Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
America Needs More Nukes  
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

This is a supplement to the thread "Is [PRESIDENT] Bush weakening Our Military?"

Some posts questioned whether or not there was a need for America's nuclear arsenal. I didn't want to hijack the thread by going off on this tangent, so I thought a new one would be appropriate.

Currently the US maintains roughly 2,200 nuclear weapons - ALL of which are needed. In fact... here comes the shocker... we need MORE.

Our strategic war plan consists of a very long list of targets in Russia and a shorter list of targets in China. Oddly enough, the target list has been growing instead of contracting since the last arms reduction treaty in 1993. In fact, the list has grown by 20 percent!!! The vast bulk of the targets are in Russia. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are no longer targeted. The latest Pentagon report says the target list has gone from 2,500 in 1995, to 3,000 now. The report highlights 2,260 targets in Russia, alone.

American strategic planners have historically set the level of damage that they wish to inflict on vital targets at 80 percent. This is tantamount to requiring our forces to be able to destroy 80 percent of the 2,260 Russian targets, which in turn requires the ability to deliver nearly 1,800 warheads. If 1,800 warheads have to be delivered quickly, the Pentagon says, we need a larger arsenal because of the demands of maintenance. For instance, typically 6 to 7 of the 18 nuclear-armed submarines are port-bound at any time and cannot be counted on to survive and deliver nuclear warheads if we are attacked. Thus the United States needs one-third more sea-based strategic weapons than it can expect to deliver in wartime.

Even though the Cold War is over, the two sides still maintain roughly 2,200 warheads each. Our own warheads are requiring increased maintenance and care due to their growing age. In order to ensure we can destroy 80% of the targets, we need to increase our stockpile so that we do not have every single warhead on high alert (the ability to be launched within 30 minutes or less). Strangely, MORE warheads gives us a SAFER situation, b/c we are not putting 100% of our arsenal on the hair trigger. More warheads would let us allow us to standdown weapons on a rotational schedule.

-UH60

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTheCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1407 times:

We don't need more nukes. We need to spend more energy in preventing such situations, rather than focusing on the last resort.

Sure, deterrence is a necessity, but relying on a last resort initiative is indicative of poor foresight.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1396 times:

80% of 2200 is 1760 concurrent nuclear detonations... by our side alone. I think the war is over anyways.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker:
Strangely, MORE warheads gives us a SAFER situation, b/c we are not putting 100% of our arsenal on the hair trigger.

How so if the absolute number of immediately launchable warheads is still increased? The ratio is pretty much irrelevant there...

I fail to recognize the urgency for such an expansion since the post-nuclear-holocaust situation would not noticeably differ either way...

[Edited 2006-01-05 05:14:15]

User currently offlineKSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Why not? A government order would certainly get the economy rolling in whatever cities would manufacture parts for the warheads (as long as we don't outsource it to India).

Disclaimer (required when posting sarcasm in the Airliners.net Non-Aviation Forum)- The preceeding post was laced with sarcasm. Do not take it seriously. Do not quote it out of context.


User currently offlineAR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

Why would you like to nuke Russia if they no longer are an enemy??
why don't Congo, Surinam, Brazil, Japan or any other country??They are in the same situation as Russia now....

Quoting TheCoz (Reply 1):
We need to spend more energy in preventing such situations, rather than focusing on the last resort.

Amen

Mike



They don't call us Continental for nothing.
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1377 times:

Quoting TheCoz (Reply 1):

Sure, deterrence is a necessity, but relying on a last resort initiative is indicative of poor foresight.

One of the more interesting things that goes on in the Pentagon are simulated potential warfare senerios (war games). They gather personnel from all branches, and of varying ranks. They present them with a world crisis, some are very plausable, while others stretch the imagination. These 'games' are classified and what goes on, and the results are not released. However, what is known, is that what starts off as a relatively minor flare-up, can quickly resort to a massive conflict... perhaps with nuclear weapons.

Deterence truly works, but can only work when both sides fear total destruction. The lower you go, the "easier" it becomes to envision a nuclear exchange... b/c the threat of total destruction is missing.

-UH60


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1360 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
How so if the absolute number of immediately launchable warheads is still increased? The ratio is pretty much irrelevant there...

Currently weapons must standdown so they can receive scheduled maintenance. Also, with some of our weapons reaching their predicted service lives... reliability of accurate delivery is reduced. If you need 100 tanks to fight, but you only have 100 tanks... and at any given time 20-30% of those tanks are nonusable... then you're not meeting your tank requirement.

I probably should have posted this tomorrow instead. I have an early mission tomorrow and I am off to bed. Good night all.

-UH60 (aka: The warmongering lunatic whos dreams of more nukes )  sarcastic 


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Sweet dreams, then!  Cool

User currently offlineKiwiinOz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1332 times:

Don't know about anyone else, but this scares the hell out of me. The fact that people still talk about the need to increase the capacity to completely obliterate a huge portion of the human race.

This goes beyond the preservation of the security of the USA. If anyone enters into a war of this scale, I'm not sure there will be anything left worth defending anyway. Clearly an alternative focus is required???


User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1329 times:

More Euro naivete. Without nucs Germany would have been the center of a conventional WWIII. Yes the other problem is that the warheads are getting dated and also are the scientists who have experience with live tests. In a few years there will not be any scientists in our labs who have experienced a real test, since all of this is now done on computers. This also puts into question the reliability of newly constructed warheads. Thus also putting into question our deterrence capabilities.

User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7948 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
Currently the US maintains roughly 2,200 nuclear weapons - ALL of which are needed. In fact... here comes the shocker... we need MORE.

Ahem, what's left from the world if you are going to launch 2,000 nukes at the same time? Mud and some cockroaches? I think, those who are not sitting at the receiving end and who are lucky enough to die on the spot will die a couple of days, weeks or maybe years later, won't they?

That said, the U.S.A. promised to abolish nuclear weapons, hence the U.S. is already in breach with it's own written agreement. I hasten to add that the same goes for Britain, France and Russia (and probably other nations in possession of nuclear weapons) as well.

I'm especially critical of the proposed so-called mini-nukes. If America will actually develop them, other nations will follow and develop similar weapons and lower their threshold for use. Current non-nuclear states might then find themselves blackmailed by nuclear states, which will, I'm afraid, lead to an acceleration of nuclear proliferation and thus will heighten the risk of a nuclear war.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1283 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1305 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
Deterence truly works, but can only work when both sides fear total destruction. The lower you go, the "easier" it becomes to envision a nuclear exchange... b/c the threat of total destruction is missing.

He makes a good point here. The principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is what ensures both sides recognize they would have nothing to gain in starting a nuclear war. If it became "maybe assured destruction", i.e. "probably everyone would die but our country would stand a better chance", then all of a sudden one side might raise the possibility of launching a first strike. Not good.

That being said, the level of tension between the former Cold War adversaries is nowhere near what it was a couple of decades ago, so I'm not sure it is any longer necessary to maintain such a high number of nuclear weapons.

[Edited 2006-01-05 06:23:15]


You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineTheCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1294 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
One of the more interesting things that goes on in the Pentagon are simulated potential warfare senerios (war games). They gather personnel from all branches, and of varying ranks. They present them with a world crisis, some are very plausable, while others stretch the imagination. These 'games' are classified and what goes on, and the results are not released. However, what is known, is that what starts off as a relatively minor flare-up, can quickly resort to a massive conflict... perhaps with nuclear weapons.

This makes perfect sense from a military standpoint; we need to be prepared for whatever scenario the world may throw at us. However, the military deals with last case scenarios, it has much less power over the diplomatic situation. Consider the situation between India and Pakistan a few years ago.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june02/powell_5-30.html

COLIN POWELL: I am afraid that it is a very tense situation. I can't tell you how close to a war they might be. What we're trying to do is make sure they never reach that point. We are pressing President Musharraf very hard to cease all infiltration activities on the part of terrorist organizations across the line of control, and we are asking the Indians to show restraint until we can determine whether or not that infiltration activity has ceased.


I'd say we need more people like Colin Powell; not more nukes.


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5693 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1271 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
Currently the US maintains roughly 2,200 nuclear weapons - ALL of which are needed. In fact... here comes the shocker... we need MORE.

2200 nukes not enough? I think you need get your head checked. Urgently.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 7):
The warmongering lunatic whos dreams of more nukes

You got that one right.  crazy 


User currently offlineIRelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1269 times:

More nukes? You obviously didn't pay attention when they were going over "The Cold War" in your history class.

-IR


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1258 times:

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 10):
In a few years there will not be any scientists in our labs who have experienced a real test, since all of this is now done on computers. This also puts into question the reliability of newly constructed warheads.

Name something that isn't designed by computer nowadays. You probably deal with a lot of things that could conceivably kill you that were never tested in the real world before being manufactured in mass. I have a feeling there is enough engineering background done by now that if they want to build a new nuke, they'll get it right the first time.

Quoting TheCoz (Reply 13):
I'd say we need more people like Colin Powell; not more nukes.

I'm not saying we need more nukes but I think Colin Powell would wait too long to launch ours if the need really arose. He so worried he might offend someone that he might cost us a war.

My question would be, what shape are our adversaries in? Given the state of the Russian economy, and how they treat their military you really have to ask yourself just how well they are sitting before you start building new nukes. In addition, just because the "wish" list has been growing doesn't necessarily mean that all those targets have to be hit to ensure a "victory". I will be the first to admit that any nuclear war victory would be a pyrrhic victory at best.


User currently offlineBeowulf From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 730 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
Deterence truly works, but can only work when both sides fear total destruction. The lower you go, the "easier" it becomes to envision a nuclear exchange... b/c the threat of total destruction is missing.

I agree that deterrence works provided the parties to the conflict have a common fear of losing something. For instance, deterrence between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union worked because neither side wanted to annihilate the planet. Had either side pulled the trigger and blown up the world, there would have been no world to spread their influence in.    Therefore, I would argue that deterrence between these two ideologies (the "West" vs. "Communism") based on nuclear weapons worked because these two ideologies wanted something very worldly: influence and recognition.

Deterrence does not work when the parties to the conflict don't have that common fear of losing something. If you are suicide jihadist, for example, you don't fear death because you believe you'll end up in heaven. You don't care about the earth's annihilation because that's exactly what you want since there is a better life afterwards (in heaven). I fail to see how nukes can help deter these people. Moreover, how useful are nukes to deter rogue states from doing what they do? Like the suicide terrorists their motivation is irrational and cannot be met by nuclear deterrence.

Deterrence is based on rational actors. If you threaten me with your gun and I care about my life, I won't approach you. If I don't care about my life, I'll run towards you. So, you'll shoot me. Since I don't care about my life, I have my TNT-belt strapped around me, which will blow up both of us. Your gun wasn't much of a deterrence for me.   

[Edited 2006-01-05 09:02:18]

User currently offlineTheCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 16):
Powell would wait too long to launch ours if the need really arose. He so worried he might offend someone that he might cost us a war.

I consider the cost of a war to be miniscule compared to the survival of mankind. Empires rise and fall, and with them so do their ideologies.

Quoting Beowulf (Reply 17):
Deterrence does not work when the parties to the conflict don't have that common fear of losing something. If you are suicide jihadist, for example, you don't fear death because you believe you'll end up in heaven. You don't care about the earth's annihilation

True, which is why we should be spending more of this funding toward stopping nuclear proliferation. With unconventional warfare comes unconventional means to defeat the enemy -- terrorists don't care how many guns are pointed at their heads, as long as they get their 72 virgins in the end.

Looking to build more nukes is kind of silly when 'Abdul Azeez' could be out there with a small nuke in the trunk of his car. That's the real threat, and that's where the primary funding should be focused.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1202 times:

How is America going to overcome the second pillar of the None Proliferation Treaty? This says that the Nuclear Weapons bearing states must take every effort to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in their stockpile, which is hte opposite of this thread starters stance.

User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 7):
If you need 100 tanks to fight, but you only have 100 tanks... and at any given time 20-30% of those tanks are nonusable... then you're not meeting your tank requirement.

Fully agree, but why does the only superpower need to make its own nuclear winter?


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1192 times:

Just a brief note: According to globalsecurity.org, the U.S. has 6,390 deliverable nuclear warheads out of a total of 10,640 in its nuclear stockpile. The first figure is more than 58% of the world's estimated total number of deliverable nuclear weapons.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/summary.htm

[Edited 2006-01-05 10:39:36]

User currently offlineGary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
can quickly resort to a massive conflict... perhaps with nuclear weapons.

all the more reason for no one to have nukes then! I don't know why your worried about terrorists you`ll end up wiping yourself's out!

But sure fine why the hell not if Russia is such a big risk then from a Russian pov obviously America is still a big risk to Russia, they also increase their nuclear weapons. And brings my generation into a whole new cold war. prats. Are you destined to ignore and repeat history! And what happens when which ever nutter is in charge decides to do another 'pre emptive war' with nuclear weapons this time? Stop trying to screw up the world, and i would think 6,390 is more than enough to royally fuck us up. bollocks to what the pentagon thinks. Russia is not the enemy! Or has it escaped your notice that the G8 is in Russia this year. chances are you would end up making the christmas islands the worlds only super power! the worlds only anything!


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3977 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1152 times:

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 5):
why don't Congo, Surinam, Brazil, Japan

Been there, done that, got the radioactive fall-out.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12460 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 22):
Are you destined to ignore and repeat history!

The only thing that history teaches us is that we don't learn from history. no 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
25 BarfBag : Colin Powell has no credibility as any sort of peacemaker in Indian strategic circles. He only got airtime because of his position. If he came to Ind
26 KSYR : Nukes seemed to work fine in keeping the Russians out of your cities during the Cold War. I find it strange that now you have this animosity towards
27 WhiteHatter : here we are folks, another Ugly American changing the subject when he can't come up with a sensible answer. And you wonder why people hate Americans.
28 Pyrex : India has plans for SLBMs?
29 YOWza : Well instead of getting more nukes you could maybe encourage your government to make less enemies... YOWza
30 Post contains images Stall : I am amazed when I read that some people think that the use of hundreds/ thousand nuclear warheads could be useful or reasonable or justified. The pr
31 UH60FtRucker : I realize some of you think I am sort of Reagan-esque madman, hell bent on annihilating the human race. But I promise you, I'm not. I would rue the da
32 Gary2880 : It is the 5th of January two thousand and six. The soviet union doesn't exist. Calm down, come out from the duck and cover position. Take your finger
33 KSYR : Jumping a bit to conclusions now, aren't we? I never said American nukes kept your cities safe (although they did). I was referring to both the nukes
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
America Needs A Super Macho Patriot Brigade posted Mon Mar 7 2005 07:21:28 by MD-90
America Needs To Wake Up! posted Tue Nov 2 2004 07:40:43 by Kalakaua
Larry Bird Says NBA Needs More White Stars posted Thu Jun 10 2004 16:51:06 by Flyingbronco05
Britain Needs More Guns posted Wed Jan 15 2003 16:11:56 by Saintsman
America Needs A New Flag posted Mon Oct 7 2002 05:14:34 by We're Nuts
America To Use Nukes If Need Be! posted Sun Mar 10 2002 00:51:51 by Go Canada!
A More Puritanical America? posted Sun Aug 6 2006 10:13:33 by AerospaceFan
German Ex-Minister: Germany Needs Nukes posted Thu Jan 26 2006 22:12:04 by TheSonntag
Even More Animal Sex To Satisfy Your Needs posted Mon Aug 1 2005 04:44:06 by AsstChiefMark
If You Needed Any More Proof Dan Needs To Retire posted Fri Nov 5 2004 07:49:17 by L-188