US Nuclear Arsenal to be rebuilt

[Illuminatus Primus]

It takes about 60 devices alone to take down a single particular air defense radar in Russia; Plus, ICBMs and SLBMs have a very high failure rate, something around 40-60%, so you need a lot more to ensure national destruction.

Why do we need to ensure total national destruction rather than massive devastation?

Because if the enemy can ensure the former, and us only the latter, it makes the nuclear gambit a winning combination for them, and a loser for us. A situation where both actors are capable of national destruction has the maximum incentive to avoid nuclear exchanges and minimum possible incentive for starting one.

[Darth Wong]

This is like saying that you don't have a credible deterrent to a robber unless you can completely vapourize him, not just kill him.

[Vympel]

I've been thinking, in the context of this thread, of China- now, their nuclear deterrent is tiny- so much so, that by conventional standards, it's not really a deterrent at all. Theoretically, the US could wipe out China's nuclear arsenal (and much of the country) with minimal risk/damage to itself.

But- do you really want to take even that minimal/risk damage?

[Jadeite]

I've been thinking, in the context of this thread, of China- now, their nuclear deterrent is tiny- so much so, that by conventional standards, it's not really a deterrent at all. Theoretically, the US could wipe out China's nuclear arsenal (and much of the country) with minimal risk/damage to itself.

But- do you really want to take even that minimal/risk damage?

Of course not, but there's nothing wrong with overkill. Remember that if it came to a war, they are the enemy.

[Beowulf]

The number of missiles China has that could hit the US is fairly small. However, they could do significant damage by hitting US bases in the far east with much cheaper, shorter range missiles.

[Vympel]

The number of missiles China has that could hit the US is fairly small. However, they could do significant damage by hitting US bases in the far east with much cheaper, shorter range missiles.

I wonder if the INF Treaty is obsolete. I'm sure Russia for one would be happy to procure some new kickass MRBM designs to target China with from it's Far East, rather than ICBMs for which the range offered by ICBMs is wasted.

[felineki]

Is this before or after you whine about this on your Myspace? Is this before or after you take your meds? Because only someone with a debilitating mental disability would only just now realize the true insanity of humanity.

Oh wait. I bet that was supposed to be humor.



You're not funny.

Same to you.

[MKSheppard]

Because Canadian nuclear reactors don't need enriched uranium to function.

They also produce Plutonium as a byproduct of their use; which of course, can be used to make lots of light and heat, and peace.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I've been thinking, in the context of this thread, of China- now, their nuclear deterrent is tiny- so much so, that by conventional standards, it's not really a deterrent at all. Theoretically, the US could wipe out China's nuclear arsenal (and much of the country) with minimal risk/damage to itself.

But- do you really want to take even that minimal/risk damage?

But there's nothing like a potential Cold War stand-off between the two. If you put the U.S and China in potential Cuban Missile Crisis-level tension, the pressure to order a first-strike on China would be overwhelming, and China would largely get fucked.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is like saying that you don't have a credible deterrent to a robber unless you can completely vapourize him, not just kill him.

Well also arguably, in every strategy you do not necessarily use all your weapons. With fewer weapons you may be limited to counterforce or population strike options only. With more weapons you can choose amongst a smorgasboard of potential and flexible strikes; this was one of the goals for making nuclear war a less dangerous risk by McNamara.

[MKSheppard]

Canada's not the country which is sabre-rattling about invading Iran, remember?

Again, more attempts at moral equivalence.

We don't worry about Canada having the infrastructure to produce plutonium for atomic devices at her 18 CANDU reactors, nor did we worry about the Canadian Nuclear Force from 1962 to 1984.

Why? Because Canada is one of the Good Guys, while Iran and such luminaries such as North Korea are the Bad Guys in international relations. Simple as that.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Why? Because Canada is one of the Good Guys, while Iran and such luminaries such as North Korea are the Bad Guys in international relations. Simple as that.

More objectively, the US happens to be an ally, not an enemy. If Canada started building nuclear weapons tomorrow, are you seriously telling me the US is going to bother to do something? I doubt it.

[MKSheppard]

More objectively, the US happens to be an ally, not an enemy. If Canada started building nuclear weapons tomorrow, are you seriously telling me the US is going to bother to do something? I doubt it.

The US/Canada go a long ways back in Nukes.

Brave Canadian miners dug out the Uranium that incinerated Hiroshima, and gave us 252 kg of plutonium from 1946 onwards. Meanwhile, from 1962 ish onwards to 1984, US nuclear warheads armed Canadian forces. If canada made a nuke tomorrow, we'd shrug and say "So what?" and go back to sleep.

[PunkMaister]

I for one hate nukes and wish they were never invented althoigh at the time they were originally conceived they were just concerns of developing first than the Axis powers and it saved many of our Grandparents from having to die at the shores at the shores of Japan thus had it not been developed in hindsight many of us would not have even been borned!
I've seen some people here kind of equating this situation to Iran own nukes development program and all I can say to them is:

Are you guys nuts?
Do any of you honestly think that a nation run by religious fanatics that sherish mass death, misery and destruction above all else have their own nukes is a good idea?
The first thing that would happen is that they would give the material to terrorists to be used against western population centers so it's just unthinkable, no sorry!

[Surlethe]

I for one hate nukes and wish they were never invented althoigh at the time they were originally conceived they were just concerns of developing first than the Axis powers and it saved many of our Grandparents from having to die at the shores at the shores of Japan thus had it not been developed in hindsight many of us would not have even been borned!

Are you aware that nuclear weapons contributed to the strategic paralysis after World War II, effectively deterring the Soviet Union and United States from war?

I've seen some people here kind of equating this situation to Iran own nukes development program and all I can say to them is:

Are you guys nuts?
Do any of you honestly think that a nation run by religious fanatics that sherish mass death, misery and destruction above all else have their own nukes is a good idea?

I think they cherish their own rule over mass death, misery, and destruction; it's no fun being dictator of a parking lot.

The first thing that would happen is that they would give the material to terrorists to be used against western population centers so it's just unthinkable, no sorry!

How do you know this is true?

[brianeyci]

I for one am not convinced that Iran will lob nukes at Israel if it had them. For one thing--it would result in Iran's total annihilation. The only thing that Iran get if it has nukes is nobody would dare invade it. Yes I have heard the rhetoric, but reading Stuart Slade's Nuclear Warfare 101,

Aha, I hear you say what about the mad dictator? Its interesting to note that mad, homicidal aggressive dictators tend to get very tame sane cautious ones as soon as they split atoms. Whatever their motivations and intents, the mechanics of how nuclear weapons work dictate that mad dictators become sane dictators very quickly. After all its not much fun dictating if one's country is a radioactive trash pile and you're one of the ashes. China, India and Pakistan are good examples. One of the best examples of this process at work is Mao Tse Tung. Throughout the 1950s he was extraordinarily bellicose and repeatedly tried to bully, cajole or trick Khruschev and his successors into initiating a nuclear exchange with the US on the grounds that world communism would rise from the ashes. Thats what Quemoy and Matsu were all about in the late 1950s. Then China got nuclear weapons. Have you noticed how reticent they are with them? Its sunk in. They can be totally destroyed; will be totally destroyed; in the event of an exchange. A Chinese Officer here once on exchange (billed as a "look what we can do" session it was really a "look what we can do to you" exercise) produced the standard line about how the Chinese could lose 500 million people in a nuclear war and keep going with the survivors. So his hosts got out a demographic map (one that shows population densities rather than topographical data) and got to work with pie-cutters using a few classified tricks - and got virtually the entire population of China using only a small proportion of the US arsenal. The guest stared at the map for a couple of minutes then went and tossed his cookies into the toilet bowl. The only people who mouth off about using nuclear weapons and threaten others with them are those that do not have keys hanging around their necks. The moment they get keys and realize what they've let themselves in for, they get to be very quiet and very cautious indeed. Another great - and very recent example - look how circumspect the Indians and Pakistani Governments were in the recent confrontation - lots of words but little or no action to back them and both sides worked very hard not to do anything that could be misunderstood. (When the Pakistani's did a missile test they actually invited the Indians over to watch in order to ensure there was no ground for misunderstanding. The test itself was another message from both countries to the rest of the world - basically it read "Don't sweat it, we know the rules")

One anayst from The Business was asked what Saddam Hussein would have done if Iraq had possessed nuclear weapons in 1990. He replied that he didn't know what he would have done but he did know what he would not have done - he would not have invaded Kuwait.

So if Iran had nukes, would they use them on Israel? Probably not.

Brian

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I for one hate nukes and wish they were never invented althoigh at the time they were originally conceived they were just concerns of developing first than the Axis powers and it saved many of our Grandparents from having to die at the shores at the shores of Japan thus had it not been developed in hindsight many of us would not have even been borned!
I've seen some people here kind of equating this situation to Iran own nukes development program and all I can say to them is:

Listen asshole. First off, learn some proper fucking grammer. Run-on sentences are extremely annoying to deal with. Second off, As BBS pointed out, if it weren't for nukes, the Cold War wouldn't have ended up with the USA and USSR in a fifty-year Mexican Standoff.

Are you guys nuts?
Do any of you honestly think that a nation run by religious fanatics that sherish mass death, misery and destruction above all else have their own nukes is a good idea?

The USA is not run by religious fanatics anywhere near to the degree you say it is. Maybe Iran, but not America. We have a choice to vote the fucktards out of power. If this were true, again, the Cold War would quickly have ignited into a nuclear holocaust, you fucking asstard.

The first thing that would happen is that they would give the material to terrorists to be used against western population centers so it's just unthinkable, no sorry!

Prove your assertion to be true, cunt. WHY would the USA's leaders ever act so extremely against their own interests by giving nukes to anti-American terrorists? Are you fucking smoking crack, shitcock?

[Beowulf]

I for one hate nukes and wish they were never invented althoigh at the time they were originally conceived they were just concerns of developing first than the Axis powers and it saved many of our Grandparents from having to die at the shores at the shores of Japan thus had it not been developed in hindsight many of us would not have even been borned!
I've seen some people here kind of equating this situation to Iran own nukes development program and all I can say to them is:

Listen asshole. First off, learn some proper fucking grammer. Run-on sentences are extremely annoying to deal with. Second off, As BBS pointed out, if it weren't for nukes, the Cold War wouldn't have ended up with the USA and USSR in a fifty-year Mexican Standoff.

Yeah, Western Europe would be speaking Russian instead.

Are you guys nuts?
Do any of you honestly think that a nation run by religious fanatics that sherish mass death, misery and destruction above all else have their own nukes is a good idea?

The USA is not run by religious fanatics anywhere near to the degree you say it is. Maybe Iran, but not America. We have a choice to vote the fucktards out of power. If this were true, again, the Cold War would quickly have ignited into a nuclear holocaust, you fucking asstard.

I think you're reading his post wrong.

The first thing that would happen is that they would give the material to terrorists to be used against western population centers so it's just unthinkable, no sorry!

Prove your assertion to be true, cunt. WHY would the USA's leaders ever act so extremely against their own interests by giving nukes to anti-American terrorists? Are you fucking smoking crack, shitcock?

Yup, definitely. He was talking about Iran in those paragraphs.

[brianeyci]

Einy I'm pretty sure he's saying that Iran is full of religious fanatics and that Iran would give the bomb to terrorists.

Though I'm not convinced of that either. If word gets out Iran is a smoking cinder. Nothing is worth that, not even the death of infidel Americans.

Brian

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I was under the impression he was referring to America's possession of nukes, not Iran's. Post withdrawn.

[SirNitram]

You know, it's such a strange idea that the Iranians would give the bomb away. Grok this.

There's a method to trace bomb material back to it's reactor. Is it 100%? No. Is it even really feasible, as Mike suggested way back? Perhaps, perhaps not. But that's the conventional wisdom, and people beleive that shit.

Ergo, any nuke in terrorist hands will be traced to Iran, by hook, or more possibly, by crook. Then Iran vanishes.

The rulers suddenly have no survival instincts? Funny, if that were so, they'd be strapping bombs to themselves...

[MKSheppard]

So if Iran had nukes, would they use them on Israel? Probably not.

Excuse me, but the evidence is very likely they have a device, yet continue with the belligerent rhetoric. Comrade Mao became very quiet once he had the Bomb. However, the Mad Mullahs seem to be hellbent on making Iran become a self-lit parking lot with their rhetoric.

[MKSheppard]

The rulers suddenly have no survival instincts? Funny, if that were so, they'd be strapping bombs to themselves...

Someone has to run the Jihad, you realize?

[SirNitram]

The rulers suddenly have no survival instincts? Funny, if that were so, they'd be strapping bombs to themselves...

Someone has to run the Jihad, you realize?

I find it infinitely more likely we're simply dealing with folks who understand this is a cheap and quick way to profit and gain power, manipulating the stupid and suicidal. There is zero credible evidence they'll destory the little powerbaser they've greedily gathered.

Of course, the bare and simple logic of this is gonna bounce off your head.

[MKSheppard]

I find it infinitely more likely we're simply dealing with folks who understand this is a cheap and quick way to profit and gain power, manipulating the stupid and suicidal.

Except that Osama Bin Laden was an accomplished engineer, who had a nice tidy nest egg from performing engineering jobs; he poured his fortune into Jehad against the West. In short, he already had power and money, yet threw it away for the risk of becoming a famous jihadi.

There is zero credible evidence they'll destory the little powerbaser they've greedily gathered.

Yes of course, that's why Al Quaeda didn't attack the US on 9/11, because if they did, the safe haven and powerbase they had gained in Afghanistan would be destroyed by the US in retalitaion.

Of course, the bare and simple logic of this is gonna bounce off your head.

What? The fact that people aren't logical all the time? If Al Quaeda's leadership was as logical as you claimed, they would have been happy in Afghanistan, working hand in hand with the Taliban, turning it into their perfect ideal theocracy; but instead, they had to irrationally and illogically approve an attack on the United States which would at the minimum, result in thousands of dead; meaning that their comfty status as joint overlords of Afghanistan would be severely imperiled, yet they did it anyway.