Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
bobbymike said:
Neither Iran nor Pakistan possess nuclear weapons that constitute a direct threat to the United States. Russia? Perhaps, particularly if you keep pushing them. China? Perhaps, particularly if you keep pushing them. Cold War thinking has gone out the window when the Cold War ended. You appear to be sorry that you no longer live under the threat of constant nuclear annihilation.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
Orionblamblam said:
Did you, yourself just state:
Orionblamblam said:
What is being disputed is how many millions have to be killed. You and your Cold War Warrior compatriots appear to believe it needs to be every Russian in Russia or ever Chinese in China or both of the combined. The rationalists say, "hey, don't you think that is a bit excessive?" Which you immediately pooh-pooh. The reality is that deterrence is founded on the fear of the numbers that would be killed in a nuclear exchange. If your opponents fear that 50% of their population and 90% if their industries will be destroyed, don't you think they'll stop before pushing their button? Or do you really believe someone like Putin or Hu don't care about their own populations and their own countries? They are rational men, despite all your propaganda to the contrary.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
sferrin said:
Actually it is how the real world works. You appear to live in a fantasy one where Russians and Chinese aren't human beings who care about their families and their societies. Always remember, the Russians have been the ones which have blinked everytime your national leader has decided to play nuclear blind-man's buff with them. Something we should truly be thankful for.
Russia was deeply traumatised by the events of World War II. The US wasn't. The US was barely scratched. Only it's overseas territories were attacked. The US lost a pittance in casualties, the fUSSR lost millions. How many giant memorials are there in the US to the dead of World War II? How many in Russia? Time you woke up, I think.
The difference is that you say that price has to be 100% whereas we say the price has to be only what we consider sufficient to wound their society, not destroy it and the rest of the world as well.
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 885
Kadija_Man said:
Zero: Engineers of course came up with a solution to the problem of increasing radiation inside the magnetosphere of launching such a ship. You use conventional explosives for your first blast and launch the ship from those parts of the globe where the magnetosphere doesn't trap the radiation: near the poles. They haven't come up with a solution to the hundreds who die each year from radiation emitted into the atmosphere from natural spring water. But I guess that does not keep the knowledge poor whining class up at night.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
Orionblamblam said:
I think you've carried your biasis in and miss understood me.
I'm not making any moral judgement or argument re: the rights and wrongs of killing millions in a nuclear exchange.
I'm merely pointing out that's the point of deterrence - effectively your enemies civilian population become your hostages. Hence my contention that current numbers of US warheads (modernised/ replaced one-for-one or whatever) is sufficient for this task and why your desire for far more is unnecessary, unaffordable and relates more to your own personal obsessions.
kaiserd said:
That assumes that your enemy cares.
The purpose of deterrence is to pose such a threat to the enemy that that don't dare start a war. History has shown that the risk of loss of millions of civilians has not been enough to stop imperial ambition. And when you're in a situation, such as we seem to be heading into, where "they" have overwhelming superiority in terms of numbers to "us," your deterrent force isn't terribly deterring, especially if they think, not unreasonably, that if they launch a massive first strike they can take out enough of your nukes so that your response will leave them still standing and functioning. And if "they" have enough nukes that they think that they can take you down in one shot, *and* at the end of it *still* have enough nukes to lord it over the rest of the world... you are really asking for trouble by not trying to match them.
And once again you trot out "unaffordable," even though you know that the sort of force people want is the sort of force that the US had decades ago, when such things were objectively more expensive and our economy was objectively much smaller. Keep saying things that are obviously and objectively false, and people might start wondering...
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,635
- Reaction score
- 3,506
Principally, this thread runs not really bad, I think. It's already more than a half year old, and still
isn't closed, kudos ! When started, I gave him not more than about 4 weeks ...
If there weren't those persistent side blows... Often they are quite funny to read, really good for
a laughter, but please remember: We aren't here just for our enjoyment !
Maybe sometimes stingers are just meant ironical, but that's not always obvious and may be
taken as an insult.
And I cannot help the feeling, that some arguments are somehow based on personal animosity.
But we all (most of us ?) are grown persons, aren't we ? And if you can't stand the opinion of
someone at all, the solution is just 3 mouse clicks away ( profile -> Buddies/ignore list -> Edit ignore
list) and you can type in the members name, you don't want to be molested. On the other hand,
the opponents in such quarrels are nearly always the same and I cannot remember, that I've ever
saw a compromise in the end, but just too often closed threads.
Perhaps sometimes reticence is not only the better part of valour, but could avoid useless and
endless debates, that in the end come to nothing ?
Did I say endless ? Of course I meant ".. until the thread is closed" !
isn't closed, kudos ! When started, I gave him not more than about 4 weeks ...
If there weren't those persistent side blows... Often they are quite funny to read, really good for
a laughter, but please remember: We aren't here just for our enjoyment !
Maybe sometimes stingers are just meant ironical, but that's not always obvious and may be
taken as an insult.
And I cannot help the feeling, that some arguments are somehow based on personal animosity.
But we all (most of us ?) are grown persons, aren't we ? And if you can't stand the opinion of
someone at all, the solution is just 3 mouse clicks away ( profile -> Buddies/ignore list -> Edit ignore
list) and you can type in the members name, you don't want to be molested. On the other hand,
the opponents in such quarrels are nearly always the same and I cannot remember, that I've ever
saw a compromise in the end, but just too often closed threads.
Perhaps sometimes reticence is not only the better part of valour, but could avoid useless and
endless debates, that in the end come to nothing ?
Did I say endless ? Of course I meant ".. until the thread is closed" !
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://time.com/4280169/russia-nuclear-security-summit/
Over the course of Obama’s presidency, Russia has managed to negotiate deep cuts to the U.S. arsenal while substantially strengthening of its own. It has allegedly violated the treaty that limits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe and, in the last few years, it has brought disarmament talks with the U.S. to a complete standstill for the first time since the 1960s. In its rhetoric, Moscow has also returned to a habit of nuclear threats, while in its military exercises, it has begun to practice for a nuclear strike, according to the NATO military alliance
Over the course of Obama’s presidency, Russia has managed to negotiate deep cuts to the U.S. arsenal while substantially strengthening of its own. It has allegedly violated the treaty that limits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe and, in the last few years, it has brought disarmament talks with the U.S. to a complete standstill for the first time since the 1960s. In its rhetoric, Moscow has also returned to a habit of nuclear threats, while in its military exercises, it has begun to practice for a nuclear strike, according to the NATO military alliance
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
Orionblamblam said:
On what basis do you come to the conclusion that they don't care?
I rather think the results of the various nuclear war scares during the Cold War demonstrated otherwise, don't you?
Really? I haven't noticed any such imperial ambitions since WWII, have you?
So, invest in missile systems which are difficult to detect. Invest in submarine launched nuclear missiles. Hide them under the ocean.
You appear to forget, nuclear weapons are expensive, substantially more expensive than those which you had decades ago.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
bobbymike said:
And we don't even know how to design them anymore, and don't have the infrastructure to build them even if we did. We're like the cavemen worshipping an ancient computer on a Star Trek episode when it comes to nukes. The acolytes do their best to keep things running but they could never build a new one once the old breaks down.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
Par for the course...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/04/06/obamas-sneaky-concession-to-iran/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/john-kerry-on-iran-no-path-to-the-nuclear-weapon/article/2001871
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-says-its-planning-to-produce-explosives-used-in-missile-warheads/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/04/06/obamas-sneaky-concession-to-iran/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/john-kerry-on-iran-no-path-to-the-nuclear-weapon/article/2001871
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-says-its-planning-to-produce-explosives-used-in-missile-warheads/
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AFA/6379b747-7730-4f82-9b45-a1c80d6c8fdb/UploadedImages/Events/Heussy/gordon_Chang.pdf
China’s and North Korea’s Nukes Tip Balance Against U.S.
We are vulnerable.
We have, with New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, agreed to parity with
the Russian Federation in deployed nuclear weapons and platforms from which to launch
or drop them.
An agreement of this sort might have made sense in the Cold War, a time of two
superpowers squaring off against each other, but not now.
Why not? Because we no longer live in a bipolar world. There are now nine nuclear
powers. In addition to the United States and Russia, there are Britain, France, India,
Pakistan, and Israel.
And there are two more, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.
These last two are especially dangerous. They are especially dangerous because they tip
the balance against the United States. China and North Korea are rapidly increasing the
size of their arsenals, and they are hostile.
We start with the Kim regime. For years, analysts counted only the North’s plutonium
when trying to assess the number of its nukes. Now, they have finally realized that
Pyongyang has a second source of fissile material, uranium.
We have a good indication of the size of its stockpile of plutonium—there is after all only
one North Korean reactor to churn out the stuff. We do not know, however, how many
uranium enrichment facilities it has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point I made up the thread, sizing our arsenal vs. Russia with arms control agreements further shrinking the arsenal is the height of folly. Should have stopped at START I.
China’s and North Korea’s Nukes Tip Balance Against U.S.
We are vulnerable.
We have, with New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, agreed to parity with
the Russian Federation in deployed nuclear weapons and platforms from which to launch
or drop them.
An agreement of this sort might have made sense in the Cold War, a time of two
superpowers squaring off against each other, but not now.
Why not? Because we no longer live in a bipolar world. There are now nine nuclear
powers. In addition to the United States and Russia, there are Britain, France, India,
Pakistan, and Israel.
And there are two more, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.
These last two are especially dangerous. They are especially dangerous because they tip
the balance against the United States. China and North Korea are rapidly increasing the
size of their arsenals, and they are hostile.
We start with the Kim regime. For years, analysts counted only the North’s plutonium
when trying to assess the number of its nukes. Now, they have finally realized that
Pyongyang has a second source of fissile material, uranium.
We have a good indication of the size of its stockpile of plutonium—there is after all only
one North Korean reactor to churn out the stuff. We do not know, however, how many
uranium enrichment facilities it has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point I made up the thread, sizing our arsenal vs. Russia with arms control agreements further shrinking the arsenal is the height of folly. Should have stopped at START I.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AFA/6379b747-7730-4f82-9b45-a1c80d6c8fdb/UploadedImages/Events/Heussy/052215afamillerfinal.pdf
The Putin government has not demonstrated good faith. Rather, it has displayed
outrageously bad faith. And I’d ask you to consider the following list.
The Helsinki Final Act, Russia is in violation of at least articles one, two, three,
four and six. The Istanbul Commitments of 1999, Russia is in violation of its
commitments to remove its military forces from the occupied portions of Moldova and
Georgia. The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991 and 1992, Russia is in violation by
continuing to deploy nuclear short-range ballistic missiles and by continuing to deploy
nuclear-tipped naval cruise missiles on general purpose submarines.
The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, Russia is in violation. The Budapest
Memorandum, Russia violated its commitments to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
The Chemical Weapons Convention of which Russia is in violation of the intent of the
treaty by inventing and deploying fourth generation chemical agents which evade the
treaty’s specific restrictions but which are, nevertheless, chemical agents. And last but
not least, the INF Treaty, Russia is in violation by testing extensively a ground-launched
cruise missile of INF range and possibly deploying that system operationally.
We cannot afford to enter into agreements which we respect and Russia violates.
And that, put simply, is why there should be no future arms control with Russia until
Russia decides to respect the agreements it has signed previously and return to
compliance with them.
And as long as Peter allows me the luxury of calling things as I see them, I want
to point out there was in 2010 a sort of a treaty between hawks and doves in this city
regarding the New START Treaty. Ratification hung in the balance, and so there was a
deal. In exchange for the security minded supporting ratification, the arms control
community agreed to support the modernization of the aging U.S. strategic triad.
That deal lasted until New START was ratified, and immediately thereafter all of
the usual suspects in the arms control community began decrying the administration’s
plans to replace the missile and bomber legs of our strategic forces. Deals are supposed
to be entered into in good faith, and as in the international arena, shame on those who
renege on their commitments. Their actions have profound consequences. They
destroyed the political middle here in Washington on those issues.
It’s also worth mentioning, as long as I’m talking about the arms control
community, that despite years of outrageous Russian behavior in the nuclear policy and
operations world, and after a particularly dangerous 2014 in this regard, I have yet to see
high profile speeches and articles and op-eds from the Arms Control Association, the
Ploughshares Fund, the Federation of American Scientists or Global Zero Inc.
condemning what the Russians are doing. A joint piece by all of them in the Washington
Post or the New York Times would have been appropriate. It would have been nice.
What would be the reaction of these organizations if the president of the United States
stated publicly, quote, “I want to remind you that we are one of the leading nuclear
powers. It’s best not to mess with us.” close quote.
What would be their reaction if a senior DOD official stated, made explicit
nuclear threats, to peaceful non-nuclear states or proclaimed, quote, “In my view, our
primary enemy is Russia,” close quote? What would they say and write if Strategic
Command conducted nuclear exercises designed to intimidate Russian allies? And how
would they react if B-52s and B-2s repeatedly ran mock attacks against Russia and other
potential adversaries, intruding on their air defense identification zones, and in so doing
turning off their transponders, thereby creating a hazard to commercial aviation?
Well perhaps they just haven’t been paying attention to what Moscow is up to,
because they’re so concerned about trying to block the recapitalization of the SSBN force
or a replacement for Minuteman III. Thankfully, Keith Payne and his team at NIPP have
prepared a pamphlet detailing not only the Khrushchev-like nuclear saber-rattling and
dangerous Russian military activities, but also the Russian Federation nuclear building
programs. I’ve given Peter Hussy a couple of copies of these, but these are actually
terrific pieces of work.
So while we continue to debate funding R&D on replacement strategic systems,
Moscow is fielding, not debating new ones. Russia is currently deploying two new types
of ICBMs, two new types of SLBMs, a new class of SSBNs, two of which are in
commission and the third of which will commission this year, a new long-range airlaunched
cruise missile along with upgrades to its TU-95 and Blackjack strategic
bombers. Additionally, at least two new types of ICBMs are in development, including a
heavy ICBM follow-on to the highly destabilizing SS-18, as is reportedly a new strategic
bomber. And then, of course, there is the new treaty shattering ground-launched cruise
missile.
In contrast, I might point out we are still debating the funding of our
modernization programs and have yet to bend metal on any of them.
The Putin government has not demonstrated good faith. Rather, it has displayed
outrageously bad faith. And I’d ask you to consider the following list.
The Helsinki Final Act, Russia is in violation of at least articles one, two, three,
four and six. The Istanbul Commitments of 1999, Russia is in violation of its
commitments to remove its military forces from the occupied portions of Moldova and
Georgia. The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991 and 1992, Russia is in violation by
continuing to deploy nuclear short-range ballistic missiles and by continuing to deploy
nuclear-tipped naval cruise missiles on general purpose submarines.
The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, Russia is in violation. The Budapest
Memorandum, Russia violated its commitments to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
The Chemical Weapons Convention of which Russia is in violation of the intent of the
treaty by inventing and deploying fourth generation chemical agents which evade the
treaty’s specific restrictions but which are, nevertheless, chemical agents. And last but
not least, the INF Treaty, Russia is in violation by testing extensively a ground-launched
cruise missile of INF range and possibly deploying that system operationally.
We cannot afford to enter into agreements which we respect and Russia violates.
And that, put simply, is why there should be no future arms control with Russia until
Russia decides to respect the agreements it has signed previously and return to
compliance with them.
And as long as Peter allows me the luxury of calling things as I see them, I want
to point out there was in 2010 a sort of a treaty between hawks and doves in this city
regarding the New START Treaty. Ratification hung in the balance, and so there was a
deal. In exchange for the security minded supporting ratification, the arms control
community agreed to support the modernization of the aging U.S. strategic triad.
That deal lasted until New START was ratified, and immediately thereafter all of
the usual suspects in the arms control community began decrying the administration’s
plans to replace the missile and bomber legs of our strategic forces. Deals are supposed
to be entered into in good faith, and as in the international arena, shame on those who
renege on their commitments. Their actions have profound consequences. They
destroyed the political middle here in Washington on those issues.
It’s also worth mentioning, as long as I’m talking about the arms control
community, that despite years of outrageous Russian behavior in the nuclear policy and
operations world, and after a particularly dangerous 2014 in this regard, I have yet to see
high profile speeches and articles and op-eds from the Arms Control Association, the
Ploughshares Fund, the Federation of American Scientists or Global Zero Inc.
condemning what the Russians are doing. A joint piece by all of them in the Washington
Post or the New York Times would have been appropriate. It would have been nice.
What would be the reaction of these organizations if the president of the United States
stated publicly, quote, “I want to remind you that we are one of the leading nuclear
powers. It’s best not to mess with us.” close quote.
What would be their reaction if a senior DOD official stated, made explicit
nuclear threats, to peaceful non-nuclear states or proclaimed, quote, “In my view, our
primary enemy is Russia,” close quote? What would they say and write if Strategic
Command conducted nuclear exercises designed to intimidate Russian allies? And how
would they react if B-52s and B-2s repeatedly ran mock attacks against Russia and other
potential adversaries, intruding on their air defense identification zones, and in so doing
turning off their transponders, thereby creating a hazard to commercial aviation?
Well perhaps they just haven’t been paying attention to what Moscow is up to,
because they’re so concerned about trying to block the recapitalization of the SSBN force
or a replacement for Minuteman III. Thankfully, Keith Payne and his team at NIPP have
prepared a pamphlet detailing not only the Khrushchev-like nuclear saber-rattling and
dangerous Russian military activities, but also the Russian Federation nuclear building
programs. I’ve given Peter Hussy a couple of copies of these, but these are actually
terrific pieces of work.
So while we continue to debate funding R&D on replacement strategic systems,
Moscow is fielding, not debating new ones. Russia is currently deploying two new types
of ICBMs, two new types of SLBMs, a new class of SSBNs, two of which are in
commission and the third of which will commission this year, a new long-range airlaunched
cruise missile along with upgrades to its TU-95 and Blackjack strategic
bombers. Additionally, at least two new types of ICBMs are in development, including a
heavy ICBM follow-on to the highly destabilizing SS-18, as is reportedly a new strategic
bomber. And then, of course, there is the new treaty shattering ground-launched cruise
missile.
In contrast, I might point out we are still debating the funding of our
modernization programs and have yet to bend metal on any of them.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
sferrin said:
Your argument appears to be that you need as least as many nuclear weapons as Russia, China & North Korea combined (you also made reference to a number of other nuclear powers , many of whom are allies of the US). All at the same time as (the necessary) recapitalising the existing US nuclear weapon infrastructure?
As you said yourself above the US is now in a multi-polar nuclear world. Going forward equivalent treaties to START involving the big 2 but also bringing in the likes of China, India, Pakistan, UK, France and Israel would be a good idea if hard to achieve.
But ultimately long term do you really see the US being able to win a new nuclear arms race versus all of the rest of the world combined (which is how you appear to see it)?
The US clearly needs an adequate nuclear deterrent to deter potential adversaries; you seem to hanker for clear nuclear weapon superiority that hasn't been seen since the late fifties when the USSR first developed the capability to reliably reach the continental US.
Those days of "safety" are never coming back.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
kaiserd said:
Hear! Hear! Well said, sir! Well said. They hanker it seems for the days when the US was the only nuclear power and as a consequence their arguments ring hollow. They remind me rather of Jackie Fisher's WRT to the German fleet.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
sferrin said:
Rather than guess or assume what I want, re nuclear modernization, to me it would be easier to ask, "What given the current strategic environment and treaty obligations do you propose for nuclear modernization and force levels"
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
Grey Havoc said:
Rather than "Left-of-launch missile defense", it sounds more like desperation defense to me. What do ye think?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
Grey Havoc said:
Agreed. There's no way of knowing what, if any, effect a so-called "cyber attack" would have on the other guy's systems. (That's assuming it's even possible to access them. Not everybody is as stupid as us.)
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.koreatimesus.com/n-k-s-kn-08-icbm-capable-of-delivering-nuclear-warhead-to-u-s-northern-commander/
Related;
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/721122/missile-defense-agency-budget-addresses-escalating-north-korea-iran-threats
Related;
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/721122/missile-defense-agency-budget-addresses-escalating-north-korea-iran-threats
- Status
