Obama vows to pursue a planet free of nuclear weapons

[SUBMAN1]

More evidence of crack smoking in Washington by those that fail to read history.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-nuclear-earlyapr06,0,1407723.story

-S

[Zachstar]

We wont have to worry about nukes for too much longer.

Antimatter weapons in even minute quantities can devastate countries.

And if anyone really thinks we ARENT developing such I will point and laugh. You just need a big ass particle accellerator and a couple of reactors on site :cool:

[Max2147]

Well, Obama's just following in Reagan's footsteps here. The only difference is that Obama hasn't seriously proposed the issue to the Russians.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_09/lookingback

[Sea Demon]

We wont have to worry about nukes for too much longer.

Antimatter weapons in even minute quantities can devastate countries.

And if anyone really thinks we ARENT developing such I will point and laugh. You just need a big ass particle accellerator and a couple of reactors on site :cool:

The answer above by you is why I wish people like you wouldn't vote. Please, next election, find something else to do. Go get drunk, watch Ultimate Fighter, or go protest something. Please don't vote. Let the people that are grounded in reality decide the fate of the country. Your answer is just another piece of evidence showing the need for serious voter reform.

Ultimately, we knew all along that Mr. Obama was going to seek unilateral disarmament. He said before the election that he was willing to reduce the US's nuclear weapons capabilities to dangerous levels. 1,000 or less warheads is what he said. Obama is nothing like Reagan. Obama has no idea what has kept the major powers from major warfare for over the last 60 years. Obama imperils the USA by deteriorating our nuclear deterrent capabilities beyond reasonable levels. I was uncomfortable by the last round of cuts to the arsenal. But Obama and his ideas here are downright dangerous.

I hate to burst any bubbles here, but imagining "anti-matter" weapons are in the works as a way to ease your mind over your dangerous choice of Obama, makes no sense. Obama's administration is now cutting other weapons programs we need such as F-22 and other BMD programs. I can assure you, if somebody is going to invest in weapons programs to defend the security interests of America, it wouldn't be a Democrat like Obama. Weapons programs never are helped by electing these types. Pretending they are is just plain hopeless non-reality.

[Zachstar]

Yes Zach please ignore my Civil duty as a citizen of the united states.... What are you ******* insane?

Ive a better idea (In my opinion) how about you take a hike and check into the nearest asylum since you seem to want "Serious Voter Reform" Which sounds in context to me as "Anything to keep democrats from voting"

I knew you had issues with me but this takes the cake. Are you so right wing that you would rather have your guy win by people not making their voices heard?

North Korea is that way.


BTW I point and laugh as I guess you do not believe they are working on such weapons. Go on being naieve if you wish but there is no way in hell we will let someone else get to that point first.

You know I WAS against Obama going deep into the military budget but with the rash of outright insanity from the right. Maybe we need to bring things a tad bit. Just incase we get another insane right wing president (Spurred on by such as you). Don't need this crap anyway when the future is drones.

Go cry in a corner and fear the terrorists for the next 3 years if it makes you feel better. I will not, Obama may be a dumbass when it comes to the presidency but it takes a TOTAL and complete loon to get us into a situation where we cant defend ourselves. (BTW by that I mean disbanding the military or cutting its funding to 99 cents or somthing)

[Aramike]

Yes Zach please ignore my Civil duty as a citizen of the united states.... What are you ******* insane?

Ive a better idea (In my opinion) how about you take a hike and check into the nearest asylum since you seem to want "Serious Voter Reform" Which sounds in context to me as "Anything to keep democrats from voting"

I knew you had issues with me but this takes the cake. Are you so right wing that you would rather have your guy win by people not making their voices heard?

North Korea is that way.


BTW I point and laugh as I guess you do not believe they are working on such weapons. Go on being naieve if you wish but there is no way in hell we will let someone else get to that point first.

You know I WAS against Obama going deep into the military budget but with the rash of outright insanity from the right. Maybe we need to bring things a tad bit. Just incase we get another insane right wing president (Spurred on by such as you). Don't need this crap anyway when the future is drones.

Go cry in a corner and fear the terrorists for the next 3 years if it makes you feel better. I will not, Obama may be a dumbass when it comes to the presidency but it takes a TOTAL and complete loon to get us into a situation where we cant defend ourselves. (BTW by that I mean disbanding the military or cutting its funding to 99 cents or somthing)Dude, no one's seriously developing antimatter weaponry. Why would they, when they can achieve the same destructive effects for a fraction of the cost - not including R&D? Sure, the effeciency of energy dispersion is theoretically much higher with AM, but the cost to blow up a city is the bottom line.

[Zachstar]

With antimatter we arent talking photon torpedoes or city busters. Even a small amount is enough to devastate a country.

Yes EXTREMELY expensive but needed nonetheless. Can you assure me China is not developing such? Russia?

You can't nobody can but the fact of the matter is making antimatter is not as much sci fi anymore as it is a need of construction and energy. (And of course the need to keep things hush hush so the people dont demand it be shut down in the fear of another cold war)

And yes it is entriely unneeded as even 1000 nukes is enough to devastate the population of any nation.

But an antimatter bomb that kind of power would not just blast cities, it would obilterate everything in sight the power of these things is beyond idmagination.

What did you think NASA was going to be the only users of Antimatter?

[Aramike]

With antimatter we arent talking photon torpedoes or city busters. Even a small amount is enough to devastate a country.Umm, I know the physics of it, thanks. Yes EXTREMELY expensive but needed nonetheless. Can you assure me China is not developing such? Russia?Yes, I can.

Why? Hmm, let's see ... to produce one gram of antimatter at current production capabilities it would take, oh, say, 2 BILLION YEARS to produce ... and that's using the massive decelerator at CERN. If Russia, China, or ANY nation built such a facility they wouldn't be able to hide it.

Oh, and one gram of antimatter would have the energetic discharge of 3 Hiroshima bombs ... not quite worth a billion years, hey?

...and that's not to mention the practical fact that such a weapon would be inherently unsafe for its handlers. When one wants a nuke to go off, they must trigger it, thereby forcing a very specific and complex chemical reaction to occur that would be highly unlikely in an accident. With a theoretical antimatter bomb, to detonate it you'd have to simply stop preventing its detonation. See how dangerous that would be?

Do you have ANY evidence that ANYONE is developing such a weapon or are you just speculating?What did you think NASA was going to be the only users of Antimatter?When they actually START using the miniscule amounts available (in maybe 100 years), there won't be any left for weaponization.

You DID know that antimatter is said to be the most costly substance on Earth, right?

[Aramike]

This is funny, from CERN's website: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html


Can we make antimatter bombs?

No. It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter for a bomb having the same destructiveness as ‘typical’ hydrogen bombs, of which there exist more than ten thousand already.
Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.So what were you saying about antimatter bombs? :up:

[antikristuseke]

If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

PHEER the bomb.

[darius359au]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2434/strangelove.jpg

Ve can vin ze Anti Matter race mine Fuh...President

:03:

[Bewolf]

Good message by Obama. He won't come far, for that there are too many nutcases still endoursed about romantic phantasies about winning a nuclear war or loving the cold war concept of nuclear detterence all around the world. It will be some time still until human intelligence has evolved to such a level the concept is abandoned.

Gotta admit it to the guy, he sure knows how to deliver head ups.


"...reduce the US's nuclear weapons capabilities to dangerous levels. 1,000 or less warheads is what he said."

That is so totally SIG worthy :rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

Yes Zach please ignore my Civil duty as a citizen of the united states.... What are you ******* insane?

Ive a better idea (In my opinion) how about you take a hike and check into the nearest asylum since you seem to want "Serious Voter Reform" Which sounds in context to me as "Anything to keep democrats from voting"


Yes Zach. Serious voter reform as in proof of ID at the polls. Also people on the dole shouldn't be able to vote themselves a paycheck or government benefits. More security and oversight at polling places like the ones in Pennsylvania where some people were voting for Obama 5 times and such. My response to you was more tongue in cheek as in if you think the Obama government is actually investing in new military technologies(like anti-matter weapons?), you got to be crazy. And I don't think it's safe that people who are crazy should be voting. The Obama government is already indicating serious cuts to vital programs we may need for potential future conflict. He has no clue in to how some of these future systems have the value in actually deterring conflict with other state powers. In regards to the terrorist stuff, if you don't see a potential threat from Islamic fundamentalists, and state sponsors of them, and how some of those state sponsors are pursuing nuclear technologies themselves, you're simply not paying attention. Meanwhile Obama's talking about cutting our offensive nuclear forces to dangerous levels, he's planning on gutting BMD programs (which are defensive in nature), and his current policy regarding it is to whine at useless international bodies that don't actually have a way of preventing any of it. I'm sure Kim over in North Korea is quivering over the thought of more UN endorsed sanctions.

Good message by Obama. He won't come far, for that there are too many folks still endoursed about romantic phantasies about winning a nuclear war or loving the cold war concept of nuclear detterence. It will be some time still until human intelligence has evolved to such a level the concept is abandoned.

Well, we've been over this before. And I realize you have no clue as to what nuclear deterrence is all about, and how the mechanisms work to deter conflict. You just know that you don't like nuclear weapons, and find them illogical. Well, guess what. I don't like them either. Yet, I find them totally necessary. If you understood how deterrence works, and how a global nuclear scenario may play out, you would know that 1,000 warheads is definitely not enough to deter the major powers against a MAD scenario. Not even close. We put 192 warheads on 1 SSBN alone. The consideration is survivability of our triad in conjunction with many other factors. You take out 2 of our SSBN's using the Obama vision and you have eliminated almost 40% of our nuclear striking capability. Yes, this proposal is very dangerous. Since you are not an American voter, I seriously don't need to argue with you about the value of deterrence and number of systems to keep our deterrence viable. My thoughts truly are for those who have an actual say in American military affairs and the voters here who controls the Congress that either supports viable nuclear weapons systems and programs or not. Feel free to agree or disagree. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. But if you don't vote here, I couldn't care less. No offense intended.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

He said before the election that he was willing to reduce the US's nuclear weapons capabilities to dangerous levels.

lmao. So, the United States can only destroy the world 5 times over instead of 10?

[Skybird]

Good message by Obama. He won't come far, for that there are too many nutcases still endoursed about romantic phantasies about winning a nuclear war or loving the cold war concept of nuclear detterence all around the world. It will be some time still until human intelligence has evolved to such a level the concept is abandoned.

Gotta admit it to the guy, he sure knows how to deliver head ups.


Have you read this comment in Die Welt yesterday? ;)

http://www.welt.de/politik/article3507975/Welt-ohne-Atomwaffen-Obamas-populaerer-Irrtum.html?print=yes#reqdrucken

Not the best newspaper around, but sometimes they get their comments right. That one on the Abwrackprämie also was top.

[Skybird]

Translation:

"The president is right - and the president is wrong. In his speech in Prague the president correctly pointed at the danger of a new nuclear arms race, and the growing risk of such weapons being used. But wrong is his demand from that, to reach a world free of nuclear weapons. The applaus he got from angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier feeds an illusion that would not lead to a better but more dangerous world.

It may be - at least in theory - imaginable to scrap all nuclear warheads in the world. But the knoweldge of how to construct them cannot be scrapped.

And Obama's offer to spread participation in peaceful use of nuclear energy, underlines this aspect. Becasue the way from civilian to military use of nuclear technology is short.

Who wants to give a guarantee that not in some unserious, abandoned part of the world the decision to end participation in the ending of nuclear weapons would be made? the almost-nuclear power Syria and the highly armed North Korea have demonstrated that such programs can be organised with relative discretion.

The world would also become more dangerous, because passing on the option of the nuclear bomb, whose logic was basing on not to use it, would boost a conventional arms race. Where nuclear deterrance is no more, readiness for a war with tanks, bombers and infantry, even chemical and biological weapons is becoming stronger.

Nevertheless, Obama'S hint of the danger of increasing availability of nuclear weapons is important. Would the shia Iran get the bomb, Sunni Saudi-Arabia would do the same, possibly even neighbouring Turkey.

That's why non-proliferation and the substantial reduction of nuclear arsenals must be the goal of politicians, but not "global zero". "More safety" is much more important than "no nukes".

[baggygreen]

Eliminating nukes is the worst idea I've heard in a long long time.

Sure, it'd be great if they weren't around. Noone would, could or should deny that. But the genie is out of the bottle. Too many people (ie everybody) know how powerful they are. To think that people won't seek them once they're all gone is daft, the knowledge is there, its a matter of paying enough money to get what you want.

[Bewolf]

Have you read this comment in Die Welt yesterday? ;)

http://www.welt.de/politik/article3507975/Welt-ohne-Atomwaffen-Obamas-populaerer-Irrtum.html?print=yes#reqdrucken

Not the best newspaper around, but sometimes they get their comments right. That one on the Abwrackprämie also was top.


Yeah, that's the sad truth, at least for the moment. No glory there for our generation.

[Bewolf]

Well, we've been over this before. And I realize you have no clue as to what nuclear deterrence is all about, and how the mechanisms work to deter conflict. You just know that you don't like nuclear weapons, and find them illogical. Well, guess what. I don't like them either. Yet, I find them totally necessary. If you understood how deterrence works, and how a global nuclear scenario may play out, you would know that 1,000 warheads is definitely not enough to deter the major powers against a MAD scenario. Not even close. We put 192 warheads on 1 SSBN alone. The consideration is survivability of our triad in conjunction with many other factors. You take out 2 of our SSBN's using the Obama vision and you have eliminated almost 40% of our nuclear striking capability. Yes, this proposal is very dangerous. Since you are not an American voter, I seriously don't need to argue with you about the value of deterrence and number of systems to keep our deterrence viable. My thoughts truly are for those who have an actual say in American military affairs and the voters here who controls the Congress that either supports viable nuclear weapons systems and programs or not. Feel free to agree or disagree. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. But if you don't vote here, I couldn't care less. No offense intended.


Stop wasting your time typing to me if you do not care anways and only american voters count when global destruction is threatend. Makes you look less exculpating in view of a lack of reasonable arguments.

[Biggles]

So maybe the United States of America could do without a few dozen warheads. As far as I can understand, you'll have plenty left, and it'd take a nutcase bigger than that waterhead over in North Korea to dare an attack.

Having 1000 or less nuclear warheads is more than enough to annihilate any hostile country. So why the sudden need for a number over that?

[Frame57]

It is a moot point. It is like a fellow who reloads ammunition and says, "I will only have 3 boxes of shells on the shelf..." But the fellow has the material to crank out as many as he want when he wants.

[Aramike]

lmao. So, the United States can only destroy the world 5 times over instead of 10?The idea has never been to "destroy the world 5 times over". The idea is that we'd have so many weapons that even the destruction of a significant portion of them would not see the end of our MAD deterrent.

What I don't get is why people (especially liberals) give a crap at how many nuclear weapons we have, since the PROVEN PRINCIPLE of it all is that we have so many so we don't have to use them.

[Max2147]

What I don't get is why people (especially liberals) give a crap at how many nuclear weapons we have, since the PROVEN PRINCIPLE of it all is that we have so many so we don't have to use them.
Stop making this a liberal/conservative issue. The guy who's worshiped as the greatest conservative president of all didn't think we needed any nukes. Reagan's real goal in his disarmament talks was to eliminate all nuclear weapons. His advisers never wanted to let him talk to Gorbachev alone, since he would keep bringing up the global zero option, and the advisers (who believed in nuclear deterrence) would always have to go in afterwards and say "well, he didn't REALLY mean that..."

Imagine the outcry if Obama said he wanted to share our best defensive weapon system with the Russians. People would think he was the softest guy ever in the White House. But Reagan publicly proposed doing exactly that with SDI.

Here's some good documents on Reykjavik: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB203/index.htm (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB203/index.htm)

From the second meeting (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB203/Document11.pdf ): "We are even prepared to share the benefits of strategic defense, the President said. We will agree now to a treaty committing to do so in conjunction with the elimination of ballistic missiles."

When Reagan said those sorts of things directly to the leader of our most feared enemy, why is it suddenly so horrible for Obama to say he doesn't want to have nukes around?

[Aramike]

Stop making this a liberal/conservative issue.I'm not making this such an issue. I was pointing out a FACT that, while uncomfortable to some, is a fact.

Had you actually read my post rather than keying in on one factual comment (which I can prove, by the way) you'd know that the point of it was that having a large amount of weapons is specifically what stops their use.

As far as Reagan is concerned, yes he did indeed seek the elimination of nuclear weapons. But, as even your own post attempts to illustrate, he wanted to do so by REPLACING the deterrent of nuclear holocaust with the deterrent that the expensive damned weapons just won't work anyway.

And yes, Reagan did propose sharing SDI. Also, Bush proposed sharing ABM. If Obama wanted to share an effective SDI system with anyone, I'd support that.

What I do NOT support is the out-and-out reduction of ONLY nuclear deterrent without having a replacement deterrent, which is EXACTLY what many liberals (not all, so don't take it personally) want. Many elements on the far left believe that simply reducing the amount of nuclear weapons would prevent their use. I say that principle is WRONG. I believe that a significant reduction in the amount of nukes would make their use more likely. As has been stated, there are enough of these weapons to destroy the world many times over. So, a substantial reduction would not actually remove any real destructive power. What does it do then?

Simply, it reduces the deterrent.

[Bewolf]

The problem in this all is, that detterence worked for by now only 60 years. That is not a lot of time, really, but within this timeframe so far ppl kept their cool.

However, this concept only has to fail "once" and the sh*t hits the fan. It's like ppl actually "like" to raise their children under the threat of nuclear weapons, full of faith that their existence will prevent their use, which, by Murphys law, is highly unlikely. Literally the fate of the world....That's a whole lot trust in something as irrational an unpredictable as human nature, no matter what country from.

[Aramike]

The problem in this all is, that detterence worked for by now only 60 years. That is not a lot of time, really, but within this timeframe so far ppl kept their cool.

However, this concept only has to fail "once" and the sh*t hits the fan. It's like ppl actually "like" to raise their children under the threat of nuclear weapons, full of faith that their existence will prevent their use, which, by Murphys law, is highly unlikely. Literally the fate of the world....That's a whole lot trust in something as irrational an unpredictable as human nature, no matter what country from.The problem is, you end up having to trust either way. When was the last time in history you recall technology (especially weapons tech) being passed over because of its potential destructive power? Never.

So, knowing that there's no way to prevent the pursuit of these weapons, the best defense is to make sure that you are also armed with them. It is unfortunate, but the FACT is that the only way to keep the peace is at gunpoint.

You said it - human nature is unstable. The best way to counter this is to give incentives for stability, i.e, "we'll let you live if you behave".

[SteamWake]

Heres a good opinion piece on the topic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/06/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-obama

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. ;)

[Jimbuna]

Getting rid of ALL nukes on the planet is a sound idea....but can anyone be sure of knowing with certainty that ALL countries would comply and that some of the crackpot dictators wouldn't hold a few back.

Just imagine, you get rid of all yours then the North Korean nutter rings you in the dead of night and informs you he kept one hidden.

What do you do? Invade and face a nuclear strike on your homeland.

I think the best anyone can hope for is a reduction in numbers. The deterrent factor/fear of a retaliatory strike seems to have worked fine thus far.

[AVGWarhawk]

Getting rid of ALL nukes on the planet is a sound idea....but can anyone be sure of knowing with certainty that ALL countries would comply and that some of the crackpot dictators wouldn't hold a few back.

Just imagine, you get rid of all yours then the North Korean nutter rings you in the dead of night and informs you he kept one hidden.

What do you do? Invade and face a nuclear strike on your homeland.

I think the best anyone can hope for is a reduction in numbers. The deterrent factor/fear of a retaliatory strike seems to have worked fine thus far.


I would buy this logic. You push the button, I will push my button. The loss of trust to dismantle is long gone. All want to keep the balance of how may buttons they can push if the need arises. As Jim states, hiding these can be done. No U2 plane or space orbitor will find them.

[Skybird]

The problem in this all is, that detterence worked for by now only 60 years. That is not a lot of time, really, but within this timeframe so far ppl kept their cool.

However, this concept only has to fail "once" and the sh*t hits the fan. It's like ppl actually "like" to raise their children under the threat of nuclear weapons, full of faith that their existence will prevent their use, which, by Murphys law, is highly unlikely. Literally the fate of the world....That's a whole lot trust in something as irrational an unpredictable as human nature, no matter what country from.

The situation had been out of control at least once, during Cuba. Back then, the crisis was not defused by competent management. We simply were LUCKY.

However, most of the time it worked the way you outlined because actors in the nuclear arena were cool-blooded calculators with at least some sanity and reason left. This safety function you can forget in case of religious nutheads living by fantasies of world dominance and/or just devine (=manmade) revenge that was sought for and carried out by their sick minds.

Or as Kidman puts it so laconic and precise in this film called "Project Peacemaker": I'm not worried about those trying to get many nuclear weapons. I'm worried about the guy who only wants one.

Proliferation is the one great danger in a world with knowledge on nuclear weapons. It's the one uncalculatable risk we cannot afford, and the one bad thing that really does not let me find sleep. Preventing proliferation is what seems to justify all and every means necessary to acchieve that mission objective. Enforcing non-proliferation is not negotiable - it is an imperative must.

[nikimcbee]

More evidence of crack smoking in Washington by those that fail to read history.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-nuclear-earlyapr06,0,1407723.story

-S


:har::har::har:...and if you get rid of your nukes now, you'll get a free puppy!

[FIREWALL]

Quit looking at all your Sci-Fi movies and tv shows.

This planet is doomed to a Nuclear war.

It might be small and contained but,... It will happen.

As sure as the sun rises from the East and... dog crap sticks to your shoes.

[Sea Demon]

lmao. So, the United States can only destroy the world 5 times over instead of 10?

As I said above, and as Aramike also contends, it's not just significantly greater proportions of nuclear weapons as a means to destroy the same targets 10 times over. The reality is we currently carry 192 warheads on each of our SSBN's alone. If any potential enemy can trail and destroy just 2 of our SSBN's, they have successfully eliminated very close to 40% of our entire fielded strategic arsenal using the Obama numbers. That puts a chill up my spine.

The ICBM's and bomber part of the triad are also much more vulnerable systems. Bombers are not even on any kind of nuclear alert any longer. And what about system failures of any remaining parts of any returned nuclear strike? I expect most things will work as advertised, but you can never fully get rid of all the unforeseen malfunctions. There is way more to consider than what you allude to.

Stop wasting your time typing to me if you do not care anways and only american voters count when global destruction is threatend. Makes you look less exculpating in view of a lack of reasonable arguments.

Sorry Bewolf. I don't mean any insult to you. It's just that me and you went back and forth on this stuff just a few weeks ago, and we pretty much just came to different conclusions about any merits of deterrence. We simply disagree. I didn't say your opinion didn't matter. I'm just simply not going to argue too much about it with anybody that does not have any say in US policy as a voter. You simply don't have any power or say in American nuclear policy, and I already understand your POV. Therefore, I won't waste too much effort trying to influence your opinion. You have been clear where you stand. And while I respect your opinion, I highly disagree. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but we've gone around in circles too many times on it. And you're simply not going to change this American's mind about how I expect our policy makers to act on this issue with our deterrent forces.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

As I said above, and as Aramike also contends, it's not just significantly greater proportions of nuclear weapons as a means to destroy the same targets 10 times over. The reality is we currently carry 192 warheads on each of our SSBN's alone. If any potential enemy can trail and destroy just 2 of our SSBN's, they have successfully eliminated very close to 40% of our entire fielded strategic arsenal using the Obama numbers. That puts a chill up my spine.
Isn't 60% enough?
Have you considered the alternate solution of dispersing? For example, you can have 96 warheads per sub and twice as many subs. As a bonus, the SLBM would fly a little farther, or have more room for anti-ABM decoys?
And I thought the US was so confident its SSBNs are invulnerable...
Sorry Bewolf. I don't mean any insult to you. It's just that me and you went back and forth on this stuff just a few weeks ago, and we pretty much just came to different conclusions about any merits of deterrence. We simply disagree. I didn't say your opinion didn't matter. I'm just simply not going to argue too much about it with anybody that does not have any say in US policy as a voter. You simply don't have any power or say in American nuclear policy, and I already understand your POV. Therefore, I won't waste too much effort trying to influence your opinion. You have been clear where you stand. And while I respect your opinion, I highly disagree. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but we've gone around in circles too many times on it. And you're simply not going to change this American's mind about how I expect our policy makers to act on this issue with our deterrent forces.
Quite frankly, you are not in that much better a position than Beowulf or any other foreign national. We've got zero, true. But unless you are some kind of nuclear planner, it isn't like you've got more than about 1 in 100 million (or whatever is the number of egligible voters in the US these days). When you count in everything, such as how a voter can only affect any policy (nuclear, economic or otherwise) VERY indirectly, you've got even less than that, but you get my point. I'll call that a pretty insignificant difference.
The only chance you can beat that is if you persuade some other American. For example, if your posts somehow convinces 10 Americans, then you've increased your influence to 10 in 100 million. Yet any foreigner would, by that logic, have almost as much power as you to influence American nuclear policy - your advantage is but 1 in 100 million, nothing that a winning argument in front of an audience might not cover :)

As for "proven principles", I must really wonder. Admittedly, the choices that happened weren't proven to be a failure, in that no nuclear war occurred, so far. That's the best that can be said about deterrence.
As an aside, if we go by "proven principles" (read the policies used in the Cold War), then ABM itself is non-justifiable. They were so fearful to go outside MAD that they even signed a ABM Treaty in 1972. America's decision to go ahead with its ABM plans is, in itself, a deviation from what worked (or didn't fail) in the past, and we are in untried territory already.

[Bewolf]

Sorry Bewolf. I don't mean any insult to you. It's just that me and you went back and forth on this stuff just a few weeks ago, and we pretty much just came to different conclusions about any merits of deterrence. We simply disagree. I didn't say your opinion didn't matter. I'm just simply not going to argue too much about it with anybody that does not have any say in US policy as a voter. You simply don't have any power or say in American nuclear policy, and I already understand your POV. Therefore, I won't waste too much effort trying to influence your opinion. You have been clear where you stand. And while I respect your opinion, I highly disagree. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but we've gone around in circles too many times on it. And you're simply not going to change this American's mind about how I expect our policy makers to act on this issue with our deterrent forces.

I sense a bit of UScentrism here. You see, this discussion, at least in my book, is about world conditions in general. This includes China, Russia, Britian, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, Brazil, North Korea and all the other countries and groups in possession of the bomb. I doubt all these have the right to vote in the US either.

Agreed to the rest, however.

[Bewolf]

The situation had been out of control at least once, during Cuba. Back then, the crisis was not defused by competent management. We simply were LUCKY.

However, most of the time it worked the way you outlined because actors in the nuclear arena were cool-blooded calculators with at least some sanity and reason left. This safety function you can forget in case of religious nutheads living by fantasies of world dominance and/or just devine (=manmade) revenge that was sought for and carried out by their sick minds.

Or as Kidman puts it so laconic and precise in this film called "Project Peacemaker": I'm not worried about those trying to get many nuclear weapons. I'm worried about the guy who only wants one.

Proliferation is the one great danger in a world with knowledge on nuclear weapons. It's the one uncalculatable risk we cannot afford, and the one bad thing that really does not let me find sleep. Preventing proliferation is what seems to justify all and every means necessary to acchieve that mission objective. Enforcing non-proliferation is not negotiable - it is an imperative must.

That is the problem. The Kennedy administration was, measured by the average western world government, rather competent. The issue was clear, the enemy was clear, the basics to resolve the issue were rather uncomplicated. Nuclear Cuba or not. The USSR was rather predictable and both sides were not interested in war in general.
And STILL it went nearly out of hand. Now imagine the same scanario under much less transparent cornerpoints.

[Bewolf]

The problem is, you end up having to trust either way. When was the last time in history you recall technology (especially weapons tech) being passed over because of its potential destructive power? Never.

So, knowing that there's no way to prevent the pursuit of these weapons, the best defense is to make sure that you are also armed with them. It is unfortunate, but the FACT is that the only way to keep the peace is at gunpoint.

You said it - human nature is unstable. The best way to counter this is to give incentives for stability, i.e, "we'll let you live if you behave".


Depends on the nations. There are quite a few countries that do not want to have anything to do with nuclear weapons despite their capability to build them within weeks if they wanted to.

And about countering human nature with human nature....d'uh. This fails the moment one's side motivation is not survival, but destruction. Doesn't matter if that happens in the US or elsewhere. The premise of detterence is the other side beeing fearful of annhilation. However, as history also tells, there are folks not caring about that at all. Especially with 66 virgins waiting on the other side.

And to be frank, I do not trust the US, or any other established nation either, of always keeping their cool.

[Aramike]

And about countering human nature with human nature....d'uh. This fails the moment one's side motivation is not survival, but destruction. Doesn't matter if that happens in the US or elsewhere. The premise of detterence is the other side beeing fearful of annhilation. However, as history also tells, there are folks not caring about that at all. Especially with 66 virgins waiting on the other side. In which case, having the capability to destroy those enemies first is paramount.

Besides, getting the US and Russia to lower their nuclear stockpiles will do nothing to address those threats anyway.

As for not trusting any nation to maintain their cool, I'm not concerned. The potential for millions of dead seems to have a calming effect on world leaders.

[Frame57]

LUCKY???? Yeah.....NO, it was Kennedy calling Nikita's bluff and showing military force in the situation that resolved the situation. You never beat the bully with luck or negotiation. Force and determination is the only resolve for such matters.

[JALU3]

I can see a reduction of nuclear warheads, if there was also an increase in fielding and developing ABM/BMD systems. Such as, there is the need for less fire arms, since they security systems put in place will decrease the amount entrances needed to be covered. However, the current scheme of only reducing warheads lacks that similar exchange in reduction of weaponry to an increase in defensive capability

SSBNs are not invulnerable, every planner who thinks a particular system is invulnerable to being disabled or destroyed is only fooling themselves.
As for the statement that dispersion would reduce the destruction of fielded/available warheads if a given hull is disabled/destroyed ... I would be all for it. However, given the present make of the elected individuals of government, what are the chances of a new SSBN project that would field double the hulls that the Ohios were produced in, even if their SLBM count was smaller. Heck, you couldn't do it under a Congress or Administration which was seen as friendlier to the defense industry, let alone the present one.

As for US Centricism in this discussion, I completely understand that it is, because this is a discussion on US Policy, not the policy of other nations. If this was a discussion about Russian Policy, it would be russian centric, and so on and so forth.

I'm not worried about those trying to get many nuclear weapons. I'm worried about the guy who only wants one.
Although you worry about both, you worry about the latter more because they likelihood that they actually care about a retalitory strike of similar magnitude or that they would be effected by said strike is unlikely. This where the difference of state and non-state actors comes into play. State actors, are for the most part level headed, calculating individuals, who have something to risk for a decision which goes south on their part. Most non-state actors do not have that risk, and thus are less likely to be effected by a decision which "goes south".

[nikimcbee]

Since we're al going to live in peace now, I think we should disolve Nato while we're at it.

[Max2147]

LUCKY???? Yeah.....NO, it was Kennedy calling Nikita's bluff and showing military force in the situation that resolved the situation. You never beat the bully with luck or negotiation. Force and determination is the only resolve for such matters.
Um, no. It was Kennedy backing down and agreeing to take the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey that resolved the situation.

[Skybird]

Um, no. It was Kennedy backing down and agreeing to take the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey that resolved the situation.
We are LUCKY we are still here after Cuba. Control or determination had nothing to do with it, it was not crisis management that saved us. There was a point when things for a certain time were out of control, and only fate's friendliness decided that it was a bad day to launch nuclear extinction, although man had set all sails for that destination. I think it was McNamara, and several other witnesses of that administration back then, who repeatedly had been very frank and very unambigious in their assessement of those events. So fool yourself with thinking it was all under control and went accoprding to plans, if you want - but don't fool the witnessing of those who experienced it from inside circles and at closest possible range to the red button, and thus know it better. Just one captain at sea, just one single sailor at a weapon station loosing his nerves, or miscommunicating orders, just one radar malfunction at the wrong time of hot crisis - and we would have been done.

[Max2147]

I think it was more under control than you make it out to be. Both sides acted with surprising restraint.

A good example was the U-2 shootdown during the crisis. Before the mission the US had resolved to attack if the Russians fired at the U-2. But once they got word that the U-2 had been shot down, Kennedy basically made up an excuse for the Russians on the spot, saying that it must have been an unauthorized attack ("There's always some son of a bitch that doesn't get the memo"). He ended up being right.

Of course, there were nutcases on both sides. Castro was livid that the Russians hadn't attacked, and Curtis LeMay actually contemplated a military coup against JFK after the crisis. But cooler heads held the real power on both sides.

[CaptainHaplo]

This idea that reducing the number of warheads is a good thing - is madness. Were this a perfect world - then yes it would be a wonderful thing.

But people - your talking warheads - not delivery vehicles....

All modern, strategic missiles - read that as ICBM's, are MIRV's. The Trident 2 - carried aboard the Ohio's - each have 4 warheads.

So - you don't have to stop the WARHEADS - you take out the delivery vehicle. This is why the concern on a couple of Ohio's being tracked and destroyed is put out there. Same issue applies - you reduce the number of warheads - then your reducing the number of delivery vehicles you have to kill to render an enemy helpless.

Then - has everyone forgotten the fact that ballistic missile intercepts are proven to be possible? And lets totally ignore the fact that light based weapons - aka "lasers" are in testing phases. The ability to hit a target in its most vulnerable states - boost and apex - is now possible. So - lets reduce the number of "targets" that we could throw at an attacker, all the while knowing that the same enemy is increasing his ability to hit more and more of those incoming missiles that would be launched in a retaliation. In other words - lets just get rid of our ability to strike back - because the same people that think having nukes is a bad thing due to the instability of humanity - seem to want to trust their future to that same instability without some insurance or hedge against some nutcase.

Scenario - you have 1000 warheads - on the best delivery vehicle you have. At this point - a Trident II (D5) - so lets call it 250 missiles. $hit hits the fan and you are forced to retaliate via "alpha" or full launch of all available weapons. So you now have 250 missiles boosting - and guess what..... your foe, planning well - has some laser equipped cruisers and destroyers deployed - all of them taking pot shots at your missiles. Only a few will get hit in the boost phase, simply because few ships will be positioned close enough to launch points. Now your missiles are in their ballistic arc. Land based ICBM's have about a 30 minute total "flight" time - sub launched are 10-15. So these missiles spend anywhere from 10-20 minutes at the apex. During this time - due to their height, they are vulnerable to a full quarter of the globe at least - with all kinds of ships and land based systems shooting at them. Remember - these are in a ballistic arc - so its not like its hard to predict where they are going to be at x moment in time. So - you have a huge potential for the vehicles to be destroyed before they deploy the MIRV's.

By the time the current President ends his first term - the ability for a land based laser to hit a ballistic missile will be real - and the technology will mature even faster once its done the first time in testing. In 10 years, ICBMs' only chance of "getting through" will be force of numbers.

The idea of an "antimatter" weapon - if even feasible - would be even more silly to pursue. Sure only one would be needed - but you can't launch just "one" with any expectation of it actually hitting your target in today's environment - much less the future.

[Sea Demon]

Isn't 60% enough?
Have you considered the alternate solution of dispersing? For example, you can have 96 warheads per sub and twice as many subs. As a bonus, the SLBM would fly a little farther, or have more room for anti-ABM decoys?
And I thought the US was so confident its SSBNs are invulnerable...

Yes. I did consider a wide variety of dispersal theories. However, one must look at reality as well, instead of just wide eyed unrealistic theory. We don't exactly have a political environment or the will on funding in doubling the number of SSBN's to disperse much fewer warheads. It's not cost effective for one. Two, it's not doable due to treaties. And three, under a President like Obama, and a Democrat Congress, nuclear weapons realignments that increase overall effectiveness of systems and ability to counterstrike are not a priority. Their current focus shows that. The Obama administration is intent on overall reductions in numbers only. Even in the face of other nations bolstering their offensive forces. They will not bolster our ICBM forces or begin putting a number of US bombers back on nuclear alert status. In the real world, that's not going to happen for many reasons.

In terms of percentages, no I don't think 50%-60% of 1,000 truly is enough to deter China, North Korea and/or Russia as a combination of forces. Let's add Iran to that. Plus that number is merely theoretical as a scenario. There are actually many such scenarios. Possible malfunctions, and hundreds of targets needing elimination in targeting both China and Russia in the event of the unthinkable. What if a potential hostile power could eliminate three SSBN's, and eliminate a percentage of our ICBM's in a potential first strike? As an American taxpayer, I don't trust these numbers. I find these Obama numbers totally unacceptable when both Russia, China, and others are currently increasing and modernizing their nuclear offensive forces.

I prefer numbers that make first strike scenarios against us or our allies impossible to fathom. Not these naive Obama numbers which take out large percentages of our striking potential with 1 or 2 weapons and some sabotage, making the neutralizing of much of America's nuclear arsenal possible if well planned. American taxpayers have invested untold billions in deterrence to keep the peace, and enhance our national security. It has worked, and foreign concerns and speculated theories on any of it don't have any pull on me.

Quite frankly, you are not in that much better a position than Beowulf or any other foreign national. We've got zero, true. But unless you are some kind of nuclear planner, it isn't like you've got more than about 1 in 100 million (or whatever is the number of egligible voters in the US these days). When you count in everything, such as how a voter can only affect any policy (nuclear, economic or otherwise) VERY indirectly, you've got even less than that, but you get my point. I'll call that a pretty insignificant difference.........................


Yeah, tell that to the voters of Broward County Florida during the 2000 election. Or to the few in Ohio that put G.W. Bush over the top in 04. Or the people in the Coleman-Franken disputed election currently in play. In these instances, very few people had/have the power to effectively control by proxy hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding, War on Terror as a continued policy, military funding, tax cutting measures, social spending priorities, federal programs cuts and much more. Since we are so closely divided in numbers of voters, very few numbers of people affect how this country does business and what the breakdown of legislation becomes in the House and Senate. So ,yeah, it is important for every American to understand deterrent policy, how this current Democrat government views and acts on it, and potentials for long ranging problems. 1 vote, and voter coalitions for policy actions do have impact here. While I don't mind discussing this topic with non Americans, and can respect their point of view, it's of no consequence to me how non American's believe we should set our nuclear policy, or defense priorities. They have no say or power to affect any of it.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Yes. I did consider a wide variety of dispersal theories. However, one must look at reality as well, instead of just wide eyed unrealistic theory. We don't exactly have a political environment or the will on funding in doubling the number of SSBN's to disperse much fewer warheads. It's not cost effective for one. I thought we are talking about the security of the country here. Surely, cost efficiency is not the only concept of consideration. Two, it's not doable due to treaties. What? The treaty says you cannot put say 120 warheads in 10 subs instead of 240 warheads? And three, under a President like Obama, and a Democrat Congress, nuclear weapons realignments that increase overall effectiveness of systems and ability to counterstrike are not a priority. Their current focus shows that. The Obama administration is intent on overall reductions in numbers only. Even in the face of other nations bolstering their offensive forces. They will not bolster our ICBM forces or begin putting a number of US bombers back on nuclear alert status. In the real world, that's not going to happen for many reasons. The very concept of America (who pays more than anyone every year for the right (&quot;power projection capability&quot;) to attack people almost anywhere in the world, almost any time of their choosing) complaining about other people &quot;bolstering&quot; their &quot;offensive forces&quot; is utterly laughable. In fact, America should be happy it actually got time out (say about 20 years, which would probably be worth ~200 from 2 centuries back) where few are able to challenge it (even if they band together) and even those that do aren't particularly enthusiastic in banding together and doing so. What if a potential hostile power could eliminate three SSBN's, and eliminate a percentage of our ICBM's in a potential first strike? As an American taxpayer, I don't trust these numbers. I find these Obama numbers totally unacceptable when both Russia, China, and others are currently increasing and modernizing their nuclear offensive forces. Now who's getting into hypotheticals... Besides, if America is THAT worried about the effects of first strikes on the retaliatory deterrent, or to keeping to the dynamics that worked in the Cold War, it'll have kept the ABM treaty or even pushed for it to be expanded worldwide. The very idea of the ABM treaty is that if both sides don't have ABM, even if say 10 warheads out of 5000 are left after a first strike, the 10 warheads can still cause enough hurt to have deterrent value, while if there is a ABM system the 10 warheads will be soaked up. Most countries, arguably even post Cold War Russia, live with the fact that if they take a well-planned first strike (and after Russia, even if they get in the first strike) they can't really quite annihilate the &quot;likely enemy&quot; and will have to settle for having enough deterrent to put some hurt in them. I prefer numbers that make first strike scenarios against us or our allies impossible to fathom.</b> Not these naive Obama numbers which take out large percentages of our striking potential with 1 or 2 weapons and some sabotage, making the neutralizing of much of America's nuclear arsenal possible if well planned. American taxpayers have invested untold billions in deterrence to keep the peace, and enhance our national security. It has worked, and foreign concerns and speculated theories on any of it don't have any pull on me. If you are talking maniacs who will do anything just to get a bit of hurt in into America, then having 3 million warheads in the silos won't increase your security. The very concept of deterrence assumes rationality and a fear of self-immolation. Against enemies that don't have both no amount of deterrence will work, even in theory. If you are talking &quot;reasonable people&quot; against which deterrence might work (and hasn't been proven to fail so far), then you don't need that many warheads. Yeah, tell that to the voters of Broward County Florida during the 2000 election. Or to the few in Ohio that put G.W. Bush over the top in 04. Or the people in the Coleman-Franken disputed election currently in play. In these instances, very few people had/have the power to effectively control by proxy hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding, War on Terror as a continued policy, military funding, tax cutting measures, social spending priorities, federal programs cuts and much more. Since we are so closely divided in numbers of voters, very few numbers of people affect how this country does business and what the breakdown of legislation becomes in the House and Senate. So ,yeah, it is important for every American to understand deterrent policy, how this current Democrat government views and acts on it, and potentials for long ranging problems. 1 vote, and voter coalitions for policy actions do have impact here. While I don't mind discussing this topic with non Americans, and can respect their point of view, it's of no consequence to me how non American's believe we should set our nuclear policy, or defense priorities. They have no say or power to affect any of it. Snort. Sorry to bust the egos of the people in Broward Country or Ohio, but they are nothing more than the last straw (in a haystack) that &quot;broke the camel's back&quot;. As you said, things are closely divided, and if it wasn't for the fact that other Americans already fulfilled over 99% of the requirement, the haystack won't get large. It is like saying that a certain object requires 100N of force to lift, and you've got 99N and now you add one newton so it breaks contact with ground, and thus that one newton is somehow more critical than the other 99 of them.

[Sea Demon]

I thought we are talking about the security of the country here. Surely, cost efficiency is not the only concept of consideration.

No, but in our political reality, with the people who have been elected, it's a darn good excuse not to do something. Cost efficiency surely is a big consideration that goes into all US systems regardless. Always has been that way.

What? The treaty says you cannot put say 120 warheads in 10 subs instead of 240 warheads?

You pretty much make my point with your response here that 1,000 warheads are not enough. You derive something you feel is workable with numbers of active warheads greater than the Obama plan of 1,000. You recommend 1,200 warheads to be active in SSBN's (200 more than Obama), with no consideration to any other active warheads remaining in other parts of the triad. Yes, Obama's plan of 1,000 warheads is not cost effective, nor realistic. You make this point quite well despite your lack of insight into other factors in thinking about this issue.


The very concept of America (who pays more than anyone every year for the right (&quot;power projection capability&quot;) to attack people almost anywhere in the world, almost any time of their choosing) complaining about other people &quot;bolstering&quot; their &quot;offensive forces&quot; is utterly laughable.

Doesn't matter what you find laughable. Our defense priorities are our business. Whining about it, or pointing out what you find "laughable" will accomplish nothing for you.

In fact, America should be happy it actually got time out (say about 20 years, which would probably be worth ~200 from 2 centuries back) where few are able to challenge it (even if they band together) and even those that do aren't particularly enthusiastic in banding together and doing so.

You don't speak for Iran, Russia, China, or North Korea. As an American taxpayer, I don't particularly believe unilateral disarmament against these people is a wise move. And since you definitely don't speak for America, you'll just have to live with it.

Now who's getting into hypotheticals... Besides, if America is THAT worried about the effects of first strikes on the retaliatory deterrent, or to keeping to the dynamics that worked in the Cold War, it'll have kept the ABM treaty or even pushed for it to be expanded worldwide.

A waste of a tired old argument. Plus the Russians had an ABM. People often don't know that or have conveniently forgotten it. Although the Soviet ABM system would have resulted in a self imposed EMP attack against itself. In regards to our planned BMD system, it is not planned to be robust enough to stop an attack from Russia.

If you are talking maniacs who will do anything just to get a bit of hurt in into America, then having 3 million warheads in the silos won't increase your security.

Strategic nukes are primarily for other major states. But of course, maniacs do run Iran, and North Korea. And neither have pushed too far. Islamic terrorists not representative of any nation state requires another approach altogether. Deterring hostile nation states from using WMD against us and our allies, and dealing with terrorists are two different things. This shouldn't have to be explained to anybody.

The very concept of deterrence assumes rationality and a fear of self-immolation. Against enemies that don't have both no amount of deterrence will work, even in theory.

That is correct. However, the history of deterrence does indeed show that maintaining a credible deterrent force does seem to provide the effects of bringing rational thought to those not otherwise capable.

If you are talking &quot;reasonable people&quot; against which deterrence might work (and hasn't been proven to fail so far), then you don't need that many warheads.

You do actually need quite a bit, especially when dealing with many potential combinations of enemy force structures, and targets needing elimination. Russia and China alone both have hundreds of targets of both counterforce and countervalue. And redundancy is a part of deterrence, to those who know how it actually works.

Snort. Sorry to bust the egos of the people in Broward Country or Ohio,

Nope. It all proves just how important it is that every American understands issues of prime importance to us, like nuclear deterrence. So they can perhaps make good decisions at the polls, or lobby the correct people as an organized voter coalition for policy action. Just a few voters in these elections have changed significant outcomes of many things. Your spin on it is rather curious though.

[Aramike]

If you are talking &quot;reasonable people&quot; against which deterrence might work (and hasn't been proven to fail so far), then you don't need that many warheads.Excuse me, but if we're allowed to have, say, 1000 high-yield nuclear warheads (enough to practically destroy the civilized world), what exactly is the difference if we have 10,000 warheads instead?

If your point is that a reduction in nuclear arms wouldn't affect our strategic position, then why bother with the reduction in the first place? There's no benefit.

I mean, there's a tangible benefit in having an overwhelming nuclear capability that cannot be destroyed. But if a reduction doesn't change that capability, what is the point?

Sounds like meaningless posturing to me...

...unless, of course, certain individuals would like to see a reduction in the effectiveness of our strategic missile forces. In that case we shouldn't be listening to them to begin with.

[Sea Demon]

Excuse me, but if we're allowed to have, say, 1000 high-yield nuclear warheads (enough to practically destroy the civilized world), what exactly is the difference if we have 10,000 warheads instead?

If your point is that a reduction in nuclear arms wouldn't affect our strategic position, then why bother with the reduction in the first place? There's no benefit.

I mean, there's a tangible benefit in having an overwhelming nuclear capability that cannot be destroyed. But if a reduction doesn't change that capability, what is the point?

Sounds like meaningless posturing to me...

...unless, of course, certain individuals would like to see a reduction in the effectiveness of our strategic missile forces. In that case we shouldn't be listening to them to begin with.

A standing ovation to Aramike. You have shown great logic against a tide of unrealism. There is a great reason I don't listen very hard to non Americans about this issue. Not just the fact that they have no voice in our nuclear deterrent policies, or defense postures. But it's also because alot of them seem to have the attitude that ......"Oh, if only America would disarm itself, we could have world peace". My answer to these types will remain the same. They are wasting their breath. Go and convince Russia, and China to give up theirs first in a definite verifiable fashion. Tell Iran and North Korea to give up any remaining ambitions to achieving a nuclear weapons capability. Then we'll talk.

Until then, we should be able to eliminate all counterforce and countervalue targets in multiple hostile nations with no way for them to acheive any type of neutralizing of our arsenal. It should be unfathomable to them that they could attack us without response. And they shouldn't be able to think of any possibilities to neutralizing of our arsenal. I make no apologies for my belief that the USA should be the last man standing when it comes to nuclear arms and BMD's. We should absolutely be the last nation holding onto a nuclear arsenal and the first and most advanced to field credible hit to kill BMD's. There is no doubt about it in my mind.

[Aramike]

Until then, we should be able to eliminate all counterforce and countervalue targets in multiple hostile nations with no way for them to acheive any type of neutralizing of our arsenal. It should be unfathomable to them that they could attack us without response. And they shouldn't be able to think of any possibilities to neutralizing of our arsenal. I make no apologies for my belief that the USA should be the last man standing when it comes to nuclear arms and BMD's. We should absolutely be the last nation holding onto a nuclear arsenal and the first and most advanced to field credible hit to kill BMD's. There is no doubt about it in my mind.Agreed, 100%.

[Tchocky]

I make no apologies for my belief that the USA should be the last man standing when it comes to nuclear arms and BMD's. We should absolutely be the last nation holding onto a nuclear arsenal and the first and most advanced to field credible hit to kill BMD's.

Why, exactly?

[Skybird]

Because it is God's own country and the best place on earth, have you forgotten!?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Because it is God's own country and the best place on earth, have you forgotten!?

Couldn't have it better myself, Sky:D And besides, we're really nice guys!

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Because it is God's own country and the best place on earth, have you forgotten!?

:har:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

No, but in our political reality, with the people who have been elected, it's a darn good excuse not to do something. Cost efficiency surely is a big consideration that goes into all US systems regardless. Always has been that way.

Well, then the question would surely have to consider whether a massive amount of nuclear warheads is the best way to ensure America's security. Sure, the cost factor is helped that most have them have been built, but they still aren't free to maintain.

You pretty much make my point with your response here that 1,000 warheads are not enough. You derive something you feel is workable with numbers of active warheads greater than the Obama plan of 1,000. You recommend 1,200 warheads to be active in SSBN's (200 more than Obama), with no consideration to any other active warheads remaining in other parts of the triad. Yes, Obama's plan of 1,000 warheads is not cost effective, nor realistic. You make this point quite well despite your lack of insight into other factors in thinking about this issue.

I find it cute that you are using a casually drawn example to try and win a point. Fine, permit me to correct it to 60 warheads on 10 subs. Now can we get to the next turn?

You don't speak for Iran, Russia, China, or North Korea. As an American taxpayer, I don't particularly believe unilateral disarmament against these people is a wise move. And since you definitely don't speak for America, you'll just have to live with it.

Since Obama is currently the closest to being the speaker for America, you'll just have to live with it.

A waste of a tired old argument. Plus the Russians had an ABM. People often don't know that or have conveniently forgotten it. Although the Soviet ABM system would have resulted in a self imposed EMP attack against itself. In regards to our planned BMD system, it is not planned to be robust enough to stop an attack from Russia.

The limitations of that ABM system is arguably a good deterrent in itself, which the current, more efficient American NMD system will lack (heck a lot of its interceptors are in other people's territory, so if someone tries to counterstrike them it isn't like the radiation is going directly onto American soil....)

The destabilization effect of a BMD system, especially if it is one sided, goes far beyond its ability (or lack thereof) to stop a full-scale strike. Consider how it narrows the options of other powers should the US decide for a limited nuclear strike.

Strategic nukes are primarily for other major states. But of course, maniacs do run Iran, and North Korea. And neither have pushed too far. Islamic terrorists not representative of any nation state requires another approach altogether. Deterring hostile nation states from using WMD against us and our allies, and dealing with terrorists are two different things. This shouldn't have to be explained to anybody.

All right, now let's consider specifically Iran and North Korea. Why do you need more than 1000 nukes for these two nations?

You do actually need quite a bit, especially when dealing with many potential combinations of enemy force structures, and targets needing elimination. Russia and China alone both have hundreds of targets of both counterforce and countervalue. And redundancy is a part of deterrence, to those who know how it actually works.

If you want to get them all, true. If you just want to get enough of them that it will hurt?

Nope. It all proves just how important it is that every American understands issues of prime importance to us, like nuclear deterrence. So they can perhaps make good decisions at the polls, or lobby the correct people as an organized voter coalition for policy action. Just a few voters in these elections have changed significant outcomes of many things. Your spin on it is rather curious though.

Actually, it is you that are spinning. I completely support the idea of Americans (or citizens of any other nation) being savvy about world affairs, be it economic, military or political. But I do disagree with the idea that those "few voters" have very much power. You could have picked any other "few voters" out of the millions that voted in that direction, and called them critical by your standards.

Excuse me, but if we're allowed to have, say, 1000 high-yield nuclear warheads (enough to practically destroy the civilized world), what exactly is the difference if we have 10,000 warheads instead?

Aramike and Sea Demon, please coordinate between yourselves. One of you are saying that 1000 warheads aren't enough to destroy everything you want blown up, so you want more. The other is saying 1000 warheads is more than enough so it doesn't make a difference if we go to 1 million. How much are 1000 warheads worth to you?

A standing ovation to Aramike. You have shown great logic against a tide of unrealism. There is a great reason I don't listen very hard to non Americans about this issue. Not just the fact that they have no voice in our nuclear deterrent policies, or defense postures.

As a practical matter, neither do you. Stop inflating your ego.

I suspect that the real reason you don't listen very hard is that most of us are discussing global nuclear THEORY - whether deterrence really works, how many warheads does a country really need for deterrence, while you are arguing from a narrow, national strategy viewpoint that's mostly aimed towards improving the correlation of force, no matter what that does to the overall security of the entire global system.

But it's also because alot of them seem to have the attitude that ......"Oh, if only America would disarm itself, we could have world peace". My answer to these types will remain the same. They are wasting their breath. Go and convince Russia, and China to give up theirs first in a definite verifiable fashion. Tell Iran and North Korea to give up any remaining ambitions to achieving a nuclear weapons capability. Then we'll talk.

Well, I don't particularly want America to disarm. What I'm unconvinced, however, is that reducing the number of nuclear warheads will seriously endanger America's security, other than in fringe scenarios that could be stretched towards justifying an infinite amount of warheads, or managing to piss off the entire world rather than just the rogue states...

If nothing else, redirecting the manpower and cash that's used to maintain all those nuke systems to something more conventional could arguably be a better boost to America's overall security.

Until then, we should be able to eliminate all counterforce and countervalue targets in multiple hostile nations with no way for them to acheive any type of neutralizing of our arsenal. It should be unfathomable to them that they could attack us without response. And they shouldn't be able to think of any possibilities to neutralizing of our arsenal. I make no apologies for my belief that the USA should be the last man standing when it comes to nuclear arms and BMD's. We should absolutely be the last nation holding onto a nuclear arsenal and the first and most advanced to field credible hit to kill BMD's. There is no doubt about it in my mind.

Please justify this.

[Fish]

Because it is God's own country and the best place on earth, have you forgotten!?
And, people like Sea Demon, think they own the world. The sheer arrogance of his words.:nope:

[August]

And, people like Sea Demon, think they own the world. The sheer arrogance of his words.:nope:

Your people didn't have a problem with American arrogance when we were liberating your country from Skybirds relatives... :DL

[Aramike]

Gotta love it when leftists from overseas finds fault with American patriotism... :down:

[Sea Demon]

And, people like Sea Demon, think they own the world. The sheer arrogance of his words.:nope:

Hi Fish. I mean no insult to you. But no, I don't think we "own the world", but we do indeed take ownership of our defense priorities and nuclear deterrence postures. No apologies should be, nor will be made for any of it.

And I won't bother to keep addressing the individual above who is merely wasting his breath and time. The thing is, I attended and completed Squadron Officer's School through Maxwell AFB. I did partial residence as I got shipped off to Germany. In my non-residence portion of the course, I actually had to study this topic in depth in the post Cold War context, and got all of my information straight from the horse's mouth. It was much more than just strategic nuclear deterrence, but that was a big part of it.It also dealt heavily in conventional warfare methods. The conclusions I learned was that a nuclear deterrent capability is still needed post Cold War, and what requirements were needed to maintain it.

The only parameters that have changed since then is that China's arsenal has become more capable, and technologies are proliferating more quickly to questionable regimes. A reversal of conclusions derived from those exercises is not logical. Despite what the self proclaimed "experts" from foreign nations think. Based on what I learned in a professional military environment dealing with this very topic, I do know for sure that 1,000 warheads is not enough to deter major powers, nor meet the basic requirements in redundancies. And there are many other concerns as well. That's why I think Obama won't have the last word on it in the long run. The people who understand these concerns will speak up. Arguing about it in circles with people who have no voice or power at all in US military concerns is kind of a total waste of time. I don't seek to offend you Fish. It just is what it is.

[Frame57]

Um, no. It was Kennedy backing down and agreeing to take the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey that resolved the situation.Wrong analysis! Those missiles were obsolete, and hardly a loss strategically for the USA. Far better to have them out of Cuba. Also Kennedy would have taken on the USSR. The newly formed SEAL teams under command of the late R.H. Boehm were on the ground and in position if ordered to take out the missiles. I know...I knew the man.

[Platapus]

Wrong analysis! Those missiles were obsolete, and hardly a loss strategically for the USA. Far better to have them out of Cuba. Also Kennedy would have taken on the USSR. The newly formed SEAL teams under command of the late R.H. Boehm were on the ground and in position if ordered to take out the missiles. I know...I knew the man.

Well before making the claim that other people's analysis is wrong, you will have to provide some citations.

Even an obsolete missile like the PGM-19 Jupiter MRBM, with its 1.2 MT warhead is still a threat. I am sure the Russians did not think the PGM-19 was not a threat. Turkey objected severly at the option of removing the Jupiters so they must not have thought there were all that obsolete. Just because a missile is no longer state-of-the-art, does not mean it is without military value.

It was a good deal. We got rid of the Jupiters that Kennedy ordered removed in 1961 (and the Air Force dragged their feet on) and the Russians got rid of their SS-4 and SS-5 equipment on Cuba. We got the better of the deal that's for sure. Especially when the Soviets had to withdraw their equipment in public and our equipment was withdrawn in secret.

It is interesting that in 1959, President Eisenhower made the statement that deploying Jupiters in Italy and Turkey "would be a "provocative" step analogous to the deployment of Soviet missiles in "Mexico or Cuba."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/declass.htm

There was no need to send in any Seal teams for the Soviets had not delivered any SS-5 missiles (only the equipment needed to support the SS-5 was delivered) and only the SS-4 missile bodies were delivered. Fuel had not been delivered nor had any SS-4 nuclear warheads been delivered. According to declassified documents. The electronics and radars had been delivered but were not operational. The missile launch sites were externally complete though.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621014_621204%20Chronology%202.pdf

There were nuclear warheads in Cuba but they were for Artillery and Surface to Air missiles, neither of which could be used offensively against the mainland USA.

There was no immediate nuclear threat from Cuba, but that does not mean that there was no threat. If the Soviets had been able to successfully deploy their SS-4 and SS-5 missiles it would have been a hard bargaining chip for future negotiations.

In just considering the missile systems under consideration (ignoring all the other nuclear missiles in the inventory) Khrushchev was trading his non-operational SS-4 and SS-5 missiles in Cuba for Kennedy's operational Jupiters in Turkey. Not all that bad of a deal for Khrushchev either.

However, it is most important to realize that the negotiations between Kennedy and Khrushchev encompassed much more than just the missiles.

It is fascinating period of diplomatic history. :yeah:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Your people didn't have a problem with American arrogance when we were liberating your country from Skybirds relatives... :DL

Just when I thought this thread couldnt get any more stereotypical :dead:

[Frame57]

Well Sonny...LCDR R.H. Boehm was there and you were not, so who do you think i would trust on this. If Roy saw the missiles then as far as I am concerned they were there. They were fully prepared to destroy them if need be.

[Max2147]

Wrong analysis! Those missiles were obsolete, and hardly a loss strategically for the USA. Far better to have them out of Cuba. Also Kennedy would have taken on the USSR. The newly formed SEAL teams under command of the late R.H. Boehm were on the ground and in position if ordered to take out the missiles. I know...I knew the man.
Where did I say that taking the missiles out of Turkey was a bad move?

Apparently JFK had already planned to take the missiles out of Turkey before the crisis erupted. As a result, he had a convenient carrot to offer ol' Nikita to solve the crisis.

But regardless of the obsolescence of the missiles or JFK's prior plans, the fact remains that it was JFK's carrot that got the missiles out of Cuba, not the stick.

[Aramike]

Just when I thought this thread couldnt get any more stereotypical :dead:Odd, considering the source...

Have YOU ever taken a conservative viewpoint?

[Aramike]

Where did I say that taking the missiles out of Turkey was a bad move?

Apparently JFK had already planned to take the missiles out of Turkey before the crisis erupted. As a result, he had a convenient carrot to offer ol' Nikita to solve the crisis.

But regardless of the obsolescence of the missiles or JFK's prior plans, the fact remains that it was JFK's carrot that got the missiles out of Cuba, not the stick.You're fooling yourself if you don't think that it was a little bit of both.

If you're suggesting that removing the US nukes from Turkey was the carrot, need I remind you that the missiles being there in the first place was the stick that made the carrot possible?

Funny how that brings us full circle ... without the weapons to begin with, what exactly is our deterrent (carrot)?

[nikimcbee]

Your people didn't have a problem with American arrogance when we were liberating your country from Skybirds relatives... :DL

i can vouch for that:up:. When i met the band of Brothers, there was a guy sitting at our table from the Netherlands who was involved with the Band of Brothers memorial in Eindhoven(?) He has some really funny comments regarding the other Europeans. His perspective was very interesting. He hadn't forgotten what our Nation (along with Britain and the allies) had done for their Nation. His comments regarding the French and the Germans were priceless. I won't repeat them here.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Odd, considering the source...

Have YOU ever taken a conservative viewpoint?

Yep, but I was referring to the "You didnt mind our arrogance when we were liberating you from the Germans" line.

[SteamWake]

Errrr back on topic..

I see russia has taken Obama's word to heart and decided to test an ICBM

the Kremlin says the financial crisis will not discourage it from spending as much money as needed on defense

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUSTRE5391A320090410

[Platapus]

Errrr back on topic..

I see russia has taken Obama's word to heart and decided to test an ICBM


the Kremlin says the financial crisis will not discourage it from spending as much money as needed on defense

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUSTRE5391A320090410

I see you *accidently* forgot to include the first part of the statement.

Test launches of new missiles have become routine in recent years, and the Kremlin says the financial crisis will not discourage it from spending as much money as needed on defense.

I am sure that was accidental. Now that we have the complete quote, how exactly is this in response to President Obama when it was President Bush who was President "in recent years"?

[Fish]

Your people didn't have a problem with American arrogance when we were liberating your country from Skybirds relatives... :DL

A strawman, but for your information, it ware mostly Polisch,Canadians and English soldiers. The USA airforce bombed our city's. Arnhem, Enschede, Deventer en Nijmegen city. We still don't know why?
800 deads in Nijmegen only.

[Fish]

Hi Fish. I mean no insult to you. But no, I don't think we "own the world", but we do indeed take ownership of our defense priorities and nuclear deterrence postures. No apologies should be, nor will be made for any of it.

And I won't bother to keep addressing the individual above who is merely wasting his breath and time. The thing is, I attended and completed Squadron Officer's School through Maxwell AFB. I did partial residence as I got shipped off to Germany. In my non-residence portion of the course, I actually had to study this topic in depth in the post Cold War context, and got all of my information straight from the horse's mouth. It was much more than just strategic nuclear deterrence, but that was a big part of it.It also dealt heavily in conventional warfare methods. The conclusions I learned was that a nuclear deterrent capability is still needed post Cold War, and what requirements were needed to maintain it.

The only parameters that have changed since then is that China's arsenal has become more capable, and technologies are proliferating more quickly to questionable regimes. A reversal of conclusions derived from those exercises is not logical. Despite what the self proclaimed "experts" from foreign nations think. Based on what I learned in a professional military environment dealing with this very topic, I do know for sure that 1,000 warheads is not enough to deter major powers, nor meet the basic requirements in redundancies. And there are many other concerns as well. That's why I think Obama won't have the last word on it in the long run. The people who understand these concerns will speak up. Arguing about it in circles with people who have no voice or power at all in US military concerns is kind of a total waste of time. I don't seek to offend you Fish. It just is what it is.


Ok, no hard feelings.
You do not specially offend me but all non USA people, your wording is as if we have no vote at all what happens in the world, big dady USA will think for us.
Well, we can think for our selfs, and make our own mistakes, thank you.

[nikimcbee]

A strawman, but for your information, it ware mostly Polisch,Canadians and English soldiers. The USA airforce bombed our city's. Arnhem, Enschede, Deventer en Nijmegen city. We still don't know why?
800 deads in Nijmegen only.

The last time I checked, the Germans caused all of this. Should you be angry at them?

it ware mostly Polisch,Canadians and English soldiers.


I wouln't say that too loudly.:nope:
I dare you to tell that to these guys:
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7046/bob2pg4.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7046/bob2pg4.jpg)

Look closely the the emblem on their hats.

[NEON DEON]

A strawman, but for your information, it ware mostly Polisch,Canadians and English soldiers. The USA airforce bombed our city's. Arnhem, Enschede, Deventer en Nijmegen city. We still don't know why?
800 deads in Nijmegen only.

Yep and all of em were driving Shermans:D

[Max2147]

If you're suggesting that removing the US nukes from Turkey was the carrot, need I remind you that the missiles being there in the first place was the stick that made the carrot possible?

Funny how that brings us full circle ... without the weapons to begin with, what exactly is our deterrent (carrot)?
And arguably the missiles in Turkey (combined with the Bay of Pigs) were what pushed Khrushchev to put the missiles in Cuba. Like you said, full circle.

[nikimcbee]

And arguably the missiles in Turkey (combined with the Bay of Pigs) were what pushed Khrushchev to put the missiles in Cuba. Like you said, full circle.

Khrushchev thought Kennedy was crazy and would actually start a war over all of this, removing the missiles was part of it. Khrushchev blinked first. But that dip-stick castro almost started WW3 on his own, as he was tired of being a pawn in the middle.

[Aramike]

And arguably the missiles in Turkey (combined with the Bay of Pigs) were what pushed Khrushchev to put the missiles in Cuba. Like you said, full circle.Not just "arguably". Extremely arguable, and not incredibly substantive.

Castro and the USSR would likely have had attempted to place missiles in Cuba regardless of our missiles in Turkey as the USSR didn't have any reliable long range missiles at the time.

[Platapus]

Operation Mongoose also have an influence.

[Max2147]

Not just "arguably". Extremely arguable, and not incredibly substantive.

Castro and the USSR would likely have had attempted to place missiles in Cuba regardless of our missiles in Turkey as the USSR didn't have any reliable long range missiles at the time.
Nobody really knows Khrushchev's true intentions, and unfortunately he's not alive to answer our questions today.

But we do know that he knew about the missiles in Turkey and was VERY concerned about them, for the same reasons we were concerned about the missiles in Cuba.

Strategically the Crisis was actually a victory for the Soviet Union. If you look at the strategic balance before they put the missiles in Cuba and compare it to after the Crisis, there was a clear swing in the Soviet favor. They got the American missiles out of Turkey and an American no-invasion pledge on Cuba, and they didn't have to give up anything.

Unfortunately for Khrushchev, Kennedy was PR genius. The provision that the missile withdrawal from Turkey be kept a secret was a master stroke, and ensured a US victory in the court of public opinion. That blunder by Khrushchev was one of the things that cost him his job.

[Platapus]

Unfortunately for Khrushchev, Kennedy was PR genius. The provision that the missile withdrawal from Turkey be kept a secret was a master stroke, and ensured a US victory in the court of public opinion. That blunder by Khrushchev was one of the things that cost him his job.

In my readings on this issue, I have not been able to find any credible source that discusses why Khrushchev would agree to such a demand.

It is not like Kennedy would have told Khrushchev "keep this quiet or we will nuke you."


Was this simply a blunder by Khrushchev; an oversight; or was there some deeper deal that is still classified (possible)?

There had to be a benefit to Khrushchev to keep the Jupiter move a secret.

But I agree with you, both sides were making out pretty well in different ways. But that agreement to not publicize the Jupiter move baffles me.

Khrushchev was not dumb, nor would he *accidently* agree to anything that would make him look bad and make JFK look good. Nikki had his boys just like JFK had boys advising him.

That leads me to wonder if there is "more to the story". If you read the declassified writings there is still a bunch of information that was redacted.

Things that make you go hmmmm :hmmm:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Hi Fish. I mean no insult to you. But no, I don't think we "own the world", but we do indeed take ownership of our defense priorities and nuclear deterrence postures. No apologies should be, nor will be made for any of it.

To argue that your nation should get to keep nuclear weapons when others don't IS a pretty clear statement of your wish to hegemony.

And I won't bother to keep addressing the individual above who is merely wasting his breath and time. The thing is, I attended and completed Squadron Officer's School through Maxwell AFB. I did partial residence as I got shipped off to Germany. In my non-residence portion of the course, I actually had to study this topic in depth in the post Cold War context, and got all of my information straight from the horse's mouth. It was much more than just strategic nuclear deterrence, but that was a big part of it.It also dealt heavily in conventional warfare methods. The conclusions I learned was that a nuclear deterrent capability is still needed post Cold War, and what requirements were needed to maintain it.

The arguments you've actually put onto the page here don't exactly demonstrate that kind of education, though it does show that kind of indoctrination.

Which is not to diss the school, but SOS's total length (if I'm not reading the webpage wrong, the length of the resident course is measured in weeks, which puts severe limits on what kind of "education" is possible regardless of the talent of the students or the density of the course) just isn't that long and it has a lot to cover.

What is the "horse's mouth" (singular) exactly when it comes to nuclear strategy anyway?

The only parameters that have changed since then is that China's arsenal has become more capable, and technologies are proliferating more quickly to questionable regimes.

As I said, if you had a global, history-based perspective rather than one heavily centered on the US, you will realize that such a progression is inevitable, and that the US was lucky that it actually had some time out. I know it is very uncomfortable for a former (current?) US military officer to see the correlation of forces weakened in any way, but the rest of the world is more able to see that this is a natural flow.

Despite what the self proclaimed "experts" from foreign nations think. Based on what I learned in a professional military environment dealing with this very topic, I do know for sure that 1,000 warheads is not enough to deter major powers, nor meet the basic requirements in redundancies.

If you had been schooled in say the Soviet Frunze Academy, you'll probably be telling me that the Soviets legitimately needed 20 divisions in East Germany.

What WERE the axioms (such as the level of destruction required for deterrent effect) that were used to deduce that "1000 warheads is not enough to deter major powers"?

Not just "arguably". Extremely arguable, and not incredibly substantive.

Castro and the USSR would likely have had attempted to place missiles in Cuba regardless of our missiles in Turkey as the USSR didn't have any reliable long range missiles at the time.

Then, by this logic, wouldn't it have been the US' long-range strike capability that pushed things into this?

[Sea Demon]

The arguments you've actually put onto the page here don't exactly demonstrate that kind of education, though it does show that kind of indoctrination.........


And what kind of professional military education and training have you received? You know, I didn't see a need to address anything else from you. But I will address your stupidity here. As you disrespectfully, and naively equate the education I and many other servicemen received as simple "indoctrination" of no actual analysis or thought being applied. You sir, know absolutely nothing about anything.

You are somebody I see as being nothing but jealous towards the USA. You are an envious person, as your posts do nothing but seek to discredit those who understand and have learned realities you never could. I'm 100% certain, based on your posts, and your reaction to others, you have no formal education on this topic at all which would allow any information of any relevance to give you the tools to form a real informed opinion on such matters as these. Your views and rantings prove that. As such, you're not a worthy opponent in such a debate. You're unwilling to learn. And yet, you have no actual experience, education, or training to provide anybody else with any insight on this topic other than misinformed opinion. In other words, debating/discussing it with you is a hopeless waste of time.

[fatty]

That's not a bet I would take; KSII strikes me as being pretty well-read, maybe master's level or above.

[Sea Demon]

That's not a bet I would take; KSII strikes me as being pretty well-read, maybe master's level or above.

Going to the Maxwell AFB website to get minor details of SOS, as a basis to support your argument does not strike me as brilliance or being "well read" or informed. Since I'm certain the school wouldn't outlay the ever changing curriculum or actual equivalent units of degree of topics covered. To naively detail it as "indocrination" without actually understanding anything about it does not strike me as someone being well read or educated on matters. It's simply somebody who doesn't have anything else to grasp onto other than baseless and typical discrediting methods. And the individual's feverish pursuit of the futile, shows me that there are other issues (jealousy?) other than pursuit of truth or answers.

[Aramike]

As I said, if you had a global, history-based perspective rather than one heavily centered on the US, you will realize that such a progression is inevitable, and that the US was lucky that it actually had some time out.What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that much of Cold War history in heavily centered on the US. As such, realistic and reasonable perspectives of that time period in relation to the topic at hand would also be U.S.-centric.

Modern world culture seems to support this.