soon7x7
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:44 am

While North Korea, Iran, China are escalating the threat of future nuclear tensions, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty, Russia may or may not be doing the same. Conversely Russia and the US should partner as global deterrents to rogue countries should they feel the need for aggression by maintaining strong nuclear arsenals as the next cold war is already here. To do less would be a rote demonstration of reckless abandon by both global leaders. We are headed once again into troubled waters either way. By the way...regarding the "Nuclear Clock"...what time is it?  Wow!      
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:47 am

Need to keep missile defense as an option also. Just say No..
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:55 am

There is no need for START. I have never trusted the Russians, and now with the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and whoever else wants to blow us off the face of the earth, we need to start reversing the damage that Clinton did to the military in the 1990's. This not only includes missiles, but should include looking some of the newer ships and aircraft sitting around in the boneyard and mothball fleets respectively.

Marc
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:57 am

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
While North Korea, Iran, China are escalating the threat of future nuclear tensions, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty, Russia may or may not be doing the same.

That's the exact reason for the treaty. It means we get to get our inspectors in to make sure Russia is on the up and up, and not letting loose nukes get to North Korea, Iran, China, etc.
I swear, I have never seen so much partisanship in my life -- Republicans are now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

[Edited 2010-12-15 16:57:56]
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8611
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:59 am

Funny thing, every living "Republican" Secretary of State endorses the new version of the Start Treaty. Ah! what do they know, DeMint knows better. Hey! he can even read.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
hka098
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:03 am

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
By the way...regarding the "Nuclear Clock"...what time is it?

6 minutes to midnight http://www.thebulletin.org/
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:05 am

Of course, the "because they have one means that I should too" excuse. The US and Russia should have gotten rid of nukes LONG ago. Russia and the US are no longer enemies like during the Cold War (in fact, were they even enemies?). Even if Iran and North Korea obtain nukes, just how many will they have in their arsenal? Two? three bombs? As soon as one is used against the US, they can be sure that there will be no mercy. And you don't need to have nukes to let them know that.

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
By the way...regarding the "Nuclear Clock"...what time is it?

The Doomsday Clock is set at 6 minutes to midnight...but apparently, people want it to be midnight already....strike that. They want it to be morning already..
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:06 am

Neither the US nor Russia will become nuclear impotent with a new treaty, or reductions in warheads.

The money saved could actually be used in upgrading existing delivery platforms (including ships &planes) as well as increased training.

I'm of the opinion that delivery platforms and increased training are more important than the actual number of warheads. This is especially true when you use a platform like a Navy ship that should only allocate a small percentage of the warhead capacity to special warheads, with the majority of the weapons capacity focused on conventional war fighting.
 
User avatar
2707200X
Posts: 4839
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:12 am

Obviously the Republicans in congress care more about the obstruction of the president that keeping up a treaty that has been supported by the GOP in earlier times and has the support of five secretaries of state at this time. American elected conservatives are putting the safety of the American people at risk in the name of politics.

[Edited 2010-12-15 17:21:32]
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
 
Stabilator
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:42 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:19 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
As soon as one is used against the US

One nuke going off in the US is FAR too many. I'm not sure why we would want things to get that far. Nukes in the possession of countries like North Korea and Iran is a bad thing for the world.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
And you don't need to have nukes to let them know that.

But it's the easiest way.
So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:21 am

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
Conversely Russia and the US should partner as global deterrents to rogue countries should they feel the need for aggression by maintaining strong nuclear arsenals as the next cold war is already here.

We'll still have strong nuclear arsenals with the new START treaty. We'll only be able to destroy the world three times over instead of ten. Add in that ratifying the treaty could go a ways toward repairing relations with Russia and convincing them to put some pressure on Iran and North Korea to cut the crap (in addition to the inspection benefits that DLX mentioned), and this one is a no-brainer. The GOP holding it up is partisan grandstanding of the worst sort.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
. I have never trusted the Russians, and now with the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and whoever else wants to blow us off the face of the earth

Why the hell would China want to blow us off the face of the earth when we are the biggest contributor to their economy? And Iran and North Korea can't blow us off the face of the earth - they don't have the firepower to. North Korea can't even get their delivery system to work. And they know that if they flip a nuclear weapon at us, we will flip many more than that back at them. The people who run those countries may not be reasonable, but they're not stupid either.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty

I don't think that there is ever a time to dilute the capability. That isn't the same thing as diluting the arsenal though.

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
and not letting loose nukes get to North Korea, Iran, China, etc.

They can get them themselves. There are no secrets in physics.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
Russia and the US are no longer enemies like during the Cold War (in fact, were they even enemies?).

If you bury the hatchet, you'd better damn well remember where you put it.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:19 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):

They can get them themselves. There are no secrets in physics.

Knowing how to build a nuclear weapons is a whole lot different from being able to do it. You've got to have very advanced manufacturing processes, very tight quality control, you have to be able to obtain the material, etc. And that's beyond the reach of some countries. Look at North Korea's rocketry problems - knowing how to build a rocket is not the issue for them, but building it so that it's reliable is. Same deal.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:30 am

At what point do you drop below the number of deliverable warheads that makes a nuclear war "winnable".

And that's a serious question. So please none of these lame responses of "any nuclear weapon used is a loss for all mankind" blah blah blah.

I'm talking true strategic planning. This is one of those truly complicated military issues that so many people have no idea what the heck they're talking about.

...Look, there is number out there, where it actually becomes possible to "win". At this number, during a first strike attack either side can reasonably expect to eliminate the enemy's hardened silos. The missiles inside those silos will almost all be rendered inoperable. And any missiles, with their warheads, that survived would not be in sufficient number to conduct a serious second strike counter-attack.

Therefore the victim nation must rely on SLBMs. However, due to the fact that these warheads are of a lower kiloton range, and possess less accuracy than their land based brethren, they are more useful for counter-value strikes, than the purview of ICBMs: counter-force strikes.

So that means that the second strike counter-attack would be against enemy soft targets: cities, ports, bases, etc. ...However since you have lost your own land based platforms, you lack the ability to destroy the enemy's remaining hardened silos. So even if you counter-attack and destroy enemy cities, they possess those land based silos that can in turn, destroy your own cities.

Basically.... when you lower the number of your first strike arsenal, you actually make it more likely that a war could be conceivably won against you. It virtually puts you into the impossible position of having to chose just how bad you want to be bloodied.

[Edited 2010-12-15 18:40:38]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8611
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:00 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_russia_nuclear


It looks like some movement on the start treaty. Maybe some bi-partisan co-operation. I wonder why. I think the Republicans blinked.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
RottenRay
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:43 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:05 am

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 8):
Obviously the Republicans in congress care more about the obstruction of the president that keeping up a treaty that has been supported by the GOP in earlier times and has the support of five secretaries of state at this time. American elected conservatives are putting the safety of the American people at risk in the name of politics.


Thank you. Welcome to my RU list.


This is a magical time to be alive - the so-called conservatives and the Grand Old Party are simply tearing themselves apart trying to recapture the prestige they have lost by not being conservative or grand - merely old.


Cheers!
 
hka098
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:28 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
At what point do you drop below the number of deliverable warheads that makes a nuclear war "winnable".

And that's a serious question. So please none of these lame responses of "any nuclear weapon used is a loss for all mankind" blah blah blah.

I'm talking true strategic planning. This is one of those truly complicated military issues that so many people have no idea what the heck they're talking about.

You do? Despite you not wanting to hear any lame responses, some are going to be aired. Elevating a conflict with nuclear weapons is a serious problem for everyone. The math behind what is needed to make a nuclear war "winnable" is a very complex question. A first strike victor will decide the outcome of an exchange. Like fisticuffs, if you can't win within thirty seconds, you won't. Many experts have argued over the years that a nuclear war would result in a loss for both sides. Maybe the correct question to ask what amount of loss is a nation willing to accept to "win" a nuclear war. Both sides will sustain significant losses immediately, and for years after, the denial of land and resources. Many folks, not directly involved in the fight, will suffer and lose their way of life. What end is worth that?
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6622
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:08 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
I swear, I have never seen so much partisanship in my life -- Republicans are now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Why does this have to be voted on now? Why not wait until the 112th takes over? If it's such an awesome treaty, Obama shouldn't be afraid of a reduced majority in The Senate...should he?
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8611
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:15 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Why does this have to be voted on now? Why not wait until the 112th takes over? If it's such an awesome treaty, Obama shouldn't be afraid of a reduced majority in The Senate...should he?

One has to ask, why block it? It appears to be another case of plain old obstruction. See reply 14, there is now debate, which there should be.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
soon7x7
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:19 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
and not letting loose nukes get to North Korea, Iran, China, etc.


They are already working on their own...they don't need the Russian hardware, they just need the technology. Do you really think our inspectors are treated to the real dirt...me thinks not...or rather...Niet!

Quoting hka098 (Reply 5):


Figured it was about that time...  Wow!  Wow!  Wow! !

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
The US and Russia should have gotten rid of nukes LONG ago.


I agree...we both started it and we should have both finished it now we have the beginnings of a big mess. What happens after Iran, China, and the N. Koreans finally get their sparklers...next, the open market...Taliban, Al Qaeda?...that's the problem with this beast. Once that extreme is realized we,...the world community,...will have wished leading nations had ended this earlier while control was in the hands of a few, I'm afraid.

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):


We too traveled the same road once, didn't we? The fact is, had America not captured German technology regarding nuclear bombs and rockets during WWll...Bombing Japan might not of happened. The Japanese in concert with the Germans were looking to nuke the US...we got lucky.
While we do and probably always will still have the advantage, I for one would rather not see that extent tested if we can help it.

Quoting rottenray (Reply 15):
This is a magical time to be alive - the so-called conservatives and the Grand Old Party are simply tearing themselves apart trying to recapture the prestige they have lost by not being conservative or grand - merely old.


Almost like they are an uncontained engine failure!
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6622
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:02 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 18):
One has to ask, why block it? It appears to be another case of plain old obstruction. See reply 14, there is now debate, which there should be.

No, I believe it should be debated by the new Congress. There will not be enough time to properly vet this treaty. If it's a treaty that enhances our national security, then it can wait a few months. Why rush it? Because, they know that it will not stand up to scrutiny.

Reid trying to slam it through because he knows he will have a hard time next year.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:43 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 20):
If it's a treaty that enhances our national security, then it can wait a few months. Why rush it?

If the treaty enhances our national security, then why wait?
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:48 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Basically.... when you lower the number of your first strike arsenal, you actually make it more likely that a war could be conceivably won against you. It virtually puts you into the impossible position of having to chose just how bad you want to be bloodied.

In the scenario you describe, it seems like the question of a victory is a mere academic one. If the US were to strike first, the opponent would lose their land-based missile capability but would retain their sea-launched arsenal, which would then be directed against cities, infrastructure, etc. The US would then return fire to take out the opponents' cities. Either way, while one side gets to keep some of their arsenal, both sides lose their cities, which would seem to be a high enough price to pay to deter anyone from launching a first strike, which is the whole point of nuclear weapons in the first place.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 19):
The fact is, had America not captured German technology regarding nuclear bombs and rockets during WWll...Bombing Japan might not of happened.

All the more reason to take steps to avoid such things happening again with different countries.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 20):
There will not be enough time to properly vet this treaty.

It was signed in April. They've had plenty of time to look over it.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6622
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:49 am

Quoting cws818 (Reply 22):
If the treaty enhances our national security, then why wait?


Because until the treaty is properly investigated and vetted we don't know that it enhances security, now, do we?

Is 10, or whatever amount of days left in the session, really enough to go through the treaty, understand it and make a determination...with all the other stuff Reid is trying to get down?

I don't think so. He's trying to overwhelm the process and push all the junk legislation through and sneak a treaty in also.

The GOP needs to stand up and stop him.

If this treaty is good for the country, it can wait and pass on its own merits when it can be deliberated at whatever passes for leisure in The Senate.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:55 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
Because until the treaty is properly investigated and vetted we don't know that it enhances security, now, do we?

It has been vetted, particularly it has been vetted by people who know how to vet arms treaties. People such as military leaders and former (republican) secretaries of state.

The only people who haven't "vetted" it yet are Senators, and if you ask me, I don't really give a flying flip what untrained Senators have to say about arms reduction.

Plain and simple, Kyl is using this as a political football. Nothing else.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Why does this have to be voted on now? Why not wait until the 112th takes over? If it's such an awesome treaty, Obama shouldn't be afraid of a reduced majority in The Senate...should he?

Because a deal with another country is like stoppage time in soccer. You don't know how long. How do you think it looks to the Russians right now that they've ponied up this deal, and the Americans are playing freakin' politics with it?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:16 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
At what point do you drop below the number of deliverable warheads that makes a nuclear war "winnable".

First, it seems as though a lot of people's ideas of nuclear weapons is still in the late 1950s or 1960s when a nuclear war meant the end of the world. Through the 1970s and 1980s this changed quite a bit.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
However, due to the fact that these warheads are of a lower kiloton range, and possess less accuracy than their land based brethren, they are more useful for counter-value strikes, than the purview of ICBMs: counter-force strikes.

Modern Tridents probably can be useful in a first strike scenario. Their CEP is considered to be around 120m with 4 warheads.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Basically.... when you lower the number of your first strike arsenal, you actually make it more likely that a war could be conceivably won against you.

There certainly is a threshold above which a first strike would be ineffective, and the US should stay above it.

[Edited 2010-12-16 16:15:25 by srbmod]
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 9950
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:30 am

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 9):
Nukes in the possession of countries like North Korea and Iran is a bad thing for the world.

If you don't want Iran to have them you better take them away from Israel.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:51 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
If this treaty is good for the country, it can wait and pass on its own merits when it can be deliberated at whatever passes for leisure in The Senate.

In all probability the only leisure time the Senate will have is between now and the end of the session. Starting January the Republicans will be working towards the 2012 election.

And since the current Senate has had months to figure out the treaty it seems appropriate that it be voted on. Up or down. We've got a Senate full of folks who believe they are so great - let them vote.

And if the Republicans so desire, let them set a new standard of politics and refuse to ratify it. That standard will be fully appreciated by them when they get back into the White House.

Quoting D L X (Reply 25):
The only people who haven't "vetted" it yet are Senators, and if you ask me, I don't really give a flying flip what untrained Senators have to say about arms reduction.

And we will be adding more untrained Senators in January.

But, hey, the Republican Party doesn't have too god a record this century on issues of WMD.   
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19758
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:36 am

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
While North Korea, Iran, China are escalating the threat of future nuclear tensions, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty, Russia may or may not be doing the same.

You think that there's a chance that only having ~1,000 nuclear warheads and the world's most advanced conventional weaponry isn't enough for a war with any of these countries?

What can you do with 2,000 warheads that you can't do with 1,000?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
AustrianZRH
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:55 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:17 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
At what point do you drop below the number of deliverable warheads that makes a nuclear war "winnable".

That depends on multiple factors:
1. Who's your opponent? Imagine an all-out nuclear war between the US and Russia, both sides being able to deploy 1,000+ warheads, land and submarine based. Both countries will be devastated afterwards, both governments rendered ineffective, and both countries will be pushed to anarchy. Imagine in contrast a "nuclear" war between North Korea and the United States. The US need exactly ZERO nuclear warheads to win this nuclear war. If they want to go for the an eye for an eye tactic, they need maybe five.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
...Look, there is number out there, where it actually becomes possible to "win". At this number, during a first strike attack either side can reasonably expect to eliminate the enemy's hardened silos. The missiles inside those silos will almost all be rendered inoperable. And any missiles, with their warheads, that survived would not be in sufficient number to conduct a serious second strike counter-attack.

Depends on your early warning capability. I think I've read that for ICBMs fired from Russia Keyhole satellites would detect the firing of the missiles, and the Greenland and Alaska radar stations will track them pretty early, giving the opposite party enough time to shove their ICBMs out of the silos. So at least one salve of land-based long-distance missiles can be expected to be fired.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):

Therefore the victim nation must rely on SLBMs. However, due to the fact that these warheads are of a lower kiloton range, and possess less accuracy than their land based brethren, they are more useful for counter-value strikes, than the purview of ICBMs: counter-force strikes.

Numbers got pretty equal. A Trident II D5 carries 8 (START limitation, capability is 12) W88 warheads with 475 kt each, over a range of about 12,000 km with an accuracy of 120 m with INS guidance only. The only remaining silo-based US ICBM is the Minuteman III LGM-30G, which has only 1 to 3 W87 warheads with 300 kt each, upgradeable to 475 kt as maximum blast warheads. Other options are 170 or 335 kt. In total there are 450 missiles with 500 warheads planned. The accuracy is about 150 m as well.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Basically.... when you lower the number of your first strike arsenal, you actually make it more likely that a war could be conceivably won against you. It virtually puts you into the impossible position of having to chose just how bad you want to be bloodied.

As long as you keep the SLBMs as counterforce, this victory is only possible at the expense of losing your own country. The whole story behind MAD. Always maintain second-strike power.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
 
hka098
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:43 am

Rose-Colored glasses aside, the truth is about money. Can we out spend our enemies into losing a possible conflict? That strategy worked well for the Reagan administration, but may not work now. The U.S. and the rest of the World is in a bit of a financial mess. The U.S. spends more on the military than all the other nations of the World, combined. That is something the current economy just cannot sustain. In fifteen years the U.S. will no longer be the largest economy on the planet (The Economist), guess who that title will go to. Our enemies are not beating us with nuclear weapons, and the irony is we're helping them every step of the way. One thousand warheads is enough to destroy life on this planet. It doesn't take a highly-evolved mind to see that is a loss for everyone.

[Edited 2010-12-16 16:16:17 by srbmod]
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6622
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:47 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 23):
It was signed in April. They've had plenty of time to look over it.

Did I miss Reid bringing it up for debate or hearings? Or was he wasting our time with other crap? I have no idea if he brought it to the table at all.

Quoting D L X (Reply 25):
The only people who haven't "vetted" it yet are Senators, and if you ask me, I don't really give a flying flip what untrained Senators have to say about arms reduction.

For better or for worse, the Constitution says "by advice and consent of The Senate". So, The Senate must also vet it.

Again, if it's such an awesome treaty, it will stand the scrutiny, won't it?

[Edited 2010-12-16 03:48:18]
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:40 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
Did I miss Reid bringing it up for debate or hearings?

Are you suggesting that it can only be read once he brings it up? Like I said, this thing was signed in April, and if a senator wanted to do his job properly, he'd either look at the treaty and its implications himself in the 8 intervening months, or direct some of his staff to do it, knowing that it would eventually be brought up for debate.

They've had plenty of time to vet it. If they haven't done so, that's their fault. What they really want to do is add it to the list of bargaining chips they can use against Obama during the next Congress.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:10 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 19):
I agree...we both started it and we should have both finished it now we have the beginnings of a big mess. What happens after Iran, China, and the N. Koreans finally get their sparklers...next, the open market...Taliban, Al Qaeda?...that's the problem with this beast. Once that extreme is realized we,...the world community,...will have wished leading nations had ended this earlier while control was in the hands of a few, I'm afraid.

You cannot "undiscover" physics. Once the science has been figured out and everyone knows that it is possible, others will follow.

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
While North Korea, Iran, China are escalating the threat of future nuclear tensions, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty

I tend to agree. Russia is not a threat to us because the Russians don't have a deathwish any more than we do. That's what kept the peace from the 50s through the 80s. However once nukes are in the hands of religious fanatics, that safeguard of rational desire-to-live is gone. We have offensive weapons in spades and have had them for half a century - what we need are defensive weapons such as missile defense, and any treaty that seeks to limit them should be rejected out of hand.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6622
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:13 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 34):
Are you suggesting that it can only be read once he brings it up?

They can read it all they want. Until Reid brings it to the table they couldn't call witnesses and 'experts'. They couldn't ask detailed questions and expect substantial answers.

Quoting Mir (Reply 34):
What they really want to do is add it to the list of bargaining chips they can use against Obama during the next Congress.

And after the way Obama and Reid chose to treat their friends and colleagues on the Right, do you blame them?

But, again, I ask: why is Reid and Obama afraid of the scrutiny that the new Senate will bring? If it's a good treaty, it will be ratified.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:18 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
The money saved could actually be used in upgrading existing delivery platforms (including ships &planes) as well as increased training.

Part of the problem with the treaty is that it limits not only warheads but delivery platforms and doesn't differ between platforms that can deliver conventional mutions. If it can deliver both it is considered a nuclear weapons platform.

The other problem with this is the language concerning missile defense. The Russians still understand that they are well behind us technologically when it comes to strategic missile defense and they desperately want this treaty ratified since it will hamstring us as the 1972 ABM treaty did. We should not trade that away for anything.

Call it partisan if you wish but there are parts of this treaty that need to be rewritten. There should be no hurry to get into a bad deal.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
hka098
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 35):
what we need are defensive weapons such as missile defense, and any treaty that seeks to limit them should be rejected out of hand.

Exactly! It is as if the Russians are opposed to us having them because it takes any kind of advantage out of their hands.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:49 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 36):
They can read it all they want. Until Reid brings it to the table they couldn't call witnesses and 'experts'. They couldn't ask detailed questions and expect substantial answers.

Perhaps not in formal session, but there's nothing to say that they couldn't have been asking plenty of questions to the experts for the past eight months.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 36):
But, again, I ask: why is Reid and Obama afraid of the scrutiny that the new Senate will bring? If it's a good treaty, it will be ratified.

Sure, in exchange for something the GOP wants but that the Democrats don't. The GOP could at least have the guts to just say that and not hide behind the bogus "we need more time" excuse.

Quoting dxing (Reply 37):
Part of the problem with the treaty is that it limits not only warheads but delivery platforms and doesn't differ between platforms that can deliver conventional mutions. If it can deliver both it is considered a nuclear weapons platform.

The only category that falls under the definition of being able to deliver both is bombers - you're not going to put conventional munitions on an ICBM or SLBM. And the treaty states that bombers equipped with nuclear weapons are distinct from bombers of that same type equipped with conventional weapons. In other words, a B-52 equipped for conventional bombs does not count against the total, whereas a B-52 equipped for nuclear bombs would. See Article III, Clause 7b.

Quoting dxing (Reply 37):
The other problem with this is the language concerning missile defense.

There is no language concerning missile defense in the treaty, apart from a mention in a preambulatory clause, and Clause 7a of Article III, which states that defensive missiles aren't affected by the treaty.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6622
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:00 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
The GOP could at least have the guts to just say that and not hide behind the bogus "we need more time" excuse.


It's not bogus. The treaty has not been sufficiently vetted, plain and simple. Being able to use it as a bargaining chip, assuming it's palatable, is a bonus.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:05 pm

Just spit-balling here, but nukes have to be maintained by someone highly trained and they do have a 5-10 year shelf life. All those warheads that Russia has been hoarding since early 1990's are most likely decommissioned.   
 
hka098
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:09 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 41):
All those warheads that Russia has been hoarding since early 1990's are most likely decommissioned.

True, but the parts that go boom, can be re-purposed into another device. No?
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:47 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
The treaty has not been sufficiently vetted, plain and simple.

If the GOP hasn't sufficiently vetted the treaty, that's too bad for them, since they've had months to do it. Numerous foreign policy experts, including Republicans, have come out in support of it - they've obviously been able to vet it sufficiently. Get the thing ratified, and let's move on.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:29 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
Again, if it's such an awesome treaty, it will stand the scrutiny, won't it?

Scrutiny for political sake is not scrutiny.

A thoughtful senator would do exactly what has already been done. Kyl's just upset that it has Obama's name on it instead of his.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:41 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
The only category that falls under the definition of being able to deliver both is bombers - you're not going to put conventional munitions on an ICBM or SLBM

Not on an ICBM but but 3 Ohio class SSBN's do.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/ohio_class.htm

Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
In other words, a B-52 equipped for conventional bombs does not count against the total, whereas a B-52 equipped for nuclear bombs would. See Article III, Clause 7b.

Since there is no distinction between the two, especially in the B1 and B2 that automatically limits us. The wording is completely wrong.

Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
There is no language concerning missile defense in the treaty,

Article V section 2

2. When a Party believes that a new kind of strategic
offensive arm is emerging, that Party shall have the right to
raise the question of such a strategic offensive arm for
consideration in the Bilateral Consultative Commission.


The Russians have always considered anything to do with missile defense as being a strategic offensive arm since they have no counter. Why do you think they made such a fuss last year about the deal to put interceptors in former east block countries? The way that section is worded they could legitimately claim we are violating the treaty by attempting to build or deploy any type of ballistic missile defense. That wording needs to be change to read, "When a Party believes that a new kind of strategic offensive arm is emerging, except for missile defense interceptors, that Party shall have the right....."
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:50 pm

Quoting rottenray (Reply 15):
This is a magical time to be alive - the so-called conservatives and the Grand Old Party are simply tearing themselves apart trying to recapture the prestige they have lost by not being conservative or grand - merely old.
Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
I swear, I have never seen so much partisanship in my life -- Republicans are now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 18):
One has to ask, why block it? It appears to be another case of plain old obstructio

Oh my..People still seem to be sore over this last election. And of course a good Democrat would never obstruct. Stop bringing this lame argument to the table.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 20):
No, I believe it should be debated by the new Congress. There will not be enough time to properly vet this treaty. If it's a treaty that enhances our national security, then it can wait a few months. Why rush it? Because, they know that it will not stand up to scrutiny.

The Senate needs to do a full and open hearing like the Constitution would like them to do.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):
UH60FtRucker

Great posts..

Quoting D L X (Reply 25):
It has been vetted,

Not....

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
And we will be adding more untrained Senators in January

Like we added an untrained Preesident.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
What can you do with 2,000 warheads that you can't do with 1,000?

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

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:35 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 23):
In the scenario you describe, it seems like the question of a victory is a mere academic one.

I would agree with that. At the end of the day, isn't all strategic planning and war gaming a academic exercise?

Problem is, I think some people get into this irrational emotional frenzy over nuclear war. Perhaps it's the sheer scale of destruction, or the long last effects... but when it comes to using nuclear weapons, some people simply cannot A.) fathom their use B.) fathom that any one else could disagree that nuclear weapons are "evil".

...And so they frame this argument through solely their own interpretation. And they ignore that other people may disagree with them, and may see nuclear war as a viable option. Like I said: rose colored glasses.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 26):
Apparently you are interested since you keep posting...Being a chopper pilot in the Army does not make one anymore an expert on Nuclear conflict than my 30 years of piloting planes makes me an astronaut. It just makes you a chopper pilot in the Army...The only nuclear bomb experts I can think of are the Japanese that died almost a generation ago and some B-29 crew members.

Well first, I would challenge you to highlight where I said that I was some kind of "expert." Please show me.

I don't think you will be able to do so, because I'm the first to admit that I don't know jack about nuclear weapons. Notice that when I asked what the magic number is where nuclear war could be viewed as "winnable"... that I never even attempted to answer that question. Why? Because I'm simply not educated enough to answer it myself.

But as for my job, that's really irrelevant. Because I could be a school janitor, and I would still have access to the same general sources available. Regardless of what my job is, I think most of us have heard about "Minimum Deterrence". It's been studied by men far smarter than I, and concluded that once below a certain number, it could strategically be possible to "win" a nuclear exchange.

But I'm serious, show me where I said that.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Modern Tridents probably can be useful in a first strike scenario. Their CEP is considered to be around 120m with 4 warheads.

I would agree that it's moving in that direction. However, with only 14 Ohios left, based at only two ports, and just like the carriers, not all boats actually available for patrol. It's a tight margin.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
There certainly is a threshold above which a first strike would be ineffective, and the US should stay above it.

I completely agree. And as I tried to explain to Soon7x7, I have no idea what that number is. I'm just someone looking in, from the outside!

However, I think there are some people here who fail to even accept that there is a "minimum number", because in their mind, the maximum number is zero! And that's why I mentioned that scenario. They're completely unwilling to accept that not everyone in this world sees nuclear war as an impossible choice, and that because of this, we must be prepared to deter them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Wouldn't it be nice to just convince everyone to be friends and take care of issues as a World Community, you know, like the League of Nations?

lol yes, some kind of organized, incorruptible group of leaders who put politics aside, and vote for the betterment of mankind!

What a fantastic idea.

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 31):
Depends on your early warning capability. I think I've read that for ICBMs fired from Russia Keyhole satellites would detect the firing of the missiles, and the Greenland and Alaska radar stations will track them pretty early, giving the opposite party enough time to shove their ICBMs out of the silos. So at least one salve of land-based long-distance missiles can be expected to be fired

I don't think the worry is with our detection abilities. Hell, at this point we are advancing to where we are able to detect intra-theater missiles, such as SCUDs. So the ability to detect and track incoming ICBMs is not the worry.

Rather the wild card is the human aspect. With anywhere between 20-40 minutes of warning, can we successfully organize our strategic leadership, in time? Will they be briefed and prepared to make the necessary calls? Because under that scenario that I laid out... if as a nation, you have a minimal force of ICBMs, it is imperative that you use those missiles before they are taken out in the first strike. In order to keep the playing field level, you must respond immediately by eliminately whatever missile silos/depots remain. Otherwise after your counte-rvalue secondary strike, those remaining warheads would be used to conduct their own counter-value attack... on top of the intial counter-force attack.

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 31):
As long as you keep the SLBMs as counterforce, this victory is only possible at the expense of losing your own country. The whole story behind MAD. Always maintain second-strike power.

But it really comes down to what your enemy sees as acceptable losses. If you drop below a specific number of warheads, it just might actually be below what your enemy sees as unacceptable losses.

Quoting hka098 (Reply 32):

Lame.   
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
flanker
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:42 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:48 pm

Anyone who thinks that the Ruskies will follow any sort of rules is delusional. They care about their wellbeing and nothing else.
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
 
Acheron
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:53 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 1):
Need to keep missile defense as an option also.

Biggest waste of money ever.

Quoting flanker (Reply 48):
Anyone who thinks that the Ruskies will follow any sort of rules is delusional. They care about their wellbeing and nothing else.

Gee, you just decribed every major country out there, including the US. Welcome to the real world.
 
hka098
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:54 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 47):
can we successfully organize our strategic leadership, in time? Will they be briefed and prepared to make the necessary calls?

Aren't there still folks stilling in NORAD, watching? Also, aren't the missile silos manned 24/7? I am not sure how they will get the word to a submarine hundreds of feet underwater.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 47):
Lame.

I defer to you on that...
 
AustrianZRH
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:55 pm

Obama...No Start Treaty!

Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:04 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 47):
But it really comes down to what your enemy sees as acceptable losses. If you drop below a specific number of warheads, it just might actually be below what your enemy sees as unacceptable losses.

I think with 14 Ohios with 24 Tridents each with 8 475 kt warheads per missile, in total up to 2688 warheads, the only people seeing the possible counterstrike losses as acceptable are religous fanatics and dictators with nothing to lose. But those also won't be deterred by 1000 land-based ICBMs with 20 40 Mt warheads per missiles... IMHO, those Ohios are what really keep the deterrence up.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Airstud, Baidu [Spider] and 11 guests