Abject Surrender In Dead Of Night

[Ms Tree]

So sign off on the treaty and that leaves some 1550 warheads.....cool.

Ivan is getting controlling interest in uranium mines out west.....cool.

Suddenly N Korea and Iran have surprising centrifuge technology and delivery systems.....supplied by 'others'. Sign a treaty and sit by and let your stooges do your dirty work.......

Fifteen hundred are not enough for you? How many times do you want to be able to kill everyone? About 50% of the US arsenal is on a sub. We have 18 of them last time I checked. The Ohio class sub caries 24 Trident II D-5 SLBMs. We currently have 14 of these subs plus an additional 4 cruise missile subs capable of firing conventional or nuclear missiles. Each Trident can hold up to 5 warheads. This does not include the air based missiles from SAC, land based weapons.

If you and I are in a room full of gas fumes and you have 10 matches and I only have 4 do you think I should be concerned? I know at least one of my matches will light. I also know that even if I get lucky enough to launch and detonate my missiles before you get yours off, the world weather system is like to be adversely affected to make life at the very least unbearable for those who are unlucky enough to survive. The weapons dropped on Japan are fire crackers compared to the weapons we currently have.

N. Korea? Do you think us having 2,000 verses 1,000 weapons means anything to them? Does it mean anything in reality. N. Korea is 46,000 sq miles. One Ohio could level every square inch of the country several times. They are nuts. The number of nukes we have has not bearing on their thought process because if it did they would not be thinking of fighting a super power that could wipe them out.

The strongest argument I have read against any type of missile defense system is that they are easy to over come. We build a system to target some war heads, the opposition builds more fakes to over whelm the system. Or they go ahead and redesign the carrier vehicle to fly low.... or.... or .... or. There is no way to make your self safe from a nuke other than to get rid of them. Technology does not always work. Ask the Brits about their carrier in the Falklands.

Te theory behind MAD is that we are both at risk. If you put a defense system that more than likely will not work I still have to wonder if it might and if you are crazy enough to think it will and try and take me out first. I'm going to get scared and come up with counter measures .... oooops ... arms race starts again.

 

[dapoes]

Fifteen hundred are not enough for you? How many times do you want to be able to kill everyone? About 50% of the US arsenal is on a sub. We have 18 of them last time I checked. The Ohio class sub caries 24 Trident II D-5 SLBMs. We currently have 14 of these subs plus an additional 4 cruise missile subs capable of firing conventional or nuclear missiles. Each Trident can hold up to 5 warheads. This does not include the air based missiles from SAC, land based weapons.

If you and I are in a room full of gas fumes and you have 10 matches and I only have 4 do you think I should be concerned? I know at least one of my matches will light. I also know that even if I get lucky enough to launch and detonate my missiles before you get yours off, the world weather system is like to be adversely affected to make life at the very least unbearable for those who are unlucky enough to survive. The weapons dropped on Japan are fire crackers compared to the weapons we currently have.

N. Korea? Do you think us having 2,000 verses 1,000 weapons means anything to them? Does it mean anything in reality. N. Korea is 46,000 sq miles. One Ohio could level every square inch of the country several times. They are nuts. The number of nukes we have has not bearing on their thought process because if it did they would not be thinking of fighting a super power that could wipe them out.

The strongest argument I have read against any type of missile defense system is that they are easy to over come. We build a system to target some war heads, the opposition builds more fakes to over whelm the system. Or they go ahead and redesign the carrier vehicle to fly low.... or.... or .... or. There is no way to make your self safe from a nuke other than to get rid of them. Technology does not always work. Ask the Brits about their carrier in the Falklands.

Te theory behind MAD is that we are both at risk. If you put a defense system that more than likely will not work I still have to wonder if it might and if you are crazy enough to think it will and try and take me out first. I'm going to get scared and come up with counter measures .... oooops ... arms race starts again.

Whatever you say there sparky, color me not convinced.

 

[Ms Tree]

Are you arguing that the 14 Ohio class subs with D-5's, the 4 Ohio classes with nuke tipped cruise missiles, the nukes on the SAC aircraft as well as all the ground based nukes are not enough to deter an attack from someone who was a wish to live? Or are you arguing that if someone were to place a deterrent against your offensive weapons you would not try and develop a counter measure?

When you look at the history of weapons much less any other technology they always advance. When someone makes a better mouse trap, someone else will make a better mouse. Stick, arrow, knife, catapult, cannon, bi-plane, jet, super sonic jet, missile, ICBM, nukes, lasers, rail guns ... it keeps advancing. At best the missile defense is a temporary solution and a very very expensive one at that. Given the number of weapons and delivery systems it is unlikely that a nuclear power will launch a ICBM to the US or Europe. According to much of what I have read the more like way we will see a pretty mushroom cloud over the horizon is by a weapon brought in my boat, plane, train or automobile to a city near you and .... BOOM.

As crazy as MAD is it does seemed to have worked. China, Russia (USSR) and who ever else has no interest in dying any more than we do. They all know that there is no way they survive if they launch an attack on the US and vice-versa. They could take out every US city and the entire CiC structure of the US and there are still 18 subs cruising the oceans that will rain a nuclear terror upon anyone stupid enough to think they can get away with it.

The people we need to worry about are the ones who are crazy and have no reason to live. They do not have an ICMB. The issue is very clear, you launch a ICBM and you are dead. No if ands or buts about it. You and the country of origin will go boom with in an hour after your launch.

Tactical nukes are low yield weapons, most under 100 kt. To give an idea of scale, Fat Man was 'only' 20 kt. While a 100kt weapon can cause an obscene amount of damage, put that against the fire power of a D-5 and it's like bringing a rubber band to a gun fight. Bring all the tactical nukes you want. I have a boomer sitting off your coast. You use yours, I use mine and there will be no one left to sort the dead.

This is why I believe Powell is not concerned about the tactical nukes. He knows Russian history. He understands their fear. He knows that we still have more than enough fire power to avoid any nuclear attack.

Pretty picture .. no substance.

 

[Ms Tree]

An interesting read regarding the tactical nukes in Europe.

Carnegie Institute

Russia will rely on nuclear weapons to compensate for the imbalance as long as it perceives a conventional superiority of NATO forces in Europe. Only when this Russian perception is assuaged will it be possible to find a solution regarding the status of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. What remains is the need for providing reliable U.S. and NATO commitments to collective defense, especially to Poland and Turkey. Dealing with these threat perceptions will require finding ways to develop a security architecture that can deter today's threats without anachronistic nuclear thinking.

 

[delldude]

Fifteen hundred are not enough for you? How many times do you want to be able to kill everyone? About 50% of the US arsenal is on a sub. We have 18 of them last time I checked. The Ohio class sub caries 24 Trident II D-5 SLBMs. We currently have 14 of these subs plus an additional 4 cruise missile subs capable of firing conventional or nuclear missiles. Each Trident can hold up to 5 warheads. This does not include the air based missiles from SAC, land based weapons.

Try 8 Mk4 MIRV's and 5 Mk 5's.......so you're looking at a punch of about 192 nukes in sub missile bay alone on one boat. Not counting the Tomahawk.

14 boomers w/ 8 MIRV's each come to 2688 nukes, 5 MIRV's 1680.

Kinda cool, eh?

 

[Ms Tree]

Try 8 Mk4 MIRV's and 5 Mk 5's.......so you're looking at a punch of about 192 nukes in sub missile bay alone on one boat. Not counting the Tomahawk.

14 boomers w/ 8 MIRV's each come to 2688 nukes, 5 MIRV's 1680.

Kinda cool, eh?

No it's not cool. It a huge waste of money to maintain all the weapons and it's not like we have a the money to waste right now. Then there is the risk that we have a Oooops.

I thought I red somewhere that the latest treaty limited the MIRVS to 5 per D-5.

 

[delldude]

No it's not cool. It a huge waste of money to maintain all the weapons and it's not like we have a the money to waste right now. Then there is the risk that we have a Oooops.

I thought I red somewhere that the latest treaty limited the MIRVS to 5 per D-5.

Could be......well then, lets totally dismantle our nuclear defenses.

Who would want to mess with us?

 

[delldude]

Communists, Democrats and RINOs Urge US Disarmament

Moscow's best friends in America, the Communist Party USA have issued a call for the ratification of the controversial New START treaty with Russia in the "lame duck" session before Christmas.

Democrats are seeking to ratify the Treaty, with RINO Republicans, while the still have a solid majority in the Senate.

The Communist know that the Treaty would probably die in the next Senate and the "window of opportunity" to help their Russian friends will be lost.

The usual suspects, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden are all working on the same side as the Communist Party.

More....

 

[Ms Tree]

Could be......well then, lets totally dismantle our nuclear defenses.

Who would want to mess with us?

I would be perfectly OK with that. There are a hand full of countries out there with out nukes and have some how managed to escape being invaded. Can you imagine what would happen to the world economy f the US economy collapsed due to a nuke attack? China won't do it because there would be no one to buy all their stuff. What motivation would Russia have?

The nuke that blows up on US soil will not come in on a rocket. It will sail or drive to its destination. It will be a terrorist act, not an act of war.

To keep the hawks at ease, keep a few boomers around if it makes you happy. Get rid of the rest.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Elvis lives.

 

[delldude]

I would be perfectly OK with that. There are a hand full of countries out there with out nukes and have some how managed to escape being invaded. Can you imagine what would happen to the world economy f the US economy collapsed due to a nuke attack? China won't do it because there would be no one to buy all their stuff. What motivation would Russia have?

The nuke that blows up on US soil will not come in on a rocket. It will sail or drive to its destination. It will be a terrorist act, not an act of war.

To keep the hawks at ease, keep a few boomers around if it makes you happy. Get rid of the rest.

Well a nuke that sails or drives will most likely be a very low yield device probably smaller than what was used on Japan and would be survivable.

A terrorist act is an act of war BTW.

The US economy wouldn't collapse and cause a world collapse....world would happen almost instantly.Its all too intertwined anymore.

Worry about that jerk in Iran causing oil to go to $200....that's a more likely scenario.

Or better than that, worry about the 8th largest GDP and what will happen do when it fails.

Watch the stooges in congress and see what happens to the market if they don't pass Bush cut continuation.

 

[dapoes]

Mr. Putin explained to Larry King that ratifying the new START treaty would be in the United States best interest and that failing to do so would be “very dumb.”

Hearing Vladimir Putin tell us that ratifying the treaty is in our best interests, does not calm any of my concerns. If the treaty was really in our best interests, why would Mr. Putin feel compelled to threaten us with a ramped-up arms race is we don’t accept it?

 

[777 fixer]

Try 8 Mk4 MIRV's and 5 Mk 5's.......so you're looking at a punch of about 192 nukes in sub missile bay alone on one boat. Not counting the Tomahawk.

14 boomers w/ 8 MIRV's each come to 2688 nukes, 5 MIRV's 1680.

Kinda cool, eh?

Someone has been reading Tom Clancy novels I see.

 

[delldude]

Someone has been reading Tom Clancy novels I see.

Do the math.......

Yeah, you're right again

 

[Ms Tree]

Well a nuke that sails or drives will most likely be a very low yield device probably smaller than what was used on Japan and would be survivable.

A terrorist act is an act of war BTW.

The US economy wouldn't collapse and cause a world collapse....world would happen almost instantly.Its all too intertwined anymore.

Worry about that jerk in Iran causing oil to go to $200....that's a more likely scenario.

Or better than that, worry about the 8th largest GDP and what will happen do when it fails.

Watch the stooges in congress and see what happens to the market if they don't pass Bush cut continuation.

May be but given the amount of fissionable material that is missing and the Russian accounting of their weapons, then add to that the nukes that Iran may have/be making the nukes in Pakistan and else where in the world I would not count on that idea.

That is kind of what I was getting at. Were a nuke to go off in NYC for example, the ramifications would be felt world wide. No declared country is going to shoot them selves in the foot.

I agree that Iran and NK are far more dangerous. Our nukes do not scare them. I dont think Iran will use them because their clerics want to live and enjoy their riches too much. Amadenjad is a good mouth piece to placate the nut jobs in their country but every thing I have read seems to indicate he is on a tight leash. NK is a nut job. I don't think he gives a damn about our nukes. He actually think he could win a war with the US and no one will tell him he is nuts.

I am more worried about what will happen when the nut jobs in office extend all the tax breaks. We have been spending recklessly for over 30 years. Merely cutting spending on social programs is not going to solve the problem. Revenue needs to be increased if only to pay the debt we already have. Not to mention the cost that we need to address like education, infrastructure and other things that need to be fixed before they get to the point that it is too late.

Any way you slice it, the nukes are a danger and a waste. The quicker we get rid of them the safe and richer we will all be.

Keep a few boomers for the paranoid but get rid f the rest.