Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-flight-tests-multiple-warhead-missile/
IMO, why the GBSD needs to be MIRV/MaRV capable even if initially loaded with single RV under New START total warhead numbers.
IMO, why the GBSD needs to be MIRV/MaRV capable even if initially loaded with single RV under New START total warhead numbers.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
bobbymike said:
IMO the Minuteman replacement needs to be Peacekeeper sized for maximum flexibility. Big enough for a variety of payloads (including conventional and/or boost gliders, powered RVs etc.) but not so large as to preclude rail mobility. Ideally I'd prefer something like 500 Midgetmen and 200 Peacekeepers with maybe 100 Midgetmen and 50 Peacekeepers dedicated to the conventional role. Have all the conventional missiles in silos, as well as the remaining Peacekeepers, with the nuclear Midgetmen mobile.
Sorry guys, accidentally posted this in the NEWS ONLY thread. :-[ Deleted that to save the mods some time and headache.
Don't visit here enough to notice these things. Sorry.
Anyway...
Why does the GBSD Program Office even exist at all?
Does USAF even talk to USN at all?
Deployment of GBSD is going to begin in 2027...IF things go to plan. Meanwhile, the USN is going to be capable of sea deployment of combat lasers capable of swatting down advanced MARVs at about that period - meaning GBSD is going to have a "moment in the sun" of just a few years before it's obsolete.
Let's not even get into the possibilities of ground-based laser defenses -- even if Baseline Zero 1.0 Megawatt Solid State Laser can only reach about 30 miles on a good day from a ground location; then that means a single defense pyramid located at Andrews AFB can defend the entire District of Columbia area from enemy MARVs all day long; and reduces the enemy to attacking during a blinding snowstorm or heavy thunderstorm.
And that doesn't take into account foreign power deployment of SSLs. The Chinese aren't going to be far behind, while the Russians, for all their money problems, can deploy a Moscow-based laser defense.
Don't visit here enough to notice these things. Sorry.
Anyway...
Why does the GBSD Program Office even exist at all?
Does USAF even talk to USN at all?
Deployment of GBSD is going to begin in 2027...IF things go to plan. Meanwhile, the USN is going to be capable of sea deployment of combat lasers capable of swatting down advanced MARVs at about that period - meaning GBSD is going to have a "moment in the sun" of just a few years before it's obsolete.
Let's not even get into the possibilities of ground-based laser defenses -- even if Baseline Zero 1.0 Megawatt Solid State Laser can only reach about 30 miles on a good day from a ground location; then that means a single defense pyramid located at Andrews AFB can defend the entire District of Columbia area from enemy MARVs all day long; and reduces the enemy to attacking during a blinding snowstorm or heavy thunderstorm.
And that doesn't take into account foreign power deployment of SSLs. The Chinese aren't going to be far behind, while the Russians, for all their money problems, can deploy a Moscow-based laser defense.
Attachments
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
RyanC said:
I'll believe it when I see it. BMD killing lasers have been "just around the corner" since the 80s. Furthermore, it's a WHOLE lot easier to laser harden a MARV than to 10-100x your laser power. Lasers also require targeting systems which themselves can be attacked with DEWs. Lastly, having those GBSDs in the ground gives you options. There's no reason you couldn't swap out RVs for BGRVs to reduce your exposure to these theoretical lasers. And what's the alternative? Giving up? History is full of superweapons that were going to make war obsolete. So far none of them have lived up to the hype.
sferrin said:
We've hit increment 0.5 in that chart with the IOC of the 30 KW AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System in Mid-Late 2014 on the USS Ponce; and we're working on increment 1.5 with HELLADS.
Actually, not really. All you have to do is burn a pit on the MARV surface and hypersonic aerodynamics will do the rest for you, either destroying the vehicle or knocking it so far off course it doesn't hit the target.
Can said DEWs fit within a SS-18 payload/throw envelope and not significantly impact payload/throw weight to CONUS?
Like what? All they do is cause the enemy to use incredibly dirty groundbursts to destroy them. And because they're ballistic missiles, it becomes easy to concentrate defenses to counter them; since for example, there are only so many trajectories that a GBSD flying from Minot can fly if it wants to deliver x payload to Outer Loonystan.
There's no reason you couldn't swap out RVs for BGRVs to reduce your exposure to these theoretical lasers.
Congratulations, the laser defenses have shot down a significant portion of incoming RVs by simply existing.
The manned bomber lives again, thanks to it's large payload enabling physical and electronic countermeasures galore, and it's intercontinental range (fly where enemy defenses aren't)?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
And the fact the enemy has to do this as well as use roughly 900 out of its 1550 warheads (assuming New START) is a huge problem for any adversary to consider. They HAVE to go nuclear on your homeland.
With SSBNs and bombers you could theoretically kill them with conventional weapons and/or very few nuclear weapons. Plus of course there is their promptness in both retargetability and launchabilitiy, It adds real deterrent value to the Triad given, in reality, their tiny cost in proportion to federal government and defense spending in total.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
RyanC said:
Congratulations. You're 3% the way to a megawatt (not even ABL, which was cancelled due to ineffectiveness).
RyanC said:
This is far easier said than done. These lasers aren't focusing on an area the size of a dime so a "pit" isn't going to happen. Furthermore a maneuvering RV is going to be surrounded in plasma that you're going to have to shoot through. Then there's dwell time. Yeah, not so easy.
RyanC said:
Why would it need to? Put them on satellites. And SS-18s? GBSD isn't a
RyanC said:
Dirty ground bursts? Wait, are you seriously quibbling over forcing the enemy to WORK to destroy our weapons? Easy to concentrate defenses. . .what? Unless you're planning on having megawatt lasers (and their associated long-range tracking/targeting systems) parked at every potential target there are MANY trajectories that can be taken. (Especially if you're using BGRVs.) Furthermore, Minot is not the only place ICBMs are deployed. They're also in Montana and Wyoming.
RyanC said:
Really? How exactly? By magic?
RyanC said:
Wow. You complain about ICBMs being easy to take out and then propose to replace them by a solution that is pitifully easy to take out, no magic lasers necessary? One airburst from a depressed trajectory SLBM could knock out the ENTIRE B-2 fleet before it even got off the runway.
Congratulations. You're 3% the way to a megawatt (not even ABL, which was cancelled due to ineffectiveness).
Thanks for reminding me of YAL-1A; which means Heavy Laser Air Defense is actually DOD TRL 7, since the drawbacks of chemical lasers (thousands of gallons of 'fuel') and the problems involved in making the laser airborne (withstand flight environment, pass lasing beam into ball turret, which has to be light enough to fit into a plane) disappear if we place it into a giant SENTINEL-esque Pyramid stolen from Stargate SG-1.
Second, ABL was cancelled (along with a bunch of other ABM stuff such as MKV) by the Obama administration; not because of 'ineffectiveness'.
That's exactly how the current generation of light anti-artillery lasers under test work to destroy artillery shells -- which have much thicker shell walls, spin a lot faster, and are in the supersonic, not hypersonic regime -- yet the artillery shells come apart nicely, despite being in a much more benign regime than a RV.
So, you're all for space weaponization? At which point why even have ICBM silos in North Dakota. Just put all 900 RVs in orbiting garages -- which if they're attacked, has much less negative effects on CONUS than a fixed ground based deployment.
You were talking about countering laser defenses via attacking the targeting systems. That means what's going to be used is either SS-18 or whatever new doom missile is replacing it in Russian service, or whatever the Chinese cook up for a heavy ICBM.
Did someone just replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?
I'd like to avoid this scenario as much as possible:
It made sense -- once -- to put missiles in silos, as opposed to extremely weak above ground coffin launchers; but that moment's passed.
There's a reason the nation who has been spending the most on actual new nuclear missiles has been buying mobile systems by a large margin in their latest round of purchases -- 63 x Mobile RS-24 Yars vs just ten silo based ones; plus the potentiality of train based RS-24 (they announced that in 2013; any news lately?).
Actually, not really. See attached map.
It's for Titan II, not the more recent systems, but it gives you an idea -- if you want to hit Moscow with Titan II, there are only a few generalized trajectories that can be taken with Titan II, particularly if you want to actually use Titan II for what it was made to do -- deliver a 7,500~ lb payload.
If you wanted to defend Moscow against say, US ICBM fields; that would significantly influence site selection for various components of your defense for maximum effectiveness against said US ICBM fields.
I hate to repeat myself, but did someone replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?
Virtual Attrition is the term. If I have 200 weapons capable of going BOOM on the enemy's territory, and the enemy introduces new defenses that force me to replace the older 200 weapons with 100 new weapons capable of penetrating the new defenses; his defenses have effectively erased 100 weapons by simply existing.
It's how the Soviet Union reduced the British nuclear deterrent from vaporizing in excess of 150 targets (V-Force 1962) to 48 (Polaris 1969), to basically about one major urban industrial area (Moscow with Polaris-Chevaline 1982).
There's two easy solutions to that:
A.) Put the B-1s back on nuclear alert, along with the rest of the bomber fleet, locked, cocked and ready to go with nukes on board, like George H.W. Bush never happened.
B.) Co-locate heavy laser defense systems next to not-SAC-but-SAC-in-all-but-name bases (you may do the same for ICBM fields, if you are worried about stealthy drones flying over them and dropping rocket boosted precision munitions onto silo doors).
(NOTE: Option #B was what was proposed for the old SENTINEL/SAFEGUARD system back in the day, but was outlawed by the ABM treaty.)
.
.
.
With all that said, I am not stridently opposed to an interim SICBM if it was possible to buy a new single-warhead missile with 500 lbs of payload for "extras", and have it completely deployed in 48 to 60 months (2020-2021) in both existing silos and as a road-mobile missile (leveraging Midgetman technology) to act as an interim bridge between the present kludged together 1960s/1970s/1980s/1990s technology level deterrence force and whatever comes in the future when we have to deal with DEWs as a fact of life.
But taking eleven years to get to a deployed missile? (Current GBSD Program of Record) NOPE.
That also brings me to another point -- SSBN-X is going to enter service in 2031 (fifteen years from now), when DEWs are going to be an established fact of life; and in the process it's going to severely constrain the entire US Navy shipbuilding budget during the time period leading up to and after IOC.
It's not going to be pretty and it's going to make the F-35 mess look positively neat.
Thanks for reminding me of YAL-1A; which means Heavy Laser Air Defense is actually DOD TRL 7, since the drawbacks of chemical lasers (thousands of gallons of 'fuel') and the problems involved in making the laser airborne (withstand flight environment, pass lasing beam into ball turret, which has to be light enough to fit into a plane) disappear if we place it into a giant SENTINEL-esque Pyramid stolen from Stargate SG-1.
Second, ABL was cancelled (along with a bunch of other ABM stuff such as MKV) by the Obama administration; not because of 'ineffectiveness'.
That's exactly how the current generation of light anti-artillery lasers under test work to destroy artillery shells -- which have much thicker shell walls, spin a lot faster, and are in the supersonic, not hypersonic regime -- yet the artillery shells come apart nicely, despite being in a much more benign regime than a RV.
So, you're all for space weaponization? At which point why even have ICBM silos in North Dakota. Just put all 900 RVs in orbiting garages -- which if they're attacked, has much less negative effects on CONUS than a fixed ground based deployment.
You were talking about countering laser defenses via attacking the targeting systems. That means what's going to be used is either SS-18 or whatever new doom missile is replacing it in Russian service, or whatever the Chinese cook up for a heavy ICBM.
Did someone just replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?
I'd like to avoid this scenario as much as possible:
It made sense -- once -- to put missiles in silos, as opposed to extremely weak above ground coffin launchers; but that moment's passed.
There's a reason the nation who has been spending the most on actual new nuclear missiles has been buying mobile systems by a large margin in their latest round of purchases -- 63 x Mobile RS-24 Yars vs just ten silo based ones; plus the potentiality of train based RS-24 (they announced that in 2013; any news lately?).
Actually, not really. See attached map.
It's for Titan II, not the more recent systems, but it gives you an idea -- if you want to hit Moscow with Titan II, there are only a few generalized trajectories that can be taken with Titan II, particularly if you want to actually use Titan II for what it was made to do -- deliver a 7,500~ lb payload.
If you wanted to defend Moscow against say, US ICBM fields; that would significantly influence site selection for various components of your defense for maximum effectiveness against said US ICBM fields.
I hate to repeat myself, but did someone replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?
Virtual Attrition is the term. If I have 200 weapons capable of going BOOM on the enemy's territory, and the enemy introduces new defenses that force me to replace the older 200 weapons with 100 new weapons capable of penetrating the new defenses; his defenses have effectively erased 100 weapons by simply existing.
It's how the Soviet Union reduced the British nuclear deterrent from vaporizing in excess of 150 targets (V-Force 1962) to 48 (Polaris 1969), to basically about one major urban industrial area (Moscow with Polaris-Chevaline 1982).
There's two easy solutions to that:
A.) Put the B-1s back on nuclear alert, along with the rest of the bomber fleet, locked, cocked and ready to go with nukes on board, like George H.W. Bush never happened.
B.) Co-locate heavy laser defense systems next to not-SAC-but-SAC-in-all-but-name bases (you may do the same for ICBM fields, if you are worried about stealthy drones flying over them and dropping rocket boosted precision munitions onto silo doors).
(NOTE: Option #B was what was proposed for the old SENTINEL/SAFEGUARD system back in the day, but was outlawed by the ABM treaty.)
.
.
.
With all that said, I am not stridently opposed to an interim SICBM if it was possible to buy a new single-warhead missile with 500 lbs of payload for "extras", and have it completely deployed in 48 to 60 months (2020-2021) in both existing silos and as a road-mobile missile (leveraging Midgetman technology) to act as an interim bridge between the present kludged together 1960s/1970s/1980s/1990s technology level deterrence force and whatever comes in the future when we have to deal with DEWs as a fact of life.
But taking eleven years to get to a deployed missile? (Current GBSD Program of Record) NOPE.
That also brings me to another point -- SSBN-X is going to enter service in 2031 (fifteen years from now), when DEWs are going to be an established fact of life; and in the process it's going to severely constrain the entire US Navy shipbuilding budget during the time period leading up to and after IOC.
It's not going to be pretty and it's going to make the F-35 mess look positively neat.
Attachments
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
RyanC said:
They took a shot at what, ONE missile and then benched it. That doesn't strike me as being a resounding success.
RyanC said:
Hmmm, I'm thinking shooting at a non-reflective, steel target in direct contact with high explosives from maybe a mile away might have something to do with that. Those aren't aerodynamic forces tearing those rounds apart. Also mortars are not spin-stabilized.
RyanC said:
Where did I say anything like that? I'm not talking about dozens of Zenith Stars up there. Hell it could be something as simple as a 1kw laser on the PBV.
RyanC said:
Even a dozen Zenith Stars in orbit is a far, FAR cry from "900 RVs in orbiting garages".
RyanC said:
GBSD is a US program. You're talking about Chinese or Russian strategic laser batteries blowing them away like confetti. Where do SS-18s come into play with that?
RyanC said:
Nope. But you might want to ask yourself why every US system that might attack a system in space uses IIR instead of radar.
RyanC said:
I'd like to avoid this scenario as much as possible:
Wait, I thought you said ICBMs were obsolete? So how would that ever happen? Besides, if there is a general nuclear exchange fallout will be the least of our problems.
RyanC said:
Yeah, not so much. The idea is to deter an attack and make it difficult for the other guy. Silos work wonderfully for that. (Deterence value goes FAR beyond, "how difficult is it to kill on paper".)
RyanC said:
I'd prefer a fully mobile ICBM force but that'll never happen. (You'll note the Russians don't have mobile SS-18s.)
RyanC said:
Actually, yes really. It's not as simple as, "there's only one direction, from one side of the planet to the other". BGRVs complicate that even further. Any US ICBM could be headed anywhere from Kaliningrad to the Sea of Okhotsk. That's a metric fookton of possible trajectories.
RyanC said:
Sure, if I want to hit Moscow. There are more targets in Russia than Moscow.
RyanC said:
Sure. Now you have to do the same around every other target that might qualify for a nuke. BGRVs change that equation though.
RyanC said:
Except the other guy hasn't actually demonstrated he can do so. (Though he certainly has many, MANY defenses capable of easily dealing with cruise missiles.) Speaking of "virtual attrition" though:
RyanC said:
What system did they widely deploy that had a 100% effectiveness against Polaris?
RyanC said:
Realistically, those days are gone. For one thing the B-1B is forbidden from nukes. For another your average left-of-center citizen would crap metric tons of bricks at the very thought of bombers on nuclear alert. Lastly any S-300/400 would make short work of those bombers or any cruise missile they might carry. And there are many of those systems. Not to mention, by the time your bombers got there pretty much anything worth hitting would be long gone.
RyanC said:
Not worried even a little bit about that last bit. If that managed the miracle of actually GETTING to the ICBM fields they'd be dropping on empty silos.
RyanC said:
Don't recall ever hearing of massive laser turrets proposed as part of the Safeguard system.
.
.
.
RyanC said:
Agreed for the most part. I'd still want some heavy ICBMs in silos for BGRVs (I'd think a small ICBM wouldn't have the throw for that.)
RyanC said:
You and me both, but it's better than nothing.
RyanC said:
I don't disagree that the procurement trainwreck coming in shipbuilding isn't going to be pretty (the real kicker is anybody paying attention saw it coming decades ago). I'm less convinced we'll see ICBM-capable DEWs widely deployed in the next 15 years.
I'd recommend starting a different post as this is getting long enough to be a PITA to edit.
What system did they widely deploy that had a 100% effectiveness against Polaris?
The British basically mirror imaged what the loss of London would mean to them when imagining the loss of Moscow to the USSR -- so they designed Chevaline to make sure they blew Moscow off the map through both technical means (loss of 1 RV and shorter missile range to accommodate all sorts of decoys etc on a small spacecraft that also happened to be a post-boost vehicle.) and by overtargeting the Polaris-Chevaline force onto Moscow to be assured of penetration of the Moscow ABM system.
I don't know how long the British stuck to either aspects of Polaris-Chevaline (loss of range through technical means / missile overtargeting) during it's operational lifetime before it was replaced by Trident.
The British basically mirror imaged what the loss of London would mean to them when imagining the loss of Moscow to the USSR -- so they designed Chevaline to make sure they blew Moscow off the map through both technical means (loss of 1 RV and shorter missile range to accommodate all sorts of decoys etc on a small spacecraft that also happened to be a post-boost vehicle.) and by overtargeting the Polaris-Chevaline force onto Moscow to be assured of penetration of the Moscow ABM system.
I don't know how long the British stuck to either aspects of Polaris-Chevaline (loss of range through technical means / missile overtargeting) during it's operational lifetime before it was replaced by Trident.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
Heritage Foundation NDAA17 recommendations for nukes.
Strengthen U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities. A modern, flexible, and capable nuclear weapons posture is essential to keeping the U.S. safe, its allies assured, and its enemies deterred. In order to improve the U.S. strategic posture, Congress and the Pentagon should:
◦Oppose misguided arms reductions. Congress should not provide funding for implementation of agreements that put the U.S. at a disadvantage and that do not benefit U.S. national security—agreements such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which Russia is violating. Congress should not provide funding for unilateral nuclear weapons–reduction efforts while all other nuclear players are modernizing and expanding their arsenals.
◦Modernize U.S. nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems are aging and in need of investment. If they are not modernized, the U.S. will soon have inadequate nuclear weapons infrastructure and inadequate nuclear delivery platforms. Further delays increase the overall costs of the programs and leave the U.S. less capable of responding to unexpected developments in the nuclear programs of other nations.
◦Consider the benefits of yield-producing experiments for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Conducting very-small-scale, yield-producing experiments would benefit the science that underpins the program, and the U.S. could gain important benefits; indeed, China and Russia are already conducting such experiments.[21]
◦Advance a “protect-and-defend” strategic posture. At the core of today’s world is a fundamental asymmetry between the values of the U.S. and the values of its adversaries. While the U.S. values the lives of its citizens, economic prosperity, and institutions, U.S. adversaries value leadership survival above all. The U.S. should develop precise means to credibly threaten that which its adversaries value, and deploy both passive and active defenses to remove the benefits that adversaries might gain by attacking the U.S. or its allies.
◦Re-evaluate U.S. strategic nuclear posture. The Pentagon currently bases its nuclear posture on the notion that “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and prospects for military confrontation have declined dramatically.”[22] In light of Russia’s demonstrated recklessness in Ukraine and its nuclear weapons modernization steps, this posture is no longer valid.
Strengthen U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities. A modern, flexible, and capable nuclear weapons posture is essential to keeping the U.S. safe, its allies assured, and its enemies deterred. In order to improve the U.S. strategic posture, Congress and the Pentagon should:
◦Oppose misguided arms reductions. Congress should not provide funding for implementation of agreements that put the U.S. at a disadvantage and that do not benefit U.S. national security—agreements such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which Russia is violating. Congress should not provide funding for unilateral nuclear weapons–reduction efforts while all other nuclear players are modernizing and expanding their arsenals.
◦Modernize U.S. nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems are aging and in need of investment. If they are not modernized, the U.S. will soon have inadequate nuclear weapons infrastructure and inadequate nuclear delivery platforms. Further delays increase the overall costs of the programs and leave the U.S. less capable of responding to unexpected developments in the nuclear programs of other nations.
◦Consider the benefits of yield-producing experiments for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Conducting very-small-scale, yield-producing experiments would benefit the science that underpins the program, and the U.S. could gain important benefits; indeed, China and Russia are already conducting such experiments.[21]
◦Advance a “protect-and-defend” strategic posture. At the core of today’s world is a fundamental asymmetry between the values of the U.S. and the values of its adversaries. While the U.S. values the lives of its citizens, economic prosperity, and institutions, U.S. adversaries value leadership survival above all. The U.S. should develop precise means to credibly threaten that which its adversaries value, and deploy both passive and active defenses to remove the benefits that adversaries might gain by attacking the U.S. or its allies.
◦Re-evaluate U.S. strategic nuclear posture. The Pentagon currently bases its nuclear posture on the notion that “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and prospects for military confrontation have declined dramatically.”[22] In light of Russia’s demonstrated recklessness in Ukraine and its nuclear weapons modernization steps, this posture is no longer valid.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,805
- Reaction score
- 10,297
Obama Admin Withholding Details of ‘Potentially Illegal’ Deal to Buy Iranian Nuke Materials (The Washington Free Beacon)
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
bobbymike said:
Why must it be one reason or another? Why cannot be a combination of all the reasons? No one knew the effects of Atomic weapons. Only one had been exploded, few had witnessed it and few understood the philosophical and moral reasoning about their use. America's high command appeared intent on one thing - the defeat of Japan and of course, the primacy of the USA in the world. The quickest way to achieve both, without question was to shock the Japanese and the world. That the Japanese were seeking surrender was immaterial to the US high command. They apparently weren't interested in the simplistic Casablanca formula of "unconditional surrender" therefore they had to be defeated. That the Soviets were fulfilling their requirements under the Tehran conference was dangerous to US primacy in the Pacific. They had to be stopped before they invaded the Japanese home islands. The instrument by which all that could be achieved was the Atomic bomb. So they dropped it. That they saved lives - American, British, Australian, Indian, Soviet as well as Japanese was beneficial to all involved.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,614
Kadija_Man said:
Speaking historically not quite true to say Japan was looking to surrender - peace feelers were being put out via the Soviets (who were about to enter against Japan) but internal Japanesse strategic decision making was drifting in inertia before the A bombs and Russian entry (striping them of their Chinese empire) weakened the Hawks that wanted to get better terms by fighting on and galivanized those looking to surrender. Revisionist history stating A-bomb use wasn't necessary a bit off the truth in this regard (as Kajida Man said above ultimately even saved Japanese lives).
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
bobbymike said:
I'm surprised this is even a thing anymore. WWII wasn't a "police action" or "nation building" (at least not on our part). It was all-out war. Survival of the nation stuff. Not only do the gloves come off but if you can find a broken bottle in the street you use that too. You use whatever you can get your hands on. It's oh so easy to criticize and second guess from 70 years after the fact.
Wow. . .some people actually think it was "racist"? Hate to burst their bubble but if we'd had them earlier we'd have been dropping them on Adolf's head too.
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 776
sferrin said:
Typically, the article presents an ahistorical false dichotomy; the question at the time wasn't whether to use WMD or not but what types to use and where and how to employ them.
OLYMPIC and CORONET were always going to be supported by large scale tactical and strategic use of chemical weapons as the US had the world's largest stockpiles and after May 1945 had access to large quantities of the German nerve agents Sarin and Tabun.
And there were plans to use the weaponized biological agents developed under the Merck effort against Japanese crops and livestock with secondary attacks on population centers.
As to Truman being racist he was acutely aware of Japanese racism and how the invasion of the home islands by white men would galvanize the defenders all the more.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
US Discloses Senior Official Sold Nuclear Secrets to China
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/173478/us-discloses-senior-official-sold-nuclear-secrets-to-china.html
"A Taiwan-born American citizen has admitted selling nuclear information to China while he was a senior manager at the U.S. government's Tennessee Valley Authority, federal officials say.
Court records unsealed Friday show that Ching Ning Guey admitted traveling to China and receiving payments in return for handing over restricted information about U.S. nuclear technology. Federal officials who discussed the case indicated China is suspected of running a spy program to evade U.S. security precautions and collect high-tech information. "
It really is a shame they don't execute people for this kind of crap anymore.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/173478/us-discloses-senior-official-sold-nuclear-secrets-to-china.html
"A Taiwan-born American citizen has admitted selling nuclear information to China while he was a senior manager at the U.S. government's Tennessee Valley Authority, federal officials say.
Court records unsealed Friday show that Ching Ning Guey admitted traveling to China and receiving payments in return for handing over restricted information about U.S. nuclear technology. Federal officials who discussed the case indicated China is suspected of running a spy program to evade U.S. security precautions and collect high-tech information. "
It really is a shame they don't execute people for this kind of crap anymore.
NeilChapman
Interested 3rd party
- Joined
- 14 December 2015
- Messages
- 1,282
- Reaction score
- 477
Kadija_Man said:
A question and several observations...
1. Please support your statement in bold above.
2. Back at post #28 you stated "I'll leave you to it". Yet you didn't.
3. I lived on Okinawa where at least 100,000 died and there were 50k wounded. After living the battles of the Pacific it would have been illogical to presume any less lethality on the home islands. IMHO invasion by the US would likely have been exponentially more catastrophic for the Japanese people. This had absolutely nothing to do with the "primacy of the USA in the world".
4. The Japanese were not seeking to surrender. There was no Japanese word for surrender. On June 22, the Japanese decided to send an envoy to Russia to seek a "diplomatic solution." That plan was for a mediated solution which kept in place the "old order". The recklessness of the Japanese leadership in sacrificing its troops and subjects is documented in the defense planned for the home islands. We know that defense included 5500 kamikaze planes, 1300 suicide submarines, hundreds of piloted bombs, suicide frogmen using underwater bunkers and 900,000 men on Kyushu. The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles; to take it, therefore, cost the United States 407 soldiers (killed or missing) for every 10 square miles of island. If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per square mile as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
5. The PRC has contributed significantly to nuclear proliferation which resulted in programs in Pakistan, Iran, and N Korea at the very least. So yes, the US must have a nuclear deterrent large enough to address these capabilities.
6. The PRC, Russia, Iran and N Korea are not behaving as good neighbors. Begin by looking at the relations they have with countries on their borders. The US is forced to respond to these behavior problems.
7. This is not a peaceful world. There are those for whom the rights of an individual human being mean little or absolutely nothing. The State is more important. We should work to change those minds. But in the meantime, the US and its triad of nuclear deterrent the best chance the world has to continue the level of stability that has allowed..
Poverty reduction worldwide from 60% in 1950 to 20% today.
Poverty reduction in China from over 80% in 1980 to ~15% today.
Reduction in combat deaths from 240 per million in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.
Deaths by famine have dropped from over 18 million in the 1960's to less than 4 million in the 1990's
Increases in male height (evidence of malnutrition reductions) by ~10cm on all continents except Africa.
But, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps some other country for whom the rights of an individual human being are paramount will step into this position to continue the positive results we've seen since the 1950's.
China?
Russia?
Iran?
North Korea?
the United Kingdom?
France?
India?
Israel?
Do nuclear weapons offer a risk reduction calculus for the United States and the world against totalitarian governments using theirs? Yes
Is it expensive? Yes
I guess we better hope that the US is willing to continue to pay for this deterrent.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 491
NeilChapman said:
This is obvious from the policies adopted progressively by the US High Command during the war. Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan. US Government agencies were created and took control of the world's economy. American attitudes increasingly became and remain amongst some Americans a case of "Well we're doing all the fighting, so we should reap all the rewards..."
Yeah, you got me there...
Alternatively the Japanese might have just surrendered and everybody might have lived a happy life.
Doubtful, I agree but there was always the chance. Particularly if the Allies and in particular the US had not stuck with the simplistic formula of, "unconditional surrender". The Japanese wanted to keep their emperor. They had no assurance that would be the case, so obviously they were going to keep on fighting.
Unfortunate, I don't doubt. The Japanese were quite willing to sacrifice equal or greater numbers I also don't doubt, defending their homeland from the invading Allies (you are aware that there were going to be Indian and Australian troops involved as well?) The Japanese were crazy I'm quite willing to admit but I must also admit I admire their commitment to ensure that the "Old Order" would remain. Yet, at the same time, the civilian Japanese bureaucracy were planning for their defeat...
I find it interesting that you're willing to blame the PRC for nuclear proliferation (and I must admit they must carry that burden) but ignore that the Pakistani nuclear programme was funded largely by the US Government. That the US Government ignored the Israeli nuclear programme as well and of course, helped the French and British ones. It appears that the US has to bear some of the blame for proliferation as well.
As to whether your nation needs to deter other nations from attacking it is a question that I feel is being ignored here. What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons? Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan? I doubt it. Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody.
In part I agree however, being "good" or "bad" as far as neighbours are concerned, often is dependent upon the viewpoint. The PRC is acting badly in the South China Sea but it's acting good in other areas. Iran ditto. Russia? The same again. Only the DPRK is distinctly badly behaved, all the time. Understandable considering it's history and it's internal politics. Doesn't excuse it but it makes it understandable to a degree IMO.
You are welcome to your opinion, even if it's basis is incorrect. The US has contributed to both stability and chaos over the decades since WWII. It is not completely blameless, just as no other nation is completely blameless. I find it not unusual that you ignore the role of the UNO in these matters. Does the US contribute to international stability? Without a doubt. Does it however, also contribute to international instability? Without a doubt. The circumstances of the world has changed. It is quite a lot less violent than what it was. Have nuclear weapons contributed to that reduction in violence? Yes. Have they also contributed to the violence? Yes.
NeilChapman
Interested 3rd party
- Joined
- 14 December 2015
- Messages
- 1,282
- Reaction score
- 477
Kadija_Man said:
"It's obvious" is not support for an argument.
1. You've accused the United States' intent in joining and prosecuting WWII for the purpose of seeking the "primacy of the USA in the world."
2. You've accused the United States of seeking to "shock the world" with the dropping of the bombs on Japan as opposed to only seeking the quickest end to the war and the cessation of deaths after years of war and destruction.
3. You've stated that "the Japanese were seeking surrender was immaterial to the US high command." You further stated that
4. the US was not interested in "unconditional surrender" but implied the US was seeking to prolong the war which would result in additional Japanese and allied deaths to "shock the world".
Please defend your viewpoint about the nefarious intent of the United States with supported facts.
Kadija_Man said:
1. Ignored? I addressed it head on.
2. Straw man argument followed by a "victim" statement? The nations of the world all suffer because of the US victimizes them through threats? Vitriol, and yet again, you've provided no supported facts.
Kadija_Man said:
Please provide supported facts as to ways the PRC is acting "good" in your opinion. By including this statement in your response you're implying that this "good" behavior mitigates the "bad" behavior. I'd like to make these comparisons myself.
Kadija_Man said:
There you go again. Provide supported facts as to how my "basis is incorrect".
You state the circumstances of the world have changed - in it's own sentence.
You state the world is quite a lot less violent than it was - in it's own sentence.
You state that nuclear weapons contributed to that reduction in violence.
You conveniently left out the fact that US nuclear weapons enabled the reduction in violence.
You claim that nuclear weapons contributed to the violence.
You're implying that the marked international stability and reduction in violence, guaranteed by US military power, which has allowed the transformation of the world by the statistics I provided, is not primarily made possible because of the US military power.
Please provide supported facts for your argument.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
"What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons? Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan? I doubt it. Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody."
History disagrees most vehemently with that statement. Funny how it's always the US certain people think should unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons and not Russia or China. One might almost think they had ulterior motives.
History disagrees most vehemently with that statement. Funny how it's always the US certain people think should unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons and not Russia or China. One might almost think they had ulterior motives.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
Barely able to contain myself what I want to post would probably get me suspended.sferrin said:
But they wouldn't have to even have to directly attack the US, the mere threat of mushroom clouds over Seattle and LA, for example, would preclude any intervention in Taiwan or anywhere else in Asia form Chinese hegemony.
Same with the Baltic states or any former Warsaw Pact countries under Russian attack.
NeilChapman
Interested 3rd party
- Joined
- 14 December 2015
- Messages
- 1,282
- Reaction score
- 477
sferrin said:
I don't know if I agree. There are many that want to believe that governments and individuals will not behave in ways that will be to the detriment of others. Perhaps that is the understanding of this poster. I do agree that history does not support this conclusion.
We would all agree that there is no perfect government. Governments are made up of individuals. It is precisely for that reason that the US has three branches with checks and balances between each. It's a messy solution but it has produced the positive results that have been documented.
It is the spirit of the United States that is the "beacon of hope" around the world. Even folks from North Korea that escape through the PRC do not wish to stay in the PRC. They want to get to South Korea or the United States.
My point is the same. The US military might has enabled the largest and prolonged increases in standard of living throughout the world. This persons pointed attacks will not change that fact.
We do know that there are those that are compensated to encourage the mindset put forward by this poster. I'm not suggesting that this is the case in this instance. We have the benefit of being able to look back through this posters comments to see the positions espoused and the methods used. On this particularly thread, there have been specific, targeted, calculated and, so far, unsupported statements to provide a revisionist history. It's important that these statements always be identified, examined and "brought into the light."
Perhaps through the demanding of rigorous, arguments, supported by facts, this poster will eventually come to a different conclusion. The alternative is that governments and individuals who are bad actors will continue to have people they can sway to encourage continued strife.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
Hmmmm. Maybe. But I can't think of any examples where intentionally weakening one's self has resulted in everybody else doing the same. No matter how "enlightened" we might want to think humanity is there are always predators and prey. One sees that at every level of life, from the animal kingdom, to the playground, to entire countries on the world stage. To think that, somehow, it would be different this time, when all of human history shows the opposite, displays a dangerous lack of awareness. If an individual wants to move to a dangerous neighborhood and then take all the locks off their house and throw a "gun free zone" sign in their front yard that's one thing. To try to impose that on an entire country. . .yeah.
NeilChapman
Interested 3rd party
- Joined
- 14 December 2015
- Messages
- 1,282
- Reaction score
- 477
sferrin said:
Oh, misunderstanding... I just meant that the poster might not be a troll. I totally agree that it wouldn't end well.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,614
I don't agree with nearly all of what Kadija Man said but I also don't think it is fair to label him (or her) a troll just because you don't agree with he said.
I also don't think anything he said was particularly offensive or beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.
This website needs to be able to accommodate more than one perspective, especially in what are intended as "discussion" topics; just like the outside world a bit of tolerance goes a long way.
Otherwise this just becomes another internet echo chamber.
I also don't think anything he said was particularly offensive or beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.
This website needs to be able to accommodate more than one perspective, especially in what are intended as "discussion" topics; just like the outside world a bit of tolerance goes a long way.
Otherwise this just becomes another internet echo chamber.
- Status
