Current Nuclear Weapons Development

fredymac said:
Treaties can be an effective form of asymmetric warfare when one side can cheat knowing it can rely on "the usual" pressure groups who are not merely indifferent to the cheating but even hostile to raising the issue.
Click to expand...

The current US leadership are themselves are not in a particular place of credibility when it comes to maintaining treaties and other international commitments.
Treaties also help frame, and provided mechanisms for detecting and limiting, cheating.
Which is particularly important if, like any democratic country, you need to build consensus for moving in any particular policy direction (especially for those that demand so much resources and the opportunity costs that come with that).
And trying to imply that “pressure groups” that happen not to share your views are somehow traitorous is often seen on this forum but no less dishonest and despicable for it.
And completely counterproductive to what you should be trying to do which is to try to convince other people, instead of alienating them.
 
kaiserd said:
The current US leadership are themselves are not in a particular place of credibility when it comes to maintaining treaties and other international commitments.
Treaties also help frame, and provided mechanisms for detecting and limiting, cheating.
Which is particularly important if, like any democratic country, you need to build consensus for moving in any particular policy direction (especially for those that demand so much resources and the opportunity costs that come with that).
And trying to imply that “pressure groups” that happen not to share your views are somehow traitorous is often seen on this forum but no less dishonest and despicable for it.
And completely counterproductive to what you should be trying to do which is to try to convince other people, instead of alienating them.
Click to expand...


Terminating treaties does not equal cheating on treaties. Terminating treaties where cheating invalidates them is the corrective action. Hard to grasp?

Treaties between democratic countries and non democratic countries require broad consensus or the non democratic country can use the internal opposition to cover for their violations. Where is your counterpart in Russia?

A better description of despicable is substituting "traitorous" for opposition and them condemning the substitution.

Your last sentence proves again that you will never be accused of self awareness.
 
Not honouring your commitments is still not honouring your commitments and does not help you when you are looking to hold others to theirs.
Are you arguing for the US never entering into any international agreements ever again (and exiting all current agreements) or abandoning democracy and forcing your views on those that disagree with you? Because those extremes are the only choices that make any sense per your argument.
Especially weird is that you appear to envy Putin’s Russia’s lack of freedom; I understand that is a common theme on the far-right.
Your comments re: substituting words doesn’t make any apparent sense; you are actively looking to delegitimise any one who doesn’t 100 percent agree with you on this topic.
And to be clear I am not looking to convince you or any of your hard-core fellow travellers (many of whom may not be far-right); I am intentionally highlighting the inherent dishonesty and purposefully self-defeating nature of your argument for those that may otherwise be deceived by it.
 
Last edited:
kaiserd said:
Not honouring your commitments is still not honouring your commitments and does not help you when you are looking to hold others to theirs.
Are you arguing for the US never entering into any international agreements ever again (and exiting all current agreements) or abandoning democracy and forcing your views on those that disagree with you? Because those extremes are the only choices that make any sense per your argument.
Especially weird is that you appear to envy Putin’s Russia’s lack of freedom; I understand that is a common theme on the far-right.
Your comments re: substituting words doesn’t make any apparent sense; you are actively looking to delegitimise any one who doesn’t 100 percent agree with you on this topic.
And to be clear I am not looking to convince you or any of your hard-core fellow travellers (many of whom may not be far-right); I am intentionally highlighting the inherent dishonesty and purposefully self-defeating nature of your argument for those that may otherwise be deceived by it.
Click to expand...


Terminating a treaty that is violated by cheating is honoring your commitment to your own country.

Upholding treaties where the other party is cheating validates cheating as an acceptable policy to be followed everywhere else (including yourself eventually).

Delusions of Putin envy and Russian political practices I leave to you. Wariness towards treaties with non democratic countries in no way implies envy of them.

When I see someone engaged in self-defeating action, I clear the way and encourage them.

All of this is just me supporting arms control treaties the way you support US weapon projects.
 
Again that dishonesty and self-exceptionalism presented as moralism. The current US administration (and Bush Jr. administration) has exited a number of international treaties and agreements when the other parties were not cheating but were fulfilling their obligations.
I will happily condemn the crimes and duplicity of the Putin regime.
That doesn’t blind me to the inherent double standards of those pushing their own untethered extremist positions that are self-evidentiary bad for their country.
If you abandon all treaties with Russia they are in a position to more quickly meaningfully push ahead of you (in a way they are not currently) and you will risk ruining what consensus can currently be created in the US re: renewing the US triad at approx. current levels and with your allies about basing, NATO nuclear mission tasked aircraft, etc.
All so you can feel better about yourselves as the real “hardmen” on this topic?
 
kaiserd said:
Again that dishonesty and self-exceptionalism presented as moralism. The current US administration (and Bush Jr. administration) has exited a number of international treaties and agreements when the other parties were not cheating but were fulfilling their obligations.
I will happily condemn the crimes and duplicity of the Putin regime.
That doesn’t blind me to the inherent double standards of those pushing their own untethered extremist positions that are self-evidentiary bad for their country.
If you abandon all treaties with Russia they are in a position to more quickly meaningfully push ahead of you (in a way they are not currently) and you will risk ruining what consensus can currently be created in the US re: renewing the US triad at approx. current levels and with your allies about basing, NATO nuclear mission tasked aircraft, etc.
All so you can feel better about yourselves as the real “hardmen” on this topic?
Click to expand...


Treaties that last have mutual benefit as perceived by both parties and which can be readily validated. The atmospheric test ban treaty is hard to cheat on.

As a non American and non US taxpayer, you are consistently agitated against US politics and weapon systems in a manner I don't recall seeing in any of your posts regarding any other country. Certainly not with the emotion and investment you reserve for the US. Your posts just in this exchange are pretty typical in your choice of adjectives.

My personal view on treaties goes way back to our founding. No unnecessary entanglements and only when reciprocity is required. If Europe wants to eliminate US tactical nukes from their inventory, that is their decision along with the acceptance of the consequences (US Army leaving for instance). For internal US nuclear policy, there is no consensus. Only an election can decide which way things will go.
 
Being Russian, I must admit, that those bi-lateral treaties were of no practical use anymore. Russia is not a Soviet Union; we do not possess that amount of industrial and military power. On the other hands, China do; and China expressed exactly zero desire to even consider joining the bi-lateral treaties system.

Basically, since 1991, those treaties mostly were beneficial just for China; neither USA nor Russia could deploy short-range missiles, while China have no such obligations. As a result, China was able to create a worrying regional superiority over both nations.
 
fredymac said:
kaiserd said:
Again that dishonesty and self-exceptionalism presented as moralism. The current US administration (and Bush Jr. administration) has exited a number of international treaties and agreements when the other parties were not cheating but were fulfilling their obligations.
I will happily condemn the crimes and duplicity of the Putin regime.
That doesn’t blind me to the inherent double standards of those pushing their own untethered extremist positions that are self-evidentiary bad for their country.
If you abandon all treaties with Russia they are in a position to more quickly meaningfully push ahead of you (in a way they are not currently) and you will risk ruining what consensus can currently be created in the US re: renewing the US triad at approx. current levels and with your allies about basing, NATO nuclear mission tasked aircraft, etc.
All so you can feel better about yourselves as the real “hardmen” on this topic?
Click to expand...


Treaties that last have mutual benefit as perceived by both parties and which can be readily validated. The atmospheric test ban treaty is hard to cheat on.

As a non American and non US taxpayer, you are consistently agitated against US politics and weapon systems in a manner I don't recall seeing in any of your posts regarding any other country. Certainly not with the emotion and investment you reserve for the US. Your posts just in this exchange are pretty typical in your choice of adjectives.

My personal view on treaties goes way back to our founding. No unnecessary entanglements and only when reciprocity is required. If Europe wants to eliminate US tactical nukes from their inventory, that is their decision along with the acceptance of the consequences (US Army leaving for instance). For internal US nuclear policy, there is no consensus. Only an election can decide which way things will go.
Click to expand...

A post utterly devoid of fact.

I’ve been accused of being anti-British, anti-Russian etc. By contributors equally as one-eyed as you.
And which specific US weapon systems have I “agitated” against? Please give some specific examples, because I’m struggling to think of any.

And given that the 2 US parties don’t have internal unanimity on this topic and that for any particular policy re: this topic to “stick” long term you will need a degree of cross-part consensus, why will a particular election necessarily decide this?
Again this re-occurring and pernicious fantasy of victory over demonised opponents rather than dealing with actual reality.
 
kaiserd said:
A post utterly devoid of fact.

I’ve been accused of being anti-British, anti-Russian etc. By contributors equally as one-eyed as you.
And which specific US weapon systems have I “agitated” against? Please give some specific examples, because I’m struggling to think of any.

And given that the 2 US parties don’t have internal unanimity on this topic and that for any particular policy re: this topic to “stick” long term you will need a degree of cross-part consensus, why will a particular election necessarily decide this?
Again this re-occurring and pernicious fantasy of victory over demonised opponents rather than dealing with actual reality.
Click to expand...

A typical Kaiserd post will contain:

-despicable
-pernicious
-one-eyed
-traitorous
-dishonest
-lying
-far right
-untethered
-extremist

All garnered from just your last few posts.

These are all worked into a fantasy projection of your own motives onto people you disagree with. And all regarding policies of a country not your own. And this pattern occurs again and again and only with the US.
 
fredymac said:
kaiserd said:
A post utterly devoid of fact.

I’ve been accused of being anti-British, anti-Russian etc. By contributors equally as one-eyed as you.
And which specific US weapon systems have I “agitated” against? Please give some specific examples, because I’m struggling to think of any.

And given that the 2 US parties don’t have internal unanimity on this topic and that for any particular policy re: this topic to “stick” long term you will need a degree of cross-part consensus, why will a particular election necessarily decide this?
Again this re-occurring and pernicious fantasy of victory over demonised opponents rather than dealing with actual reality.
Click to expand...

A typical Kaiserd post will contain:

-despicable
-pernicious
-one-eyed
-traitorous
-dishonest
-lying
-far right
-untethered
-extremist

All garnered from just your last few posts.

These are all worked into a fantasy projection of your own motives onto people you disagree with. And all regarding policies of a country not your own. And this pattern occurs again and again and only with the US.
Click to expand...

I stand by my words in context, and I note how you are intentionally misrepresenting them, to try to make your self the victim.
On the most simple level I am equally if not more critical of many contributors who are not even remotely American, and of plenty of non-US decisions/ administrations.
To suggest anything else is patently absurd.

I also note you are not giving any answers to my points above. None. At all.

It is ironic that on many defence matters, including re: US nuclear forces going forward, I may be closer on some to many points to you than to those you evidently see as your enemy within. However I am continually appalled at your and others contributors repeated attacks on them on spurious and unjust basis, with the increasing use of far right tropes in these attacks.

And to return the focus to the actual topic international treaties are not asymmetric warfare and that suggestion is ridiculous (and is itself a alt-right trope).
 
kaiserd said:
I stand by my words in context, and I note how you are intentionally misrepresenting them, to try to make your self the victim.
On the most simple level I am equally if not more critical of many contributors who are not even remotely American, and of plenty of non-US decisions/ administrations.
To suggest anything else is patently absurd.

I also note you are not giving any answers to my points above. None. At all.

It is ironic that on many defence matters, including re: US nuclear forces going forward, I may be closer on some to many points to you than to those you evidently see as your enemy within. However I am continually appalled at your and others contributors repeated attacks on them on spurious and unjust basis, with the increasing use of far right tropes in these attacks.

And to return the focus to the actual topic international treaties are not asymmetric warfare and that suggestion is ridiculous (and is itself a alt-right trope).
Click to expand...

Yes you stand by your words. Thats the point. You are inviting me to waste my time. But here is a general observation:

When some organization, say POGO, launches a hit piece against a US military program, you respond by attacking critics using your usual charm and tactics.

When major new US initiatives (missile defense, space force, modernized nuke warheads) are brought up, your inputs are exactly what you would predict.

To the extent you "support" any US military project, it is of a kind that is dismissive and devoid of spirit.

Or you can just take your last few posts and note the overt hostility to the US in general and accurately apply it everywhere.

In general, your posts consist principally of examples of which we are currently engaged.
 
All this is moot if China isn't involved. The stupidest thing in the world would be to tie ourselves to a treaty with Russia (that they won't adhere to) while China is unfettered.
 
“Devoid of spirit”? - what a load of old cobblers BS pathetically pretending to be an argument you are peddling.
Did I not salute the flag sufficiently reverently enough? :)

And still no come back in my points above?

I am just going block you going forward and would suggest others might think about the same.

Apologies to other contributors for my part in this short digression.
 
I forgot about your other habit of ending a stream of derogatory names and projected motives with a sermon on reason and civility. If hypocrisy were gold, you would make Bezos look poor.

These tactics have reached an inflection point as observed around the world. Democratization of mass communication has made it necessary to use stronger methods to enforce a singular viewpoint. Getting called a nasty name N+1 times is not going to work when N times wasn't enough.
 
Dilandu said:
Being Russian, I must admit, that those bi-lateral treaties were of no practical use anymore. Russia is not a Soviet Union; we do not possess that amount of industrial and military power. On the other hands, China do; and China expressed exactly zero desire to even consider joining the bi-lateral treaties system.

Basically, since 1991, those treaties mostly were beneficial just for China; neither USA nor Russia could deploy short-range missiles, while China have no such obligations. As a result, China was able to create a worrying regional superiority over both nations.
Click to expand...

During that period the US has and continues to enjoy a massive advantage in manned/ unmanned aircraft and cruise missile precision attack non-nuclear capability over both China and Russia.
And while those Chinese intermediate missiles may be nominally dual-capable doesn’t everyone credible consider them almost 100 percent conventionally armed?
So using your same argument hasn’t the relative lack of treaty limitations lead the US to hold a significant advantage in conventional precision attack capability?

And exactly how many of these Chinese missiles are actually based and aimed against Russia rather than the Taiwan straight or US regional basis?
And how much of Russia’s military modernisation has actually been aimed against China as a possible foe?
And how much would no more nuclear weapon treaties play to Russia’s advantage in at least the short to medium term? Hence should we be extra wary of Russian posters suggesting this as a good outcome for the US?

I am being of a bit devil’s advocate in this regard (I think we can all get trapped in false equivalencies) but I think that the exercise of at least trying to see these issues from a rivals perspective is an illuminating one.
 
kaiserd said:
During that period the US has and continues to enjoy a massive advantage in manned/ unmanned aircraft and cruise missile precision attack non-nuclear capability over both China and Russia.
Click to expand...

Well, since we obtained advantages in tactical missiles and hypersonics, this was not as much a problem.

kaiserd said:
And while those Chinese intermediate missiles may be nominally dual-capable doesn’t everyone credible consider them almost 100 percent conventionally armed?
Click to expand...

Thing is, that nobody actually sure how much missiles and nukes China have. As Pakistan clearly demonstrated (when it became apparent that he have MORE nukes than India, despite everybody thought otherwise), such assumptions could easily be proven incorrect.

kaiserd said:
And exactly how many of these Chinese missiles are actually based and aimed against Russia rather than the Taiwan straight or US regional basis?
Click to expand...

Please! This is not 1962! Those missiles are highly mobile, and could be transported immediately.
 
thehill.com

Iranian nuclear agency says it can enrich uranium at any percentage

An Iranian official said Saturday that the country’s nuclear agency now has the capacity to enrich uranium at any percentage if leaders in Tehran give the green light.”At the momen…
thehill.com thehill.com
www.reuters.com

Iran has capacity to enrich uranium at any percentage: nuclear agency

Iran has the capacity to enrich uranium at any percentage if Iranian authorities decide to do so, the deputy head of the country's nuclear agency said in a report posted on its website on Saturday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
DOT&E's report pages on Columbia can be found here: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/navy/2019columbia.pdf
Page 120:
Assessment
• The Columbia EOA identified several design risks that may affect the ship’s operational effectiveness and suitability. The details are classified and can be found in the Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force and DOT&E classified reports. The Program Office had identified many of these risks prior to the 2018 EOA and has plans to mitigate them prior to the start of Columbia’s IOT&E in 2029.
• The 2018 Columbia EOA addressed M&S limitations identified in the 2013 Ohio Replacement EOA and revealed additional, albeit known M&S limitations. The Columbia- and Virginia-class programs are collaborating to update the M&S for future operational assessments and IOT&E.
• DOT&E will continue to work with the Navy to secure test resources needed to evaluate Columbia’s susceptibility against emerging threats identified by the Intelligence Community as relevant to the effectiveness and survivability of the Columbia-class submarine program.
• Evaluation of the Columbia-class’s survivability to underwater threats was assessed in the first Columbia Survivability Assessment Report in February 2018. Additional analysis is ongoing and the next Columbia-class submarine Survivability Assessment Report is expected in 2026, prior to lead ship delivery from the shipyard
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom