it has in the past for political reasons. A big ask, I admit but it is what is required and what Kim Jong Un will require. Unless Trump is prepared to risk nuclear war, the destruction of the ROK and Japan (plus, more than likely, Guam and Hawaii and perhaps even Anchorage), he will get no where.

To me, it appears that some believe that nuclear weapons are the only answer to nuclear weapons.

I'm curious as to what the other answers would be.

Massive conventional force probably aren't the answer they have to mass to be effective
and that mass them vulnerable to attack by nuclear weapons. Heck, even Stormin' Norman was concerned
that the "Hail Mary" route was a potential trap lined with an Iraqi nuke.

Massive conventional forces only work when your opponent is willing to play that game.

What can counter nuclear weapons can be other weapons of massed destruction - chemical/biological. However, they, unlike nuclear weapons are outlawed.

What can also counter nuclear weapons can be precision guided conventional weapons. When "smart" and "brilliant" munitions occurred, it appeared the days of nuclear weapons were over and done with. "Smart" and "Brilliant" munitions could precisely target structures, peoples which the massive over-pressure of nuclear weapons were used to destroy. Nuclear weapons didn't need to be precisely targeted to destroy their targets, just had to land within a few hundred metres and the target was at least damaged, if not outright trashed. Nuclear weapons were tactically started to be considered passe'. Conventional weapons started to approach the destructive ability of nuclear weapons.

Then along came the new-comers to the nuclear club. India/Pakistan/DPRK and supposedly Iran. Suddenly the only counter to nuclear weapons were other nuclear weapons again. We were back to simplistic Cold War warrior thinking - "I have a bigger nuke than you have a nuke!"

It also appears that some seem to think that they need more than what their enemy has, to deter them from attacking. The problem with that thinking is that the other side is susceptible to it as well, which leads to an inescapable spiral, with each side building more and more weapons.

Depends on your targeting strategy (and other policies i.e. extended deterrence)
and your pre-launch survivability. If you are strictly concerned with
assured second strike and destroying enemy cities then you don't need much.

But there's generally been a desire to avoid destroying cities which drives a higher weapons count
or "more usable" weapon types e.g. nuclear earth penetrators and high fusion fraction weapons.

Yes, there was in later SIOPs a reduction in the size of nuclear weapons as the precision of their delivery systems improved. City busters were out but for the Americans, because they wanted to be sure they had destroyed say, the Soviet Defence HQ in Moscow and the Soviet Government buildings and the Kremlin and, and... so on and so on, they substituted multiple, smaller warheads. Each warhead may have been less destructive but replacing one big city buster with a dozen, two dozen, smaller suburb busters still ended up with Moscow completely trashed.

It was the proliferation of nuclear warheads that started to alarm many commentators in the late 1980s. The numbers are now down, significantly but it appears that has in turn alarmed the more Hawkish in the US. They also appear to be wedded to the nuclear Triad. The Triad makes sense in many ways but not the survivability of the delivery methods. Only submarine launched systems are today almost completely invulnerable to detection before they are launched and submarines can roam all over the globe. The other two legs are wedded to either air bases or silos. Both are highly vulnerable to first strikes - and the emphasis in any MAD environment is towards a first strike (as it is the only way to make sure that your missiles/bombers actually fulfil their function).

Such an arms race is not sustainable and that is all that has been offered thus far in the other thread.

Or one side drops out or it gets managed but that depends on the positive political objectives (e.g. irredentist)
and world view; the US and the UK didn't come to blows over the post-WWI naval arms race.

Both prepared plans for it though. Both built forces which while supposedly aimed at their obvious enemy had a secondary use against each other.

However, in the main, the US and the UK saw each other as rivals and even Allies, not as enemies. They had just been allied in WWI, afterall. Both had strong family ties across the pond. Both spoke the same language (supposedly. As Churchill suggested, "Never have two nations been more divided by a common language"). Both had common religious/political ties. Both had differing spheres of influence. What conflict there may have been was minor for the most part. The Americans loved the British Royal Family. The British loved Hollywood "royality".

There was also no falling out between the two nations. No gross misunderstandings. No major distrusts.

 

[Rickshaw]

Actually, the UK was on it's knees. It had over-reached it's strategic ability and much of it's defence policy in the 1920s and 1930s was attempting to hang onto what it had taken. Oil was only known at that stage in Iran. No other reserves had been discovered in the Middle-East or South-West Asia. To them, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt were simply sandy, arid wastes. You have to look at the problem through the eyes of the time, not modern eyes.

British shipbuilding peaked in 1920 and declined *after* the Washington Treaty was signed.
That hardly sounds like a country on its knees.

It was a country that wanted the Washington Treaty because without it, it could not sustain that level of Naval shipbuilding (which is what I think you meant, as the Washington Treaty had nil effect on civil shipbuilding). Without it, the RN was on a hiding to nothing. This is made clear in most of the histories of the period.

Your imputed view to the British on the Middle East is completely ahistorical.

From geological analysis (dating back to at least 1886 for the British and 1901 for the Germans)
it was widely accepted that Iraq held vast reserves which is why the British and Germans
were trying to secure mineral rights for Mosul and Kirkuk (amongst other provinces) prior to WWI.

That may have been what was underlying what happened but it wasn't how the majority of the world viewed the regions we are discussing. To most Europeans, the Middle-East-S.W.Asia was an empty, arid and all too much sandy waste of little real value. Questions were always being asked as to why Britain wanted the region. It was full of quarrelsome tribespeople, always attacking each other and the Colonial powers. Romantics might have loved it but the common man in the UK only knew it as a place where he could be sent to fight those natives.

Japan was also having severe financial problems. It's economy simply could not sustain the defence spending the militarists feel was necessary. The Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 only exacerbated matters, while military adventurism in Korea/Manchuria/China and Russia made it even worse.

The USA was also having financial difficulties. While their effects were worsened by the 1927 Great Depression, the problems that created were starting to show after WWI. The US Government was in the grip of isolationism and of course "small governmentism" (which still holds sway today), prevented it from realising it's true potential. Only WWII brought it out of those two dead-end positions.

Naturally you list dates after the Washington Naval Treaty which makes them irrelevant. The US and Japan
had belatedly initiated their naval expansion in response to British and German pre-war Naval expansion.
The Germans stopped in 1912 but everyone else continued.
[/quote]

They may have occurred afterwards but what caused the Washington Naval Treaty conference in the first place?

Alarm about how naval building was going. People could see it was unsustainable. The battleship was getting bigger, more complex and much more costly. Too costly for large fleets to be sustained. It was feared that more weapons would lead to more wars. I note it was the Harding Administration that called the conference. It was held in Washington. Obviously the US was feeling the strain as was the UK, Japan and France and Italy.

The events I describe occurred either before or during or after the conference. The Japanese didn't evacuate Russia until 1927. They were heavily involved in Manchuria and China. The Kanto Earthquake occurred in 1923, just after the conference. All these events combined together, with the Militarist movement in Japan. Japan could not sustain the spending on it's military forces. The US had similar misgivings about spending it's military forces. France and Italy similarly. WW1 had been a huge strain on all their economies.

 

[RyanC]

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

Enough to suffer a surprise bolt out of the blue attack and then retaliate with enough force to destroy the aggressor and still retain a significant reserve for the post-attack future.

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

See above.

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

To quote Thomas Sarsfield Powers:

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

There would also be an ABM system built, along the lines of the old SENTINEL proposals...

 

[RyanC]

The post WW1-arms race was nipped in the bud by the Washington Treaty - historians say much of that came about because the treaty nations feared huge financial troubles funding the race.
WW1 had bled the warring nations dry.

And that came back to screw the great powers in WW2; because all the older WWI era battleships and other ships had been destroyed; so there was a deficit of capital ships available for lesser roles or for dangerous schemes like Gallipoli.

Imagine how much different Dieppe would've been if the Royal Navy had had one or two old WWI battleships available for expenditure as mobile fire support off the beaches....

...the pre-dreadnoughts in WWI may have been horridly obsolete, but they were more than good enough for secondary or third string roles.

 

[sferrin]

To quote Thomas Sarsfield Powers:

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

Quoted for truth.

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

There would also be an ABM system built, along the lines of the old SENTINEL proposals...

An ABM system sounds a hell of a lot more preferable to hanging one's hopes on the tender mercies of an invader such as the WWII Japanese, the Nazis, or any one of a number of history's invaders. I can't even wrap my mind around a mode of thinking that would prefer to throw themselves at the feet of an invader rather than defend themselves.

 

[marauder2048]

That may have been what was underlying what happened but it wasn't how the majority of the world viewed the regions we are discussing. To most Europeans, the Middle-East-S.W.Asia was an empty, arid and all too much sandy waste of little real value. Questions were always being asked as to why Britain wanted the region. It was full of quarrelsome tribespeople, always attacking each other and the Colonial powers. Romantics might have loved it but the common man in the UK only knew it as a place where he could be sent to fight those natives.

This is irrelevant and ahistorical; all Allied leaders during the war (and informed opinion) recognized
how vital post-war access to oil was going to be, all of the leaders accepted that Mesopotamia
held vast reserves and the British were acutely aware that 80% of their oil was imported from the US.

The US congress was complaining publicly in 1919(!) that the British were attempting to
monopolize world oil production by keeping US oil companies out of Mesopotamia.

In fact, Anglo-American oil competition in the immediate post-war period was so intense (e.g. Venezuela)
that the there were concerns that it could lead to war since the British and the US were
projecting a precipitous decline in US oil production that would require the US to
become a net importer by 1925.

Naval power would be vital in preserving access and defending the emerging oil production
regions. The reality is that tensions were only lessened by the discovery of more US oil fields
in 1921 - 1922 which in part made a treaty viable.

So that's a change in positive political objectives and world view. Not a view
that an arms race couldn't be sustained.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This topic is on borrowed time - I have had 7 posts reported already.

Forum rules:

Political, religious and nationalistic posts are prohibited and repeat offenders will be banned.

 

[marauder2048]

Swerving back to nuclear weapons.

I don't find the claim that PGMs can be a substitute particularly convincing
because the same technologies that enable smart or brilliant weapons also
enable better defensives against them e.g. your GBU vs. my MHTK, your ATGM against my APS.

And most of the PGM enabling technologies are applicable to nuclear weapons
as we've seen in the JDAM'ing of the B61 which in turn relaxes yield
and strategic materials requirements.

 

[Rickshaw]

How many nuclear warheads are required to defend your country?

Enough to suffer a surprise bolt out of the blue attack and then retaliate with enough force to destroy the aggressor and still retain a significant reserve for the post-attack future.

I'm after numbers, please. Percentages could work as well. So, how many do you think you need?

How many nuclear warheads are required to deter your (supposed) enemy?

See above.

Numbers please. One or One million? Somewhere in between?

What level of destruction are you prepared to wreak and see wreaked on, innocent parties in a general nuclear exchange between your forces and your enemy?

To quote Thomas Sarsfield Powers:

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

As the question was about third parties. your answer is non-sensical. So, how many innocent people have to die in your spat with Russia/PRC/DPRK/etc?

Which is more important? Your citizens' lives or your belief that you should defend your political system to the last drop of their blood?

There would also be an ABM system built, along the lines of the old SENTINEL proposals...

Interesting. Why? Afterall, the Sentinel system, as built only protected two ICBM fields IIRC. It was later shown that the Sentinel system could be overcome as well, so what use would it have been, except as a security blanket?

 

[Rickshaw]

That may have been what was underlying what happened but it wasn't how the majority of the world viewed the regions we are discussing. To most Europeans, the Middle-East-S.W.Asia was an empty, arid and all too much sandy waste of little real value. Questions were always being asked as to why Britain wanted the region. It was full of quarrelsome tribespeople, always attacking each other and the Colonial powers. Romantics might have loved it but the common man in the UK only knew it as a place where he could be sent to fight those natives.

This is irrelevant and ahistorical; all Allied leaders during the war (and informed opinion) recognized
how vital post-war access to oil was going to be, all of the leaders accepted that Mesopotamia
held vast reserves and the British were acutely aware that 80% of their oil was imported from the US.

Really? And how long after the seizure of those regions were those opinions written? At the time, the regions were seized because Ottoman Turkey ruled them, not because of obscure beliefs in the presence of oil under their sands.

The US congress was complaining publicly in 1919(!) that the British were attempting to
monopolize world oil production by keeping US oil companies out of Mesopotamia.

Were they? You have evidence of that? Mesopotamia was only a slice of the Middle-East-S.W.Asia. It is a large area, you realise?

In fact, Anglo-American oil competition in the immediate post-war period was so intense (e.g. Venezuela)
that the there were concerns that it could lead to war since the British and the US were
projecting a precipitous decline in US oil production that would require the US to
become a net importer by 1925.

Interesting. However, Latin America is not a part of the Middle-East-S.W.Asia, now is it?

Naval power would be vital in preserving access and defending the emerging oil production
regions. The reality is that tensions were only lessened by the discovery of more US oil fields
in 1921 - 1922 which in part made a treaty viable.

So that's a change in positive political objectives and world view. Not a view
that an arms race couldn't be sustained.

Yet we had the Washington Naval Conference and the consequent Naval Building Treaty. That appears to counter the point you appear to be trying to make. Obviously the leaders of the UK, USA, Italy, France, Japan appeared to think that the arms race was unsustainable...

However, that really lies outside the scope of the thread, which is about nuclear weapons and their politics.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-12/cant-kill-enough-win-think-again

 

[RyanC]

I'm after numbers, please. Percentages could work as well. So, how many do you think you need?

http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Strat_Bombing_Calc.htm

System Reliability: This is the percentage of a chance that the weapon system will successfully function and reach the target area.

During WWII, the 8th Air Force had an inflight abort rate of about 8.85%, plus a further 2.67% of all aircraft were shot down before the target area, for a total system reliability of 0.8847 for a B-17.

Redstone IRBM: 85.57% Flight Reliability (83 successes, 14 failures).
Atlas A ICBM: 37.5% Flight Reliability (3 successes, 5 failures).
Atlas B ICBM: 60% Flight Reliability (6 successes, 4 failures).
Atlas C ICBM: 50% Flight Reliability (3 successes, 3 failures).
Atlas D ICBM: 78.79% Flight Reliability (104 successes, 28 failures).
Atlas E ICBM: 54.55% Flight Reliability (18 successes, 15 failures).
Atlas F ICBM: 76.47% Flight Reliability (52 successes, 16 failures) (Program Goal of 85%)
Titan I ICBM: 77.61% Flight Reliability (52 successes, 15 failures) (Originally rated 50% reliable, rating raised to 70% with final squadrons).
Titan II ICBM: 95.06% Flight Reliability (129 successes, 19 failures) (Originally rated about 72.5% reliable, rating raised to 90% with final squadrons).
Minuteman ICBM: 97.1% Flight Reliability (836 successes, 25 failures).
Peacekeeper ICBM: 98.04% Flight Reliability (50 successes, 1 failure).
Polaris IRBM: 99.37% Flight Reliability (628 successes, 4 failures). (Originally rated at <50% reliable for A-1, raised to 63-65% for A-2 and finally 79-82% with A-3.)
Poseidon IRBM: 97.01% Flight Reliability (260 successes, 8 failures).
Trident I ICBM: Incomplete data so not given.
Trident II ICBM: 97.27% Flight Reliability (178 successes, 5 failures).

NOTE: It is worth noting that in general public sources, the 17 October 1963 launch of a MINUTEMAN I was classified as a "success". This launch, classified CEDAR LAKE, was part of the Operational Test (OT) preceding induction of the Minuteman into SAC SIOP service and it actually missed the target by 24.26 nautical miles to the right and 781.37 nautical miles over.

Weapon Reliability: This is the percentage of a chance that the bomb/missile will successfully explode after it's been released at/near the target.

During World War II, it was estimated that US aerial bombs had a dud rate of between 10 to 20%. By Vietnam, it was around 5%.

In 1965, the W47 Y2 Mod 2 which made up about 75% of the W47 stockpile, had a dud rate of about 75%. This meant that crudely, the overall W47 stockpile would only work 50% of the time. To correct this problem, the AEC began rebuilding the whole stockpile of W47s (some 300 warheads), beginning in March 1965 to the W47 Y2 Mod 3 configuration. This fix was not achieved until late 1967.

Start cranking the numbers.

We need more than 1,000 nuclear weapons, but less than 31,255.

As the question was about third parties. your answer is non-sensical. So, how many innocent people have to die in your spat with Russia/PRC/DPRK/etc?

What SAC labeled "Plan 1-A" of SIOP-62—suggesting that it was the basic plan—called for an all-out preemptive first-strike against the U.S.S.R., Eastern Europe and Red China, in response to an actual or merely impending Soviet invasion of Western Europe that involved no nuclear weapons at all. That was the crux of SIOP: a first-strike plan that held back nothing, that killed hundreds of millions of people, just because they lived under Communist rule, without any Communist government's having so much as scratched a square inch of the United States. As much as anyone else who had witnessed this spectacle, if not more so, Robert McNamara was horrified.

The capper came from General Tommy Power. Not the least appalling detail of SIOP-62 was the virtual obliteration of the tiny country of Albania—even though it had dramatically dissociated itself from the policies of the U.S.S.R.—simply because within its borders sat a huge Soviet air-defense radar, which, according to the SIOP, had to be taken out with high assurance. As Power was leading McNamara and his entourage outside the briefing room after finishing the presentation, he smiled at McNamara and said, with a mock straight face, "Well, Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't have any friends or relations in Albania, because we're just going to have to wipe it out."

McNamara stopped in his tracks for a moment at Power with all the contempt he could muster.

Interesting. Why? Afterall, the Sentinel system, as built only protected two ICBM fields IIRC. It was later shown that the Sentinel system could be overcome as well, so what use would it have been, except as a security blanket?

SAFEGUARD was the ICBM Field protection version.

SENTINEL was the "protect the entire nation" version that was cut down into SAFEGUARD.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/02/the_folly_of_deploying_tactical_nuclear_weapons_to_skorea_112714.html

A very interesting position the other side holds seems to be:

1) "We have to live with" dangerous totalitarian terrorists supporting regimes, who are sworn enemies of the US and vow to destroy her and her allies, having nukes
2) Stable allied democracies like S. Korea and Japan not having or developing nukes because it is dangerous and destabilizing.

I can't help but think part of the reason for this is they like when our enemies can thumb their noses at the US and enjoy when the US is 'taken down a peg'

They are more anti-American than any-nuke proliferation.

 

[kaiserd]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/02/the_folly_of_deploying_tactical_nuclear_weapons_to_skorea_112714.html

A very interesting position the other side holds seems to be:

1) "We have to live with" dangerous totalitarian terrorists supporting regimes, who are sworn enemies of the US and vow to destroy her and her allies, having nukes
2) Stable allied democracies like S. Korea and Japan not having or developing nukes because it is dangerous and destabilizing.

I can't help but think part of the reason for this is they like when our enemies can thumb their noses at the US and enjoy when the US is 'taken down a peg'

They are more anti-American than any-nuke proliferation.

As in previous instances I would suggest that other readers and contributors actualy read the article.
Bobbymike’s comments appear to bear almost no relationship to the content of the article whatsoever.

Again this juvenile and insidious insistence that anyone with even a slightly different view is “anti-American”.
Not that it makes any difference in this regard but the article isn’t even anti-nuclear weapons or pro-disarmament.....

Truly bizarre need to have something, anything to vent apparently inexhaustible stores of anger and venom at.....

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/02/the_folly_of_deploying_tactical_nuclear_weapons_to_skorea_112714.html

A very interesting position the other side holds seems to be:

1) "We have to live with" dangerous totalitarian terrorists supporting regimes, who are sworn enemies of the US and vow to destroy her and her allies, having nukes
2) Stable allied democracies like S. Korea and Japan not having or developing nukes because it is dangerous and destabilizing.

I can't help but think part of the reason for this is they like when our enemies can thumb their noses at the US and enjoy when the US is 'taken down a peg'

They are more anti-American than any-nuke proliferation.

As in previous instances I would suggest that other readers and contributors actualy read the article.
Bobbymike’s comments appear to bear almost no relationship to the content of the article whatsoever.

Again this juvenile and insidious insistence that anyone with even a slightly different view is “anti-American”.
Not that it makes any difference in this regard but the article isn’t even anti-nuclear weapons or pro-disarmament.....

Truly bizarre need to have something, anything to vent apparently inexhaustible stores of anger and venom at.....

Methinks you doth protest to much. Not angry or venomous just calling a spade a spade from this thread and dozens and dozens others.

"There is no military justification for developing or deploying nuclear weapons for use on the peninsula because U.S. conventional and nuclear weapons can cover any targets that need to be destroyed in North Korea. Further, such improvements would invite potentially destabilizing reactions from North Korea and China, possibly even Russia, and legitimize North Korean nuclear weapons."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course you're either being obtuse or disingenuous as I am obviously not just commented on parts of this article but the dozens and dozens of others posted that have said repeatedly 'we have to live with N. Korean/Iranian nukes but Japan and S. Korea should not have independent arsenals.

Are you really denying this correlation exists and this argument hasn't been made?

But that said my last post on this thread there are no minds to be changed here, including mine ;D

 

[kaiserd]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/02/the_folly_of_deploying_tactical_nuclear_weapons_to_skorea_112714.html

A very interesting position the other side holds seems to be:

1) "We have to live with" dangerous totalitarian terrorists supporting regimes, who are sworn enemies of the US and vow to destroy her and her allies, having nukes
2) Stable allied democracies like S. Korea and Japan not having or developing nukes because it is dangerous and destabilizing.

I can't help but think part of the reason for this is they like when our enemies can thumb their noses at the US and enjoy when the US is 'taken down a peg'

They are more anti-American than any-nuke proliferation.

As in previous instances I would suggest that other readers and contributors actualy read the article.
Bobbymike’s comments appear to bear almost no relationship to the content of the article whatsoever.

Again this juvenile and insidious insistence that anyone with even a slightly different view is “anti-American”.
Not that it makes any difference in this regard but the article isn’t even anti-nuclear weapons or pro-disarmament.....

Truly bizarre need to have something, anything to vent apparently inexhaustible stores of anger and venom at.....

Methinks you doth protest to much. Not angry or venomous just calling a spade a spade from this thread and dozens and dozens others.

"There is no military justification for developing or deploying nuclear weapons for use on the peninsula because U.S. conventional and nuclear weapons can cover any targets that need to be destroyed in North Korea. Further, such improvements would invite potentially destabilizing reactions from North Korea and China, possibly even Russia, and legitimize North Korean nuclear weapons."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course you're either being obtuse or disingenuous as I am obviously not just commented on parts of this article but the dozens and dozens of others posted that have said repeatedly 'we have to live with N. Korean/Iranian nukes but Japan and S. Korea should not have independent arsenals.

Are you really denying this correlation exists and this argument hasn't been made?

....What are we supposed discussing/ arguing?
How is it “anti American” to have the position you quote above?
Is literally everyone apart from you, Sfferin and a very small number of similar contributors “anti America”?

A nuclear South Korea and/ or Japan would increase stability?
Seriously?
And if they trusted in the US not to abandon them why would they need/ want to go this route?

 

[marauder2048]

Were they? You have evidence of that? Mesopotamia was only a slice of the Middle-East-S.W.Asia. It is a large area, you realise?

Global oil competition between the UK and the US was an underlying source of tension
in the post-war period.

Britain's war aims against the Ottomans were informed as early as 1915 by the presence of oil
in Mesopotamia which had, since antiquity, been evident from oil seepages.

My sources are:

"British Oil Policy: 1919 - 1939" by McBeth
"British Strategy and Oil, 1914-1923" by Gibson

Yet we had the Washington Naval Conference and the consequent Naval Building Treaty. That appears to counter the point you appear to be trying to make. Obviously the leaders of the UK, USA, Italy, France, Japan appeared to think that the arms race was unsustainable...

However, that really lies outside the scope of the thread, which is about nuclear weapons and their politics.

The history of arms races is relevant here; the UK had won the Naval Arms race against Germany by 1912.

But the US positive political objective for the Naval Conference was the undermining
and/or destruction of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

The US could afford to lose its fleets (through battle or negotiation) but Japan and the UK could not.

 

[sferrin]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/02/the_folly_of_deploying_tactical_nuclear_weapons_to_skorea_112714.html

A very interesting position the other side holds seems to be:

1) "We have to live with" dangerous totalitarian terrorists supporting regimes, who are sworn enemies of the US and vow to destroy her and her allies, having nukes
2) Stable allied democracies like S. Korea and Japan not having or developing nukes because it is dangerous and destabilizing.

I can't help but think part of the reason for this is they like when our enemies can thumb their noses at the US and enjoy when the US is 'taken down a peg'

They are more anti-American than any-nuke proliferation.

Yep. You'll note, nary a peep about new Russian, Chinese, and North Korean ICBMs, it's the US that's the bad guy and "initiating a new Cold War".

 

[sferrin]

So, how many innocent people have to die in your spat with Russia/PRC/DPRK/etc?

That would be a question for Russia/PRC/DPRK no? I notice you don't seem to mind how many nuclear weapons they have. Curious.

 

[Rickshaw]

So, how many innocent people have to die in your spat with Russia/PRC/DPRK/etc?

That would be a question for Russia/PRC/DPRK no? I notice you don't seem to mind how many nuclear weapons they have. Curious.

Why would it only be a choice for Russia/PRC/DPRK? Doesn't the US have anything to contribute to a general exchange of nuclear weapons which are, afterall, all supposedly aimed at it's territory and/or forces?

I'm curious why you appear to always paint the "other side" as the "aggressor" and never consider that as the US has never relinquished first use and in fact been the only nation to use nuclear weapons, it might actually be either the aggressor or provoker of a nuclear war.

 

[kaiserd]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/02/the_folly_of_deploying_tactical_nuclear_weapons_to_skorea_112714.html

A very interesting position the other side holds seems to be:

1) "We have to live with" dangerous totalitarian terrorists supporting regimes, who are sworn enemies of the US and vow to destroy her and her allies, having nukes
2) Stable allied democracies like S. Korea and Japan not having or developing nukes because it is dangerous and destabilizing.

I can't help but think part of the reason for this is they like when our enemies can thumb their noses at the US and enjoy when the US is 'taken down a peg'

They are more anti-American than any-nuke proliferation.

Yep. You'll note, nary a peep about new Russian, Chinese, and North Korean ICBMs, it's the US that's the bad guy and "initiating a new Cold War".

So (if true, which it’s not) this is evidence of somekind of “anti-American” conspiracy?
Most of the posts on this and related topics have been “pro-nuclear” (not great terminology on my behalf) to varying degrees. Kadija-man and a few others would be more coming from the “anti-nuclear” perspective, which they are quite within their rights to do so.
The “consensus” position, in the US and specialist media that I have seen, and which I understand is probably the consensus political view (as much as one exists at the moment) is guarded support for the nuclear modernization instigated under the previous President and continued under the current President.
The primary guarded aspect is in relation to the costs associated and if they all can be bourne without impacting spending on conventional forces. There of course other strains of thought, though in the political and media areanas there are few if any out right disarmament proponents there are those that argue for elements of the overall modernization programme to be cut.
Again I personally wouldn’t agree with them but they are more than welcome to their own view and it doesn’t make them “anti-American”.
The view that the US needs to both (1) modernize and (2) greatly expand its nuclear forces appears to be a minority fringe view. If you were actually interested in expanding that cohort you wouldn’t be spending your time labeling anyone who isn’t in it as “Anti-American”.

 

[sferrin]

So, how many innocent people have to die in your spat with Russia/PRC/DPRK/etc?

That would be a question for Russia/PRC/DPRK no? I notice you don't seem to mind how many nuclear weapons they have. Curious.

Why would it only be a choice for Russia/PRC/DPRK? Doesn't the US have anything to contribute to a general exchange of nuclear weapons which are, afterall, all supposedly aimed at it's territory and/or forces?

How is it up to the US to decide how many of it's citizens the other guy kills?

I'm curious why you appear to always paint the "other side" as the "aggressor" and never consider that as the US has never relinquished first use and in fact been the only nation to use nuclear weapons, it might actually be either the aggressor or provoker of a nuclear war.

Right, right, because Putin's "escalate to deescalate", China's behavior in the South & East China seas, and NK's actual threats to nuke the US aren't at all aggressive or provocative, right? And stating a "no first use" policy is worth less than the paper it's printed on. That anybody would believe otherwise is astonishing.

 

[sferrin]

So (if true, which it’s not)

Kindly direct me to their commentary that is critical of Russia, China, or NK.

this is evidence of somekind of “anti-American” conspiracy?

"Conspiracy" would be giving them too much credit. "Obvious bias against, and contempt for, the US" would be the term I'd use.

Most of the posts on this and related topics have been “pro-nuclear” (not great terminology on my behalf) to varying degrees.

A more accurate description would be "pro-deterrent" with nuclear weapons merely being the best tool available for that function. If exploding fart cushions worked better I'm sure they'd be the tool of choice. The don't, so they aren't.

Kadija-man and a few others would be more coming from the “anti-nuclear” perspective, which they are quite within their rights to do so.

Nobody said they don't have the right to be against nuclear weapons in general. But that's not what they've demonstrated. They've shown they're against the US having nuclear weapons in particular. The US, and its citizens, are almost always the target of their venom. If they truly were against the weapons themselves, and not the US, their conversation would be of a more general tone, or, at the very least, their scorn would be directed at all nuclear powers equally. That they aren't, which demonstrates the falsehood that they're "anti-nuclear" and not "anti-US".

The primary guarded aspect is in relation to the costs associated and if they all can be bourne without impacting spending on conventional forces.

Those who are for modernization of the nuclear forces are indeed concerned about impacting conventional forces, and you typically see them arguing for killing the asinine concept of Sequestration. Those who are against modernization typically trot out costs, inflate them, and then claim it will put the US into the poor house, while studiously ignoring how much entitlements cost (which, face it, we could ZERO out without putting the safety of the country at risk).

Again I personally wouldn’t agree with them but they are more than welcome to their own view and it doesn’t make them “anti-American”.

If they put as much energy into eliminating foreign nuclear weapons I'd agree that it doesn't make them "anti-American". They don't so I don't.

The view that the US needs to both (1) modernize and (2) greatly expand its nuclear forces appears to be a minority fringe view. If you were actually interested in expanding that cohort you wouldn’t be spending your time labeling anyone who isn’t in it as “Anti-American”.

At the LEAST we need to modernize. The reason we need to expand is because we've fallen so far, and the world has changed. And again, if their ire were directed at nuclear powers in general I wouldn't label them "anti-American". But that's not the case.

 

[NeilChapman]

So (if true, which it’s not) this is evidence of somekind of “anti-American” conspiracy?
Most of the posts on this and related topics have been “pro-nuclear” (not great terminology on my behalf) to varying degrees. Kadija-man and a few others would be more coming from the “anti-nuclear” perspective, which they are quite within their rights to do so.
The “consensus” position, in the US and specialist media that I have seen, and which I understand is probably the consensus political view (as much as one exists at the moment) is guarded support for the nuclear modernization instigated under the previous President and continued under the current President.
The primary guarded aspect is in relation to the costs associated and if they all can be bourne without impacting spending on conventional forces. There of course other strains of thought, though in the political and media areanas there are few if any out right disarmament proponents there are those that argue for elements of the overall modernization programme to be cut.
Again I personally wouldn’t agree with them but they are more than welcome to their own view and it doesn’t make them “anti-American”.
The view that the US needs to both (1) modernize and (2) greatly expand its nuclear forces appears to be a minority fringe view. If you were actually interested in expanding that cohort you wouldn’t be spending your time labeling anyone who isn’t in it as “Anti-American”.

I am happy living in a "western democracy" and having it be the predominant political system in the world. The PRC is the most significant threat to that status. While the PRC has made great strides economically its people endure under a Communist regime with a cataclysmic human rights record.

Russia, while it maintains a powerful nuclear force, is struggling to maintain some relevance. It's has shown the prime example of how a third world economy can change maps in the 21st century. The threats to other nations are real.

While I'm hopeful that the PRC's Communist regime will eventually decide to join the majority of nations in the great experiment, I'm old enough of a to recognize that it may not happen. The PRC may decide that maintaining their power requires an autocracy. They may also seek to further enforce their political will through satellite national governments.

I'm glad the citizens of the United States sacrifice so much to maintain a credible military. It cannot do so alone. Other nations must be able to at least protect their own borders, EEZ's, and contribute in a credible way to ensuring Western Democracy remains the predominant political system.

The stories are endless....

Germany had difficulty sending 6 fighters to the Middle East in 2015. Twenty-nine of 66 Tornado jets were airworthy. The year before, 38 of 89 Tornado jets were operational.

"In 1997 the RAF was expected to be capable of deploying up to 72 fast jets (6 squadrons) on an enduring operation – today (according to a former Chief of the Air Staff (CAS)) the RAF would be hard pushed to field 24 fast jets."

Canada cannot meet its own defense requirements for patrolling it's EEZ, let alone contributing to a NATO requirement.

I could go on.

The US could better focus its resources if nations would invest in a credible defense of their own countries. This includes patrolling of their own borders, EEZ's and provide for their own transport and air cap when engaging in overseas missions.

As Secretary Carter once stated, "freeloaders are not welcome."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11715604/Heres-how-many-planes-the-Royal-Air-Force-has-available-to-fight-Isil.html

http://www.defencesynergia.co.uk/royal-air-force-2017-and-beyond-into-its-second-century/

 

[Rickshaw]

So, how many innocent people have to die in your spat with Russia/PRC/DPRK/etc?

That would be a question for Russia/PRC/DPRK no? I notice you don't seem to mind how many nuclear weapons they have. Curious.

Why would it only be a choice for Russia/PRC/DPRK? Doesn't the US have anything to contribute to a general exchange of nuclear weapons which are, afterall, all supposedly aimed at it's territory and/or forces?

How is it up to the US to decide how many of it's citizens the other guy kills?

It is up to the US to decide how many innocent civilians on both sides and in non-combatant countries that are killed. You appear to believe that the effects of nuclear weapons of massed destruction are confined purely to the targets that they are directed at. Radiation does not respect borders, you realise? I was referring to those innocent civilians in other countries, primarily. You know, the neutral ones which aren't part of the Big Power games that you and the other super-powers like to engage in?

I'm curious why you appear to always paint the "other side" as the "aggressor" and never consider that as the US has never relinquished first use and in fact been the only nation to use nuclear weapons, it might actually be either the aggressor or provoker of a nuclear war.

Right, right, because Putin's "escalate to deescalate", China's behavior in the South & East China seas, and NK's actual threats to nuke the US aren't at all aggressive or provocative, right? And stating a "no first use" policy is worth less than the paper it's printed on. That anybody would believe otherwise is astonishing.

Considering that I am referring to the US being the aggressor or the provoker of a nuclear conflict, I hardly see what the other side does as being relevant. Why not answer the question instead of obfuscating about it?

 

[Rickshaw]

As Secretary Carter once stated, "freeloaders are not welcome."

An interesting comment.

It appears to me, that you views are somewhat disconnected to the reality of the rest of the world.

Economically, many nations are struggling. They are faced with a choice - either cut their social programmes, their health programmes, their education programmes or their defence programmes.

As the present strategic environment is somewhat benign and perceived as such by the rest of the world, defence is one of the budgetary items that gets cut, even if somewhat reluctantly.

Your nation appears to manufacture problems and enemies. Since the end of the Cold War, there has been the EU, Japan, South Korea, the PRC - all presented as economic and possible strategic foes to the supremacy of the USA. Now it is the DPRK. Have you ever considered sitting down and talking honestly with other nation's leaders? It might do wonders and decrease the level of international tension.

And that is the point. The rest of the world perceives the world very differently to Washington. Very differently, indeed. Until we have another world-wide threat, another Cold War which presents existential problems to our existence, we will spend what we feel is correct for our defence needs. Just as Washington does for it's. OK?

 

[lastdingo]

American views on military spending are often arrogant, ignorant and inconsistent.

Iceland is a NATO member without any military, and it's welcome as a "freeloader" because the other NATO members don't want a Russian airbase on Iceland.

To spend ~1% GDP in the military is by definition not "freeloading". Anyone who still uses that word in this context is a liar or idiot or both.

The '2% GDP military spending' commitment doesn't exist. Executive branch representatives agreed to it, but it's the legislative branch that had budget authority in all NATO countries, and the legislative branches of almost all NATO countries say "no" to this commitment year after year by passing budget laws that feature less military spending and less planned military spending for later years.
That idiotic fake commitment is the same as if the hairstylists of your city had a conference and committed that every inhabitant of the city has to get one 50 $ haircut per week. Utterly ridiculous unauthoritative bullshit.

The North Atlantic Treaty has several obligations for its members, but none of them is anything specific about spending. The United States violate the North Atlantic Treaty with every single instance of cruise missile diplomacy and the invasion of Iraq 2003 by the military high-spenders USA and UK was the most extreme violation of the North Atlantic Treaty yet. The U.S: is the bad ally, not the Europeans.

Americans also arrogantly presume that their military spending level is the right one, even though their situation is economically unsustainable in regard to budget deficits and public infrastructure underspending in large part because of their huge military spending.

Americans are also ignorant about how much American allies enable American nominal military power. Host nations pay a lot of the expenses for U.S. military power and the U.S:_ militar ymight would be much-reduced if allies wouldn't provide bases like Diego Garcia.

The Europeans have two nuclear powers with each enough 2nd strike ability to crash the Russian society and kill 20% of Russians in a day each. European NATO and EU each outnumber the Russian-Belorussian military personnel strength by almost 2:1.

The structural problems in European armed forces that make them fairly inefficient for actual deterrence and defence against Russia were asked for by the U.S. government for 10-20 years. The Americans were pressing the Europeans to build expeditionary armed forces for playing great power games in distant places - of course such efforts make you less efficient and ready to deal with Russian army corps.

The American level of the nuke arsenal is outright crazy. They themselves get effectively deterred by the handful of Pakistani and North Korean nukes. Still, they supposedly need thousands of nukes for deterrence themselves. It's incoherent and crazy. The Chinese minimal deterrence with few hundred nukes is easily enough.

The USA and Russia are by the way violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with their nuclear arms policies - something that Iran never did. Iran didn't attack another country in nearly 200 years either. The Americans did it every couple years since the invasion of Laos: Laos, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria - in addition to lots of air attacks on sovereign nations especially since the early 80's. None of which was self-defence - even Afghanistan not, since it hadn't attacked the US any more than Saudi-Arabia.

The idea that the U.S. is defending Europe is laughable nowadays, considering that Putin appears to be able to blackmail the Trump and that the U.S. under Trump is an ally but on paper. Its CINC certainly isn't an ally of Western Europeans more than of Putin. He showed that on every opportunity and refused to confirm that the U.S. would help defend Europe.


Still, it's a fact that Americans outnumber Europeans on english language internet boards, and their bullshit views on international affairs are thus mainstream.

 

[sferrin]

American views on military spending are often arrogant, ignorant and inconsistent.

Iceland is a NATO member without any military, and it's welcome as a "freeloader" because the other NATO members don't want a Russian airbase on Iceland.

To spend ~1% GDP in the military is by definition not "freeloading". Anyone who still uses that word in this context is a liar or idiot or both.

The '2% GDP military spending' commitment doesn't exist. Executive branch representatives agreed to it, but it's the legislative branch that had budget authority in all NATO countries, and the legislative branches of almost all NATO countries say "no" to this commitment year after year by passing budget laws that feature less military spending and less planned military spending for later years.
That idiotic fake commitment is the same as if the hairstylists of your city had a conference and committed that every inhabitant of the city has to get one 50 $ haircut per week. Utterly ridiculous unauthoritative bullshit.

The North Atlantic Treaty has several obligations for its members, but none of them is anything specific about spending. The United States violate the North Atlantic Treaty with every single instance of cruise missile diplomacy and the invasion of Iraq 2003 by the military high-spenders USA and UK was the most extreme violation of the North Atlantic Treaty yet. The U.S: is the bad ally, not the Europeans.

Americans also arrogantly presume that their military spending level is the right one, even though their situation is economically unsustainable in regard to budget deficits and public infrastructure underspending in large part because of their huge military spending.

Americans are also ignorant about how much American allies enable American nominal military power. Host nations pay a lot of the expenses for U.S. military power and the U.S:_ militar ymight would be much-reduced if allies wouldn't provide bases like Diego Garcia.

The Europeans have two nuclear powers with each enough 2nd strike ability to crash the Russian society and kill 20% of Russians in a day each. European NATO and EU each outnumber the Russian-Belorussian military personnel strength by almost 2:1.

The structural problems in European armed forces that make them fairly inefficient for actual deterrence and defence against Russia were asked for by the U.S. government for 10-20 years. The Americans were pressing the Europeans to build expeditionary armed forces for playing great power games in distant places - of course such efforts make you less efficient and ready to deal with Russian army corps.

The American level of the nuke arsenal is outright crazy. They themselves get effectively deterred by the handful of Pakistani and North Korean nukes. Still, they supposedly need thousands of nukes for deterrence themselves. It's incoherent and crazy. The Chinese minimal deterrence with few hundred nukes is easily enough.

The USA and Russia are by the way violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with their nuclear arms policies - something that Iran never did. Iran didn't attack another country in nearly 200 years either. The Americans did it every couple years since the invasion of Laos: Laos, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria - in addition to lots of air attacks on sovereign nations especially since the early 80's. None of which was self-defence - even Afghanistan not, since it hadn't attacked the US any more than Saudi-Arabia.

The idea that the U.S. is defending Europe is laughable nowadays, considering that Putin appears to be able to blackmail the Trump and that the U.S. under Trump is an ally but on paper. Its CINC certainly isn't an ally of Western Europeans more than of Putin. He showed that on every opportunity and refused to confirm that the U.S. would help defend Europe.


Still, it's a fact that Americans outnumber Europeans on english language internet boards, and their bullshit views on international affairs are thus mainstream.

I rest my case.

 

[NeilChapman]

...

Americans also arrogantly presume that their military spending level is the right one, even though their situation is economically unsustainable in regard to budget deficits and public infrastructure underspending in large part because of their huge military spending.

You make lots of accusations but don't substantiate your arguments.

Here you try to make a point but don't supply and data.
What is the "right" level of military spend?
What public infrastructure projects is it necessary for the US Federal Government to undertake?
What public federal infrastructure spend are you advocating and how are you suggesting it be spent?
What percentages of the US Federal budget are allocated for which programs and how are they impacted by the defense budget?

You provide no data whatsoever.

Americans are also ignorant about how much American allies enable American nominal military power. Host nations pay a lot of the expenses for U.S. military power and the U.S:_ militar ymight would be much-reduced if allies wouldn't provide bases like Diego Garcia.

Diego Garcia is leased by the US Government. US Government has spent over $3B in infrastructure improvements there as well. That's not a good example. Perhaps you were ignorant of this information?

Yes - there are countries that provide an extra-ordinary level of support to locally hosted US military bases. Since you are including it in your point would you like to list them? Perhaps it would be helpful to limit it to NATO bases since we're focused on Europe.

Might also be good to identify how/when the US gained control of the particular facilities you list - and - identify the payroll provided to the US service personnel and local workers and the economic impact of that payroll to the local economies.

The Europeans have two nuclear powers with each enough 2nd strike ability to crash the Russian society and kill 20% of Russians in a day each. European NATO and EU each outnumber the Russian-Belorussian military personnel strength by almost 2:1.

Not sure what point you're making.

Russia didn't use nuclear weapons to invade Ukraine.

The structural problems in European armed forces that make them fairly inefficient for actual deterrence and defence against Russia were asked for by the U.S. government for 10-20 years. The Americans were pressing the Europeans to build expeditionary armed forces for playing great power games in distant places - of course such efforts make you less efficient and ready to deal with Russian army corps.

European armed forces or NATO armed forces? It seems to me there are more than several countries that are not members of both.

Is your point that the limited job NATO countries undertook they are not able to complete? Because that's my point.

 

[Rickshaw]

Kadija-man and a few others would be more coming from the “anti-nuclear” perspective, which they are quite within their rights to do so.

Nobody said they don't have the right to be against nuclear weapons in general. But that's not what they've demonstrated. They've shown they're against the US having nuclear weapons in particular. The US, and its citizens, are almost always the target of their venom. If they truly were against the weapons themselves, and not the US, their conversation would be of a more general tone, or, at the very least, their scorn would be directed at all nuclear powers equally. That they aren't, which demonstrates the falsehood that they're "anti-nuclear" and not "anti-US".

An interesting point and one I have been considering. My question is, how do you know what my comments are WRT to Russian/PRC/UK/French/Israel/Indian/Pakistan/DPRK nuclear weapons as I have never posted much here? How do you know I am not making similar anti-nuclear comments in other forums? Have you ever considered that?

However, the reason why my comments here are made about the US's nuclear power is because this is primarily a forum frequented by afterall, American posters like yourself. You want to talk about US nuclear power and forces. You aren't really interested in Russian/PRC/UK/French/Israel/Indian/Pakisani/DPRK nuclear forces, except as something you believe should be countered. They represent (for the most part), are threat to the Hawks the existence of your nation. They are, to the Hawks, merely a threat, nothing more. Their existence fuels the Hawks' belief that the US NEEDS nuclear power and weapons.

My question to you, is why do those other countries need nuclear weapons? Apart from the supposed prestige that their possession confers on their owners, do you ever consider that they, like you, are fearful of your nation and the rest of the world? Ever?

Several years ago, a senior Indian politician was upset at how some Indian students were being treated in Melbourne. He threatened Australia with his nation's nuclear weapons, "They forget, we have nuclear weapons, they do not!" He was laughed at downunder. Why get that upset at what was happening to a tiny minority of Indians in an overseas nation? However, that is how some people perceive their possession of nuclear weapons. They enable them to threaten other countries. However, more mature people know such threats are ultimately hollow.

Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus famous quote, "Si vis pacem, para bellum," Was apt when the march to war took weeks, if not months and required masses of men to undertake it. Today, the march to war can take hours, if not minutes and can be accomplished by a handful of men and can mean the loss of not only cities but entire nations, if not perhaps the world. Your talk is that of the need for new weapons, better weapons, faster weapons, never do you speak of a desire for peace. I wonder why? Perhaps this is the wrong forum for that? Who knows?

 

[Sherman Tank]

I quite agree. I doubt many people are posting here out of a desire to be reflexively anti-American, they simply disagree with some of my fellow Americans' contentions, and would no doubt have the same reaction to similar posts from Russian or Chinese users if any of them posted on this site.

 

[kaiserd]

I quite agree. I doubt many people are posting here out of a desire to be reflexively anti-American, they simply disagree with some of my fellow Americans' contentions, and would no doubt have the same reaction to similar posts from Russian or Chinese users if any of them posted on this site.

Indeed doing the math there are probably far more contributors who are reflexively “pro-American” (“my country right or wrong”) than from any particular “anti-American” position.
Speaking as a non-American I would note this strange want of certain sections of contributors to be treated the same as the likes of Russia and the PRC.
The US is a liberal democracy and our friend (and long may it stay both, even during this difficult period) and as such we will hold it to higher standards than one party authoritarian states or kleptocracies.

 

[sferrin]

I quite agree. I doubt many people are posting here out of a desire to be reflexively anti-American, they simply disagree with some of my fellow Americans' contentions, and would no doubt have the same reaction to similar posts from Russian or Chinese users if any of them posted on this site.

While that may be true, in some instances, there are certainly several in this thread that fall in the "reflexively anti-American" category. I hardly think the post in red above could be considered anything else.

 

[lastdingo]

I rest my case.

It's exasperation, not arrogance, if true.
The exasperation of one person criticizing a group does not mean that the critique isn't accurate.

...

Americans also arrogantly presume that their military spending level is the right one, even though their situation is economically unsustainable in regard to budget deficits and public infrastructure underspending in large part because of their huge military spending.

You make lots of accusations but don't substantiate your arguments.

Here you try to make a point but don't supply and data.
What is the "right" level of military spend?
Info not required for the claim quoted.

What public infrastructure projects is it necessary for the US Federal Government to undertake?
What public federal infrastructure spend are you advocating and how are you suggesting it be spent?
Macroeconomic accounritng shows insufficient growht of capital stock, and the U.S. Senate published a report that USD 100+ bn public infrastructure investments are lacking every year. That was before sequestration already.

What percentages of the US Federal budget are allocated for which programs and how are they impacted by the defense budget?

You provide no data whatsoever.
Data isn't required in this case.

Americans are also ignorant about how much American allies enable American nominal military power. Host nations pay a lot of the expenses for U.S. military power and the U.S:_ militar ymight would be much-reduced if allies wouldn't provide bases like Diego Garcia.

Diego Garcia is leased by the US Government. US Government has spent over $3B in infrastructure improvements there as well. That's not a good example. Perhaps you were ignorant of this information?
The UK offered the base for use by U.S.armed forces beuuase it's allied. What's difficult to understand here? The U.S. didn't have access to that base for no reason, just like Russia didn't have access to some Syrian port for no reason. Great powers without world-wide overseas territory depend on others for world-wide bases.

Yes - there are countries that provide an extra-ordinary level of support to locally hosted US military bases. Since you are including it in your point would you like to list them? Perhaps it would be helpful to limit it to NATO bases since we're focused on Europe.

Might also be good to identify how/when the US gained control of the particular facilities you list - and - identify the payroll provided to the US service personnel and local workers and the economic impact of that payroll to the local economies.

Right. Once you're delivering an economic study worth 200 grand with every forum post that you make.
To request unreasonable amounts of sources and evidence from people one doesn't agree with but not from others is not good netiquette.

The Europeans have two nuclear powers with each enough 2nd strike ability to crash the Russian society and kill 20% of Russians in a day each. European NATO and EU each outnumber the Russian-Belorussian military personnel strength by almost 2:1.

Not sure what point you're making.
I'm making the point that tEurope is militarily powerful as of now, which makes demands for substantially higher spending idiotic.

(...)

The structural problems in European armed forces that make them fairly inefficient for actual deterrence and defence against Russia were asked for by the U.S. government for 10-20 years. The Americans were pressing the Europeans to build expeditionary armed forces for playing great power games in distant places - of course such efforts make you less efficient and ready to deal with Russian army corps.

European armed forces or NATO armed forces? It seems to me there are more than several countries that are not members of both.
European NATO mostly in this case, though the overlap with EU is huge.

Is your point that the limited job NATO countries undertook they are not able to complete? Because that's my point.

You clearly did not pay attention when I pointed out that Euroepan NATO has nearly 2:1 military personnel superiority over Russia and two nuclear powers.
I'm used to people not being able to wrap their head around that fact. They have gulped the notion of European weakness and will not give it up at any cost.

Europe is not lacking in military spending. Smarter military spending in European NATO could provide excellent and easily sufficient deterrence & defence (save for against Russian nuclear attack) with halved military spending if it focused on these tasks 100%. Calls for more military spending and notions that one needs thousands of nukes are BS.


I have yet to see ONE man who calls for more military spending to secure Europe against Russia to mention the actual military strength of Russia relative to EU/European NATO or even only Southern/Western MDs in absolute figures. The Russians have 2-3 divisional equivalents, a largely obsolete air force and marginalconventional naval capabilities facing Europe, adn that counts some forces that tehy have positions in/against the Ukraine. They would have trouble overcoming the Polish army if the Poles weren't surprised.
Way too many people think of Soviet juggernaut Red Army forces when writing about today's Russia, and others prey on low information voters to have that exact thought. That's how people get convinced to support hundreds of billions of EUR more waste on unproductive military expenses that are simply not needed for deterrence or defence.

 

[NeilChapman]

Indeed doing the math there are probably far more contributors who are reflexively “pro-American” (“my country right or wrong”) than from any particular “anti-American” position.
Speaking as a non-American I would note this strange want of certain sections of contributors to be treated the same as the likes of Russia and the PRC.
The US is a liberal democracy and our friend (and long may it stay both, even during this difficult period) and as such we will hold it to higher standards than one party authoritarian states or kleptocracies.

Firstly, there is is difference in recognizing the positive benefits of the United States in making it possible for liberal democracies to be the predominant political system in use - vs - "my country right or wrong".

Secondly, there is a difference in recognizing that more than several nations have been able to take advantage of the sacrifice of the United States to advance their internal political agenda through promotion of the welfare state. This does not mean that "pro-American" = 'my country right or wrong'.

Lastly, when you make statements categorizing some large percentage of contributors as 'reflexively "pro-American" ("my country right or wrong") it is not only inaccurate, you are implying these contributors are not objective. Perhaps it is the writer who is wearing the blinders of neutrality whilst cloaked within the armor of thy neighbor?

 

[sferrin]

Secondly, there is a difference in recognizing that more than several nations have been able to take advantage of the sacrifice of the United States to advance their internal political agenda through promotion of the welfare state. This does not mean that "pro-American" = 'my country right or wrong'.

Quoted for truth. Just look at the situation to the North, and how they've gutted their military with no end in sight. (But those entitlements keep growing.)

 

[kaiserd]

Indeed doing the math there are probably far more contributors who are reflexively “pro-American” (“my country right or wrong”) than from any particular “anti-American” position.
Speaking as a non-American I would note this strange want of certain sections of contributors to be treated the same as the likes of Russia and the PRC.
The US is a liberal democracy and our friend (and long may it stay both, even during this difficult period) and as such we will hold it to higher standards than one party authoritarian states or kleptocracies.

Firstly, there is is difference in recognizing the positive benefits of the United States in making it possible for liberal democracies to be the predominant political system in use - vs - "my country right or wrong".

Secondly, there is a difference in recognizing that more than several nations have been able to take advantage of the sacrifice of the United States to advance their internal political agenda through promotion of the welfare state. This does not mean that "pro-American" = 'my country right or wrong'.

Lastly, when you make statements categorizing some large percentage of contributors as 'reflexively "pro-American" ("my country right or wrong") it is not only inaccurate, you are implying these contributors are not objective. Perhaps it is the writer who is wearing the blinders of neutrality whilst cloaked within the armor of thy neighbor?

Awesome post, clearly very objective and looking for genuine discussion... .........

 

[marauder2048]

You clearly did not pay attention when I pointed out that Euroepan NATO has nearly 2:1 military personnel superiority over Russia

That's a very curious way of measuring the conventional balance of power and may
have little relevance given Russian investment in UGVs and automation in general.

 

[sferrin]

You clearly did not pay attention when I pointed out that Euroepan NATO has nearly 2:1 military personnel superiority over Russia

That's a very curious way of measuring the conventional balance of power and may
have little relevance given Russian investment in UGVs and automation in general.

And virtually irrelevant given Russia's declared "escalate to deescalate" strategy, i.e., "we'll nuke you if you attack our forces with conventional weapons".

 

[kaiserd]

Secondly, there is a difference in recognizing that more than several nations have been able to take advantage of the sacrifice of the United States to advance their internal political agenda through promotion of the welfare state. This does not mean that "pro-American" = 'my country right or wrong'.

Quoted for truth. Just look at the situation to the North, and how they've gutted their military with no end in sight. (But those entitlements keep growing.)

Less about “truth” and more about your personal political baggage.
Nearly every 1st world democracy have adopted various different balances between military spending versus social protection spending versus that adopted by the US (they also adopt different balanced between taxation and spending).
They are more than allowed to do so, aren’t they? Or do you want to impose your particular views on them?

Most countries would, for example, envy the Canadian health system. Maybe envy is involved with your comments.....