Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 18, 2008 04:53 PM

Or so says a panel of experts from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Twenty-three Nobel Prize winners (among others) - most of them Americans - unveiled a document calling for a complete rethink of US nuclear weapons policy. It appears that the only mainstream media outlet to report this was the LA Times.


The United States must profoundly change its nuclear weapons policy to reflect the realities of today's world, and future challenges to the nation's security. Indeed, the United States can proactively shape its nuclear future, rather than anticipate the worst and hedge against it.




Four of the most seasoned architects of U.S. national security policy
- George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan;
- William Perry, Secretary of Defense under President Clinton;
- Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford; and
- Sam Nunn, former Senator from Georgia
have forcefully articulated the need for a new approach.




The next president should bring U.S. nuclear weapons policy into line with today's political and strategic realities by taking 10 critical, unilateral steps.





1. Declare that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter and, if necessary, respond to the use of nuclear weapons by another country.



IIRC, China has already declared that its nukes are purely deterrent in purpose.


2. Reject rapid-launch options by changing its deployment practices to allow the launch of nuclear forces in days rather than minutes.

3. Eliminate preset targeting plans, and replace them with the capability to promptly develop a response tailored to the situation if nuclear weapons are used against the United States, its armed forces, or its allies.

4. Promptly and unilaterally reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, including deployed and reserve warheads. The United States would declare all warheads above this level to be in excess of its military needs, move them into storage, begin dismantling them in a manner transparent to the international community, and begin disposing_under international safeguards_of all plutonium and highly enriched uranium beyond that required to maintain these 1,000 warheads. By making the endpoint of this dismantlement process dependent on Russia's response, the United States would encourage Russia to reciprocate.

5. Halt all programs for developing and deploying new nuclear weapons, including the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead.

6. Promptly and unilaterally retire all U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons, dismantling them in a transparent manner, and take steps to induce Russia to do the same.

7. Announce a U.S. commitment to reducing its number of nuclear weapons further, on a negotiated and verified bilateral or multilateral basis.

8. Commit to not resume nuclear testing, and work with the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

9. Halt further deployment of the Ground-Based Missile Defense, and drop any plans for space-based missile defense. The deployment of a U.S. missile defense system that Russia or China believed could intercept a significant portion of its survivable long-range missile forces would be an obstacle to deep nuclear cuts. A U.S. missile defense system could also trigger reactions by these nations that would result in a net decrease in U.S. security.

10. Reaffirm the U.S. commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament, and present a specific plan for moving toward that goal, in recognition of the fact that a universal and verifiable prohibition on nuclear weapons would enhance both national and international security.



Of course, these are only scientists, and not of any possible interest to the political process, right? Only 23 Nobel Prize winners there. Nobody intelligent at all.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 18, 2008 05:00 PM

Pfft... I hope we can get a handle on not accidentally flying nukes cross-country.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 18, 2008 05:12 PM

_kungfoo_ said:
Pfft... I hope we can get a handle on not accidentally flying nukes cross-country.



That would certainly help. But it would be a lot less likely if there were fewer American nukes.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 18, 2008 06:44 PM

The Federation of American Scientists, FAS, is a great resource for information about military and strategic issues.

FAS provides timely, nonpartisan technical analysis on complex global issues that hinge on science and technology. Priding itself on agility and an ability to bring together people from many disciplines and organizations, the organization often addresses critical policy topics that are not well covered by other organizations. (link)



I have the FAS Strategic Security Blog and Secrecy News to be good starting points when needing to research those issue. The pages on China, Nuclear Weapons, and Nuclear Proliferation were for instance helpful in researching SockPuppet's comment about China's nuclear policy.

The China page for March 6, 2008, Chinese Nuclear Arsenal Increased by 25 Percent Since 2006, Pentagon Report Indicates had a link to the report "Military Power of the People's Republic of China" hereafter MPPR. From the Executive Summary

China's nuclear force modernization, as evidence by the fielding of the new DF-31 and DF-31A intercontinental-range missiles, is enhancing China's strategic strike capabilities.



China's 2006 Defense White Paper states that:
1) the purpose of China's nuclear force is to "deter other countries from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China;"
2) China "upholds the principles of counterattack in self-defense and limited development of nuclear weapons;" and,
3) China "has never entered into and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any other country." The document reiterated China's commitment to a declaratory policy of "no first use (bu shouxian shiyong - %u4E0D%u9996%u5148%u4F7F%u7528) of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances," and states China "unconditionally undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear weapon-free zones." Doctrinal materials suggest additional missions for China's nuclear forces include deterring conventional attacks against PRC nuclear assets or conventional attacks with WMD-like effects, reinforcing China's great power status, and increasing freedom of action by limiting the extent to which others can coerce China with nuclear threats. (page 26 MPPR)



Within the spoiler is information about the lack of transparency by China of their, "grand strategy," "military strategic guidelines," and nuclear "ballistic and cruise missiles."

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

China's leaders have not publicly articulated an explicit, overarching "grand strategy" that outlines national strategic objectives and the means to achieve them, nor are the linkages between the occasional strategic pronouncement and actual policy decisions in China apparent, especially during periods of crisis or instability. Although such vagueness may reflect a deliberate effort to conceal intentions and capabilities, as implied in Deng Xiaoping's "24-character strategy" above, it may reflect genuine uncertainties, disagreements, and debates among China's leaders over preferences for long-term goals and objectives. (pg 8 MPPR)



Military Strategic Guidelines: China does not publish equivalents to the U.S. National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, or National Military Strategy. Outside observers therefore have few direct insights into the leadership's thinking about the use of force or into the contingency planning that shapes the PLA's force structure or doctrine. Analysis of authoritative speeches and documents suggests China relies on a body of overall principles and guidance known as the "National Military Strategic Guidelines for the New Period" (xin shiqi guojia junshi zhanlue fangzhen - %u65B0%u65F6%u671F%u56FD%u5BB6%u519B%u4E8B%u6218%u7565%u65B9%u91DD) to plan and manage the development and use of the armed forces. However, the PLA has not made the contents of the "Guidelines" available for outside scrutiny.
Scholarly research suggests that the current "Guidelines" most likely date to 1993, reflecting the impact of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union on PRC militarystrategic thinking, and form the basis for much of the PLA's transformation over the past decade. Based upon on-going assessment of the rapid pace of change in global military affairs %u2013 perhaps including lessons learned from U.S. and Coalition military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan %u2013 elements of the 1993 "Guidelines" appear to have been revised recently to update China's perceptions of its security environment and the character of modern war,integrate lessons learned from China's military modernization, and shift from "building" forces for modern, information-age warfare to training to "win" such wars. (pg 16 MPPR)



Ballistic and Cruise Missiles. China has the most active ballistic missile program in the world. It is developing and testing offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, qualitatively upgrading certain missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses.
By November 2007, the PLA had deployed between 990 and 1,070 CSS-6 and CSS-7 shortrange ballistic missiles (SRBM) to garrisons opposite Taiwan. It is increasing the size of this force at a rate of more than 100 missiles per year, including variants of these missiles with improved ranges, accuracies, and payloads.
The PLA is acquiring large numbers of highly accurate cruise missiles, such as the domestically produced ground-launched DH-10 land attack cruise missile (LACM); the Russian SS-N-22/SUNBURN supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) outfitted on China's two SOVREMENNYY and two SOVREMENNYY II-class guided missile destroyers (DDG), also acquired from Russia; and, the SS-N-27B/SIZZLER supersonic ASCM, outfitted on the last eight of twelve total Russian-built KILO-class diesel electric submarines China has acquired.
China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) as a component of its anti-access strategy. The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km and, when incorporated into a sophisticated command and control system, is a key component of China's anti-access strategy to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships at sea, including aircraft carriers, from great distances.
China is modernizing its longer-range ballistic missile force by adding more survivable systems. Most notably, the DF-31 and longerrange DF-31A are now being deployed to units within the Second Artillery Corps.
China is also working on a new submarinelaunched ballistic missile, the JL-2, for deployment aboard new JIN-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). The JL-2 is expected to reach initial operational capability (IOC) between 2009-2010. (pgs 2 & 3 MPPR)




And, the Nuclear Weapons page has a story on an Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China that links to other blogs, reports, and Google Earth images.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 18, 2008 06:45 PM

bald_eagle said:
We have tried to approach this before. The hangup always comes with # 7.

Nuclear weapons are too easy to hide in countries having millions of square miles. And allowing inspection is problematic in many countries, especially those with non-democratic governments.

The hope back in the sixties and seventies was that we would eventually have technology that could ferret out hidden weapons of mass destruction. Going by the abysmal failure of intelligence in Iraq, I would say that we're not there yet.



I'm not sure if that was a good test case though. At all.

LSlice

LSlice

Montclair, NJ
December 2007

MAY 18, 2008 08:01 PM

What's the purpose of number two? I guess they are essentially advocating abandoning the MAD doctrine?

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 18, 2008 08:24 PM

bald_eagle said:

_kungfoo_ said:

bald_eagle said:
We have tried to approach this before. The hangup always comes with # 7.

Nuclear weapons are too easy to hide in countries having millions of square miles. And allowing inspection is problematic in many countries, especially those with non-democratic governments.

The hope back in the sixties and seventies was that we would eventually have technology that could ferret out hidden weapons of mass destruction. Going by the abysmal failure of intelligence in Iraq, I would say that we're not there yet.



I'm not sure if that was a good test case though. At all.


Granted it's not the same. My point is that we couldn't even be sure whether Iraq had WMDs. How could we be sure if someplace the size of China was in compliance?



Point taken. I'm just imagine that all this security spending must have resulted in some sort of a detection technology. I really don't know enough to to say though.

EDIT: We have sniffer planes, that can at least detect testing.

LSlice said:
What's the purpose of number two? I guess they are essentially advocating abandoning the MAD doctrine?



Um... the cold war is over.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 18, 2008 08:36 PM

LSlice said:
What's the purpose of number two? I guess they are essentially advocating abandoning the MAD doctrine?



MAD is mutual assured destruction - any attack would be met by an overwhelming response.

Number 2 is "launch on warning".

You do not need launch on warning to have MAD. It did become part of the strategy.
Launch on Warning: The Development of U.S. Capabilities, 1959 - 1979 by William Burr, Editor. reading it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy surreal

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

MAY 18, 2008 08:55 PM

IDGAS said:
The Federation of American Scientists, FAS, is a great resource for information about military and strategic issues.

FAS provides timely, nonpartisan technical analysis on complex global issues that hinge on science and technology. Priding itself on agility and an ability to bring together people from many disciplines and organizations, the organization often addresses critical policy topics that are not well covered by other organizations. (link)



I have the FAS Strategic Security Blog and Secrecy News to be good starting points when needing to research those issue. The pages on China, Nuclear Weapons, and Nuclear Proliferation were for instance helpful in researching SockPuppet's comment about China's nuclear policy.

The China page for March 6, 2008, Chinese Nuclear Arsenal Increased by 25 Percent Since 2006, Pentagon Report Indicates had a link to the report "Military Power of the People's Republic of China" hereafter MPPR. From the Executive Summary

China's nuclear force modernization, as evidence by the fielding of the new DF-31 and DF-31A intercontinental-range missiles, is enhancing China's strategic strike capabilities.



China's 2006 Defense White Paper states that:
1) the purpose of China's nuclear force is to "deter other countries from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China;"
2) China "upholds the principles of counterattack in self-defense and limited development of nuclear weapons;" and,
3) China "has never entered into and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any other country." The document reiterated China's commitment to a declaratory policy of "no first use (bu shouxian shiyong - %u4E0D%u9996%u5148%u4F7F%u7528) of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances," and states China "unconditionally undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear weapon-free zones." Doctrinal materials suggest additional missions for China's nuclear forces include deterring conventional attacks against PRC nuclear assets or conventional attacks with WMD-like effects, reinforcing China's great power status, and increasing freedom of action by limiting the extent to which others can coerce China with nuclear threats. (page 26 MPPR)



Within the spoiler is information about the lack of transparency by China of their, "grand strategy," "military strategic guidelines," and nuclear "ballistic and cruise missiles."

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

China's leaders have not publicly articulated an explicit, overarching "grand strategy" that outlines national strategic objectives and the means to achieve them, nor are the linkages between the occasional strategic pronouncement and actual policy decisions in China apparent, especially during periods of crisis or instability. Although such vagueness may reflect a deliberate effort to conceal intentions and capabilities, as implied in Deng Xiaoping's "24-character strategy" above, it may reflect genuine uncertainties, disagreements, and debates among China's leaders over preferences for long-term goals and objectives. (pg 8 MPPR)



Military Strategic Guidelines: China does not publish equivalents to the U.S. National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, or National Military Strategy. Outside observers therefore have few direct insights into the leadership's thinking about the use of force or into the contingency planning that shapes the PLA's force structure or doctrine. Analysis of authoritative speeches and documents suggests China relies on a body of overall principles and guidance known as the "National Military Strategic Guidelines for the New Period" (xin shiqi guojia junshi zhanlue fangzhen - %u65B0%u65F6%u671F%u56FD%u5BB6%u519B%u4E8B%u6218%u7565%u65B9%u91DD) to plan and manage the development and use of the armed forces. However, the PLA has not made the contents of the "Guidelines" available for outside scrutiny.
Scholarly research suggests that the current "Guidelines" most likely date to 1993, reflecting the impact of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union on PRC militarystrategic thinking, and form the basis for much of the PLA's transformation over the past decade. Based upon on-going assessment of the rapid pace of change in global military affairs %u2013 perhaps including lessons learned from U.S. and Coalition military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan %u2013 elements of the 1993 "Guidelines" appear to have been revised recently to update China's perceptions of its security environment and the character of modern war,integrate lessons learned from China's military modernization, and shift from "building" forces for modern, information-age warfare to training to "win" such wars. (pg 16 MPPR)



Ballistic and Cruise Missiles. China has the most active ballistic missile program in the world. It is developing and testing offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, qualitatively upgrading certain missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses.
By November 2007, the PLA had deployed between 990 and 1,070 CSS-6 and CSS-7 shortrange ballistic missiles (SRBM) to garrisons opposite Taiwan. It is increasing the size of this force at a rate of more than 100 missiles per year, including variants of these missiles with improved ranges, accuracies, and payloads.
The PLA is acquiring large numbers of highly accurate cruise missiles, such as the domestically produced ground-launched DH-10 land attack cruise missile (LACM); the Russian SS-N-22/SUNBURN supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) outfitted on China's two SOVREMENNYY and two SOVREMENNYY II-class guided missile destroyers (DDG), also acquired from Russia; and, the SS-N-27B/SIZZLER supersonic ASCM, outfitted on the last eight of twelve total Russian-built KILO-class diesel electric submarines China has acquired.
China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on a variant of the CSS-5 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) as a component of its anti-access strategy. The missile has a range in excess of 1,500 km and, when incorporated into a sophisticated command and control system, is a key component of China's anti-access strategy to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships at sea, including aircraft carriers, from great distances.
China is modernizing its longer-range ballistic missile force by adding more survivable systems. Most notably, the DF-31 and longerrange DF-31A are now being deployed to units within the Second Artillery Corps.
China is also working on a new submarinelaunched ballistic missile, the JL-2, for deployment aboard new JIN-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). The JL-2 is expected to reach initial operational capability (IOC) between 2009-2010. (pgs 2 & 3 MPPR)




And, the Nuclear Weapons page has a story on an Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China that links to other blogs, reports, and Google Earth images.



I just want to say, THIS is a fantastic post, and thank you.
Very informative.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 19, 2008 02:24 PM

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 19, 2008 02:51 PM

I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 19, 2008 03:37 PM

SockPuppet said:
I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.



Oh, you are such a suspicious silly goose. tongue

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 19, 2008 04:02 PM

IDGAS said:

SockPuppet said:
I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.



Oh, you are such a suspicious silly goose. tongue



I see it happen in other places... every Dutch military installation, for example.
It's silly, really; at least for the Dutch. I mean, they have airshows at Volkel. With, like, leaflets with maps of the airfield.

But I'm dragging the thread off point.

Do we really believe the USA needs as many nukes as it has, and on the rules it applies?

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

MAY 19, 2008 04:26 PM

SockPuppet said:

IDGAS said:

SockPuppet said:
I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.



Oh, you are such a suspicious silly goose. tongue



I see it happen in other places... every Dutch military installation, for example.
It's silly, really; at least for the Dutch. I mean, they have airshows at Volkel. With, like, leaflets with maps of the airfield.

But I'm dragging the thread off point.

Do we really believe the USA needs as many nukes as it has, and on the rules it applies?



Yes.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 19, 2008 04:33 PM

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

IDGAS said:

SockPuppet said:
I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.



Oh, you are such a suspicious silly goose. tongue



I see it happen in other places... every Dutch military installation, for example.
It's silly, really; at least for the Dutch. I mean, they have airshows at Volkel. With, like, leaflets with maps of the airfield.

But I'm dragging the thread off point.

Do we really believe the USA needs as many nukes as it has, and on the rules it applies?



Yes.



Why?

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

MAY 19, 2008 04:49 PM

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

IDGAS said:

SockPuppet said:
I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.



Oh, you are such a suspicious silly goose. tongue



I see it happen in other places... every Dutch military installation, for example.
It's silly, really; at least for the Dutch. I mean, they have airshows at Volkel. With, like, leaflets with maps of the airfield.

But I'm dragging the thread off point.

Do we really believe the USA needs as many nukes as it has, and on the rules it applies?



Yes.



Why?



The premise of MAD while most people would rightfully cringe at the idea did keep a lid on both super powers tho we fought through proxy wars we never went so far as to push the button, the point of having so many weapons is that you simply can't knock them all out with a single strike. yes it seems insane but thats the point, it's also the point that the amount of weapons you owuld need to fire to knock out those weapons would also destroy your own country through fallout as it went around the globe. The problem we are getting into is that as the technology spreads the odds are increasing that someone who is not afraid of the consequences of those weapons going off. the threat of nuclear war would not go away if we had no nukes. One could argue that without the combined deterrant of the US and Russia the threat of war would increase.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 19, 2008 05:05 PM

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

IDGAS said:

SockPuppet said:
I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.



Oh, you are such a suspicious silly goose. tongue


I see it happen in other places... every Dutch military installation, for example.
It's silly, really; at least for the Dutch. I mean, they have airshows at Volkel. With, like, leaflets with maps of the airfield.

But I'm dragging the thread off point.

Do we really believe the USA needs as many nukes as it has, and on the rules it applies?



Yes.



Why?



The premise of MAD while most people would rightfully cringe at the idea did keep a lid on both super powers tho we fought through proxy wars we never went so far as to push the button, the point of having so many weapons is that you simply can't knock them all out with a single strike. yes it seems insane but thats the point, it's also the point that the amount of weapons you owuld need to fire to knock out those weapons would also destroy your own country through fallout as it went around the globe. The problem we are getting into is that as the technology spreads the odds are increasing that someone who is not afraid of the consequences of those weapons going off. the threat of nuclear war would not go away if we had no nukes. One could argue that without the combined deterrant of the US and Russia the threat of war would increase.



It's beyond American ingenuity to disperse 500 weapons across half an entire continent, and five oceans? What the hell are you paying your taxes for? surreal

And, nobody suggested America should become non-nuclear, AFAIR.

Your other points are arguable. It's true that increasingly dangerous technologies are spreading into the hands of other people than the owners of the world. But your entirely reasonable worry about "someone who is not afraid of the consequences" makes the whole deterrence concept redundant, and probably an actual weakness.





IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 19, 2008 05:44 PM

SockPuppet said:

IDGAS said:

SockPuppet said:
I'm sure it's complete coincidence, but Google Maps seems to have misplaced an image tile in the Delingha area.

FAS image of the area.

Google Maps view of Delingha. You will see that the area in the northwest is a duplicate of the south-eastern.



Oh, you are such a suspicious silly goose. tongue



I see it happen in other places... every Dutch military installation, for example.
It's silly, really; at least for the Dutch. I mean, they have airshows at Volkel. With, like, leaflets with maps of the airfield.

But I'm dragging the thread off point.

Do we really believe the USA needs as many nukes as it has, and on the rules it applies?



No, I do not know if the number should be 1000 as in the article but I do not believe that we need the 5600 - 5800 that we currently have.
Russia is not a strategic threat.
While China is a concern, it is not now a threat, and not even close to the old USSR.

I also doubt the value of bombers as part of the nuclear triad.

As an aside I think we need to revisit nuclear power to supply our energy needs. The French get more than 70% and both Sweden and UK are more than 20% if I recall.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAY 19, 2008 11:53 PM

SockPuppet said:
Twenty-three Nobel Prize winners (among others) - most of them Americans - unveiled a document calling for a complete rethink of US nuclear weapons policy.
[...]
Of course, these are only scientists, and not of any possible interest to the political process, right? Only 23 Nobel Prize winners there. Nobody intelligent at all.



These elitist eggheads are a threat national security and should be stripped of their laurels and gagged with them. They present a clear and present danger to the fratboy community, I expect Emperor Bush will personally kick each of these peacenik hippies' asses...

Seriously though, the U.S. is the biggest threat to world peace and stability with our aggressive military approach to dealing countries that don't immediately bend to our will. With our new approach to pre-emptive warfare, it's bound to make other nuclear powers a bit more jumpy when dealing with the U.S., not to mention incentivising other countries to quickly develop them before they are attacked (i.e. Iraq compared with North Korea). One false move and ka-boom! We're all dead.

The End.


Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

MAY 20, 2008 06:33 AM

Also sorry but we had too many quotes going here.

To the first point, of course we can spread them over half a continent and through the oceans, however that simply ensures that the enemy needs that many more nukes to try and destroy our capability of a return strike, and vice versa.the fewer nukes the more the likely hood that an enemy does the calculations and decides that the losses from your return strike are acceptable. That is the theory anyhow.

As to the second part, a terrorist nuke is almost inevitable at this point Nuclear technology was born of tech from the 40's. The deterrent comes in the fact that any group who then uses one will be hunted to extinction by the majority of world governments, the last thing you will want to be is the hiding place for such a terrorist or organization. The thing about nukes is once you have them it's almost assured that you will launch them in retaliation once one has been used against you. If you don't then they are not a deterrent at all.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 20, 2008 07:00 AM

Colinism said:
Also sorry but we had too many quotes going here.

To the first point, of course we can spread them over half a continent and through the oceans, however that simply ensures that the enemy needs that many more nukes to try and destroy our capability of a return strike, and vice versa.the fewer nukes the more the likely hood that an enemy does the calculations and decides that the losses from your return strike are acceptable. That is the theory anyhow.



Yes. Question is, is losing one city to a nuclear weapon acceptable? Look at Katrina. A low casualty rate, and not much property damage. (Only in the billions.) I am not convinced that any country can accept the consequences of any nuclear weapon use.

Which suggests to me that the UCS position is correct. America has far too many nuclear weapons; a few hundred would be plenty.


As to the second part, a terrorist nuke is almost inevitable at this point Nuclear technology was born of tech from the 40's. The deterrent comes in the fact that any group who then uses one will be hunted to extinction by the majority of world governments, the last thing you will want to be is the hiding place for such a terrorist or organization. The thing about nukes is once you have them it's almost assured that you will launch them in retaliation once one has been used against you. If you don't then they are not a deterrent at all.



Oh indeed. There are two problems with that, IMO.

- That leaves the deterrence system wide open to people who believe that killing them all and letting God sort them out is a good idea. If it's possible to trigger an exchange of that sort, then God will have to do the sorting out, right? It isn't possible to deter an attack designed to kill indiscriminately.
Deterrence assumes you can deter the other guy. After 9/11, does that look possible?
- Accidental launch can kill everyone. We know that there have been accidents of various sorts with nuclear weapons; B-52 crash in Spain, for instance. None have yet involved a weapon detonation or a missile launch. But rapid launch doesn't take account of the capacity for things just to go wrong; it doesn't leave any capacity for talking. And it plays into the hands of the urge for vengeance, which can only make matters worse.

Both of those argue that existing policy is counterproductive and may constitute an active threat to the security of the USA.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

MAY 20, 2008 07:19 AM

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
Also sorry but we had too many quotes going here.

To the first point, of course we can spread them over half a continent and through the oceans, however that simply ensures that the enemy needs that many more nukes to try and destroy our capability of a return strike, and vice versa.the fewer nukes the more the likely hood that an enemy does the calculations and decides that the losses from your return strike are acceptable. That is the theory anyhow.



Yes. Question is, is losing one city to a nuclear weapon acceptable? Look at Katrina. A low casualty rate, and not much property damage. (Only in the billions.) I am not convinced that any country can accept the consequences of any nuclear weapon use.

Which suggests to me that the UCS position is correct. America has far too many nuclear weapons; a few hundred would be plenty.


As to the second part, a terrorist nuke is almost inevitable at this point Nuclear technology was born of tech from the 40's. The deterrent comes in the fact that any group who then uses one will be hunted to extinction by the majority of world governments, the last thing you will want to be is the hiding place for such a terrorist or organization. The thing about nukes is once you have them it's almost assured that you will launch them in retaliation once one has been used against you. If you don't then they are not a deterrent at all.



Oh indeed. There are two problems with that, IMO.

- That leaves the deterrence system wide open to people who believe that killing them all and letting God sort them out is a good idea. If it's possible to trigger an exchange of that sort, then God will have to do the sorting out, right? It isn't possible to deter an attack designed to kill indiscriminately.
Deterrence assumes you can deter the other guy. After 9/11, does that look possible?
- Accidental launch can kill everyone. We know that there have been accidents of various sorts with nuclear weapons; B-52 crash in Spain, for instance. None have yet involved a weapon detonation or a missile launch. But rapid launch doesn't take account of the capacity for things just to go wrong; it doesn't leave any capacity for talking. And it plays into the hands of the urge for vengeance, which can only make matters worse.

Both of those argue that existing policy is counterproductive and may constitute an active threat to the security of the USA.



I'm don't dissagree with you exactly, but at the same time it's one of those things where I can see both modes of thinking and understand them.

Dropping a nuke from space won't cause it to detonate so other than a minor radiation spill from the material inside thats not so much a threat to society. The reason for Rapid launch is that it takes under an hour from launch to detonation anywhere in the world. You can't evacuate cities, you cant get people to shelters there simply is not enough time, in a few days your entire nuclear arsenal could be destroyed if you did not launch them immediately.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 20, 2008 02:56 PM

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
Also sorry but we had too many quotes going here.

To the first point, of course we can spread them over half a continent and through the oceans, however that simply ensures that the enemy needs that many more nukes to try and destroy our capability of a return strike, and vice versa.the fewer nukes the more the likely hood that an enemy does the calculations and decides that the losses from your return strike are acceptable. That is the theory anyhow.



Yes. Question is, is losing one city to a nuclear weapon acceptable? Look at Katrina. A low casualty rate, and not much property damage. (Only in the billions.) I am not convinced that any country can accept the consequences of any nuclear weapon use.

Which suggests to me that the UCS position is correct. America has far too many nuclear weapons; a few hundred would be plenty.


As to the second part, a terrorist nuke is almost inevitable at this point Nuclear technology was born of tech from the 40's. The deterrent comes in the fact that any group who then uses one will be hunted to extinction by the majority of world governments, the last thing you will want to be is the hiding place for such a terrorist or organization. The thing about nukes is once you have them it's almost assured that you will launch them in retaliation once one has been used against you. If you don't then they are not a deterrent at all.



Oh indeed. There are two problems with that, IMO.

- That leaves the deterrence system wide open to people who believe that killing them all and letting God sort them out is a good idea. If it's possible to trigger an exchange of that sort, then God will have to do the sorting out, right? It isn't possible to deter an attack designed to kill indiscriminately.
Deterrence assumes you can deter the other guy. After 9/11, does that look possible?
- Accidental launch can kill everyone. We know that there have been accidents of various sorts with nuclear weapons; B-52 crash in Spain, for instance. None have yet involved a weapon detonation or a missile launch. But rapid launch doesn't take account of the capacity for things just to go wrong; it doesn't leave any capacity for talking. And it plays into the hands of the urge for vengeance, which can only make matters worse.

Both of those argue that existing policy is counterproductive and may constitute an active threat to the security of the USA.



I'm don't dissagree with you exactly, but at the same time it's one of those things where I can see both modes of thinking and understand them.

Dropping a nuke from space won't cause it to detonate so other than a minor radiation spill from the material inside thats not so much a threat to society. The reason for Rapid launch is that it takes under an hour from launch to detonation anywhere in the world. You can't evacuate cities, you cant get people to shelters there simply is not enough time, in a few days your entire nuclear arsenal could be destroyed if you did not launch them immediately.



I understand the reason for it. I think it's obsolete thinking, and I think it was obsolete thinking from the start; partly because I don't believe any nation can dare allow even one loss of an entire city.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

MAY 20, 2008 03:10 PM

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
Also sorry but we had too many quotes going here.

To the first point, of course we can spread them over half a continent and through the oceans, however that simply ensures that the enemy needs that many more nukes to try and destroy our capability of a return strike, and vice versa.the fewer nukes the more the likely hood that an enemy does the calculations and decides that the losses from your return strike are acceptable. That is the theory anyhow.



Yes. Question is, is losing one city to a nuclear weapon acceptable? Look at Katrina. A low casualty rate, and not much property damage. (Only in the billions.) I am not convinced that any country can accept the consequences of any nuclear weapon use.

Which suggests to me that the UCS position is correct. America has far too many nuclear weapons; a few hundred would be plenty.


As to the second part, a terrorist nuke is almost inevitable at this point Nuclear technology was born of tech from the 40's. The deterrent comes in the fact that any group who then uses one will be hunted to extinction by the majority of world governments, the last thing you will want to be is the hiding place for such a terrorist or organization. The thing about nukes is once you have them it's almost assured that you will launch them in retaliation once one has been used against you. If you don't then they are not a deterrent at all.



Oh indeed. There are two problems with that, IMO.

- That leaves the deterrence system wide open to people who believe that killing them all and letting God sort them out is a good idea. If it's possible to trigger an exchange of that sort, then God will have to do the sorting out, right? It isn't possible to deter an attack designed to kill indiscriminately.
Deterrence assumes you can deter the other guy. After 9/11, does that look possible?
- Accidental launch can kill everyone. We know that there have been accidents of various sorts with nuclear weapons; B-52 crash in Spain, for instance. None have yet involved a weapon detonation or a missile launch. But rapid launch doesn't take account of the capacity for things just to go wrong; it doesn't leave any capacity for talking. And it plays into the hands of the urge for vengeance, which can only make matters worse.

Both of those argue that existing policy is counterproductive and may constitute an active threat to the security of the USA.



I'm don't dissagree with you exactly, but at the same time it's one of those things where I can see both modes of thinking and understand them.

Dropping a nuke from space won't cause it to detonate so other than a minor radiation spill from the material inside thats not so much a threat to society. The reason for Rapid launch is that it takes under an hour from launch to detonation anywhere in the world. You can't evacuate cities, you cant get people to shelters there simply is not enough time, in a few days your entire nuclear arsenal could be destroyed if you did not launch them immediately.



I understand the reason for it. I think it's obsolete thinking, and I think it was obsolete thinking from the start; partly because I don't believe any nation can dare allow even one loss of an entire city.



Japan did in WW2, the first atomic bomb did not cause an immediate surrender, the second did not either, it was the threat of being invaded by the soviets that finally caused the surrender. Cities can be rebuilt people give birth to more people life goes on my friend.

The thinking is not old your just putting too much value on human life.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 20, 2008 04:25 PM

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
Also sorry but we had too many quotes going here.

To the first point, of course we can spread them over half a continent and through the oceans, however that simply ensures that the enemy needs that many more nukes to try and destroy our capability of a return strike, and vice versa.the fewer nukes the more the likely hood that an enemy does the calculations and decides that the losses from your return strike are acceptable. That is the theory anyhow.



Yes. Question is, is losing one city to a nuclear weapon acceptable? Look at Katrina. A low casualty rate, and not much property damage. (Only in the billions.) I am not convinced that any country can accept the consequences of any nuclear weapon use.

Which suggests to me that the UCS position is correct. America has far too many nuclear weapons; a few hundred would be plenty.


As to the second part, a terrorist nuke is almost inevitable at this point Nuclear technology was born of tech from the 40's. The deterrent comes in the fact that any group who then uses one will be hunted to extinction by the majority of world governments, the last thing you will want to be is the hiding place for such a terrorist or organization. The thing about nukes is once you have them it's almost assured that you will launch them in retaliation once one has been used against you. If you don't then they are not a deterrent at all.



Oh indeed. There are two problems with that, IMO.

- That leaves the deterrence system wide open to people who believe that killing them all and letting God sort them out is a good idea. If it's possible to trigger an exchange of that sort, then God will have to do the sorting out, right? It isn't possible to deter an attack designed to kill indiscriminately.
Deterrence assumes you can deter the other guy. After 9/11, does that look possible?
- Accidental launch can kill everyone. We know that there have been accidents of various sorts with nuclear weapons; B-52 crash in Spain, for instance. None have yet involved a weapon detonation or a missile launch. But rapid launch doesn't take account of the capacity for things just to go wrong; it doesn't leave any capacity for talking. And it plays into the hands of the urge for vengeance, which can only make matters worse.

Both of those argue that existing policy is counterproductive and may constitute an active threat to the security of the USA.



I'm don't dissagree with you exactly, but at the same time it's one of those things where I can see both modes of thinking and understand them.

Dropping a nuke from space won't cause it to detonate so other than a minor radiation spill from the material inside thats not so much a threat to society. The reason for Rapid launch is that it takes under an hour from launch to detonation anywhere in the world. You can't evacuate cities, you cant get people to shelters there simply is not enough time, in a few days your entire nuclear arsenal could be destroyed if you did not launch them immediately.



I understand the reason for it. I think it's obsolete thinking, and I think it was obsolete thinking from the start; partly because I don't believe any nation can dare allow even one loss of an entire city.



Japan did in WW2, the first atomic bomb did not cause an immediate surrender, the second did not either, it was the threat of being invaded by the soviets that finally caused the surrender. Cities can be rebuilt people give birth to more people life goes on my friend.

The thinking is not old your just putting too much value on human life.



Source, please.

Assuming you are correct, which I doubt:

- There's a difference between "just another American firebombing" - which is surely what it was, by that stage - and losing a city, completely by surprise, when you know in advance what a nuke is.

- Where is your deterrence theory? If Japan couldn't be persuaded to surrender by actually nuking Japanese cities...

And your sense of humour is going to get you killed, one of these days.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next