Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Apr 15, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
There is no way the USA will ever relinquish all its nuclear weapons. Obama may reduce them but no president will ever give them up. Hopefully we shall never be foolish enough to get rid of ours either.
Indeed, do we have enough to pose a deterrent? I believe we have fewer nuclear weapons now than France. Bearing in mind that only a handful of that number will be hidden beneath the waves at any one time......
Certainly, I don't think we have enough nukes to call ourselves a full 'member' of the club.
A minimum of 48 warheads at sea at any one time. There isn't a nation on earth that thinks being on the wrong end of that would be worth it in the persuit of any national goal. Hence, it does it's job.
Exactly - what's his point as I'm sure that applies to current targeting as well. New basic logic is this.
"We don't care if your population centres survive. We will now ensure your infrastructure will go back to the dark ages and they will die anyway."
Who needs verification for what makes to me, basic common sense of best use of a minimal number of warheads......
As to the question of us having a credible deterrent. As long as we can still make Moscow disappear, I'd say we have a card in the game.
Which is what exactly?
To deter anyone launching against us.
MAD, what else?
We've had a longer period of peace in Central Europe than has been seen since probably the Roman Empire. Reason: the nuclear balance of terror. And Ogabe wants to eliminate them entirely. fcuking idiot.
Yes, more than enough. That's capable of introducing an awful lot of enhanced morbity. I heard the Trident warheads dial up frpm 5-100Kt That would provide be a very respectable genocidal capacity even for DC or the Kremlin.
Just in case some folk have forgotten just how big a bang a nuke can make. A handy blast radius calculator is avialable here.
The Russians retain over 6,000 warheads. And quaint old delivery systems like the R-36 missile, with capacity for up to 50 warheads, restricted by treaty to 10 bombs and 40 decoys. Those bombs are 500-800Kt a piece.
The Septics still have over 5,000 warheads, about a thousand sitting on top of aging Minuteman-III ICBM, with about 300-500Kt a piece. A couple of years back Robert McNamara was bemoaning the bull goose craziness of having all that planet killing firepower still on a Cold War hair trigger.
McNamara know's something about this. He wasn't just part of the Cuban missile crisis. While serving in the USAF his calculations helped Curtis Le May fire bomb Tokyo killing 100,000 men, women and children.
The Hiroshima bomb killed perhaps 140,000, half at one stroke.
It was a mere 13Kt.
McNamara is a technocrat, meddling fcukwit who played a key role in losing the war in Vietnam through his idiocy. His attempts to "corporatize" the US Military still have deleterious affects to this day.
I'm quite aware of nuclear weapons effects. I grew up as a SAC brat. My Dad stood SAC Nuclear Alert as a Radar Navigator most of my formative years. I learned probably more than I wanted to know about nuclear warfighting doctrine and likely outcomes during the height of the Cold War.
I also know that we managed to avoid exterminating ourselves, and that because of the existance of the nuclear deterrent, the Great Powers have managed to settle their many violent differences, fairly peacefully. For a head of state to advocate the total elimination of nuclear weapons is mind-bogglingly irresponsible, wishful thinking at its worst, and a gold-plated brick on the road to Hell (which we all know is paved with...) The man is a foreign policy train wreck, this foreign policy position is just the capstone of staggering ineptitude.
The docttrine was utter shite.Nobody had a realsitic post strike mdoel. But AQ Kahn would heartily agree with you. Roads to hell don't always start in DC.
[/quote]As long as we can still make Moscow disappear, I'd say we have a card in the game.
Separate names with a comma.