Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 190

Thread: Obama Mulls 80 Percent Disarmament of Nuclear Arsenal

  1. #46
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corrupt View Post
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not some CND lunatic, I certainly value our deterrant and think we should continue to maintain it, but to claim that the at peak numbers the US didn't have enough is insane.
    And you base this on? Did you base this on things like the number of targets that need to be hit, how many warheads it takes to take out each target, miss rates, reliability rates, losses in the initial exchange (unless you plan on launching on warning), what you need to keep in reserve, and how many you need to ensure that number? Did you consider duds, systemic problems like the W80 and W76 had, etc.? Or are you going with that old saw, "ZOMG if one nuke gets launched the world will 'splode so we've already lost"? There may not being any "winners" in a nuclear war but there are certainly varying degrees of how much you lost.

  2. #47
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danielc View Post
    Why would a reduction in nuclear bombs be considered a bad thing. No sane US president will consider using such a device against another country, unless they are in the most extreme of circumstances, which is something that is not likely to take place for the near future, and beyond. Even during the cold war, the Soviets had a direct line to the white house to ensure that there were no misjudgements taking place on either side of the fence that could tip both countries to unleash nuclear bombs on each other. It looks like a very good decision on the part of Pres. Obama, and probably a Republican president would do the same.
    I take it you've made billions in the stock market with your skills in precognition?

  3. #48
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    And you base this on? Did you base this on things like the number of targets that need to be hit, how many warheads it takes to take out each target, miss rates, reliability rates, losses in the initial exchange (unless you plan on launching on warning), what you need to keep in reserve, and how many you need to ensure that number? Did you consider duds, systemic problems like the W80 and W76 had, etc.? Or are you going with that old saw, "ZOMG if one nuke gets launched the world will 'splode so we've already lost"? There may not being any "winners" in a nuclear war but there are certainly varying degrees of how much you lost.
    You seems to know it better then MoD and all generals!

  4. #49
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyusu View Post
    You seems to know it better then MoD and all generals!
    You mean those who are against reducing the number of nuclear weapons? Those generals?

  5. #50
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rattfink View Post
    But you don't need to destroy humanity to have effective deterrence. You only need more bombs than a country is willing to risk absorbing which so far, is two. 300 is probably plenty.
    Is it? Mao said China could afford to lose 500 million and still come out better than the USA or USSR in a nuclear war...

  6. #51
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rattfink View Post
    But you don't need to destroy humanity to have effective deterrence. You only need more bombs than a country is willing to risk absorbing which so far, is two. 300 is probably plenty.
    Assuming the other guy will always be rational, and will never miscalculate, is a good way to end up dead.

  7. #52
    Platinum Member Rattfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In a knife fight with a gypsy...
    Posts
    13,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [WDW]Megaraptor View Post
    Is it? Mao said China could afford to lose 500 million and still come out better than the USA or USSR in a nuclear war...
    And Saddam said the Gulf War would be the "Mother of all battles." People say all kinds of things. I wonder what he would say after ONE drops in Peking.

  8. #53
    Platinum Member Rattfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In a knife fight with a gypsy...
    Posts
    13,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Assuming the other guy will always be rational, and will never miscalculate, is a good way to end up dead.
    Just out of curiosity, what world leader do you feel will risk becoming the target of 300 nuclear weapons? North Korea? Iran? China? Russia?

  9. #54
    Senior Member gresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    6,518

    Default

    I think C. Puffs is 100% correct. Reducing the number of deployed warheads we have to the same number as Pakistan or something is just dumb. We've already reduced the number substantially, I think it's time for other parties to reduce theirs some more before we do anything.

    Giving up our current strategic balance is suicide.

  10. #55
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rattfink View Post
    Just out of curiosity, what world leader do you feel will risk becoming the target of 300 nuclear weapons? North Korea? Iran? China? Russia?
    Who can say? Do you honestly believe Saddam expected over half a million troops and thousands of planes to come knocking at his door when he invaded Kuwait? Secondly, you seem to think if we had 300 nukes that that's how many targets would be hit. All things considered you'd be lucky to get 50 of them to detonate on a target.

  11. #56
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    35
    Posts
    14,614

    Default

    Seriously, the US could probably fulfill the deterrence role just as well with only the SSBNs.
    Trident II SSBNs are almost undetectable and will survive a first strike.
    What is the advantage of a land based ICBM anyway?
    I can understand keeping a few air delivered weapons like B-61s for special missions like nuclear bunker busting or a very limited nuclear strike against a emerging nuclear power like North Korea or Pakistan, as they offer more flexibility.
    The warheads of the SSBNs would be enough to eradicate both China or Russia or the major cities and military installations of both.

  12. #57
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    Seriously, the US could probably fulfill the deterrence role just as well with only the SSBNs.
    What is the advantage of a land based ICBM anyway?
    I can understand keeping a few air delivered weapons like B-61s for special missions like nuclear bunker busting or a very limited nuclear strike against a emerging nuclear power like North Korea or Pakistan, as they offer more flexibility.
    The warheads of the SSBNs would be enough to eradicate both China or Russia or the major cities and military installations of both.
    Taking out 450 hard targets in the US would be orders of magnitude more difficult than taking out 7 soft targets at sea. For an enemy to knock out the ICBM force they'd need to expend 900+ nuclear warheads to know they were gone. What do you do if the other side knocks out your 7 SSBNs on patrol with 7 torpedos? Do you start a nuclear war when the other guy hasn't used any nukes? Or do you just sit back and go "FFFFFUUUUUUUUUU"?

  13. #58
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    Trident II SSBNs are almost undetectable and will survive a first strike.
    According to whom, and for how long?

    What is the advantage of a land based ICBM anyway?
    Maybe we should ask the Russians.

  14. #59
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    35
    Posts
    14,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Taking out 450 hard targets in the US would be orders of magnitude more difficult than taking out 7 soft targets at sea. For an enemy to knock out the ICBM force they'd need to expend 900+ nuclear warheads to know they were gone. What do you do if the other side knocks out your 7 SSBNs on patrol with 7 torpedos? Do you start a nuclear war when the other guy hasn't used any nukes? Or do you just sit back and go "FFFFFUUUUUUUUUU"?
    If nukes are used by anyone, everyone will go FFFFFFUUUUUUUUU anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steak-Sauce View Post
    According to whom, and for how long?


    Maybe we should ask the Russians.
    According to the americans. And since even european SSBNs can bump into each other because they are too quiet I guess american SSBNs are at least as quiet.

    And regarding SSBNs, the russians are challenged by history and geography.
    Russia lacks any unguarded access to the deep ocean except for the Pacific (which is coincidentially where the new SSBNs are based) plus their old SSBNs are not up to modern standards.
    Land based missiles are cheaper, the russians probably could not afford a modern SSBN fleet as large as the US.
    The US never invested that much into land based missile tech as the russians, or better they stopped this after the cold war.
    My question was directed at the usefulness of the silo based Minuteman missiles the US has.

    The US itself could not afford such a fleet of modern SSBNs if they had to build them from the scratch now, as the russians have to.
    They (like the french and the british) got lucky that the new SSBNs came on line as the cold war ended.

  15. #60
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    If nukes are used by anyone, everyone will go FFFFFFUUUUUUUUU anyway.
    Some more than others. That's the part most seem to keep missing.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •