Abject Surrender In Dead Of Night

[dapoes]

How are we more vulnerable?

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Limiting nuclear weapons on all sides is a worthy call. As President Ronald Reagan said, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought." But Reagan also understood that treaties with the Russians must be made deliberatively, be fair to both sides, be verifiable, and be linked to good behavior on the Russians’ part. None of these attributes would be complied with fully if the United States signed New START treaty.

A greater concern, however, is the Russian negotiators’ insistence that President Obama did in fact negotiate a de facto prohibition on further U.S. development of its missile defenses. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that the missile defense strictures are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and “legally binding.”

The most serious and immediate flaw is that the treaty ignores the vast imbalance between U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear forces. By some estimates, Russia maintains 10,000 or more of these smaller tactical nuclear warheads, which can be delivered via artillery shells, cruise missile, short-range tactical missiles, and aircraft. The post-Cold War U.S. inventory is in the hundreds by some estimates. Yet the treaty, which would freeze missile launchers at 1,550 for each side, willfully ignores the massive Russian advantage in tactical weapons.

BTW, the greatest reason to suspect the true motivations behind the treaty is the inexplicable, headlong rush to ratify it in a lame duck congress.

Never before in the history of the US, has a major military defense initiative been passed by a lame duck members. NEVER.

 

[Ms Tree]

I have been paying attention just fine. You are just listening to one side of the story with out using any logic to process it.

Missile defense is a pipe dream at best. Even in controlled environments, the testing is only 50% effective and that is against a single warhead. The idea of a nation (Russia in the Poland example you gave) launching a single warhead is laughable at best. Should a conflict arise where Russia feels compelled to launch a nuke, you can be assured that there will be more than one nuke airborne. Russia also knows that if they decide to launch a tactical nuclear attack on the US that the US will respond in kind and when we run out of tactical nukes that the ICBM and cruise missiles will be in bound. As I mentioned previously, a single boomer sub can destroy virtually every major city in an any nation that is foolish to launch an attack on the US or a US interest. I have yet to hear any US military personnel suggest the idea of swapping weapons with the Russia or any other force.

The bottom line about missile defense is that it is a sham. It is a way for the developers to make a but lad of cash developing something that will be ineffective at best, assuming it is even made operational. You cannot defend against tactical nukes and it is far to easy to develop low cost methods of fooling any defense system.

More over, the article that you copied from (and did not link) failed to indicate how many of those 10,000 weapons are active. The US has over 8,000 weapons that are intact but retired and in storage. The Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki had a yield of approximately 20 kt. The yield of a nuke cruise missile (tactical nuke) is in the neighborhood of 200kt. Look a the damage done by Fat Man and then tell me that the number of tactical nukes in the US arsenal is inadequate (along with the strategic weapons) to fend off any nuclear attack.

Not to mention the congress members who are in favor of the SDI due to the fact that their states have business that are making money off them.

 

[dapoes]

I have been paying attention just fine. You are just listening to one side of the story with out using any logic to process it.

Missile defense is a pipe dream at best.

That is just your sole (liberal) opinion.

Even in controlled environments, the testing is only 50% effective and that is against a single warhead.

Please list your qualifications to make such an assessment. Please back up assessments with factual data. You should also indicate you are a "Rocket Scientist" in your signature.

The idea of a nation (Russia in the Poland example you gave) launching a single warhead is laughable at best.

More opinion without any substance.

The bottom line about missile defense is that it is a sham. It is a way for the developers to make a but lad of cash developing something that will be ineffective at best, assuming it is even made operational. You cannot defend against tactical nukes and it is far to easy to develop low cost methods of fooling any defense system.

Channeling Michael Moore now?

More over, the article that you copied from (and did not link) failed to indicate how many of those 10,000 weapons are active. The US has over 8,000 weapons that are intact but retired and in storage. The Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki had a yield of approximately 20 kt. The yield of a nuke cruise missile (tactical nuke) is in the neighborhood of 200kt. Look a the damage done by Fat Man and then tell me that the number of tactical nukes in the US arsenal is inadequate (along with the strategic weapons) to fend off any nuclear attack.

Which means what? Bombs make a big mushroom cloud? Thanks for the insight.

Not to mention the congress members who are in favor of the SDI due to the fact that their states have business that are making money off them.

Facts please?

 

[Ms Tree]

Facts please?

you first

 

[Ms Tree]

Please list your qualifications to make such an assessment. Please back up assessments with factual data. You should also indicate you are a "Rocket Scientist" in your signature.

What are your qualifications regarding the defense shield? I suspect there should be quite a bit in your signature

 

[Dog Wonder]

What are your qualifications regarding the defense shield? I suspect there should be quite a bit in your signature

He has no facts, no original thought.

All he has is posts of something some one else has written or drawn.

A tool of nutbags, who approves of everything he regurgitates.

 

[dapoes]

He has no facts, no original thought.

All he has is posts of something some one else has written or drawn.

A tool of nutbags, who approves of everything he regurgitates.

Yeah buddy, its called statements backed up with hard facts. Might want to try it sometime.

 

[dapoes]

you first

LOL Nice. Just like the old days, get painted into a corner, cut and run.

 

[Ms Tree]

You would not know a hard fact if it bit you in the butt.

Fifty percent of the controlled tests failed. That's a fact. One cruise missile has a yield of 200 kt. That is also a fact. How does Russia having more make them any safer or place us at any higher risk? It's not my assessment you moron. It's fact stated by the military. missile test fails

So far, the Defense Department has deemed eight of the program's 15 tests successful.

What part of that is my assessment?

We have about 2,500 nuclear war heads operationally deployed, in active reserve, or held in inactive storage with a total of 9,600 in inventory. That is also a fact. We had close to 30,000 at the height of the cold war. That is also a fact. Russia has about 4,600 active with 12,000 total inventory. Do you want to trade with them? Find me one soldier who would be willing to swap our inventory for theirs. Just one.

So please spare me. Your history of not having factual based arguments is well known here. So far all you have posted is part of an article that you cut and pasted with out giving credit which merely stated the numbers of weapons.

Would you just launch one nuke and sit back to see what happens? Of course it's my opinion. I base it on the fact that launching a nuclear weapon would be a declaration of war and the operational theory of land based nukes it to use them or loose them, hence the idea of the nuclear triad. The boomers are the second wave of nukes should the land based ones be taken out or fail for what ever reason.

There is not a single weapon system that has been designed that cannot be defeated in some manner. You seem to want to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in to a system that so far has barely exceeded a 40% success rate in controlled environment. The easiest way to defeat the system is to over whelm it numerically. Russia has a few thousand strategic nukes at it's disposal. If you think I have a system that might take out a few of your nukes what are you going to do? Just launch one or two? No, you are going to blow your whole freaking wad at me and take my butt out. You are not going to risk me surviving and whipping your butt with my nukes. The idea of a limited nuclear war is a dream pushed by the same idiots who made be get under a desk as a safe guard against a nuclear blast.

I have posted facts, why don't you give it a try.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Yeah buddy, its called statements backed up with hard facts. Might want to try it sometime.

When did I lower my standards enough to be your 'buddy'?

 

[delldude]

Hitting a fixed target (city) with a ICBM is not the same as hitting a small target (ICBM) or a warhead (small sofa) moving at super sonic speed with at most 1/2 hour between launch and "OH crap, too late". It is exponentially more difficult to hit the latter as opposed the former. Just look at the targeting performance of the cruise missiles used during the gulf war for proof. With the GPS and targeting ability they were able to place one through the window and you could choose which one and what floor.

They don't get too wrapped up in precision targeting accuracy with nukes. Circular error probability is the keyword. Accuracy is needed but you can't compare nukes to conventional warheads where you want to drop one down the stovepipe. Close works in grenades, horseshoes and nukes.

CEP

 

[Ms Tree]

They don't get too wrapped up in precision targeting accuracy with nukes. Circular error probability is the keyword. Accuracy is needed but you can't compare nukes to conventional warheads where you want to drop one down the stovepipe. Close works in grenades, horseshoes and nukes.

CEP

I believe that is what I said. It does not matter to much if the nuke is 500 feet or more off from it's target. With the size of some of the nukes it could be few miles off and still work just fine. On the other hand, in order to take out a inbound nuke traveling at hypersonic speed on a short trajectory involves quite a bit more. I remember seeing a program on the SDI programs and the amount of science involved is staggering. If your calculations are even off by a few milliseconds your target is long gone. Too add to the problem is the fact that making a bunch of ICBM's with fake war heads just makes the problem all that much more difficult. Not to mention the fact that just one 20Mt warhead can pretty much screw up your entire day.

 

[delldude]

I believe that is what I said. It does not matter to much if the nuke is 500 feet or more off from it's target. With the size of some of the nukes it could be few miles off and still work just fine. On the other hand, in order to take out a inbound nuke traveling at hypersonic speed on a short trajectory involves quite a bit more. I remember seeing a program on the SDI programs and the amount of science involved is staggering. If your calculations are even off by a few milliseconds your target is long gone. Too add to the problem is the fact that making a bunch of ICBM's with fake war heads just makes the problem all that much more difficult. Not to mention the fact that just one 20Mt warhead can pretty much screw up your entire day.

Ivan liked the 20 meg nukes.......use them to physically knock an ICBM over in the silo rendering it useless.

 

[Ms Tree]

Hence MAD. Everyone assumes that they have to use them or loose them. Subs gibe a big advantage with that because they are nearly impossible to take out.

The idea of just launching one missile is not takn seriously by anything I have read. The only single nuke senerios I have read about are terrorist atacks thay do not involve a missile.

The only possible senerio I can think of is Iran. I don't think.it it likely since they know they.will be tirned into a glass plate soon after launch. Also, how much money do you want to spend for such an unlikely event?

 

[delldude]

Hence MAD. Everyone assumes that they have to use them or loose them. Subs gibe a big advantage with that because they are nearly impossible to take out.

The idea of just launching one missile is not takn seriously by anything I have read. The only single nuke senerios I have read about are terrorist atacks thay do not involve a missile.

The only possible senerio I can think of is Iran. I don't think.it it likely since they know they.will be tirned into a glass plate soon after launch. Also, how much money do you want to spend for such an unlikely event?

Iran will happen and Israel will respond and the world will condemn Israel.

You hep to economic MAD? Its here and now and you don't need a nuke at all.