Do you care about georgia ?

[Tug McGroin]

On what basis do you make that statement? The fact that we have not been attacked with nuclear weapons by another country?

The fact that we have not been attacked only proves that we have not been attacked. You can not prove a negative. One could just as easily say that we have not been attacked because we sell gigantic, gas-guzzling vehicles in this country as to say that we have not been attacked because we have nuclear weapons. The first half of each statement is true as is the second half of each statement. It's the word because that is the problem.

You may surmise that possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, but it does not prove anything.

If you had to do it all over again, would you still insist on sleeping through your world history class?

On October 15, 1962 an American U2 spy plane, on a routine photo reconnaissance mission over Cuba, took photographs of Soviet made nuclear missiles being assembled at key strategic location throughout Cuba. A launch of these nuclear tipped missiles into the United States would have meant the immediate death of 40 million Americans. The events would later be regarded as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to a nuclear war.

On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy offered this stern warning in his first public speech since the start of the Cuba Missile Crisis;

“It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.â€￾

The Soviet Union quickly recognized that the chain of custody, the authority to launch nuclear missiles had fallen into the hands of Cuban Military Generals. The mere fact that the United States possessed a nuclear arsenal and had the ability to guaranty mutually assured destruction lead the Soviet Union to immediately repossess their nuclear weapons off America’s door step.

I don’t have to surmise that possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, I know it as fact.

 

[KCFlyer]

Bet me.....



More

There's a bit of a difference between an advisor and the Vice President. The advisors can advise all they want...this Vice President has the power to actually order the president to use them.

Also, while Vietnam was technically an "offensive" war, we didn't ponder nukes as the first strike there, as Cheney has done in Iran.

 

[Cosworth]

Perhaps MADD does work. The US has not used a nuke since the two were dropped in WWII. Although if you believe what Dell posted we have thought about it several times. That alone would give me pause for thought were I a foreign nation. I would want a few nukes in my back pocket to keep the US at bay as well.

The USSR put the nukes in Cuba because we had them in Turkey and they were scared that we would use them on the USSR. We pulled them out of Turkey after the USSR pulled them out of Cuba.

I am with Jim, the only thing we know for certain is that nukes have not been used since WWII. Why? No one knows. We do know that some nut job in the the US government have advocated their use. I have no idea if other governments have thought the same.

The idea of MADD is insane. Had either the US or USSR launched an offensive attack on the other, the impact on the world environment would have been such that a nuclear winter would have ensued resulting in a world that no one would want to live in. A retaliation would have been viewed as a mercy killing, not a threat. When they say that we possessed the power to destroy the world 16 times, that was not idle talk. There would have been nothing left. Had the USSR launched an attack on the US, we would have been the lucky ones. We wold have been lucky enough to die. The Russians and the rest of the world would be stuck to deal with the radio active fall out, who knows how many billions of tons of radio active earth in the air and a nuclear winter that would have decimated the food supply.

MADD did not protect us, if anything, it protected them. I have no idea what the Russians were being taught, but there were idiots in this country who actually thought we could survive an attack. Remember "duck and cover".

Perhaps it is you who needs to take another look at history.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Perhaps MADD does work. The US has not used a nuke since the two were dropped in WWII. Although if you believe what Dell posted we have thought about it several times. That alone would give me pause for thought were I a foreign nation. I would want a few nukes in my back pocket to keep the US at bay as well.

The USSR put the nukes in Cuba because we had them in Turkey and they were scared that we would use them on the USSR. We pulled them out of Turkey after the USSR pulled them out of Cuba.

I am with Jim, the only thing we know for certain is that nukes have not been used since WWII. Why? No one knows. We do know that some nut job in the the US government have advocated their use. I have no idea if other governments have thought the same.

The idea of MADD is insane. Had either the US or USSR launched an offensive attack on the other, the impact on the world environment would have been such that a nuclear winter would have ensued resulting in a world that no one would want to live in. A retaliation would have been viewed as a mercy killing, not a threat. When they say that we possessed the power to destroy the world 16 times, that was not idle talk. There would have been nothing left. Had the USSR launched an attack on the US, we would have been the lucky ones. We wold have been lucky enough to die. The Russians and the rest of the world would be stuck to deal with the radio active fall out, who knows how many billions of tons of radio active earth in the air and a nuclear winter that would have decimated the food supply.

MADD did not protect us, if anything, it protected them. I have no idea what the Russians were being taught, but there were idiots in this country who actually thought we could survive an attack. Remember "duck and cover".

Perhaps it is you who needs to take another look at history.

Cosworth, thanks for the history lesson. I never knew Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) was organized to deter foreign countries from launching nuclear attacks against the United States.

You seem to have missed the point. The fact that the United States possessed nuclear weapons is what led the Soviet Union to pull their nuclear weapons from Cuba. You don’t show up to a gun fight with a knife.

It was that (in your words) insane policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that allows you to freely express your opinion about America’s defense policies. To the contrary Cosworth, MAD did/does protect the US. MAD is the policy that effectively levels the playing field in nuclear relations. MAD assures that the country that launches a nuclear attack on the US will not be the winner. Never.

The United States has developed a missile defense shield that is capable of destroying incoming ICBM’s. This relatively new missile defense shield, coupled with the policy of MAD is the ultimate deterrent to a full scale nuclear war.

 

[delldude]

There's a bit of a difference between an advisor and the Vice President. The advisors can advise all they want...this Vice President has the power to actually order the president to use them.

Also, while Vietnam was technically an "offensive" war, we didn't ponder nukes as the first strike there, as Cheney has done in Iran.

Cut me a break KC.....it all starts as chat over cigars and drinks.....

As for 'Nam...why then were nukes stored on carriers?

If the US saw recon/intel of imaginable things,a first strike would be a tenable outcome my friend.

 

[Cosworth]

The United States has developed a missile defense shield that is capable of destroying incoming ICBM’s. This relatively new missile defense shield, coupled with the policy of MAD is the ultimate deterrent to a full scale nuclear war.

Thanks for the laugh. That shield of yours targeted one incoming missile who's trajectory was known and it was a single projectile. If China or Russia launches an attack do you think they will be so kind as to tell us the time of the launch and the trajectories of all of the several hundred ICBM's coming in from all directions? Let me know how that works or you.

If you want to believe that MAD worked, you go right ahead. It's a free country.

We promised to pull our nukes out of Turkey. Khrushchev did not give up with out getting something in return. He put them in Cuba in the first place because we had them on his border. He thought we would use them so he want to show the US what t felt like.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Thanks for the laugh. That shield of yours targeted one incoming missile who's trajectory was known and it was a single projectile. If China or Russia launches an attack do you think they will be so kind as to tell us the time of the launch and the trajectories of all of the several hundred ICBM's coming in from all directions? Let me know how that works or you.

If you want to believe that MAD worked, you go right ahead. It's a free country.

We promised to pull our nukes out of Turkey. Khrushchev did not give up with out getting something in return. He put them in Cuba in the first place because we had them on his border. He thought we would use them so he want to show the US what t felt like.

You’re almost there Cosworth, now I ask you to do a little more research on America’s missile defense shield. The project started with the Patriot Missile System and has emerged into a multi-target acquisition platform. One missile, multiple kills and a system that the Soviet Union is decades away from deploying an effective counter measure against.

Missile Defense Agency

 

[delldude]

You’re almost there Cosworth, now I ask you to do a little more research on America’s missile defense shield. The project started with the Patriot Missile System and has emerged into a multi-target acquisition platform. One missile, multiple kills and a system that the Soviet Union is decades away from deploying an effective counter measure against.

Missile Defense Agency

Only thing I have to say is its all well and fine in theory but say they launch 100 missiles,ten targeted on ten different cities....they stop 90%...you still get ten cindered cities.
Then throw Mirv's into the equation....

 

[Cosworth]

You’re almost there Cosworth, now I ask you to do a little more research on America’s missile defense shield. The project started with the Patriot Missile System and has emerged into a multi-target acquisition platform. One missile, multiple kills and a system that the Soviet Union is decades away from deploying an effective counter measure against.

Missile Defense Agency

Of course the military would inflate the reliability of a weapon system now would they? B1? Sgt York, V22 just to name a few. Did you read the test?
Missle test

The threat-representative target, which was accompanied by countermeasures, was launched from the Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska, at 1:47 p.m. Alaska Time (5:47 p.m. EDT).


Since September 2005, successful target missile intercepts have occurred 35 times in 43 tests.

In tests they cannot even get a 100%. You want to put your life the hands of a system like that?

When they can track, and shoot down lets say 100 targets coming at random intervals from random directions with no advance notice and get 100% kill ratio let me know, till then it's a pipe dream.

Also, keep something else in mind. A $7,000 missile took out a British carrier in the Gulf war. If the US ever develops a defense shield, the Russians or Chines or what ever super power takes our place, will develop a counter measire to make said shield a pretty paper weight.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Only thing I have to say is its all well and fine in theory but say they launch 100 missiles,ten targeted on ten different cities....they stop 90%...you still get ten cindered cities.
Then throw Mirv's into the equation....

Thanks Dell for bringing this discussion full circle. There’s just one major detail absent from your dooms day scenario, the immediate and massive retaliatory nuclear strike the US would launch. This fact is not misunderstood and lays heavy on the minds of foreign leaders who dare authorize and release nuclear launch codes. The very essence of this discussion, the possession of nuclear weapons and the US policy of mutual assured destruction, a deterrent, makes such a scenario highly unlikely.

There are many in the US who simple do not understand the dire consequences this country would face if our nuclear weapons and the policy of MAD were dismantled.

Make no mistake about it; the Russians are very concerned about the effectiveness of a missile defense system/shield. Their nervous reaction to the planned deployment of a US developed missile defense system in Poland speaks volumes to the emerging technology of such a system.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Of course the military would inflate the reliability of a weapon system now would they? B1? Sgt York, V22 just to name a few. Did you read the test?
Missle test

The threat-representative target, which was accompanied by countermeasures, was launched from the Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska, at 1:47 p.m. Alaska Time (5:47 p.m. EDT).


Since September 2005, successful target missile intercepts have occurred 35 times in 43 tests.

In tests they cannot even get a 100%. You want to put your life the hands of a system like that?

When they can track, and shoot down lets say 100 targets coming at random intervals from random directions with no advance notice and get 100% kill ratio let me know, till then it's a pipe dream.

Also, keep something else in mind. A $7,000 missile took out a British carrier in the Gulf war. If the US ever develops a defense shield, the Russians or Chines or what ever super power takes our place, will develop a counter measire to make said shield a pretty paper weight.

Of course the military would inflate the reliability of a weapon system now would they? B1? Sgt York, V22 just to name a few. Did you read the test?
Missle test

I can’t answer a question that isn’t, but I assume you are trying to question the stated reliability of military weapons and delivery systems. Yes, I read the test results and as a matter of personal experience have effectively used the spin off technology developed as a result of these test. It’s naive to suggest that technology as complex as that used in the development of the B2, F22, Aegis MK-7 and the Patriot PAC-3 (to name a few) could ever be 100% reliable. I would be willing to suggest that these systems are every bit as reliability as the aging airliner you travel on and the radar system used to vector their movement.

Have you ever driven a car, flown on a commercial airliner or had an operation? Most likely your answer is YES. Given your previous comment, it hard to believe that you do anything but stay locked up in the relative safe confines of your house. After all, why would you risk your life on anything that not 100% reliable.

Why you would bring up the reliability of the V22 Osprey, as it relates to nuclear missile acquisition and targeting, is unclear.

The threat-representative target, which was accompanied by countermeasures, was launched from the Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska, at 1:47 p.m. Alaska Time (5:47 p.m. EDT).

Since September 2005, successful target missile intercepts have occurred 35 times in 43 tests.
In tests they cannot even get a 100%. You want to put your life the hands of a system like that?
When they can track, and shoot down lets say 100 targets coming at random intervals from random directions with no advance notice and get 100% kill ratio let me know, till then it's a pipe dream.

These statements show a total lack of understanding of the concept of the missile defense shield. It’s not surprising that you cherry picked information from the MDS website to suit your misguided and preconceive notion that the system is nothing more than a pipe dream.

System development and refinement has been ongoing for the last 2 decades. The shield of protection will consists of hundreds of medium/high range MSC PAC-3 missile batteries with thousands of missiles all strategically placed world wide. PAC-3 Patriots are already in place not only in the US but Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Taiwan and Greece. With over 2500 challenges from small targets (typical reentry vehicle profile) in clustered environments, detected during initial boost stage by defense satellites and ground- based radar systems, the MSC PAC-3 Patriot has achieved an 80+ percent kill factor.

For multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, Boeing continues to improve and expand upon their Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GBM) program. In a nutshell, the system deploys a ground-based system to detect, track and destroy hostile ICBM’s in their midcourse phase of flight. The system uses kinetic “hit-to-kill†technology.

This is not a pipe dream Cosworth, it’s already in development with proven technology. The Russians have NOTHING that comes close and they are decades away from matching the technology we have today.

Also, keep something else in mind. A $7,000 missile took out a British carrier in the Gulf war. If the US ever develops a defense shield, the Russians or Chines or what ever super power takes our place, will develop a counter measire to make said shield a pretty paper weight.

I would really appreciate it if you would provide details on how a “$7,000†missile took out a British carrier during the gulf war. I’d like to compare them with my notes I took during my two tours.

 

[delldude]

Thanks Dell for bringing this discussion full circle. There’s just one major detail absent from your dooms day scenario, the immediate and massive retaliatory nuclear strike the US would launch. This fact is not misunderstood and lays heavy on the minds of foreign leaders who dare authorize and release nuclear launch codes. The very essence of this discussion, the possession of nuclear weapons and the US policy of mutual assured destruction, a deterrent, makes such a scenario highly unlikely.

There are many in the US who simple do not understand the dire consequences this country would face if our nuclear weapons and the policy of MAD were dismantled.

Make no mistake about it; the Russians are very concerned about the effectiveness of a missile defense system/shield. Their nervous reaction to the planned deployment of a US developed missile defense system in Poland speaks volumes to the emerging technology of such a system.

I am aware of the retaliatory response.
We discuss MAD......I wonder how many actually understand what MAD actually entails.
From what I read....in the event of an attack and we got off a land based counter strike plus some sub launched missiles...we'd rely heavily on the subs to ensure MAD worked.Assume our silos were eliminated.Most of the enemy's major cities are now in ruin.We have launched a successful counterstrike as soon as incoming missiles were detected.Whether or not our land based capability is still viable....the subs which carry around 24 missiles with up to 8 MIRV's per missile go deep and wait.As the enemy attempts to regroup and rebuild their cities in something like 3 to 6 months,several subs launch another limited salvo at the same targets.....and repeat this scenario over and over again....ensuring MAD beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Nothin' like a Boomer....

 

[Cosworth]

Meant the Falkins. Had Gulf on the brain.

Two decades of R&D and they have a 80% kill ratio. I wonder what 20% of the nukes would do to the US when they land and go Boom.

The V22 example among the others was to show that the US will develop programs that have no future and do not full fill their promise.

Let me know when they actually test the system under live fire circumstances. No advance notice, no warning, multiple targets and let me know how it turns out.

My point is that nothing is 100% reliable. Sometimes that matters and sometimes it does not. When we have a few hundred nukes inbound to the US, 80% reliability will not cut it. Thirty or forty nukes on US soil will destroy this country. Close does not count.

And as I pointed out with the Falkins example, it would not be difficult to disable the SDI system. Send up 1 or 2 nukes to the orbit of the early warning satellites, park them in the right orbit and when they feel like they are threatened, blow them up. Or perhaps they will send in low alt cruise missiles. Or perhaps something far simpler.

 

[delldude]

10 low yield nukes over our refineries,which I think is about 10 ports and its all over for the US.

 

[Cosworth]

How about 2. One on NYC and the other can take out DC. Finance and government gone in a blink of an eye.