Register here

Author Topic: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.  (Read 120050 times)

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1126 on: November 15, 2017, 02:57:32 pm »
https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/low-yield-nuclear-weapons-worth-new-look/

http://thehill.com/opinion/international/360100-putin-is-a-very-real-nuclear-threat

Quote
Chief of the General Staff General Valery Gerasimov recently publicly conceded that Russia had broken the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987.

Specifically, Gerasimov said, "We have formed command bodies and special units to plan the use of long-range precision-guided munitions and prepare flight assignments for all types of cruise missiles. — This has enabled us to set up full-scale units of vehicles capable of delivering precision-guided missiles to targets located up to 4,000 kilometers away."
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1129 on: November 17, 2017, 08:31:32 am »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9728
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1130 on: November 17, 2017, 08:50:52 am »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

Well it is the Washington Post.  Would be like going to HuffPo, Salaon, or Vox and asking if we should have a military.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9462
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1132 on: November 17, 2017, 02:49:22 pm »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and  General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9728
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1134 on: November 17, 2017, 04:22:06 pm »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and  General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And?  Is that suppose to make them perfect?  As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 04:23:46 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1135 on: November 17, 2017, 04:45:17 pm »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and  General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And?  Is that suppose to make them perfect?  As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?
Don't care who it is evaluate what they said it's not a game of 'credential poker' hey I have two former SecDefs, an undersecretary and a physicist does that beat your experts in credential poker?
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9462
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1136 on: November 17, 2017, 05:31:33 pm »

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and  General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And?  Is that suppose to make them perfect?  As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?
Don't care who it is evaluate what they said it's not a game of 'credential poker' hey I have two former SecDefs, an undersecretary and a physicist does that beat your experts in credential poker?

What I meant was that William J. Perry and General James E. Cartwright were back making the same arguments in The Washington Post opinion piece that we have already read in their letter to President Donald Trump.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7594
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1137 on: November 17, 2017, 09:46:51 pm »

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and  General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And?  Is that suppose to make them perfect?  As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?
Don't care who it is evaluate what they said it's not a game of 'credential poker' hey I have two former SecDefs, an undersecretary and a physicist does that beat your experts in credential poker?

What I meant was that William J. Perry and General James E. Cartwright were back making the same arguments in The Washington Post opinion piece that we have already read in their letter to President Donald Trump.
Then I apologize or my incorrect inference. 
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 379
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1138 on: November 18, 2017, 01:45:01 am »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

Well it is the Washington Post.  Would be like going to HuffPo, Salaon, or Vox and asking if we should have a military.

I would also not agree with detail of the article or what it proposes but it is inaccurate to describe it as trite and puerile. I could not say the same for many of contributors comments above.

There appears to be a repeat of the issues that got this topic locked; propensity to accuse people (contributors or non-contributors) of differing opinions as being deceptive with repeated personal attacks, going way off topic (attacking perceived bias/ free speech?) etc. The use of the room to vent at targets of hate/ abuse rather than its permitted purpose to discuss nuclear weapons.

I am not looking to drag this discussion off-topic or start an argument, I am flagging this to other contributors so that this course can be corrected.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9462
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1139 on: November 18, 2017, 08:09:24 pm »
"China's Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Could Grow Massively"
Zachary Keck

Nov 16, 11:55 AM

Source:
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Chinas-Nuclear-Weapons-Arsenal-Could-Grow-Massively-in-the-Coming-Years-110580692

Quote
One of the most consistent aspects of China’s military policy is likely to undergo a significant transformation. Since its first nuclear test in 1964, China has maintained a relatively small nuclear arsenal designed to hold adversaries’ population centers at risk. Even as it has modernized its conventional forces to “fight and win wars” against first-class militaries like that of the United States, China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to contain [3] just 264 warheads, far smaller than the 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads Russia and America will each deploy under the New START Treaty, to say nothing of the nearly thirty thousand warheads they maintained during the Cold War.

This smaller arsenal is consistent with China’s different perspective [5] about the nature of deterrence, as well as its no-first-use nuclear doctrine. At the same time, a couple of technical developments are likely to propel China to undertake a significant nuclear buildup in the coming years.

The first of these is China’s acquisition of a viable nuclear triad for the first time. For most of its history as a nuclear power, Beijing has primarily relied on single-warhead land-based ballistic missiles to deliver its nuclear weapons. After decades of false starts, however, China has now deployed a sea-based deterrent in the form of the JIN-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs). China has already commissioned four JIN-class SSBNs and will build at least another one of these vessels. Each Jin-class SSBN has twelve missile tubes and carries JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) [7], which have a range of 7,500 kilometers. Some reports suggest the JL-2 can be equipped with Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) that allow each missile to carry between two and eight warheads. Thus, the five Jin-class SSBNs will require somewhere between sixty and 480 nuclear warheads. Even the low end of this estimate represents nearly one-quarter of China’s estimated warheads.

Furthermore, according to the Pentagon, China will begin fielding its next-generation SSBN, the Type 096, sometime in the coming decade, and these will be armed with the JL-3 SLBM. It’s unclear how many Type 096 SSBNs China will build, and whether the JL-3 SLBM will carry multiple warheads or not, but current reports [9] suggest the Type 096 sub will have twenty-four launch tubes. Assuming China also builds five Type 096 subs and each JL-3 only carries one warhead, this will require 120 nuclear warheads, nearly half of China’s estimated arsenal. Including the low-end estimate of the number of warheads the Type 094 SSBN will consume, Beijing’s sea-based deterrent will account for at least 75 percent of its entire stockpile.

Furthermore, according to the Pentagon, China will begin fielding its next-generation SSBN, the Type 096, sometime in the coming decade, and these will be armed with the JL-3 SLBM. It’s unclear how many Type 096 SSBNs China will build, and whether the JL-3 SLBM will carry multiple warheads or not, but current reports [9] suggest the Type 096 sub will have twenty-four launch tubes. Assuming China also builds five Type 096 subs and each JL-3 only carries one warhead, this will require 120 nuclear warheads, nearly half of China’s estimated arsenal. Including the low-end estimate of the number of warheads the Type 094 SSBN will consume, Beijing’s sea-based deterrent will account for at least 75 percent of its entire stockpile.