Register here

Author Topic: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.  (Read 124754 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1080 on: October 12, 2017, 06:10:21 am »
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/air-force-nuclear-programs-advance

Arms controllers always want to delay programs to save money the inference being, "Then we'll support modernization"

Ya right, pull the other leg it plays Jingle Bells.
I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1081 on: October 12, 2017, 06:39:30 am »
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/air-force-nuclear-programs-advance

Arms controllers always want to delay programs to save money the inference being, "Then we'll support modernization"

Ya right, pull the other leg it plays Jingle Bells.

Pay a billion dollars today or two billion tomorrow (because your industrial base is tanked).  Arms controllers will be happy with nothing less than unilateral disarmament.  They figure if they can't get the US to scrap them outright they'll try to get rid of them through attrition.  Notice they rarely talk about getting the other side to reduce their weapons anymore.  If they were honest they'd hold up the INF Treaty as the way to get real weapons reduction.  The other guy isn't going to scrap his when he knows you'll scrap yours and let him keep his.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 01:01:31 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 398
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1082 on: October 12, 2017, 11:29:59 am »
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/air-force-nuclear-programs-advance

Arms controllers always want to delay programs to save money the inference being, "Then we'll support modernization"

Ya right, pull the other leg it plays Jingle Bells.

Pay a billion dollars today or two billion tomorrow (because you're industrial base is tanked).  Arms controllers will be happy with nothing less than unilateral disarmament.  They figure if they can't get the US to scrap them outright they'll try to get rid of them through attrition.  Notice they rarely talk about getting the other side to reduce their weapons anymore.  If they were honest they'd hold up the INF Treaty as the way to get real weapons reduction.  The other guy isn't going to scrap his when he knows you'll scrap yours and let him keep his.

Again this intentional confusion of terms and conflation of different groups of people with very different views and objectives.
Advocates of nuclear arms controls are not advocates of unilateral disarmament.
And unilateral disarmament advocates hate nuclear arms control as they see it as an attempt to enshrine and legitimise the continued existence of nuclear weapons.
Some of the contributors on this topic clearly have real issues with both groups but lumping them together is an attempt to unfairly malign and delegitimise both groups.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1083 on: October 12, 2017, 01:03:22 pm »
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/air-force-nuclear-programs-advance

Arms controllers always want to delay programs to save money the inference being, "Then we'll support modernization"

Ya right, pull the other leg it plays Jingle Bells.

Pay a billion dollars today or two billion tomorrow (because you're industrial base is tanked).  Arms controllers will be happy with nothing less than unilateral disarmament.  They figure if they can't get the US to scrap them outright they'll try to get rid of them through attrition.  Notice they rarely talk about getting the other side to reduce their weapons anymore.  If they were honest they'd hold up the INF Treaty as the way to get real weapons reduction.  The other guy isn't going to scrap his when he knows you'll scrap yours and let him keep his.

Again this intentional confusion of terms and conflation of different groups of people with very different views and objectives.
Advocates of nuclear arms controls are not advocates of unilateral disarmament.

Almost every Arms Control article I've ever seen, when you got past all the window dressing, boiled down to, "this is why the US should reduce its number of nuclear weapons / shouldn't build more".  IMO a robust nuclear arms control strategy would be very similar to what happened in Europe that led to the INF Treaty.  The US made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that those SS-20s weren't worth the headache and that the USSR would be happier without those Pershing IIs and GLCMs pointed at it.  The USSR gave up a LOT to make it so.  Win - win.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 01:06:32 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 398
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1084 on: October 12, 2017, 03:48:26 pm »
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/air-force-nuclear-programs-advance

Arms controllers always want to delay programs to save money the inference being, "Then we'll support modernization"

Ya right, pull the other leg it plays Jingle Bells.

Pay a billion dollars today or two billion tomorrow (because you're industrial base is tanked).  Arms controllers will be happy with nothing less than unilateral disarmament.  They figure if they can't get the US to scrap them outright they'll try to get rid of them through attrition.  Notice they rarely talk about getting the other side to reduce their weapons anymore.  If they were honest they'd hold up the INF Treaty as the way to get real weapons reduction.  The other guy isn't going to scrap his when he knows you'll scrap yours and let him keep his.

Again this intentional confusion of terms and conflation of different groups of people with very different views and objectives.
Advocates of nuclear arms controls are not advocates of unilateral disarmament.

Almost every Arms Control article I've ever seen, when you got past all the window dressing, boiled down to, "this is why the US should reduce its number of nuclear weapons / shouldn't build more".  IMO a robust nuclear arms control strategy would be very similar to what happened in Europe that led to the INF Treaty.  The US made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that those SS-20s weren't worth the headache and that the USSR would be happier without those Pershing IIs and GLCMs pointed at it.  The USSR gave up a LOT to make it so.  Win - win.

That's a massive generalisation and quite probably a far from unbiased one given your a previous comments on nuclear control advocates.
What you described as a "robust nuclear arms strategy" was an intermediate range deliver system arms race that in retrospect was massively wasteful for both sides. And that was part of an even wider, even more expensive and wasteful arms race.
I am no advocate of unilateral disarmament and see the necessity of deterrence, and recognise that much of what was involved in the nuclear arms race (both sides caught by their own and each other's  histories and decisions).
But the damage and waste of that arms race, and its own distabling dangerous nature is what lead to arms control agreements. The USSR inflicted terminal damage on its own economy and the US moved from being the worlds largest lender to debtor; we are still experiencing the consequences of this endeavour. The opertunities cost of the arms race is simply staggering.
The apparent nostalgia for it is misplaced.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1085 on: October 12, 2017, 04:23:35 pm »
That's a massive generalisation and quite probably a far from unbiased one given your a previous comments on nuclear control advocates.
What you described as a "robust nuclear arms strategy" was an intermediate range deliver system arms race that in retrospect was massively wasteful for both sides. And that was part of an even wider, even more expensive and wasteful arms race.

And what do you think would have happened if the West declined to participate in that arms race in the interest of being nuclear free?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1086 on: October 12, 2017, 05:43:37 pm »
That's a massive generalisation and quite probably a far from unbiased one given your a previous comments on nuclear control advocates.
What you described as a "robust nuclear arms strategy" was an intermediate range deliver system arms race that in retrospect was massively wasteful for both sides. And that was part of an even wider, even more expensive and wasteful arms race.

And what do you think would have happened if the West declined to participate in that arms race in the interest of being nuclear free?
Gee it is not like we have to guess, we witnessed the strategy that brought about the end of the Cold War and ultimately massive disarmament and it was research, develop, build and deploy in potentially massive numbers - originally the US was to deploy close to 17,000 strategic warheads by 1993 (mix SDI in here as well) - until they other side came to the negotiation table, to repeat, the exact opposite of what the arms controllers wanted to do.
I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1685
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1087 on: October 12, 2017, 09:18:25 pm »
That's a massive generalisation and quite probably a far from unbiased one given your a previous comments on nuclear control advocates.
What you described as a "robust nuclear arms strategy" was an intermediate range deliver system arms race that in retrospect was massively wasteful for both sides. And that was part of an even wider, even more expensive and wasteful arms race.

And what do you think would have happened if the West declined to participate in that arms race in the interest of being nuclear free?

Why, I would expect that the "other side" would give up as well.  Afterall, they would have won "the race" but it would be a hollow victory - they were the only contender.   I expect he is proposing that instead of spending squillions on weapons which were never used, a strong, conventional defence would be provided.   You and your compatriots of course assume that nuclear weapons are the only things that protect you, when in reality they are the weapons which threaten other nations...   Without them the other nations wouldn't need to seek or build their own nuclear weapons.

Offline UpForce

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 115
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1088 on: October 13, 2017, 04:41:07 am »
Gee it is not like we have to guess, we witnessed the strategy that brought about the end of the Cold War and ultimately massive disarmament and it was research, develop, build and deploy in potentially massive numbers - originally the US was to deploy close to 17,000 strategic warheads by 1993 (mix SDI in here as well) - until they other side came to the negotiation table, to repeat, the exact opposite of what the arms controllers wanted to do.

Without going too deeply into

the minutiae of it all, the strategy (strategic nuclear) wasn't about bringing an end to the CW era but based on containment and (mutual) deterrence.

Certainly the (disorderly, abrupt) fall of the Iron Curtain took western intelligence (and thus policy) by quite a surprise, though it's also hard to argue that such an event even could be effectively planned and managed (incidentally current putinist "hybrid" doctrine does sort of try to interpret their then experience into a strategy of influence and/or conflict in a weird, through a looking glass revanchist manner). Accounts from all contemporaneus sides point to a seat of the pants approach and basically holding tight. Things unraveled to such a degree that food aid (!) had to be promptly sent to the soon to be former Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev had been chosen already quite a bit earlier by the politburo to expressly address woes that went way beyond military - let alone nuclear arms - concerns. From a pile one can't simply pick one straw and claim it to have broken the camel's back, however apocalyptic that straw may theoretically be.

It's also a complete disservice to the very human social pressures that came from within the totalitarian communist system to suggest these peoples were somehow merely cowed to change, that they lacked agency. I've met and know a fair amount of people who witnessed those events from within. They faced tanks, complete insecurity and tremendous difficulty. They have been pummeled and their identities repeatedly challenged within a lifetime to a degree you and I can scarcely imagine. Sure, this is a discussion about nuclear weapons but I think it worth a detour or a disclaimer or two to avoid availability bias, i.e. seeing only nails for having a hammer (and/or straw for a sickle, going with the CW theme). We really must do better than "they" being a blanket synonym to the "other side" in discerning who and what we're dealing with at any given point. Quite a number of "them", too, were sufficiently convinced that a nuclear apocalypse was not so probable as to have motivation and determination to organize and act in spite of nuclear deterrence.

Lest you think I can't bring this back aroud to nuclear weapons in any meaningful way, then let's reflect on the current predicament vis--vis the (end of the) CW. Russia's GDP is (even less than) 1/10th of that of the US, North Korea's less than Vermont's (!) yet overtly confrontational nuclear postures have re-emerged, ranging from frayed to precariously volatile. In certain ways the nuclear risk is more manageable (numbers) is other ways less so (proliferation, "hybrid" percolation, lack of meaningful communication or understanding of intent). Rational "arms control", among other things, is weighing risk against reward. While I (at least) can't quite imagine a feasible path below extinction level stockpiles in any foreseeable situation (and thus those stockpiles should be resourced to be as reliable, modern and safe as possible), there certainly are rational limits to what kinds of amounts of weapons the military can/is at all willing to manage or indeed society can support indefinitely. Symbolic allocation of much greater resources beyond that (the amount of "that" being a more nuanced conversation, not some fixed theoretical combined yield baseline) is almost certainly ineffective, detrimental and self defeating in a multitude of ways.

As was during the CW, arms controllers are not some homogenous group. To lose that nuance e.g. for political expediency or plain convenience is a luxury even the US can't afford (for very long at least). There are elected officials, civilians, academy and career military well and truly steeped in the subject. I myself am sort of grudgingly reading up as far as I think it's my duty as a responsible, otherwise active and engaged person to be aware of these things. I self identify as an "arms controller" insofar as at least not seeing the technology as an end in itself. Predictably and sadly there are also "peace groups" who are basically astroturfed or otherwise unwittingly cajoled from Kremlin just as there were in the olden Soviet Days (which is one of the more traditional, carried over parts of the current putinist "hybrid" doctrine), along with agents provocateurs. The spectacle of Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein and Gen. Flynn attending an event celebrating RT with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, alone, was something else indeed.

We're hopefully just shooting the breeze here and not something more acutely, tangibly intercontinental (nor formulating policy beyond a very granular capacity or capability) so perhaps we can at least recognize that history hasn't ended and while we have the capacity of having it end, we should minimize the reasons to seek or expect that outcome in whatever form (stagnation or conflagration). Arms control agreements and protocols aren't forever either (anymore than, say, the Polaris missile was), nor entirely devoid of cynicism or even deception, but that is not to say they're useless. Just another tool in the box. Idealism is keeping track, keeping perspective, keeping direction and IMHO that's perfectly fine while also being mindful of mundane practicalities as not to be(come) too nave and/or cynical.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1089 on: October 13, 2017, 06:07:35 am »
I think there are many, myself included, who would love to see a nuclear bomb free world but realize it's a pipe-dream, in which case we want to be strong enough that nobody would even consider trying to start a nuclear war with us.  That means cutting edge deployed weapons and an industrial base to support them.  Right now we're lacking in many key areas.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1090 on: October 13, 2017, 06:36:42 am »
Gee it is not like we have to guess, we witnessed the strategy that brought about the end of the Cold War and ultimately massive disarmament and it was research, develop, build and deploy in potentially massive numbers - originally the US was to deploy close to 17,000 strategic warheads by 1993 (mix SDI in here as well) - until they other side came to the negotiation table, to repeat, the exact opposite of what the arms controllers wanted to do.

Without going too deeply into

the minutiae of it all, the strategy (strategic nuclear) wasn't about bringing an end to the CW era but based on containment and (mutual) deterrence.

Certainly the (disorderly, abrupt) fall of the Iron Curtain took western intelligence (and thus policy) by quite a surprise, though it's also hard to argue that such an event even could be effectively planned and managed (incidentally current putinist "hybrid" doctrine does sort of try to interpret their then experience into a strategy of influence and/or conflict in a weird, through a looking glass revanchist manner). Accounts from all contemporaneus sides point to a seat of the pants approach and basically holding tight. Things unraveled to such a degree that food aid (!) had to be promptly sent to the soon to be former Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev had been chosen already quite a bit earlier by the politburo to expressly address woes that went way beyond military - let alone nuclear arms - concerns. From a pile one can't simply pick one straw and claim it to have broken the camel's back, however apocalyptic that straw may theoretically be.

It's also a complete disservice to the very human social pressures that came from within the totalitarian communist system to suggest these peoples were somehow merely cowed to change, that they lacked agency. I've met and know a fair amount of people who witnessed those events from within. They faced tanks, complete insecurity and tremendous difficulty. They have been pummeled and their identities repeatedly challenged within a lifetime to a degree you and I can scarcely imagine. Sure, this is a discussion about nuclear weapons but I think it worth a detour or a disclaimer or two to avoid availability bias, i.e. seeing only nails for having a hammer (and/or straw for a sickle, going with the CW theme). We really must do better than "they" being a blanket synonym to the "other side" in discerning who and what we're dealing with at any given point. Quite a number of "them", too, were sufficiently convinced that a nuclear apocalypse was not so probable as to have motivation and determination to organize and act in spite of nuclear deterrence.

Lest you think I can't bring this back aroud to nuclear weapons in any meaningful way, then let's reflect on the current predicament vis--vis the (end of the) CW. Russia's GDP is (even less than) 1/10th of that of the US, North Korea's less than Vermont's (!) yet overtly confrontational nuclear postures have re-emerged, ranging from frayed to precariously volatile. In certain ways the nuclear risk is more manageable (numbers) is other ways less so (proliferation, "hybrid" percolation, lack of meaningful communication or understanding of intent). Rational "arms control", among other things, is weighing risk against reward. While I (at least) can't quite imagine a feasible path below extinction level stockpiles in any foreseeable situation (and thus those stockpiles should be resourced to be as reliable, modern and safe as possible), there certainly are rational limits to what kinds of amounts of weapons the military can/is at all willing to manage or indeed society can support indefinitely. Symbolic allocation of much greater resources beyond that (the amount of "that" being a more nuanced conversation, not some fixed theoretical combined yield baseline) is almost certainly ineffective, detrimental and self defeating in a multitude of ways.

As was during the CW, arms controllers are not some homogenous group. To lose that nuance e.g. for political expediency or plain convenience is a luxury even the US can't afford (for very long at least). There are elected officials, civilians, academy and career military well and truly steeped in the subject. I myself am sort of grudgingly reading up as far as I think it's my duty as a responsible, otherwise active and engaged person to be aware of these things. I self identify as an "arms controller" insofar as at least not seeing the technology as an end in itself. Predictably and sadly there are also "peace groups" who are basically astroturfed or otherwise unwittingly cajoled from Kremlin just as there were in the olden Soviet Days (which is one of the more traditional, carried over parts of the current putinist "hybrid" doctrine), along with agents provocateurs. The spectacle of Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein and Gen. Flynn attending an event celebrating RT with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, alone, was something else indeed.

We're hopefully just shooting the breeze here and not something more acutely, tangibly intercontinental (nor formulating policy beyond a very granular capacity or capability) so perhaps we can at least recognize that history hasn't ended and while we have the capacity of having it end, we should minimize the reasons to seek or expect that outcome in whatever form (stagnation or conflagration). Arms control agreements and protocols aren't forever either (anymore than, say, the Polaris missile was), nor entirely devoid of cynicism or even deception, but that is not to say they're useless. Just another tool in the box. Idealism is keeping track, keeping perspective, keeping direction and IMHO that's perfectly fine while also being mindful of mundane practicalities as not to be(come) too nave and/or cynical.
Two quick point, 1) Under Reagan the strategy did absolutely change to 'winning the Cold War' although through every means short of war and 2) At a time of massive disarmament and the lowest superpower arsenals since the 50's can you name me one nation that has changed its' nuclear ambitions? You could include Libya but that was brought about because Qaddafi saw he might be the next Saddam.
I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1091 on: October 13, 2017, 06:39:45 am »
I think there are many, myself included, who would love to see a nuclear bomb free world but realize it's a pipe-dream, in which case we want to be strong enough that nobody would even consider trying to start a nuclear war with us.  That means cutting edge deployed weapons and an industrial base to support them.  Right now we're lacking in many key areas.
Here, here my thoughts exactly.
I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9831
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1092 on: October 13, 2017, 06:40:43 am »
Gee it is not like we have to guess, we witnessed the strategy that brought about the end of the Cold War and ultimately massive disarmament and it was research, develop, build and deploy in potentially massive numbers - originally the US was to deploy close to 17,000 strategic warheads by 1993 (mix SDI in here as well) - until they other side came to the negotiation table, to repeat, the exact opposite of what the arms controllers wanted to do.

Without going too deeply into

the minutiae of it all, the strategy (strategic nuclear) wasn't about bringing an end to the CW era but based on containment and (mutual) deterrence.

Certainly the (disorderly, abrupt) fall of the Iron Curtain took western intelligence (and thus policy) by quite a surprise, though it's also hard to argue that such an event even could be effectively planned and managed (incidentally current putinist "hybrid" doctrine does sort of try to interpret their then experience into a strategy of influence and/or conflict in a weird, through a looking glass revanchist manner). Accounts from all contemporaneus sides point to a seat of the pants approach and basically holding tight. Things unraveled to such a degree that food aid (!) had to be promptly sent to the soon to be former Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev had been chosen already quite a bit earlier by the politburo to expressly address woes that went way beyond military - let alone nuclear arms - concerns. From a pile one can't simply pick one straw and claim it to have broken the camel's back, however apocalyptic that straw may theoretically be.

It's also a complete disservice to the very human social pressures that came from within the totalitarian communist system to suggest these peoples were somehow merely cowed to change, that they lacked agency. I've met and know a fair amount of people who witnessed those events from within. They faced tanks, complete insecurity and tremendous difficulty. They have been pummeled and their identities repeatedly challenged within a lifetime to a degree you and I can scarcely imagine. Sure, this is a discussion about nuclear weapons but I think it worth a detour or a disclaimer or two to avoid availability bias, i.e. seeing only nails for having a hammer (and/or straw for a sickle, going with the CW theme). We really must do better than "they" being a blanket synonym to the "other side" in discerning who and what we're dealing with at any given point. Quite a number of "them", too, were sufficiently convinced that a nuclear apocalypse was not so probable as to have motivation and determination to organize and act in spite of nuclear deterrence.

Lest you think I can't bring this back aroud to nuclear weapons in any meaningful way, then let's reflect on the current predicament vis--vis the (end of the) CW. Russia's GDP is (even less than) 1/10th of that of the US, North Korea's less than Vermont's (!) yet overtly confrontational nuclear postures have re-emerged, ranging from frayed to precariously volatile. In certain ways the nuclear risk is more manageable (numbers) is other ways less so (proliferation, "hybrid" percolation, lack of meaningful communication or understanding of intent). Rational "arms control", among other things, is weighing risk against reward. While I (at least) can't quite imagine a feasible path below extinction level stockpiles in any foreseeable situation (and thus those stockpiles should be resourced to be as reliable, modern and safe as possible), there certainly are rational limits to what kinds of amounts of weapons the military can/is at all willing to manage or indeed society can support indefinitely. Symbolic allocation of much greater resources beyond that (the amount of "that" being a more nuanced conversation, not some fixed theoretical combined yield baseline) is almost certainly ineffective, detrimental and self defeating in a multitude of ways.

As was during the CW, arms controllers are not some homogenous group. To lose that nuance e.g. for political expediency or plain convenience is a luxury even the US can't afford (for very long at least). There are elected officials, civilians, academy and career military well and truly steeped in the subject. I myself am sort of grudgingly reading up as far as I think it's my duty as a responsible, otherwise active and engaged person to be aware of these things. I self identify as an "arms controller" insofar as at least not seeing the technology as an end in itself. Predictably and sadly there are also "peace groups" who are basically astroturfed or otherwise unwittingly cajoled from Kremlin just as there were in the olden Soviet Days (which is one of the more traditional, carried over parts of the current putinist "hybrid" doctrine), along with agents provocateurs. The spectacle of Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein and Gen. Flynn attending an event celebrating RT with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, alone, was something else indeed.

We're hopefully just shooting the breeze here and not something more acutely, tangibly intercontinental (nor formulating policy beyond a very granular capacity or capability) so perhaps we can at least recognize that history hasn't ended and while we have the capacity of having it end, we should minimize the reasons to seek or expect that outcome in whatever form (stagnation or conflagration). Arms control agreements and protocols aren't forever either (anymore than, say, the Polaris missile was), nor entirely devoid of cynicism or even deception, but that is not to say they're useless. Just another tool in the box. Idealism is keeping track, keeping perspective, keeping direction and IMHO that's perfectly fine while also being mindful of mundane practicalities as not to be(come) too nave and/or cynical.
Two quick point, 1) Under Reagan the strategy did absolutely change to 'winning the Cold War' although through every means short of war

Yep.  100 B-1B bombers in 4 years.  Deployment of the Peacekeeper ICBM and beginning of SICBM.  AGM-129 stealth cruise missile.  Pershing IIs and GLCM in Europe.  Beginning of B-2 production.  SRAM 2 initiation. Work towards the 600-ship navy, SDI,  etc. etc. etc.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 06:43:30 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1093 on: October 16, 2017, 08:04:00 pm »
https://armedservices.house.gov/news/defense-drumbeat/losing-time-nuclear-labs-crumbling

For at least since 2002, I have written, called, emailed, Tweeted politicians, government officials, the Energy Department, the NNSA, etc. calling for a Manhattan Project II to quickly modernize the labs and nuke production facilities.

I fear we may be past the point of no return.
I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7679
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1094 on: October 17, 2017, 03:20:56 pm »
Bunch: More money needed up front in new approach to ensure viable LRSO

The Air Force is funneling more money into the early stages of Long-Range Standoff Weapon development to ensure the end product is usable, the service's top uniformed acquisition official said Tuesday.
I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill