Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
- Status
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
sferrin said:
And you seem wedded to the fantasy that the US is in some sense weak militarily or more narrowly from a nuclear weapon perspective. None of this is objectively remotely true.
The advocates of the necessity of nuclear weapons who see and are trying to sell the need for modernisation of the US nuclear weapon "enterprise" are not assisted (indeed are impeded) by zealots chasing fantasies of large increases in warhead and delivery system numbers and capabilities and advocating tearing up international treaties.
Zealots like you discredit the more moderate elements of those advocating the need for modernisation (just like your opposite numbers in the anti-nuclear movement are used by the likes of you to discredit strategic arms limitations and moves to reduce warhead numbers.)
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
gTg said:
Yeah, I saw that and rolled my eyes. At BEST he has ensured the "development" programs will continue to roll along for the next four years. In the meantime Russia, China, North Korea, and others will race ahead.
sferrin said:
Are you saying El Presidente is not telling the truth... :
;D- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 1,923
Sorry, can't help but think and reflect, that with the American self-obsession with its self-built ideology of exceptionalism, that it hasn't sawed it's own problem in regards of containing, let alone curtailing North Korea's nuclear arsenal and strategy, with their arrogant isolation and denomination of both Russia, and especially the PRC.
It explicitly clear that the issue with Nth Korea can not and will not be fixed unless both Russia and China are behind such a measure.
So long as the U.S. sees and seems it is their righteous place to be the only World Power, then it stand too reason that Russia and China will continue to prop up Nth Korea, as a thorn in America's side. Ironically, just as Sun Tzu's Art of War dictates.
Regards
Pioneer
It explicitly clear that the issue with Nth Korea can not and will not be fixed unless both Russia and China are behind such a measure.
So long as the U.S. sees and seems it is their righteous place to be the only World Power, then it stand too reason that Russia and China will continue to prop up Nth Korea, as a thorn in America's side. Ironically, just as Sun Tzu's Art of War dictates.
Regards
Pioneer
That should be obvious to anybody interested in the matter.GTX said:sferrin said:
Are you saying El Presidente is not telling the truth... :
I posted it because i think it is relevant in the discussion on renewing the US nuclear deterrent.
These statements will not help in getting the $$$ and political will to proceed with it.
I believe in deterrence and as a person living in a NATO country I'm well aware who is my nuclear deterrence sugar daddy.
So it matters to me that the US has lost it's nuclear industrial base...
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
Pioneer said:
"So long as the U.S. sees and seems it is their righteous place to be the only World Power"
Any other nation that was on top would work to STAY there. That's just common sense. Besides, would you really prefer China or Russia be in the US's position?
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
How about turning down the antagonism to the rest of the world and actually working to co-operate to actually cure the world's problems? It's not all the US's fault, I admit but it does contribute, now particularly under Trump it's own degree of hubris. A hubris some here appear to believe is natural and right when the rest of the world gets annoyed and rather pissed off at it. The US is not the ruler of the world. Trump needs to realise that and to pull his head in a great deal. Some real humility would achieve far more than proclaiming all the time how great the US is. :
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
gTg said:That should be obvious to anybody interested in the matter.GTX said:sferrin said:
Are you saying El Presidente is not telling the truth... :
I posted it because i think it is relevant in the discussion on renewing the US nuclear deterrent.
These statements will not help in getting the $$$ and political will to proceed with it.
I believe in deterrence and as a person living in a NATO country I'm well aware who is my nuclear deterrence sugar daddy.
So it matters to me that the US has lost it's nuclear industrial base...
Specifically on this topic of nuclear deterrence it appears that the current US President neither understands nor cares about the reality of the need for renovation of the US nuclear infrastructure, his interests appear to be to pander to his bellicose nationalist base and feed his own insatiable ego.
Similarly his current comments around North Korea are not primary intended for North Korean consumption but for his base and his own self worth.
While North Korea are past masters of "we're crazy, don't mess with us" outrageous statements and are very unlikely to be particularly perturbed or impacted (for good or ill) by the Presidents comments; the greater risk associated with his comments is that Trump will make a decision trap for himself re: his base and his own large but fragile ego.
While I support the concept of nuclear deterrence times like this do make you realise how much it relies on the quality, stability and sanity of the people involved, and its vulnerability to inevitable human weakness.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
Kadija_Man said:How about turning down the antagonism to the rest of the world and actually working to co-operate to actually cure the world's problems? It's not all the US's fault, I admit but it does contribute, now particularly under Trump it's own degree of hubris. A hubris some here appear to believe is natural and right when the rest of the world gets annoyed and rather pissed off at it. The US is not the ruler of the world. Trump needs to realise that and to pull his head in a great deal. Some real humility would achieve far more than proclaiming all the time how great the US is. :
Hey, I'm on your side here. IMO the US should bring all its forces and interest back from Europe and let them fend for themselves, since they say they hate us so much anyway. As for "humility" I'm more for "talk softly and carry a big stick" rather than the Obamaesque "kow-tow to everybody and their dog in a grand appeasement effort". If other countries don't like that approach, well. . .most of us in the US don't really care. Deal with it.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
sferrin said:Kadija_Man said:How about turning down the antagonism to the rest of the world and actually working to co-operate to actually cure the world's problems? It's not all the US's fault, I admit but it does contribute, now particularly under Trump it's own degree of hubris. A hubris some here appear to believe is natural and right when the rest of the world gets annoyed and rather pissed off at it. The US is not the ruler of the world. Trump needs to realise that and to pull his head in a great deal. Some real humility would achieve far more than proclaiming all the time how great the US is. :
Hey, I'm on your side here. IMO the US should bring all its forces and interest back from Europe and let them fend for themselves, since they say they hate us so much anyway. As for "humility" I'm more for "talk softly and carry a big stick" rather than the Obamaesque "kow-tow to everybody and their dog in a grand appeasement effort". If other countries don't like that approach, well. . .most of us in the US don't really care. Deal with it.
So you are advocating "abandoning" Europe to Russia, and presumably Asia to China, and all other international allies and commitments, with the US committing military, political and economic suicide in the name of your particular brand of American nationalism.
"America First" indeed.... Charles Lindbergh would be proud.
Just for the record you know your advocating exactly the policies of pre-World War 2 appeasers and isolationists, right? But Obama is the appeaser... right?
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
sferrin said:Kadija_Man said:How about turning down the antagonism to the rest of the world and actually working to co-operate to actually cure the world's problems? It's not all the US's fault, I admit but it does contribute, now particularly under Trump it's own degree of hubris. A hubris some here appear to believe is natural and right when the rest of the world gets annoyed and rather pissed off at it. The US is not the ruler of the world. Trump needs to realise that and to pull his head in a great deal. Some real humility would achieve far more than proclaiming all the time how great the US is. :
Hey, I'm on your side here. IMO the US should bring all its forces and interest back from Europe and let them fend for themselves, since they say they hate us so much anyway. As for "humility" I'm more for "talk softly and carry a big stick" rather than the Obamaesque "kow-tow to everybody and their dog in a grand appeasement effort". If other countries don't like that approach, well. . .most of us in the US don't really care. Deal with it.
Europe? Who cares? I don't 'cause I don't live there. In reality, some Europeans might hate you, many might dislike you because of American antics and hubris. The majority tolerate you as a necessary evil. The problem is that what you believe makes America safer, has as we have seen, not made the rest of the world safer. So, why then are you surprised when people look at the antics of the present incumbent of the Oval Office and wonder if he understands that the world does not just consist of the United States. His actions, his speeches have a bearing far outside the US population.
America is great. America is safe. Instead of blundering around using words he doesn't seem to understand or even want to understand, he would be better to be quiet and learn. Diplomacy does not consist of a big stick and proclaiming your readiness to use it. It consists of quiet words, spoken into the ears of people in power, backed with a big stick, held in the background and rarely used. America possesses more nuclear weapons than any other nations. How often do you need to blow the rest of the world up? Deterrence is about the implied threat of using nuclear weapons, it's not about running 'round like a frightened little boy proclaiming that you're going to use nuclear weapons tomorrow simply 'cause some would be bully has created the means to attack one or two of your cities.
You and the US President need to learn to be a little more stoic in your attitudes. The world will not end tomorrow, nor will the USA be forced to do what other nation's say, simply because they have some nuclear warheads. Your nation survived 45 years with the threat. Learn to live with it again.
Void
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 1 March 2008
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 48
Kadija_Man said:
Deterrence consists of credible capability and a credible will, nothing more or less. The style is irrelevant. Humility and learning to live with threats is the attitude of declining powers or nations which were never powers. The threat of the Soviet Union to America was accepted only because the Soviet Union was sufficiently strong direct confrontation was too dangerous. America as of yet is only declining in relative terms and quite slowly. If America tried to be humble the rest of world would sense a trap.
Whether or not countries will co-operate with America depends entirely on their interests and not at all on America's attitude. All other nations are hyper conscious of their weakness compared to America and so, of course, America does tend to vex them in all it does. But the reality of American strength cannot be denied and no conciliatory gestures or rhetoric can change this.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/stealthy-new-nuclear-cruise-missile-aims-deter-enemy
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/new-u-s-bomber-missile-boost-deterrence-options-nuclear-triad
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/new-u-s-bomber-missile-boost-deterrence-options-nuclear-triad
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
Void said:
To the concept of deterrence? Perhaps. To how people accept that concept, I would suggest it is very much another matter. You can be cruel and tyrannical but you won't win any supporters amongst the majority of the world's population as they feel your boot being ground into their face. The US has always tried to get people to accept it and even perhaps like it, until the last few decades. The fUSSR didn't care overly much if you liked them, just that you feared their response.
What you need to do is look at the problem from outside the US (or Canadian) part of the paradigm. No one likes living in fear. No one likes being threatened by people who claim to be protecting them.
So, we should all aspire to lord it over everybody else, so that we can proclaim that we are free? Do you realise how arrogant that sounds to those people who don't want to aspire to threaten their neighbours?
Funny, the world didn't sense a trap when Bush senior was in power or Clinton or Carter or Obama were in power. They sensed a calm, adult hand was in control. A person who would react sensibly, not as the present incumbent appears to be, hysterically.
So, you're basically saying that the US does not care, not need the co-operation of other nations? That what it does, it will do anyway without care as to the effect it might have on other nations?
Now, as to America's strength, I couldn't agree more. Yet, doesn't your view put you at odds with the Trumpists and other Cold War Warriors?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1281946/stratcom-commander-describes-challenges-of-21st-century-deterrence/#.WZYu6kzeKkk.facebook
Why we should have decoupled our arsenal from that of the USSR/Russia after the Cold War and sized it for our and our allies security needs. Which IMHO was START I - 1200 launchers and 6000 warheads.
Why we should have decoupled our arsenal from that of the USSR/Russia after the Cold War and sized it for our and our allies security needs. Which IMHO was START I - 1200 launchers and 6000 warheads.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
bobbymike said:
Have you read the article?
In context it's very clear he is not advocating for larger numbers of warheads and delivery systems.
He's advocating for modernisation of the triad and for the need for complementary capabilities (like cyber attack/ defence etc.)
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 912
kaiserd said:
1500 warheads was typically regarded as the lower limit of the quantity required to provide extended deterrence; the US is
according to the latest treaty compliance reports far below that.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,635
- Reaction score
- 3,506
Ok, this thread is still open !
What was posted about NK can be found here :
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29397.0.html,
just locked.
Before the NK discussion started, this thread ran relatively smoothly. So, just remember, what
soemone said : "The original intent of this thread was to discuss systems, their utility, and whether
or not they were technically feasible/useful. "
And the other idea is a good one, too, I think: "Perhaps a solution going forward would be for the mods to get downright draconian. Anybody even hints at politics, be it between countries or different political parties' stewardship of nuclear forces, they get a one-week timeout, no exceptions. Second offense is a banning. I could definitely get behind that."
What was posted about NK can be found here :
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29397.0.html,
just locked.
Before the NK discussion started, this thread ran relatively smoothly. So, just remember, what
soemone said : "The original intent of this thread was to discuss systems, their utility, and whether
or not they were technically feasible/useful. "
And the other idea is a good one, too, I think: "Perhaps a solution going forward would be for the mods to get downright draconian. Anybody even hints at politics, be it between countries or different political parties' stewardship of nuclear forces, they get a one-week timeout, no exceptions. Second offense is a banning. I could definitely get behind that."
The original intention of this topic may have been a non-political discussion of nuclear weapon systems, their utility, and technical feasibility/usefulness, but that has never happened in actual practice. The discussion of nuclear weapon systems is intertwined with politics, emotion, and ethics and the posts to this topic continually demonstrate that a non-political, non-emotional, and non-ethical discussion of this topic is impossible. The "rules" will continue to be broken because few topics are as emotionally charged as nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Members aren't willing to let comments and opinions go and even resort to ad hominem attacks to punish and retaliate. Therefore, I am not satisfied with the mea culpas and the promises to behave in the future to prevent the topic lock. We've heard it all before. I believe that the decision to keep this topic open is a mistake if the ultimate goal is to keep the peace on the forums.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
Nobody is FORCED to post in this thread. Besides, if the mods follow what was mentioned a few posts up, those who can't resist posting politics here will end up gone tout suite. Win-win. Instead of turning this thread into a thread about why posting without politics is impossible, how about we talk about nuclear weapons?
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
sferrin said:
As has been mentioned, it is impossible to divorce politics from any dimension of nuclear weapons. Politics is how decisions are made. Politicians get elected or defeated on those decisions. Some are sensible. Some are not. To try and divorce politics from the decision making process is impossible.
What can happen is that we can all take a step back and actually read what our opponents are saying, rather than simply reacting to what we believe they have said. Stop taking entrenched positions and actually think about the issues being raised. We can then discuss what we are talking about, without resorting to or invoking heated language.
Airplane
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 3 October 2015
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 55
sferrin said:
Our MMIII still do everything today they did when they came off the assembly line. The warheads still will hit whatever target we choose within range. Also, they have been upgraded over the years so they are not exactly 40+ years old. And they are extremely reliable and accurate. So we don't have cool looking trucks pulling ICBMs along... Big deal. They need that capability because we were fielding the B-2 which was going to hunt and kill mobile launchers. The B-2 was cancelled (essentially speaking). The US doesn't need mobile launchers on our roads... No one has a bomber that is going to fly over CONUS the way the B-2 was going to fly and persist over the USSR and China. Our mobile boomers do just fine and are more survivable than anything on land.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
Airplane said:
Mobility is to give the option of riding out an attack by making them more difficult to hit. If your missiles aren't at risk of being lost in a first strike, the incentive to "use them or lose them" is reduced. The B-2s weren't going to be involved in a first strike or even going after enemy missiles used in a first strike. Those would have been long gone hours before the B-2s arrived. As for the MMIII they aren't as accurate as they could be. Greater accuracy allows smaller warheads, or harder targets to be targeted. Smaller warheads means smaller RVs and/or more RV and decoys. The MMIII doesn't have the range to hold all targets at risk. It doesn't have the throw weight to allow boost glide warheads (which is why a Peacekeeper Minotaur was used for the HTV-2 tests). Lastly, not building ICBMs for 30 years has killed our industrial base. Building an ICBM isn't like planting a tree. You just wait and see all the delays, over runs, and problems GBSD will have because all the people with experience building ICBMs are retired or dead. As for "mobile boomers" the entire deployed fleet could be taken out of action with 7 torpedoes. And no, they aren't impossible to find, and won't remain difficult to find forever. SSBNs are particularly weak from a deterrent perspective but that would veer off into politics so I'll leave it at that. If somebody wanted to start a nuclear politics thread they should do so. I don't imagine it would stay open long.
Airplane
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 3 October 2015
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 55
Use'em or lose'em is what kept the peace. If your enemy has only an all or nothing option with their nuclear arsenal, are you going to take the chance of having hundreds of ICBMs launched at you? If you want more mobile assets, build more boomers with longer ranged missiles.
The political climate is also much different here in the USA, and do you or anyone really believe that a sizable portion of the USA that is liberal and anti-anything-military is going to allow big rigs driving around the USA with nukes??? Russia and China have huge expansive areas where no one lives... Not so much in the USA. It will never, ever happen because of politics. Build more boomers with longer ranged missiles. There ain't no one at sea protesting submarines are in their backyard conducting missile drills.
The other needs mobile road missiles because the USA has maintained a bomber force (and in the 80s with cruise missiles) that could realistically penetrate their airspace and hit fixed assets.
The B-2 was conceived as a first strike weapon. The Soviets were petrified of an invisible bomber taking out their strategic assets with no warning as they would get with early warning sats.
The political climate is also much different here in the USA, and do you or anyone really believe that a sizable portion of the USA that is liberal and anti-anything-military is going to allow big rigs driving around the USA with nukes??? Russia and China have huge expansive areas where no one lives... Not so much in the USA. It will never, ever happen because of politics. Build more boomers with longer ranged missiles. There ain't no one at sea protesting submarines are in their backyard conducting missile drills.
The other needs mobile road missiles because the USA has maintained a bomber force (and in the 80s with cruise missiles) that could realistically penetrate their airspace and hit fixed assets.
The B-2 was conceived as a first strike weapon. The Soviets were petrified of an invisible bomber taking out their strategic assets with no warning as they would get with early warning sats.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
Airplane said:
In case you haven't been paying attention, politics is a no-no here. Stop it or watch the thread get locked. Better yet, go start a thread to discuss the political side of nuclear weapons. Just leave it out of this thread.
- Status
