Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
bobbymike said:
If you told a bunch of hardened criminals that you swear, no matter what, you will never shoot first, how well do you think that would work out? About the only thing worse would be unilateral disarmament. (The equivalent of a "Guns Free Zone" sign on a national level.)
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
bobbymike said:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2016-08-01/rethinking-nuclear-policy
And Fred Kaplan is supposed to be a real foreign policy/security 'thinker'. :
"The arsenals of both sides had grown to such staggering levels, and the chance of a real war between the two superpowers had so diminished"
Judas. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Maybe Mr. Kaplan should have asked himself WHY the chance of real war had become so diminished. Nah, of course not. That would support the notion nuclear weapons work when it comes to deterrent.
"The case for land-based ICBMs today is extremely weak and has been since 1990, when the U.S. Navy started deploying Trident II missiles on submarines. Unlike earlier SLBMs, the Trident II is accurate enough to destroy blast-hardened missile silos. In other words, one of the ICBM’s unique properties—its ability to hit blast-hardened targets quickly—is no longer unique. Meanwhile, its other unique property—its vulnerability to an adversary’s first strike—is all too enduring. Even by the esoteric logic of nuclear strategists, then, ICBMs make the United States less secure, with no compensating advantages."
Ye gods. Not enough face palms on the intertubes for that howler.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/nuclear-facilities-bad-conditions-photos/index.html
The road into DC should look like the final scene of Spartacus with politicians from both parties since 1991 who let this happen to the national security and the intellectual jewels of this nation.
The road into DC should look like the final scene of Spartacus with politicians from both parties since 1991 who let this happen to the national security and the intellectual jewels of this nation.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,805
- Reaction score
- 10,301
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003191193&ss=tw&rt=How+capable+are+N.+Korea%27s+subs,+missiles
Thoughts? The two experts interviewed do have a decent stab at the issue, but they overlooked/ignored things like merchantmen armed with SLBMs. On the other hand they may just be trying to avoid sparking unnecessary panic among the Japanese (and American) public there.
Thoughts? The two experts interviewed do have a decent stab at the issue, but they overlooked/ignored things like merchantmen armed with SLBMs. On the other hand they may just be trying to avoid sparking unnecessary panic among the Japanese (and American) public there.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
Senators Debate Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
—Wilson Brissett 9/9/2016
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) urged the Obama Administration not to bypass the Senate and request United Nations Security Council action on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. “I just want to make sure that we are not allowing an administration on the way out the door to do something that ends up binding us through customary international law down the road,” said Corker during a Sept. 7 hearing. “I have watched through the years, and the responsibilities of the United States Senate have eroded. And I am just here today with this hearing and pushing back against the administration to try to make sure we do everything we can to ensure that is not something that continues.” The Senate voted against US ratification of the CTBT in 1999. Although 164 nations have signed on, the treaty still has not gone into force because it requires ratification by several other nations, including the US, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. SFRC Ranking member Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) said, “the underlining strategy on how do we stop emerging nuclear powers from testing is an important issue that needs to be dealt [with]. And the Obama administration, I believe, is using its opportunities at the United Nations to advance that, not to advance the treaty.” (Corker release.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't disagree although Corker was the senator that mangled the Constitutional treaty provision and actually reversed the provision completely for the Iran Treaty so............
—Wilson Brissett 9/9/2016
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) urged the Obama Administration not to bypass the Senate and request United Nations Security Council action on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. “I just want to make sure that we are not allowing an administration on the way out the door to do something that ends up binding us through customary international law down the road,” said Corker during a Sept. 7 hearing. “I have watched through the years, and the responsibilities of the United States Senate have eroded. And I am just here today with this hearing and pushing back against the administration to try to make sure we do everything we can to ensure that is not something that continues.” The Senate voted against US ratification of the CTBT in 1999. Although 164 nations have signed on, the treaty still has not gone into force because it requires ratification by several other nations, including the US, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. SFRC Ranking member Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) said, “the underlining strategy on how do we stop emerging nuclear powers from testing is an important issue that needs to be dealt [with]. And the Obama administration, I believe, is using its opportunities at the United Nations to advance that, not to advance the treaty.” (Corker release.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't disagree although Corker was the senator that mangled the Constitutional treaty provision and actually reversed the provision completely for the Iran Treaty so............
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 776
bobbymike said:
Carter has been there before with MX (and Midgetman) and cost estimates; he led the OTA assessment that determined that the MX/MPS system would cost what the Air Force estimated it would cost.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1707164-us-tests-upgrades-nuclear-armed-trident-ii-d5
Wonder if upgrades to the Mk4 & Mk5 re-entry vehicle incorporates some maneuvering technology tested a decade or so ago, IIRC, under the Conventional Trident Program part of early CPGS work?
Wonder if upgrades to the Mk4 & Mk5 re-entry vehicle incorporates some maneuvering technology tested a decade or so ago, IIRC, under the Conventional Trident Program part of early CPGS work?
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 776
bobbymike said:
That article is a bit unclear; the Mk5 and Mk21 (from MX -> MMIII -> GBSD) RVs will have some fuzing and other commonality. There is a proposal for a common Navy/AF RV but it's some ways off.
I believe almost all of the MaRV work done for CTM used Mk4 derivatives.
Attachments
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
Decision to proceed with construction of Ohio Replacement submarine delayed
The Navy's top modernization priority -- the Ohio Replacement Program -- missed a planned high-level Pentagon review in August, delaying a decision until this fall on whether the new strategic submarine program is ready to transition from technology development into detailed design and construction, according to government officials.
On Sept. 16, a Navy official told Inside Defense the delay of the planned milestone B review is effectively an administrative schedule slip and will not affect the start of planned ship production, slated for January 2017.
The Navy's top modernization priority -- the Ohio Replacement Program -- missed a planned high-level Pentagon review in August, delaying a decision until this fall on whether the new strategic submarine program is ready to transition from technology development into detailed design and construction, according to government officials.
On Sept. 16, a Navy official told Inside Defense the delay of the planned milestone B review is effectively an administrative schedule slip and will not affect the start of planned ship production, slated for January 2017.
bobbymike said:
What exactly is flawed there?
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 776
GTX said:
An adversary freed of the need to toss 800+ warheads at 400+ hardened aimpoints, can toss them at probable
SSBN locations or bomber approach corridors assuming the bombers (which are not on alert and don't have supersonic dash)
have survived even a conventional attack in the first place.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
GTX said:
Pretty much A-Z. It's obvious by the opening paragraph what their agenda is, what arguments (such as they are) they're going to present and what fallacies they're going to propagate. And, not to disappoint, they hit them all.
Basically:
1. The Cold War is over so nukes aren't needed.
2. The nukes we have will have infinite life.
3. Building new nukes cost too much money.
4. ICBMs are worthless cuz GPS.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,614
sferrin said:
The article itself in reality doesn't argue 1-3 at all, and arguably doesn't argue 4 either.
I don't agree with many of the arguments that the article makes (personally I think a minimum capacity/ size ICBM force has a role in a nuclear triad going forward) but should be critiqued honestly, not with phantom arguments.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/07/14/former-us-defense-officials-back-funding-for-new-nuclear-cruise-missile/
Making implausible arguments is what the disarmament as any cost zealots have been doing since, at least, the nuclear freeze movement why would they stop now.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,300
- Reaction score
- 8,993
Funny how thousands of nuclear-armed cruise missiles, mixed in with thousands of conventionally-armed cruise missiles -a situation that has existed for roughly half a century- would suddenly become "destabilized" simply because the US wants to replace an already existing nuclear-armed cruise missile. No? (Miraculously though, Russia and China adding nuclear-armed cruise missiles to their forces destabilizes nothing. Weird.)
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 5,988
Disarmament crowd takes advantage of the hoi polloi's short term memory. Every single US nuke modernization program since 1960's MIRV debates has been called destabilizing while anything our adversaries do is also described as "They're just responding to US developments" funny how they always come down on the side of our opponents.sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
I don't know, I find the logic to be *slightly* better than traditional "War is Boring" tripe.
What we really need is Nuclear SDB for the *entire* manned combat aircraft fleet, from F-22 to B-1B.
I've posted it before, but basically, smallest nuclear weapon *that we know of* fits inside a 155mm diameter shell.
SDB's diameter is about 180mm or so.
SDB can glide for about 30-40 miles on it's own, and has a pretty decent CEP, even on "GPS-denied, Inertial guidance only" mode.
I kind of like the idea of a F-22 being able to carry 16 nuclear weapons with a CEP of about 25 meters. ;D
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 776
RyanC said:
Talk about "damning with faint praise."
- Status
