UH60FtRucker
Topic Author
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:58 pm

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
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
theCoz
Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:06 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:05 pm

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.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:11 pm

80% of 2200 is 1760 concurrent nuclear detonations... by our side alone. I think the war is over anyways.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:13 pm

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]
 
KSYR
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:45 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:18 pm

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.
 
AR1300
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:22 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:18 pm

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
You are now free to move about the cabin
 
UH60FtRucker
Topic Author
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:22 pm

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
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
UH60FtRucker
Topic Author
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:30 pm

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 
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:31 pm

Sweet dreams, then!  Cool
 
kiwiinoz
Posts: 1999
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:07 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:42 pm

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???
 
sean1234
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2000 2:52 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:49 pm

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.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:05 pm

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
 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:21 pm

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.
 
theCoz
Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:06 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:30 pm

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.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5455
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:30 pm

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 
 
irelayer
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:31 pm

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

-IR
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:52 pm

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.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
beowulf
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:22 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:59 pm

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]
 
theCoz
Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:06 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:04 pm

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.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:24 pm

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.
 
nosedive
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 2:18 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:26 pm

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?
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:38 pm

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]
What's fair is fair.
 
Gary2880
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:52 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:54 pm

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!
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel :- Samuel Johnson
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:59 pm

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13685
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:00 pm

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2384
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:50 pm

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

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 India now, he'd be officially ignored. The US has little leverage or credibility when it comes to telling India what to do with its nukes. Sure you can make loud noises, throw about a bunch of sanctions and all. Fat lot of good it's done to the efforts to restrain our growing arsenal so far.

The risk of nuclear war in the subcontinent is no more than that between US and Russia/China, and never has been, regardless of naive western grandstanding to the contrary. The whole 'Injuns and Pakis going at each other with big bombs until the white man came and saved the day' tale is just tiresome condescention dished out by the same hypocritical parties who in the meantime live under the cover of a posse of MIRVed Minutemen, Trident-tipped Ohio-class SSBNs and whatever else. It's fun to play along with the story for amusement, but in reality it's just another piece of burlesque from a Clancy novel, no different from ideas of a US poobah like Colin parachuting in to defuse a tiff among the natives.

On the topic, I welcome a larger US nuclear arsenal. Can't think of a better situation in which to declare our ICBM and SLBM programs publicly. If the US tests a nuke, I'll give us a month to break our own moratorium.
 
KSYR
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:45 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:04 pm

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 22):
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!

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 them; they have protected your country for the last 60 years.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:26 pm

Quoting KSYR (Reply 26):
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 them; they have protected your country for the last 60 years.

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. Get over yourself.

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.

That is just ludicrous. The concept of M.A.D. related to the two sides of a combat, not the two sides plus the rest of the planet. 2,200 is enough to nuke this ball of rock to a poisoned cinder that not even E.T. could be able to visit for hundreds of thousands of years.

Saying you need more than is absolutely necessary to fight a war is arrogant belligerence and indicative of a mindset which has no right to be playing with nuclear fire. With rights come responsibilities, and nobody has the right to destroy every last sentient creature on the planet.

If you are religious. I suggest you go and read your bible. You will find that the Big Guy does not take kindly to others playing God.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:42 pm

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 25):
On the topic, I welcome a larger US nuclear arsenal. Can't think of a better situation in which to declare our ICBM and SLBM programs publicly

India has plans for SLBMs?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4282
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:47 pm

Well instead of getting more nukes you could maybe encourage your government to make less enemies...

YOWza
 
stall
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:57 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:51 am

Quoting YOWza (Reply 29):
Well instead of getting more nukes you could maybe encourage your government to make less enemies...

 checkmark 

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 problem with these weapons is that they provide a deterrent but their use (in large number) would simply end the human civilization. Period.

So having more nukes will not solve any problems
Flying is fun
 
UH60FtRucker
Topic Author
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:48 am

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 day of zero nations possessing nuclear arms, but I live in the real world and that dream is only a dream.

However, some people have an inadequate conception of nuclear war. Any nuclear exchange is bad, but ironically the less nuclear weapons you have, the more dangerous the situation becomes. If the number of warheads is reduced to 100, it becomes very plausible that a first strike could destroy those weapons and negate your ability to counter-attack. Nuclear war strategy is based around the counter attack - the counter attack is paramount variable.

SCENARIO:
A world crisis has both America and Russia at high alert. Russia launches a first strike. (A first strike would mostly likely not hit cities, rather ICBM silos, B1/B2/B52 airbases and submarine berths. - In order to eliminate as many American nukes as possible) Yet it cannot be guaranteed that a first strike would sufficiently eliminate enough American nukes, and thus the counter strike would follow and devastate Russia. That folks, is a very watered down scenario outlining "deterrence."

The situation is held in a balance because each side knows that a first strike cannot prevent a counter-strike. But what if you could ensure this? What if America only had 100 nukes? Well then! Ok, we have ourselves a ball game. A surprise attack with less than 20 minutes warning could achieve a fatal blow. Even if only 80% are eliminated, I have freed myself from the threat of annihilation. Deterrence is gone.

Strangely, many people do not know just how wrong NATO was during the Cold War. From 1948 on, America and NATO prepared a massive defensive network against a feared Soviet invasion of Western Europe. NATO believed any invasion would probably head across the Northern German plain to Hamburg and beyond, or west through the Fulda Gap to Frankfurt. Our entire defense was based around this theory of attack. Yet we were grossly wrong.

The break up of the Soviet Empire as allowed us access to millions of documents. We've learned that the Soviets never intended to wage a conventional war in Europe. Their battle plan was as follows: Military operations would begin with a massive barrage of between three and four hundred tactical nuclear weapons against a variety of NATO targets. This is straight from the horse's mouth! They did not have ANY plans for a conventional invasion - any attack on Europe would open with tactical nuclear warheads. No debate.

But why didn't they? They knew they could obliterate NATO with such little time that NATO wouldn't be able to react. However, interviews with Soviet military leaders tells us why. "We were afraid of mobile American nuclear tipped cruise missiles." The Pershing IIs were deeply feared in the halls of the Kremlin. A first strike could destroy NATO, but many of the Pershings could not be located and thus eliminated. Any attack would result in an immediate counter attack. Deterrence - it DOES work.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Gary2880
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:52 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:16 am

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 off the big red button. And stop wanting us all to blow each other to buggery!!

Quoting KSYR (Reply 26):

gaining more nuclear weapons serves no purpose, it antagonizes people who are supposed to be our friends now. It is war mongering. No its worse than that. The end of the human race may be slightly worse than a war. If you think the ability to bomb the living shit out of ourselves has even the remoteless possibility of being a viable option then you have some problems.

Rather than trying to war monger why not as it has already been said, put some effort into relations, we are friends now. rather than making more, a show of good faith by all party's to disarm their nuclear weapons would be a better idea.

at least that way if there was any 'rouge states' trying to develop a nuclear bomb the united nations and NATO would have reason to attack them, no one else has nukes so why should they, means that a country is obviously hostile. sounds a fine argument to me.

Has about as much chance of happening as me turning into the tooth fairy. But that's what should happen, even if it wont.
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel :- Samuel Johnson
 
KSYR
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:45 pm

RE: America Needs More Nukes

Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:34 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 27):
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. Get over yourself.

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 operated by America and those operated by the UK.

Sorry, my friend, but you can't deny or change history whenver it suits you. Being obnoxious about the past only makes yourself look ignorant.

[Edited 2006-01-05 23:03:08]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Airstud, petertenthije, vc10 and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos