Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
 :eek:
Click to expand...

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
Click to expand...
It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's scarier, that they actually believe if we got rid of our nukes everybody else would, or that they don't CARE if anybody else does as long as we do. I mean damn. Darwin would have a field day with that kind of "thinking".
Click to expand...
Yes, he'd find plenty of it scattered amongst the 'extinct' species of the world.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
 :eek:
Click to expand...

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
Click to expand...
It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's scarier, that they actually believe if we got rid of our nukes everybody else would, or that they don't CARE if anybody else does as long as we do. I mean damn. Darwin would have a field day with that kind of "thinking".
Click to expand...

The STRACOM 2009 Deterrence Symposium where high ranking officials from the other declared nuclear powers gave their perspectives on the utility of nuclear weapons should be required watching. Naturally, I can't find the video ATM.
 

Attachments

  • stratcom-2009-min-1.jpg
    stratcom-2009-min-1.jpg
    980.6 KB · Views: 144
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a20144/doomsday-nuclear-submarines-doomed/

Interesting article and WHY we have a Triad. Maybe we should have 400 GBSD ICBMs and 300 B-21s then you could actually deploy many more that 1550 warheads under New START as bombers count as one regardless of actual payload. :eek:
 
bobbymike said:
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/
Click to expand...

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-how-we-can-make-our-vision-of-a-world-without-nuclear-weapons-a-reality/2016/03/30/3e156e2c-f693-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-confirms-new-north-korean-icbm/
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/the-nuclear-bomber-fighting-conflated-deterrence-in-the-21st-century/
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-doubling-nuclear-warheads/

Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.

A recent intelligence assessment of the Russian strategic warhead buildup shows that the increase is the result of the addition of multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, on recently deployed road-mobile SS-27 and submarine-launched SS-N-32 missiles, said officials familiar with reports of the buildup.

“The Russians are doubling their warhead output,” said one official. “They will be exceeding the New START [arms treaty] levels because of MIRVing these new systems.”

The 2010 treaty requires the United States and Russia to reduce deployed warheads to 1,550 warheads by February 2018.

The United States has cut its warhead stockpiles significantly in recent years. Moscow, however, has increased its numbers of deployed warheads and new weapons.

The State Department revealed in January that Russia currently has exceeded the New START warhead limit by 98 warheads, deploying a total number of 1,648 warheads. The U.S. level currently is below the treaty level at 1,538 warheads.

Officials said that in addition to adding warheads to the new missiles, Russian officials have sought to prevent U.S. weapons inspectors from checking warheads as part of the 2010 treaty.

The State Department, however, said it can inspect the new MIRVed missiles.

Disclosure of the doubling of Moscow’s warhead force comes as world leaders gather in Washington this week to discus nuclear security—but without Russian President Vladimir Putin, who skipped the conclave in an apparent snub of the United States.

The Nuclear Security Summit is the latest meeting of world leaders seeking to pursue President Obama’s 2009 declaration of a world without nuclear arms.

Russia, however, is embarked on a major strategic nuclear forces build-up under Putin. Moscow is building new road-mobile, rail-mobile, and silo-based intercontinental-range missiles, along with new submarines equipped with modernized missiles. A new long-range bomber is also being built.
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama administration also has been deceptive about the benefits of New START.

“The administration public affairs talking points on New START reductions border on outright lies,” Schneider said.

“The only reductions that have been made since New START entry into force have been by the United States,” he said. “Instead, Russia has moved from below the New START limits to above the New START limits in deployed warheads and deployed delivery vehicles.”
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Moscow is building a new heavy ICBM called Sarmat, code-named SS-X-30 by the Pentagon, that will be equipped with between 10 and 15 warheads per missile. And a new rail-based ICBM is being developed that will also carry multiple warheads.

Another long-range missile, called the SS-X-31, is under development and will carry up to 12 warheads.

Schneider, the former Pentagon official, said senior Russian arms officials have been quoted in press reports discussing Moscow’s withdrawal from the New START arms accord. If that takes place, Russia will have had six and a half years to prepare to violate the treaty limits, at the same time the United States will have reduced its forces to treaty limits.
Click to expand...
 
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/a-necessary-weapon-the-nuclear-enterprise-strikes-back/
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-may-send-capable-icbm-that-can-strike-anywhere-in-the-us-ready-this-year-2016-4
 
bobbymike said:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-doubling-nuclear-warheads/

Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But, but. . .I was told if we cut back our numbers of nuclear warheads Russia would do the same. Where's my round of kumbya?
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-doubling-nuclear-warheads/

Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But, but. . .I was told if we cut back our numbers of nuclear warheads Russia would do the same. Where's my round of kumbya?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if your nation didn't act so provocatively, they might be more willing to cut back on their warheads? Oh, thats right, you're acting provocatively because you fear every other nation around the world...
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/
Click to expand...

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

For anyone who would like to read the actual article it was actually quite measured and reasonable argument for not going overboard in developing new specialist ultra-low lead tactical weapons or mirroring too closely Russian doctrine re: their use.

The article wasn't saying that the US doesn't need tactical nukes (rather pro the updates to the B61), it (the article and the people it quotes) doesn't appear to offer any negative opinions or conclusions on any proposed US strategic nuclear weapon systems like the proposed new nuclear armed cruise missile (having a brain freeze on the acronym..... I'm pro that for what it's worth.).

And while absolutely recognising the seriousness of Russia breaching international treaties (especially nuclear related ones) I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.
Who really wins in an arbitrary warhead number race? Certainly not the people who have to pay for them....
 
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/
Click to expand...

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

For anyone who would like to read the actual article
Click to expand...

I did read it. I stand by my comment.
 
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/
Click to expand...

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

For anyone who would like to read the actual article it was actually quite measured and reasonable argument for not going overboard in developing new specialist ultra-low lead tactical weapons or mirroring too closely Russian doctrine re: their use.

The article wasn't saying that the US doesn't need tactical nukes (rather pro the updates to the B61), it (the article and the people it quotes) doesn't appear to offer any negative opinions or conclusions on any proposed US strategic nuclear weapon systems like the proposed new nuclear armed cruise missile (having a brain freeze on the acronym..... I'm pro that for what it's worth.).

And while absolutely recognising the seriousness of Russia breaching international treaties (especially nuclear related ones) I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.
Who really wins in an arbitrary warhead number race? Certainly not the people who have to pay for them....
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear! I have long wondered why some people are fixated on the number of warheads. What does it matter if you can destroy the world five times over compared to four times? It's still destroyed. Nuclear weapons are weapons of last, not first resort. Even the Russians recognise that and that the nuclear exchange rate won't matter a damn when your society has been destroyed. Time for some people to wake up and smell the coffee. So, the Russians have some more nuclear warheads than you have, it doesn't mean they have lost their fear of using them. It's a shame that some people haven't acquired that fear as well.
 
kaiserd said:
I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.
Click to expand...

That's because some of us have done the math.

First, how many nukes successfully delivered to the target *and* properly detonated do you need to have to serve as a proper deterrent? Back in the USSR days, I'm sure the Pentagon assumed that they'd need to nuke several hundred Soviet targets... and the Soviets knew that. So, do you need several hundred nukes? No, you need several *thousand.*

Pulling numbers directly out of the same dark hole that Bernie Sanders pulls his economic projections from, let's do some armwavy math. Let's say the US has 1,000 ICBM-deliverable nukes, and Da Enemy has 250 targets that would need to be destroyed. Great! You can destroy them twice, and stir the ashes twice again!

Well, lessee. Start with 1000.

Let's say the enemy first strike takes out 25% of the ICBMs. You now have 750 nukes.
Let's say when you give the order, 95% of the surviving launch crews hit the button. You have 712 nukes.
10% of the ICBMs fail to launch. Down to 640.
10% of the ICBMs fail in flight. Down to 576.
10% of the warheads are mis-targeted. Down to 518
25% of the warheads are taken out by anti-missile systems. Down to 388 warheads.
10% of the warheads fail to survive re-entry. Down to 349.
10% of the warheads fail to detonate. Down to 314.
10% of the targets were more hardened, or more mobile, than expected and survive. Down to 282.

Hmm. Looks like you've just *barely* got enough to get the job done once. But wait! Of the initial 1000 warheads, 25% were laid up for maintenance in the first place (because they were made thirty years ago from materials with a twenty-year shelf life), and were never getting off the ground. So you really only deliver 211 nukes. Da Enemy survives, and since they not only stockpiled more than you did, and you're a smaller nation with fewer targets, and their nukes are more modern and less buggy... they successfully nuke all *your* targets three times. Then they wait a few weeks to see who pops out of what holes, then nuke *them.* And they *still* have enough of a stockpile of nukes and delivery system to tell the rest of the world to shut the hell up and toe the new line.

You have an arsenal of a whole lot of nukes for the same reason you give snipers more than one bullet.
 
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons. Much harder to target, enough of them around to threaten the continued existence of opposing states as functioning entities.
 
Orionblamblam said:
kaiserd said:
I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.
Click to expand...

That's because some of us have done the math.

First, how many nukes successfully delivered to the target *and* properly detonated do you need to have to serve as a proper deterrent? Back in the USSR days, I'm sure the Pentagon assumed that they'd need to nuke several hundred Soviet targets... and the Soviets knew that. So, do you need several hundred nukes? No, you need several *thousand.*

Pulling numbers directly out of the same dark hole that Bernie Sanders pulls his economic projections from, let's do some armwavy math. Let's say the US has 1,000 ICBM-deliverable nukes, and Da Enemy has 250 targets that would need to be destroyed. Great! You can destroy them twice, and stir the ashes twice again!

Well, lessee. Start with 1000.

Let's say the enemy first strike takes out 25% of the ICBMs. You now have 750 nukes.
Let's say when you give the order, 95% of the surviving launch crews hit the button. You have 712 nukes.
10% of the ICBMs fail to launch. Down to 640.
10% of the ICBMs fail in flight. Down to 576.
10% of the warheads are mis-targeted. Down to 518
25% of the warheads are taken out by anti-missile systems. Down to 388 warheads.
10% of the warheads fail to survive re-entry. Down to 349.
10% of the warheads fail to detonate. Down to 314.
10% of the targets were more hardened, or more mobile, than expected and survive. Down to 282.

Hmm. Looks like you've just *barely* got enough to get the job done once. But wait! Of the initial 1000 warheads, 25% were laid up for maintenance in the first place (because they were made thirty years ago from materials with a twenty-year shelf life), and were never getting off the ground. So you really only deliver 211 nukes. Da Enemy survives, and since they not only stockpiled more than you did, and you're a smaller nation with fewer targets, and their nukes are more modern and less buggy... they successfully nuke all *your* targets three times. Then they wait a few weeks to see who pops out of what holes, then nuke *them.* And they *still* have enough of a stockpile of nukes and delivery system to tell the rest of the world to shut the hell up and toe the new line.

You have an arsenal of a whole lot of nukes for the same reason you give snipers more than one bullet.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?
I appreciate that there are issues like maintenance and possible enemy first strikes to take into account but if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.

And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers? Again this may involve swapping out older delivery systems for newer ones and/or new or upgraded warheads for older ones, but not an arbitrary race for higher overall numbers.

Ultimately Russia will badly struggle to pay for all of their new shopping list of nuclear related weapon systems (terrible strain on a not particularly robust economy) while the political realty is that neither US party can or will deliver the scale of sustained defence spending increases to fund a massive increase in the US nuclear forces (and your cherished desire for thousands more warheads).
 
Orionblamblam said:
You have an arsenal of a whole lot of nukes for the same reason you give snipers more than one bullet.
Click to expand...

Yet each sniper would claim they only need one bullet to kill their target.

You are assuming that you need many, many bullets to kill one target.

You are ignoring the reality that your nation has the means to kill the entire world's population multiple times as a consequence. You do not need that many warheads. It is overkill.

Neither do the Russians. However, only you have a vote in the USA and hence you control your government's will on the issue. If you believe you should take the world down with you, if the unthinkable should ever happen, then where does that leave you morally?

Are you concerned about the question of the morality of your actions and your beliefs or do you simply ignore them?

Your ratio of losses to successes assumes that each level of your opponent's defences are effective and your own missile's motors/guidance/launch systems are not. You also assume that the only way to fix that is to have even more warheads. The US military has said it does not believe in a "wargasm" of all warheads being launched at once in response (I note you assume the US will not engage in a first strike, why?). So you would never even more warheads yet again. How many warheads is enough? Do you issue a nuke to every infantryman? Where do you stop? 1,000 or 100,000? Who's going to pay for all those warheads? You? I doubt it, considering your attitude towards Government and taxation.
 
Arjen said:
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons. Much harder to target, enough of them around to threaten the continued existence of opposing states as functioning entities.
Click to expand...

In nuclear strategy - the practice of which has kept the world safe from nuclear war for 70 odd years and counting - SLBMs are actually a risky proposition. Because they rely on no technical surprise to be survivable. That is that the other guy hasn't introduced some tech that reveals their position within the lethal radius of a MIRV depth charge attack. Because if that happens then the enemy can take out 16-24 of your missiles with only one of theirs or even a non strategic asset with some super SSK(N). The Soviets/Russians facing the dilema of vulnerable SLBMs deployed them as first strike weapons or bastion based assets of limited survivability and deployed mobile land based ICBMs to try and achieve survivability parity.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Arjen said:
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons. Much harder to target, enough of them around to threaten the continued existence of opposing states as functioning entities.
Click to expand...

In nuclear strategy - the practice of which has kept the world safe from nuclear war for 70 odd years and counting - SLBMs are actually a risky proposition. Because they rely on no technical surprise to be survivable. That is that the other guy hasn't introduced some tech that reveals their position within the lethal radius of a MIRV depth charge attack. Because if that happens then the enemy can take out 16-24 of your missiles with only one of theirs or even a non strategic asset with some super SSK(N). The Soviets/Russians facing the dilema of vulnerable SLBMs deployed them as first strike weapons or bastion based assets of limited survivability and deployed mobile land based ICBMs to try and achieve survivability parity.
Click to expand...

Which system was considered how risky evolved over time. Missile silos deep in continental USA or deep in the Soviet Union would have been considered safe for most of the Cold War but increased accuracy and range of weapons like the evolutions of Trident rendered them more vulnerable to first strikes.
The USSR would have felt a lot of its land based nuclear forces to be more vulnerable following the prospect of the fielding of the ATB/ B-2 in significant numbers. At the same time its missile subs evolved to become quieter and more survivable with longer range missiles based closer to home and easier to defend including by improving quality SSNs.
In that context of all aspects of the nuclear triad being in some way vulnerable the submarine based deterrent looks relatively safe, reflected in the priority given to missile subs by the secondary nuclear powers like the UK, France (and Israel).
 
Abraham Gubler said:
[...]
SLBMs are actually a risky proposition. Because they rely on no technical surprise to be survivable. That is that the other guy hasn't introduced some tech that reveals their position within the lethal radius of a MIRV depth charge attack.
[...]
Click to expand...
The boomers will have to be found first. Following that, their position must be tracked in something very close to real time. I doubt the Russians or Chinese have the assets to achieve that with a few US, UK or French boomers - never mind most of them.

Firing ICBMs at moving targets? Good luck.
 
kaiserd said:
Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?
Click to expand...

He just pointed out to you that it wouldn't BE 1500 warheads.


kaiserd said:
I appreciate that there are issues like maintenance and possible enemy first strikes to take into account but if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.
Click to expand...

Lots of hand wavy stuff there. It's not black and white, either you deter or you may as well not fight, as you seem to be implying. While one might not "win" a nuclear war there are certainly varying degrees of how bad you can lose one. Do you really want to be in a situation where Russia almost kills the US, all of your warheads are gone, and China decides it would a be perfect opportunity to finish the job?

kaiserd said:
And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers?
Click to expand...

Uhm WUT? "Since the likelihood of a warhead getting to it's target is so low wouldn't it make sense to reduce the number of warheads you have?" In what kind of bizarro world does that make sense?
 
sferrin said:
kaiserd said:
Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?
Click to expand...

He just pointed out to you that it wouldn't BE 1500 warheads.


kaiserd said:
I appreciate that there are issues like maintenance and possible enemy first strikes to take into account but if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.
Click to expand...

Lots of hand wavy stuff there. It's not black and white, either you deter or you may as well not fight, as you seem to be implying. While one might not "win" a nuclear war there are certainly varying degrees of how bad you can lose one. Do you really want to be in a situation where Russia almost kills the US, all of your warheads are gone, and China decides it would a be perfect opportunity to finish the job?

kaiserd said:
And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers?
Click to expand...

Uhm WUT? "Since the likelihood of a warhead getting to it's target is so low wouldn't it make sense to reduce the number of warheads you have?" In what kind of bizarro world does that make sense?
Click to expand...
I've always found it quite vexing that those who want a strong deterrent so as to NEVER have to fight a war are immoral but those who advocate further warhead cuts and/or so-called minimum deterrence argue it's OK because we'd still have enough to kill millions of civilians call themselves moral?
 
bobbymike said:
I've always found it quite vexing that those who want a strong deterrent so as to NEVER have to fight a war are immoral but those who advocate further warhead cuts and/or so-called minimum deterrence argue it's OK because we'd still have enough to kill millions of civilians call themselves moral?
Click to expand...

No kidding. And the best way to NOT have to fight at all is to have more nuclear weapons. It's when the other guy thinks he might have a chance, or thinks the losses will be acceptable, that a nuclear war becomes more likely. This is just common sense. I mean seriously, you see it in every aspect of life. Who gets picked on in school, the weakling or the kid who will destroy you? Which animal gets singled out for dinner, the one who looks like he could stomp a lion into the dirt, or the slower, sickly specimen? Which house gets broken into, the one with no security and the owner out of town, or the house with security cameras , motion-activated lighting, and a gun nut inside?
 
Orionblamblam said:
Arjen said:
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

It also left out bomber-carried cruise missiles, fighter-carried gravity bombs, donkey-carried suitcase nukes. Only so many hours in the day.
Click to expand...

ICBM warheads were at 450 and are headed down. MMIII missiles were offloaded to 1 RV each, and the US is still removing ICBMs from service on it's way down to 400. Since it's common practice to target each target with multiple warheads that means you'll have to use multiple ICBMs (from a much smaller fleet) for each target whereas before you could cover a target with one missile.
 
kaiserd said:
Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?
Click to expand...

The job of warfare isn't just to kill millions of the enemy... it's to kill 'em enough that they stop. The Nazis killed millions of Russians, and looked how well 8that* worked for 'em. Stalin killed millions of Russians. Hell, according to YouTube, more than fifty million Russians are killed annually by drunk drivers.

Look at if from the other direction. Assume ISIS got hold of a couple Soviet citybusters and snuck them into the US, a few megatons in NYC and Chicago could kill millions of Americans. Would that be enough to defeat the US?

if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstand proper deterrence. It needs to be obvious to your enemy that if they do the worst they can, you will still be able to utterly defeat them, plus you will survive to go on. Your enemy has to know that they cannot defeat you.

And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers? Again this may involve swapping out older delivery systems for newer ones and/or new or upgraded warheads for older ones, but not an arbitrary race for higher overall numbers.
Click to expand...

Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.

(and your cherished desire for thousands more warheads).
Click to expand...

You can't send a ten thousand ton Orion to Ganymede with only a few dozen nukes, son.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.
Click to expand...

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
 
sferrin said:
Orionblamblam said:
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.
Click to expand...

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
Click to expand...
And no matter what is happening it is always the US's fault. We've basically stopped all development since 1991 while other nuclear adversaries have embarked on full modernization, why? Why does Russia and China employ close to 10X as many as the US in their nuclear enterprise? Why is Russia building systems that can carry 5 to 14 warheads each given New START limitations? What is in the 3000kn of tunnels run by China's nuclear force? Why does Russia have an active warhead production lines capable of 1000 pits/year to our 10/pits per year? Why does Russian nuclear modernization peak in 2021 right when New START expires, while Russian generals say the treaty is dead when it expires? Why does Russia maintain 10X as many tactical nukes as the US? Russian treaty violations? Russian military doctrine of de-escalation of conventional conflicts with tactical nukes?

These questions are concerning NOT because I want war it's because I hope to avoid war at all cost, absent surrender of course, now and 50 years from now, for my children's and grandchildren's future.

Our arsenal should be sized not in relation to Russia, that is Cold War thinking, but to the rest of the globe and the threats of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Orionblamblam said:
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.
Click to expand...

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
Click to expand...
And no matter what is happening it is always the US's fault. We've basically stopped all development since 1991 while other nuclear adversaries have embarked on full modernization, why? Why does Russia and China employ close to 10X as many as the US in their nuclear enterprise? Why is Russia building systems that can carry 5 to 14 warheads each given New START limitations? What is in the 3000kn of tunnels run by China's nuclear force? Why does Russia have an active warhead production lines capable of 1000 pits/year to our 10/pits per year? Why does Russian nuclear modernization peak in 2021 right when New START expires, while Russian generals say the treaty is dead when it expires? Why does Russia maintain 10X as many tactical nukes as the US? Russian treaty violations? Russian military doctrine of de-escalation of conventional conflicts with tactical nukes?

These questions are concerning NOT because I want war it's because I hope to avoid war at all cost, absent surrender of course, now and 50 years from now, for my children's and grandchildren's future.

Our arsenal should be sized not in relation to Russia, that is Cold War thinking, but to the rest of the globe and the threats of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.
Click to expand...

Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't) it begs the question of how is the US supposed to pay for the modernisation of infrastructure, warheads and deliver systems (which broadly speaking I agree is necessary) and massively expanding the numbers of warheads (which I think isn't necessary).
Your argument appears to be that the US needs to have nuclear forces of a scale and expense approaching and potentially exceeding their all time zenith back in the Cold War.
You could gut spending on US conventional forces and still run up short in the bill to pay for that plan.

Russian nuclear doctrine is based on the Russian military and Putin regimes conviction of their own relative conventional weapon weakness and their own perceived vulnerability (combined with their own lack of accountability and appeals to Russian ultra nationalism). The US doctrine should not be driven by same paranoia and even if was no one is willing or able to foot the bill (in the context of having the largest, most capable and most expensive military in the world).

You deter the Russian doctrine better by not buying into its lunacy of various stages of "low level" nuclear weapon use. In the real world any use of nuclear weapons by Russia or the US on each other or each other's close allies would rapidly escalate to a full exchange - all sides need to recognise this inescapable fact; any other approach just tempts a Putin (or Trump for all we know) to push their luck.

And going back to other contributors comments above deterrence has one key assumption; that all sides are somewhat rational. Hence the ability to kill tens of millions of your potential adversaries is sufficient, and the idea that you need to convince your opponent you can win a nuclear war is lunacy; you only have to convince them that the price to pay is too high and that they can't win.
In truth it may not be possible to fully deter a true sociopath like a Hitler, Stalin or Mao unless they believe they can be personally targeted or that their own apparatus would strike them down before or after such an event.
 
kaiserd said:
Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't) it begs the question of how is the US supposed to pay for the modernisation of infrastructure, warheads and deliver systems (which broadly speaking I agree is necessary) and massively expanding the numbers of warheads (which I think isn't necessary).
Your argument appears to be that the US needs to have nuclear forces of a scale and expense approaching and potentially exceeding their all time zenith back in the Cold War.
Click to expand...

Here. This. This, right here. I'd like you to take a look at the two sentences you wrote... one right after the other.

In the second sentence, you reference the scale of nuclear systems we *used* to have, when we were a smaller, poorer nation with a lower tech level and smaller economy. That follows a sentence that says that you seem to not understand how we could, today, with a bigger economy and vastly bigger government, afford what we once had.

Ponder that a bit.

It's a common and bizarre refrain. "It's impossible to do, because we did it once before, we're much richer today, and now we can't afford it."
 
kaiserd said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Orionblamblam said:
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.
Click to expand...

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
Click to expand...
And no matter what is happening it is always the US's fault. We've basically stopped all development since 1991 while other nuclear adversaries have embarked on full modernization, why? Why does Russia and China employ close to 10X as many as the US in their nuclear enterprise? Why is Russia building systems that can carry 5 to 14 warheads each given New START limitations? What is in the 3000kn of tunnels run by China's nuclear force? Why does Russia have an active warhead production lines capable of 1000 pits/year to our 10/pits per year? Why does Russian nuclear modernization peak in 2021 right when New START expires, while Russian generals say the treaty is dead when it expires? Why does Russia maintain 10X as many tactical nukes as the US? Russian treaty violations? Russian military doctrine of de-escalation of conventional conflicts with tactical nukes?

These questions are concerning NOT because I want war it's because I hope to avoid war at all cost, absent surrender of course, now and 50 years from now, for my children's and grandchildren's future.

Our arsenal should be sized not in relation to Russia, that is Cold War thinking, but to the rest of the globe and the threats of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.
Click to expand...

Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't) it begs the question of how is the US supposed to pay for the modernisation of infrastructure, warheads and deliver systems (which broadly speaking I agree is necessary) and massively expanding the numbers of warheads (which I think isn't necessary).
Your argument appears to be that the US needs to have nuclear forces of a scale and expense approaching and potentially exceeding their all time zenith back in the Cold War.
You could gut spending on US conventional forces and still run up short in the bill to pay for that plan.

Russian nuclear doctrine is based on the Russian military and Putin regimes conviction of their own relative conventional weapon weakness and their own perceived vulnerability (combined with their own lack of accountability and appeals to Russian ultra nationalism). The US doctrine should not be driven by same paranoia and even if was no one is willing or able to foot the bill (in the context of having the largest, most capable and most expensive military in the world).

You deter the Russian doctrine better by not buying into its lunacy of various stages of "low level" nuclear weapon use. In the real world any use of nuclear weapons by Russia or the US on each other or each other's close allies would rapidly escalate to a full exchange - all sides need to recognise this inescapable fact; any other approach just tempts a Putin (or Trump for all we know) to push their luck.

And going back to other contributors comments above deterrence has one key assumption; that all sides are somewhat rational. Hence the ability to kill tens of millions of your potential adversaries is sufficient, and the idea that you need to convince your opponent you can win a nuclear war is lunacy; you only have to convince them that the price to pay is too high and that they can't win.
In truth it may not be possible to fully deter a true sociopath like a Hitler, Stalin or Mao unless they believe they can be personally targeted or that their own apparatus would strike them down before or after such an event.
Click to expand...

More handy wavy, emotional, rhetoric. Russia and China aren't going to behave and think like you want them to just because you say they "need" to. That's not how the real world works.

" you only have to convince them that the price to pay is too high and that they can't win."

Helloooo, that's what we've been saying.
 
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

As I have repeatedly stated deep and extensive modernisation of US nuclear forces looks to be necessary; massive expansion remains an unachievable unnecessary niche fantasy.

It is politically and economically unachievable for the US to turn your dream into reality.
Your Cold War build up of nuclear weapons occurred during a period of signicantly higher taxation, lower government spending on non-defence areas, and was initially at the expense of spending on conventional forces. It also contributed to a massive increase in your deficit.

What coalition of Republicans and/or Democrats do you see very significantly raising taxes, cutting non-defence government spending, slashing non-nuclear defense spending and/or further massive increases in your deficit, all to fuel what to many will appear to be an arbitrary nuclear warhead race.

You appear intent to invent "peaceniks" to argue with; I am no such thing, I simply felt the duty to challenge some absurd assumptions; I think I've now done my duty :)
 
kaiserd said:
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

As I have repeatedly stated deep and extensive modernisation of US nuclear forces looks to be necessary; massive expansion remains an unachievable unnecessary niche fantasy.

It is politically and economically unachievable for the US to turn your dream into reality.
Your Cold War build up of nuclear weapons occurred during a period of signicantly higher taxation, lower government spending on non-defence areas, and was initially at the expense of spending on conventional forces. It also contributed to a massive increase in your deficit.

What coalition of Republicans and/or Democrats do you see very significantly raising taxes, cutting non-defence government spending, slashing non-nuclear defense spending and/or further massive increases in your deficit, all to fuel what to many will appear to be an arbitrary nuclear warhead race.

You appear intent to invent "peaceniks" to argue with; I am no such thing, I simply felt the duty to challenge some absurd assumptions; I think I've now done my duty :)
Click to expand...
You really haven't been paying attention the goal is actually to kill no one through effective deterrence. You could easily accomplish my nuclear modernization program with $20 extra billion per year or 1/2 of 1% of current government spending. During the Reagan build up nuke spending approached .80% of GDP or equal to $145B/annum today my program would peak around $45B/annum less than 1/3.

Of course no where do I describe what 'force levels' I feel are adequate you made up a number and associated it with my and others posts. So you basically just were debating your own strawman accomplishing nothing.
 
kaiserd said:
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.
 
Orionblamblam said:
kaiserd said:
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.
Click to expand...

It's suppose to invoke an emotional response. The equivalent of "think of the children". Logic has no part of it. I doubt he's even aware he's doing it.
 
North Korea Launches Missile During Nuclear Summit

—Will Skowronski4/4/2016

Hours after President Barack Obama discussed deterring North Korean aggression with Japan’s and South Korea’s presidents, North Korea appeared to launch a missile into the sea, Reuters reported. North Korea has actively attempted to showcase its nuclear ambition recently, purportedly detonating its first thermonuclear weapon in January and conducting a nuclear missile test March 17. The three leaders met on March 31 as they and leaders from more than 50 other countries and international organizations gathered in Washington, D.C., for the fourth and final planned Nuclear Security Summit to discuss how to prevent nuclear proliferation. “It's not surprising that one of the topics most on our minds is the issue of North Korea,” Obama said after the trilateral meeting. “And we are united in our efforts to deter and defend against North Korean provocations.” Obama also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on March 31. “Of great importance to both of us is North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, which threatens the security and stability of the region,” he said before that meeting. The United States and China, as well as a number of other​ countries, issued separate joint statements last week affirming their plans to continue working together on nuclear security after the final summit ends.
 
sferrin said:
Orionblamblam said:
kaiserd said:
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.
Click to expand...

It's suppose to invoke an emotional response. The equivalent of "think of the children". Logic has no part of it. I doubt he's even aware he's doing it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Whatever the reasoning, it's clearly wrong:
"The US has the ability to kill millions of Chinese via genetically engineered smallpox. Thus we don't need to spend all this money on soldiers and tanks and Marines and whatnot."
 
bobbymike said:
I've always found it quite vexing that those who want a strong deterrent so as to NEVER have to fight a war are immoral but those who advocate further warhead cuts and/or so-called minimum deterrence argue it's OK because we'd still have enough to kill millions of civilians call themselves moral?
Click to expand...

The problem is how you define and maintain a "strong deterrent" as against an adequate deterrent. Deterrence works on the belief that your opponent will not attack you because the cost to his society will be sufficient to destroy it. Destroying it many times over is overkill. It comes from a desire, I suspect for revenge, rather than because of a rational choice about what constitutes deterrence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom