Putin to Europe: Screw You! Arms Buildup! Wooo!

[K. A. Pital]

Right now, if a Missile is launched, and unless it catastrophically fails en route, a city's going up in a flash of light. This also locks us all into a "use them or they die" mindset, which leads us to "if one flies, they all fly."

Quite frankly the world would be better off with 10,000 nuclear armed gravity bombs and attack missiles fired from strike aircraft like the Tu-95, Tu-160, B-52, and B-1, than 1,000 warheads on 1,000 ICBMs.

The threat of total nuclear annihilation is what keeps trigger-happy militarists in check. I'm inclined to think that this way it should remain. Yes, use nukes or die. Ever use a nuke - and you die. Is that not good enough, no?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, but since ballistic missiles cannot be self-destructed or recalled, you have to be damn certain when you fling your load out there, that you didn't do it because WOPR glitched for a minute.

With a strategic bomber based plan of attack, you can recall any one of those babies on a whim. Nothing short of the CRM-114 frying and a redneck at the controls will stop a recall order from the Pentagon. They also have faster reaction times in some cases, if stationed outside borders as was the case in the '60s

[Sea Skimmer]

The CEF Treaty is a stupid joke, and will be so long as a large piece of Russia happens to lie in Asia.

[K. A. Pital]

With a strategic bomber based plan of attack, you can recall any one of those babies on a whim.

Russia does not have a super sizeable strategic bomber force, it's main weapon is the RVSN which is silo missiles.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Russia does not have a super sizeable strategic bomber force, it's main weapon is the RVSN which is silo missiles.

Well I guess that means Russia just plain sucks, no?

[K. A. Pital]

Well I guess that means Russia just plain sucks, no?

No, it means we will build MRBMs to attack Europe faster. You're welcome

[Admiral Valdemar]

That rates as a "suck" in my book still. What happened, Russia? You used to be cool.

[K. A. Pital]

That rates as a "suck" in my book still

We don't have the money to keep our nuclear triade up-n-running as it used to be - boats, planes and silos. Boats and planes particulary are doing rather badly. What do you propose? Get real, we're not going to spend shitloads of money to build a TBO-like strategic bomber force. Neither is the US going to do this.

[Ritterin Sophia]

No regime, ever, should have his hands untied to use nuclear weapons without the fear of total destruction and unacceptable loss in retaliation.

Do you realise how much of a hypocrite this makes you out to be?

[K. A. Pital]

Do you realise how much of a hypocrite this makes you out to be?

Hypocrite? No one, ever, should be able to use nuclear weapons without the fear of his country being wiped out from this fucking Earth. You know, last 50 years this has been the guarantee that not a single fucktard would use those weapons in battle. What is hypocritical about this position?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Do you realise how much of a hypocrite this makes you out to be?

Hypocrite? No one, ever, should be able to use nuclear weapons without the fear of his country being wiped out from this fucking Earth. You know, last 50 years this has been the guarantee that not a single fucktard would use those weapons in battle. What is hypocritical about this position?

No you're using it as an excuse to deny the US an ABM system when you have one of your own, with an ABM system Moscow's destruction is not 'assured' thus no MAD, since multiple countries haven't had Russian ICBM's raining down on them since the introduction of that system, I think we can clearly rule out that claim as utter bullshit. Regardless of whether or not we still have MAD we are still allowed one ABM system just like you, and if you claim we can't have it because then MAD is no longer applicable, then you are a hypocrite.

[CC]

Right now, if a Missile is launched, and unless it catastrophically fails en route, a city's going up in a flash of light. This also locks us all into a "use them or they die" mindset, which leads us to "if one flies, they all fly."

If a missile is launched and a city goes up in a flash of light, then the launch was deliberate given the existence of Permissive Action Links, in which case we'll have a full-fledged nuclear war on our hands regardless. Furthermore, thanks to the Triad, there is no reason for such a mindset. Even if it appeared that every single Russian ICBM had been launched at us, we would still have a functional nuclear reserve left with our deployed SSBNs. Ever since the first Polaris submarine began its first patrol, there has been absolutely no need for such a mindset. I also strongly doubt that anyone would believe that a single incoming ICBM would imperil the five hundred Minuteman silos we have and necessitate a "use them or lose them" mindset.

Hypocrite? No one, ever, should be able to use nuclear weapons without the fear of his country being wiped out from this fucking Earth. You know, last 50 years this has been the guarantee that not a single fucktard would use those weapons in battle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Soviet Union did not attain the ability to do so to the United States until the mid 1960s. So what was it that prevented the United States from using them prior to that point in time?

[Kane Starkiller]

Hypocrite? No one, ever, should be able to use nuclear weapons without the fear of his country being wiped out from this fucking Earth. You know, last 50 years this has been the guarantee that not a single fucktard would use those weapons in battle. What is hypocritical about this position?

Really? What exactly did USSR have to fear if they nuked Indonesia? Would USA retaliate because of that? Or if USA nuked Bolivia? Would USSR retaliate because of that?
You say that Russia won't have any deterrent if this goes through and you will be helpless?
Welcome to my world and world of inhabitants of every country in the world that has no nuclear weapons.

[Omega18]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Soviet Union did not attain the ability to do so to the United States until the mid 1960s. So what was it that prevented the United States from using them prior to that point in time?

The actual answer when you look at the question is the US choose not to do so. By the point China got involved with the Korean War the US had the ability to quite effectively nuke China and do a good job nuking Russia as well if they decided to get involved with the conflict, while Russia could have only managed to nuke a couple locations in Western Europe at best. (Russia was basically relying upon B-29 bomber copies at the time, while the US had B-36 Peacemakers and B-47 bombers potentially available for use by that period.) The US nuclear bomber bombing ability got more impressive in the mid 1950s as the US started to deploy fusion bombs and B-52 bombers to deliver them, while the USSR still had no creditable ability to deliver nuclear bombs at targets in the US.

As previously noted this nuclear imbalance really didn't start to change until the period after the Cuban Missile Crisis when the USSR really got its ICBMs functional and really started to assemble the strategic forces to be able to really effectively nuke the US.

[K. A. Pital]

No you're using it as an excuse to deny the US an ABM system when you have one of your own

We don't break the treaty. The ABM is on our territory and around 1 city.

with an ABM system Moscow's destruction is not 'assured' thus no MAD

A single-city ABM on your territory is allowed.

Regardless of whether or not we still have MAD we are still allowed one ABM system just like you

A single-city ABM on your territory is allowed. Simple, the US broke the treaty.

What exactly did USSR have to fear if they nuked Indonesia? Would USA retaliate because of that? Or if USA nuked Bolivia? Would USSR retaliate because of that?

Yes. Loose the missiles - and you're waste, most likely. The decision would be taken as soon as the launch is detected, quite probably even before the missile finds it's target.

[MKSheppard]

IIRC the ABM treaty allowed two sites; one around the capital, and one generally somewhere else.

[K. A. Pital]

IIRC the ABM treaty allowed two sites; one around the capital, and one generally somewhere else.

Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems or their components except that:

(a) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred and fifty kilometers and centered on the Partys national capital, a Party may deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, and (2) ABM radars within no more than six ABM radar complexes, the area of each complex being circular and having a diameter of no more than three kilometers; and

(b) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred and fifty kilometers and containing ICBM silo launchers, a Party may deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, (2) two large phased-array ABM radars comparable in potential to corresponding ABM radars operational or under construction on the date of signature of the Treaty in an ABM system deployment area containing ICBM silo launchers, and (3) no more than eighteen ABM radars each having a potential less than the potential of the smaller of the above-mentioned two large phased-array ABM radars.

Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based.

(b) not to deploy in the future radars for early warning of strategic ballistic missile attack except at locations along the periphery of its national territory and oriented outward.

I guess it's pretty clear what you can or can't do. The kind of system the US is setting now is not just "slightly violating" the treaty spirit like say SA-5 - it's an outright break.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, for giggles - (a) and (b) are mutually exclusive. Which means, you can build ABM components around your silos OR around your capital, but NOT both:

Article I

1. Each Party shall be limited at any one time to a single area of the two provided in Article III of the Treaty for deployment of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems or their components and accordingly shall not exercise its right to deploy an ABM system or its components in the second of the two ABM system deployment areas permitted by Article III of the Treaty, except as an exchange of one permitted area for the other in accordance with Article II of this Protocol.

2. Accordingly, except as permitted by Article II of this Protocol: the United States of America shall not deploy an ABM system or its components in the area centered on its capital, as permitted by Article III(a) of the Treaty, and the Soviet Union shall not deploy an ABM system or its components in the deployment area of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silo launchers as permitted by Article III(b) of the Treaty.

The US decided to build ABMs around a silo base in

In this connection, the U.S. side notes that its ABM system deployment area for defense of ICBM silo launchers, located west of the Mississippi River, will be centered in the Grand Forks ICBM silo launcher deployment area. (See Agreed Statement [C].)

You can technically change the location of your ABM but the demands remain same - it must be on your territory, no EW radars except on your country's territory.

[CC]

It was originally two sites, but a later ammendum reduced it to one.

A single-city ABM on your territory is allowed. Simple, the US broke the treaty.

No, the United States withdrew from the treaty, in accordance with the treaty's provisions.

[Omega18]

Yes. Loose the missiles - and you're waste, most likely. The decision would be taken as soon as the launch is detected, quite probably even before the missile finds it's target.

The argument is grossly flawed as made. Maybe that would happen if the USSR didn't know whether the missile's final target was them, but a SSBN could fire the missile from the right location and it would be immediately clear that the missile was not heading for the USSR. The US could also obviously use a bomber to deliver a nuclear weapon or weapons against the countries used in the example. (The same points are basically true for the USSR employing nukes.) The US would certainly be extremely reluctant to get involved with a nuclear exchange if it was a non-NATO country and couldn't be viewed as particularly being the in US's field of influence.

When you're talking about countries clearly in the USSR's sphere of influence and clearly under their protection you are probably right that the USSR would promptly retaliate, although there would be a strong possibility the USSR would stick with a limited nuclear response in order to actually avoid MAD in that situation. When you're talking about countries that clearly are basically neutral and not particularly in the Soviet camp, it strikes me as simply not plausible that the USSR would actually launch their nuclear missiles in response. A really full fledged exchange means both the USSR and the USA would be effectively destroyed, which is something the rational leaders of both countries want to avoid if at all possible. The probable response by the USSR to the US using a nuke on a truly third party country would be exploiting the situation diplomatically as much as they can possibly manage and trying to turn international opinion against the US and in the USSR's favor at least to some extent.

For the US how to respond might be dicier because realistically the Warsaw Pact members and Soviet Allies don't have the same ability to pull out of their commitments and become neutral, and the US really can't afford to just let the USSR simply nuke and conquer a country without them reacting. One possible answer would be the US makes it clear they won't allow the USSR to actually conquer the country and it must remain independent. If that doesn't work, the US can make it clear they will intervene militarily with their conventional forces if the USSR doesn't agree to seek some sort of negotiated settlement. (The US would probably allow it to be in the USSR's favor, but the country must be allowed to remain independent.) If that doesn't work the US can intervene with its conventional forces and make it clear that any further use of nukes would lead to massive nuclear retaliation. While a dicey situation at that point, it still would be VASTLY preferable to actually immediately resorting to a full blown nuclear response which would likely lead to everyone being killed.

Basically a full blown nuclear exchange was viewed in practice as something to use if given absolutely no other choice by the leaders of each country, and this means the actual consequences for nuking a third party country would have been allot less severe than you're suggesting they would be.

[Ritterin Sophia]

My apologies then, however, I'd like to see your evidence that if the US didn't have to worry about retaliation we'd start nuking Russian cities left and right, because we could've done it before when we hated your guts and refrained from doing so.

[K. A. Pital]

My apologies then, however, I'd like to see your evidence that if the US didn't have to worry about retaliation we'd start nuking Russian cities left and right, because we could've done it before when we hated your guts and refrained from doing so.

Just as I said earlier, the nuclear strategic forces are meant to protect the country into ages and ages. Today there's one political situation, tomorrow - another, who knows? The SNF must always be alert and ready to lay waste to anyone, anytime.

The argument is grossly flawed as made. Maybe that would happen if the USSR didn't know whether the missile's final target was them, but a SSBN could fire the missile from the right location and it would be immediately clear that the missile was not heading for the USSR. The US could also obviously use a bomber to deliver a nuclear weapon or weapons against the countries used in the example. (The same points are basically true for the USSR employing nukes.) The US would certainly be extremely reluctant to get involved with a nuclear exchange if it was a non-NATO country and couldn't be viewed as particularly being the in US's field of influence.

I would say that more or less, the world was divided into Soviet and US allies or neutrals leaning to one side or the other. For example, I don't think the US would risk nuking, say, Iran when the USSR was nearby. Or, say, China - even after the Sino-Soviet split.

More to the point, if you were doing such a nuclear strike, what would be the reason for it? Smaller countries are easily decimated with conventional bombing; nuclear strikes only justify themselves against a nuclear-armed opponent since the rise of nuclear parity between USSR/Russia and the US.

I agree that the current situation is not perfect, treaty wise. But a more wise move would be to make a new ABM treaty, not just withdraw and then proceed to actively build, point-by-point, an ABM system such as exactly forbidden by the treaty (with space- and naval-based elements, with EW radars close to the borders of potential adversary).

[Justforfun000]

Just as I said earlier, the nuclear strategic forces are meant to protect the country into ages and ages. Today there's one political situation, tomorrow - another, who knows? The SNF must always be alert and ready to lay waste to anyone, anytime.

Reading this thread was almost painful in some ways. I'm definitely NOT an expert on any of these issues and so I'm throwing out true questions for you here.

Is there REALLY any true danger these days of nuking major countries? I find the concept to be so unlikely. A great deal of prior conflicts were fueled by a major lack of communication and a very different world view between countries. We have a much stronger global sense of inclusiveness. The internet, TV and other revolutionary changes have created a world that in general thinks of all countries as being close enough to their 'back yard' to care about any major events affecting them. And if nuclear destruction isn't major enough, I don't know what is.

I guess the one huge exception to this rule would be any country ruled by pernicious religious dogma. There isn't too much logic to fall back on in those arguments...but correct me if I'm wrong, are any nuclear countries currently a concern? Of course we could say the United States ALMOST tongue in cheek.

[Vympel]

Russia does not have a super sizeable strategic bomber force, it's main weapon is the RVSN which is silo missiles.

Well, as of START 2007, Russia has 489 ICBMs carrying 1,788 warheads, compared to 79 bombers that can carry 884 warheads (one per cruise missile).

884 warheads (all mounted on 2,500-3,000km range ALCMs) is still nothing to sneeze at.

[Mange]

Hypocrite? No one, ever, should be able to use nuclear weapons without the fear of his country being wiped out from this fucking Earth. You know, last 50 years this has been the guarantee that not a single fucktard would use those weapons in battle. What is hypocritical about this position?

Really? What exactly did USSR have to fear if they nuked Indonesia? Would USA retaliate because of that? Or if USA nuked Bolivia? Would USSR retaliate because of that?
You say that Russia won't have any deterrent if this goes through and you will be helpless?
Welcome to my world and world of inhabitants of every country in the world that has no nuclear weapons.

Indeed. There are very few nations which have nuclear weapons (even if there's a big potential). Stas's reasoning is frightening and paranoid.