New START Treaty

[baggygreen]

Just saw on the news (no link sorry, tv news), Big Barry O and Medvedev have just agreed to cut warheads by 1/3, whilst slashing all delivery systems - media's words, not mine - clarifying it by saying that they're going to drastically cut the number of missiles, bombers and missile subs.

Sounds like a bloody stupid idea to me...

[Jimbuna]

It's not as if Medvedev is even in charge over in Russia :doh:

[SteamWake]

Kumbya .. lets hold hands and skip through the green grass. :sunny:

[Tribesman]

Kumbya .. lets hold hands and skip through the green grass.
Did you object to all the earlier versions of this treaty your government did?

It's not as if Medvedev is even in charge over in Russia
But apparently its not Obama in charg ein the US, he is just a puppet for an evil commymuslimatheist plot backed by a secret legion of nazi dentists.

[Catfish]

[Obama] "he is just a puppet for ..."

Now who IS he ?
A puppet, really ? For what i have read here, he must the incarnate devil himself. A little bit control on weapon and oil companies, a health care plane for "not well-off" people, an excuse to the first nations of the US - this man is the devil himself !
Or he is just hired by the Bush dynasty, to have an excuse for King Bush 3rd :D

Greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

reducing the number of warheads is nothing I have something to say against, both sides still are left with more warheads than enough. The US also plans to modernise existing systems, which effects the bombs stored in Europe, too.

The challenge of Iran and North Korea Obama has not answered by this.

To rule out atomic retaliation in case of attacks with biologic weapons, is questionable, imo, and not helpful. It can serve as an encouragement to strike with biologic weapons.

[Tribesman]

The challenge of Iran and North Korea Obama has not answered by this.

wow a bilateral treaty between two countries doesn't answer two other countries.

[Randomizer]

Nothing wrong with redoing START, nuclear waepons are tremendously expensive and by definition, a weapon of last resort and not to be used except under very specific situations.

America did not feel safe when it had over 30,000 deliverable warheads in its arsenal so it stands to reason that if no amount of nukes will provide the desired level of security, you might as well thin out the herd to the greatest extent practical.

That's what this version of START seems like to me, a sensible and entirely rational approach for managing weapons that may be considered essential but are entirely irrational and make no military sense.

[TLAM Strike]

Just saw on the news (no link sorry, tv news), Big Barry O and Medvedev have just agreed to cut warheads by 1/3, whilst slashing all delivery systems - media's words, not mine - clarifying it by saying that they're going to drastically cut the number of missiles, bombers and missile subs.

Sounds like a bloody stupid idea to me... Why? The US and Russia each got more warheads than all the other nuclear nations combined!

[TLAM Strike]

Nothing wrong with redoing START, nuclear waepons are tremendously expensive and by definition, a weapon of last resort and not to be used except under very specific situations. Huh? I'm sorry but you have been tragically misinformed about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are dirt cheap minus the research cost of Manhattan. A B-61 nuclear gravity bomb in a production run of 50 costs 750,000 USD (1995 $) while a single F-22 in the current production run 187costs 149 MILLION USD (1999 $ )!

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/B61-11.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

[Randomizer]

Huh? I'm sorry but you have been tragically misinformed about nuclear weapons.
Actually, I have had formal courses in nuclear target analysis and tactical fire planning with nuclear weapons during the early eighties. Have also extensively studied nuclear deterrence during the Cold War and the development of nuclear weapons doctrines of both NATO and the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry that you seem to have succumb to hype and the superficial lure of Wikipedia for your info.

The majority of nuclear weapons costs are not so much in the acquisition of the weapons themselves but in the delivery systems and in the huge and unique infrastructure required to manufacture, store, secure and service them. There is no dual-use options for these facilities and the highly trained specialists that run them, the costs are recurring and cannot be reduced without reducing stockpiles OR compromising safety or security. I also strongly suggest that a warhead for a Trident missile is not a particulary cheap item so cherry picking a low tech bomb's cost out of a catalog proves absolutely nothing.

[Zachstar]

The treaty is a good idea. Even with the reduction there is still more than enough to cause WW4 to be fought with sticks and stones.

Our policy shift is good as well. If we have not been nuked launching any nuke is very likely to start a nuclear war. Something tells me not even bush would have launched in case of a biological attack.

[Platapus]

When each side has a cubic buttload of warheads, agreeing to reduce them by 1/3 still gives each side a considerable supply.

[Tribesman]

Huh? I'm sorry but you have been tragically misinformed about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are dirt cheap minus the research cost of Manhattan. A B-61 nuclear gravity bomb in a production run of 50 costs 750,000 USD (1995 $) while a single F-22 in the current production run 187costs 149 MILLION USD (1999 $ )!


So if a single B-61 costs 750,000 and an F-22 costs 149 million wouldn't you have to factor in the costs of the B-2 as the B-61 doesn't fly by itself

[razark]

So if a single B-61 costs 750,000 and an F-22 costs 149 million wouldn't you have to factor in the costs of the B-2 as the B-61 doesn't fly by itself
In addition, you can use the F-22 for multiple roles, and you can use it more than once.

The B-61 does only one thing, and it can only do it once.


Reducing the number of warheads doesn't really affect anything. It's not a bad goal, but cutting down by 1/3 won't really change our abilities. The declaration of non-use is a bit different, though. I don't think we should be declaring who we will or won't use them against. I'd probably be alright with a "no first use" policy, so long as there was an option for extreme circumstances.

[Ishmael]

I haven't read the text of the agreement yet, but a further 1/3 reduction makes sense. There are still plenty in both arsenals. This is merely a follow-on to the START treaties negotiated by the Reagan admin. Also Remember Bush 41's prompt action in taking control of the Kazakh portion of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal, something I applauded him for doing at the time. What this also shows is a good faith effort to lower tensions over NUCWEPS and can serve as a negotiating point and confidence-building measure for talks to phase out the Pakistani, Indian and Israeli arsenals as well.

[Bubblehead1980]

Just a reminder, before the Persian Gulf War back in early 90's, James Baker implied to Iraqi Officials that if chem or bio weapons were used on US troops, a nuclear response was not off the table.This bluff worked.Now the current President has basically said we won't fight back to the best of our ability if attacked by something just as harsh as a nuke, such as bio or chem attack.I do not quote Sarah Palin usually because I am not a big fan but she was right when she said it was like backing down from a schoolyard bully after being attacked.

I don't mind the reduction as much I suppose but we should be reducing our stockpile when other nations building them.The goal of a world without nuclear weapons is admirable but not possible, maybe in liberal land where it rains gummy bears but not in the real world.You can not uninvent something, best thing can do is what worked during the cold war, make sure the enemy knows you have the ability and will use it if attacked.While we are in a war against terrorism and despite what mr muslim sympathies obama says, a war against radical islam, we also have nations to worry about and need to maintain our ability to deter these nations and use the nukes if needed.First he scraps a missle shield for less effective alternative now this crap.The naivete shown by Obama in foreign relations just screams Jimmy Carter.:damn:

[Bubblehead1980]

Kumbya .. lets hold hands and skip through the green grass. :sunny:

:har: good one sir. That is the Liberal mindset, void of reality.

[TLAM Strike]

In addition, you can use the F-22 for multiple roles, and you can use it more than once.

The B-61 does only one thing, and it can only do it once. So in other words the F-22 has to come back and finish the job the next day while a B-61 finishes the job in a few seconds? :yep:

So if a single B-61 costs 750,000 and an F-22 costs 149 million wouldn't you have to factor in the costs of the B-2 as the B-61 doesn't fly by itself A B-2 doesn't have to be the delivery system. A low cost Scud or LACM would work, as could a semi-truck. All difficult to intercept. :03:

Actually, I have had formal courses in nuclear target analysis and tactical fire planning with nuclear weapons during the early eighties. Have also extensively studied nuclear deterrence during the Cold War and the development of nuclear weapons doctrines of both NATO and the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry that you seem to have succumb to hype and the superficial lure of Wikipedia for your info.

The majority of nuclear weapons costs are not so much in the acquisition of the weapons themselves but in the delivery systems and in the huge and unique infrastructure required to manufacture, store, secure and service them. There is no dual-use options for these facilities and the highly trained specialists that run them, the costs are recurring and cannot be reduced without reducing stockpiles OR compromising safety or security. I also strongly suggest that a warhead for a Trident missile is not a particulary cheap item so cherry picking a low tech bomb's cost out of a catalog proves absolutely nothing. The only source I used Wikipedia on was for the price of the F-22, which is extremely high no matter what source you look at.

I don't have the figures for the W88 but the older W76 which is the original Trident payload is even cheaper than the B-61 I mentioned in my last post, only 128 million:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W76.html

A Trident missile is only 30 million:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

Dual-use? There certainly is a duel use for nuclear bomb production, storage and service facilities. Its just no one has had the b*lls to build a flying mountain of steel yet! :damn:

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29)

Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=r_Gu4f0QxrkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Project+Orion&source=bl&ots=F3cU3CN072&sig=sxDJoC2dcl7vFuV3xNjCt8A9hDc&hl=en&ei=smq-S6qoN4GB8gaqtsnSCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Oh right there is no reason for launching 8,000 tons in to LEO with one launch... oh wait there is (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/07/07/solar-shade-to-reverse-global-warming/)

[CaptainHaplo]

Suprisingly enough - I don't have a major issue with this treaty. OK - so instead of being able to wipe civilization off the planet entirely 6 times apiece, we now can each do it only 4 times....

Hmmmm - considering once is all it takes - 2x just to be sure, I don't see a big issue here.

The only issues I have with the treaty is that I haven't seen the verification/enforcement language. The Russians are notorious for not complying with the major weapon treaties - though the same could be said for the US in some ways. *While they tend to ignore limits, we have tended to look for loopholes to exploit*

My real concern has less to do with the treaty itself (other than what I listed) - and more to do with the nuclear usage policy just released. Now that is a problem - but it can be discussed in another thread unless there are no substantial objections.

[Zachstar]

It was part of the same deal so I think this topic is fine.

The idea is a good one tho. Using a chemical attack against us warrants a attack against the capital using conventional weapons en masse. A chemical or nuke attack only invites global thermonuclear war. Its not a sane policy and is not MAD anyway.

[tater]

Seems meaningless to me. The Russians are below treaty anyway, they could grow their force under this (replacing old with new weapons).

Hardly a new milestone.

[Platapus]

First of all, the treaty is non-binding on the United States until it is ratified by 2/3s of the Senate. So any thing in the treaty can, and probably will be changed.

Second, there is nothing in the treaty that prohibits the United States from responding to any attack with nuclear weapons.

Third, statement about whether the US will use or not use nuclear weapons is documented in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The NPR, for the first time clearly states the United States' position on this matter. Previous versions of the NPR were ambiguous. A summary of our position can be accessed at

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/npr2010.php



The United States will continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attack, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons.

(Nukes will be used to deter nukes. Not a bad policy)



The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defense the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

(You use chemical or biological weapons against us, we can nuke you)


The United States will not use of threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear proliferation obligations.

(if you play nice and follow the NPT rules, we won't threaten you with nuclear weapons. North Korea, Israel, and India, you might want to pay attention here)

Nothing in either the treaty nor the NPR prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack.

[CaptainHaplo]

Zachstar - I see where your going, but let me ask this.

Is a chem or bio attack by a nation an act of war?

If so - why would you ever take a combat option off the table entirely?

Lets say NY was hit tommorow by a Bio strike that originated with Iran. *This is hypothetical obviously....*

So your saying that we should send a couple of score of bombers over to flatten all of Tehran? Lets analyze that..

Assume a low loss rate from ground fire and interceptors. 5 Buffs and maybe a couple of F15's. That is 45Mill for the Buffs, and 110Mill lost with the F15's. Now, add in the "value" of 27 trained men (and possibly women) that lose their lives in this. What monetary value to you put on that?

So we have a total cost of at LEAST 155 Million in equipment - and this doesn't factor the costs of the sorties of all the other aircraft - which would be huge. A ground strike would be even more costly - in both logistics and lives. Figure a base total cost of 250 Million - which would be a VERY low cost for such an operation (again discounting the lives lost).

One Trident II today costs 29.1 Million - and could send the same message - if not in a much stronger way. And it won't risk additional lives.
Both ways are going to cause massive collateral damage and death.

I am not saying that is the way to respond - but its foolish to take it off the table as an OPTION. Especially since the country would need to spend its money on the relief efforts - not retaliation.

*Note the above actually wouldn't be removed as Iran is not covered - only Non-Proliferation signatories are - but the mechanics stay the same.

See the point?


Edit - Platypus - good info -will read the official doc tommorow as time permits and give some feedback.

[Platapus]

*Note the above actually wouldn't be removed as Iran is not covered - only Non-Proliferation signatories are - but the mechanics stay the same.


Iran is a signatory of the NPT and still remains a member in good standing (although they are pushing it). The official term is "In material accordance" meaning that they are still passing with a D-. :D

[tater]

Haplo, cost is a non-issue, IMO.

Deterrence requires a credible threat. Under the current admin, there is no credible threat regardless, frankly. If the ambiguous policy doesn't REQUIRE a nuke attack by law, then it is credible that we'd not retaliate PERIOD right now (not certain, but far more plausible than under the previous administration).

In the case of nukes vs countries like Iran, it seems VERY unlikely to me because of collateral issues outside the target country (ie: downwind fallout). I don't see tactical weapons as a plausible threat for US use unless there was pretty broad, worldwide support by major powers.

Mexico builds an a-bomb (OK, they STEAL one ;) ). They decide to nuke the PRC because they want to sell more crap that is "hecho en mexico" to walmart. The PRC retaliates and nukes border towns, and southerly summer winds blanket TX, NM, and AZ with fallout. Would the US with a non-wimp executive branch respond? This is an analog to NK. We could never nuke NK. We'd PO the PRC—and maybe actually harm them—and we'd blanket Japan with fallout. It would NEVER happen.

IMO, nuke policy should be intentionally ambiguous, and ideally, the few likely states to USE nukes should feel we are dangerous cowboys with a hair trigger. This should be a plausible view to hold.

We realistically could almost never use them without harming allies or other major powers with fallout, so it's technically moot. All major powers would of course operate under the understanding of the unseen "wink."

[TLAM Strike]

<Snip>

Good post. I see you get what I'm saying. :yeah:

[Zachstar]

No sane president (Not even regan or bush) would use a nuke. Worse we would do is deploy some of that black project bioweapons you can bet your butt they have stored in max security facility.

But yes initially we would flatten their cities. And destroy just about anything of value elseware until they surrendered in full. Cost is irrelevent at that point. The nation will rage for revenge.

As for rebuilding. Something tells me Iran or whoever would have to become the next state before we would rebuild a country that hit us with a chem attack.

But using a nuke invites a war that humanity wont win. Are we going to have a press conference saying we launch in 3 days or whenever the wind is right? Maybe it needs to go to a commitee to determine long term effects? UN summit? About the only way you can be halfway confident nothing terrible will happen but by that time the cities would be looted and abandoned anyway.

[Skybird]

Now the current President has basically said we won't fight back to the best of our ability if attacked by something just as harsh as a nuke, such as bio or chem attack.
Right that. just that virusses do not go Bang! does not mean they are the more harmless weapon. They are not, and they are not called for no reason the "hydrogen bomb of the poor man".

On a side note, Israel has declared to boycott the nuclear summit in Washington, fearing that it will be abused by Turkey and Syria to attack and trying to weaken Israel by putting it'S arsenal on the agenda, while ignoring Iran. Obama will not be pleased by the Israeli decision. And Israel would be damaging it'S own vital interest of caring for it. A German newspaper quotes a close adviser to Netanyahu with having said: "Obama is a total disaster for Israel". In other words: the ice age is set to most probably continue, until Obama leaves office, or another, more leftist Israeli government takes over.

Turkey's Erdoghan recently closed ties with Iran, calling it a close friend and defending it's nuclear ambitions, also saying that Iran like any Muslim country never can do anything that could be called "wrong" because as an Islamic country it cannot do any wrong. And this in a time when the Turkish Imams started legal actions to topple secularism and getting legal and political immunity from the law, end governmental overwatching of mosques and Imams, and getting equal power over turkish society like the government. Erdoghan's fundamentalist AKP is going conform with almost all these demands, much of these demands will be accepted. Which essentially mean'S the end of the current constitutional state order and the end of Ataturk'S attempt to keep Islam in check by implementing laws for a secular society.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article7092820/Tuerkischer-Islam-will-Fesseln-des-Staates-sprengen.html

Turkey is no ally for us. High time, very high time that the fools in Washington finally get it. American idealistic thinking and shortsighted politcal pragmatism is no match for Islam's archaic energy. The changes in Turkey since the rise of the AKP are worrying, very worrying. They vast majority of the group of secular, West-oriented Turks are worried, too. add to this the growing ultranationalistic sentiments and the dream for restablishing a post-osmanic dominance. If a comparable thing would take place in Germany, all you guys already would have gone yelling and shouting.

START does not effect North Korea. Not Pakistan. Not Iran. All these are challenges that Obama has no answer for. So do not overestimate START. and more challenges like these countries are likely to appear in the forseeable future.

[Admiral8Q]

A reduction in nuclear weapons 33% means nothing. That's only 7 to 10 times the annihilation of our planet.

[Tribesman]

On a side note, Israel has declared to boycott the nuclear summit in Washington, fearing that it will be abused by Turkey and Syria to attack and trying to weaken Israel by putting it'S arsenal on the agenda, while ignoring Iran.
Since the problems with Iran are a major focus of the summit how can that be true?
Besides which Israel is not boycotting the summit, its just that Bibi is not attending in person.
Further detatched from reality is Skys claim about the countries involved. Israel says its Turkey and Egypt that were going to be pushing the issue of Israel signing up to the NPT.
It should also be noted that all countries which are not part of the NPT will be on the agenda anyway, so thats North Korea, Pakistan, India and errrr....Israel.

[TLAM Strike]

No sane president (Not even regan or bush) would use a nuke. Worse we would do is deploy some of that black project bioweapons you can bet your butt they have stored in max security facility. Yea it at a place in Maryland called Fort Detrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Detrick) :03:

But yes initially we would flatten their cities. And destroy just about anything of value elseware until they surrendered in full. Cost is irrelevent at that point. The nation will rage for revenge.

As for rebuilding. Something tells me Iran or whoever would have to become the next state before we would rebuild a country that hit us with a chem attack.

But using a nuke invites a war that humanity wont win. Are we going to have a press conference saying we launch in 3 days or whenever the wind is right? Maybe it needs to go to a commitee to determine long term effects? UN summit? About the only way you can be halfway confident nothing terrible will happen but by that time the cities would be looted and abandoned anyway. You assume we would retaliate against population centers in response. Did you consider nuclear retaliation against military and government facilities? Sure you would kill plenty of civilians but we would not necessary aim for max destruction of cities. A low yield ground burst (bad for city burning) can be very useful for taking out subterranean facilities (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6850325.ece).

Why not give them a warning? "In one week we will vaporize the following city unless your unconditionally surrender... One week after that we will vaporize the following city..." How long do you think a government would remain in power with an ultimatum like that?

Personalty I'm in favor of frying them with a bomb pumped X-Ray laser from orbit (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x1.html#submunition). :rock:

for a list of countries with suspected CBRN weapons I recomend you read this (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fnuke%2F RL30699.pdf&rct=j&q=countries+with+chemical+weapons&ei=ETG_S5bsFsGC8gai9JTYCA&usg=AFQjCNGeXV4jS57q1IfGNe8OVnmRGBY_Sg)

[Skybird]

Warning an enemy nation when you want to hit them, and where. Nice. At the time you do, what is of vital importance for them has been moved away. And additonal weapons they may have, will have been fired before your retaliation starts.

Is this another funny effort to make war more "humane"? The more humane war is, the more easy it will be launched - by own side, or by the other side becasue it feels invited by the sofeting up of your response. Obama is a infantile fool with that statement of his. "We will not strike back in full strength if you attack us in this and that fashion."

Brilliant.

[tater]

It's possible to imagine using a nuke, but the scenarios are very limited.

This is actually a good reason to continue work on new weapons, particularly deep penetrators. A penetrating ground burst maximizes local fallout, but minimizes distant fallout. This is critical to actually be able to use the weapon without irradiating nearby (friendly countries, or hostile nuclear powers) nations.

Having such weapons lends credibility to the threat to use them, and increases deterrence.

Maybe we need to think along the lines of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress ;)

[TLAM Strike]

Warning an enemy nation when you want to hit them, and where. Nice. At the time you do, what is of vital importance for them has been moved away. And additonal weapons they may have, will have been fired before your retaliation starts.

Is this another funny effort to make war more "humane"? The more humane war is, the more easy it will be launched - by own side, or by the other side becasue it feels invited by the sofeting up of your response. Obama is a infantile fool with that statement of his. "We will not strike back in full strength if you attack us in this and that fashion."

Brilliant. The idea is terror. Systematic destruction of a country until it surrenders or the population rises up and deposes the government. If an enemy has weapons capable of striking back obviously we would take them out!

It worked with Japan. It worked against the Iraqi Army in Desert Storm. :yep:

It's possible to imagine using a nuke, but the scenarios are very limited.

This is actually a good reason to continue work on new weapons, particularly deep penetrators. A penetrating ground burst maximizes local fallout, but minimizes distant fallout. This is critical to actually be able to use the weapon without irradiating nearby (friendly countries, or hostile nuclear powers) nations.

Having such weapons lends credibility to the threat to use them, and increases deterrence.

Maybe we need to think along the lines of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress ;) Love that book. Robert A. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

:har: good one sir. That is the Liberal mindset, void of reality.

This from the guy who said Reagan was the best President over the last 150 years...:roll:

And speaking of Reagan...did you know he also wanted to reduce the nuke stockpile by 1/3? The Daily Show had a segment on it!!! With Reagan in video footage SAYING it!!

[Bubblehead1980]

This from the guy who said Reagan was the best President over the last 150 years...:roll:

And speaking of Reagan...did you know he also wanted to reduce the nuke stockpile by 1/3? The Daily Show had a segment on it!!! With Reagan in video footage SAYING it!!

The fact that you would use The Daily Show as a reference in a non cmedy related discussion is :har: because Stewart while funny(usually) is an idiot and the show is not a real news show as many in my generation seem to think.Can't tell you how many times in college I heard some idiot say well on the daily show, I usually set them straight on it, I hurt a few feelings to say that least.

The Cold War was a different situation than now.There were two super powers each operating on mutually assured destruction and reducing the warheads were a way to try to calm down things, but those days are over.Russia is not a super power but has plenty of nukes so good to try and balance things in that sense.However, several other nations have them or are in process of getting them and pose or will pose a threat so we should not reduce our deployed nukes while rest of the world is working on having more and more.Islamic terrorists are not the only threat, the traditional threat of unfriendly nations is still real and will be even more so in coming years, so we should not reduce our warheads or stop developing them to just "maintain" them, or we will end up with outdated equipment etc.Reagan too wanted a world without nukes and said so, most of us do but Reagan lived in the real world and knew it would not happen because you can not uninvent something.Obama really thinks by reducing our abilities and readiness, the world will follow our lead, take our hands and go play in the grassy field to watch the rainbows come out, the naivete is just stunning.

Reagan was the greatest President of last century and would dare say in the top five in history thus far for sure.I do believe it is time to add him to Mount Rushmore.Reagan turned things around economically, lowered taxes, took steps that allowed us to win the cold war and cause the collapse of the plague known as communism, he deserves credit for that because without him we would prob still be dicking around with them.Reagan revolutionized American politics, had fans on both sides of the aisle thus "Reagan Democrats" and left office with a 64% approval rating.Reagan also appointed brillant pro constitution judges like Scalia to supreme court and federal courts, a legacy that stands today, thanksfully.Overall, great President and no others really measure up.

[Tribesman]

The fact that you would use The Daily Show as a reference in a non cmedy related discussion is:har:

Actualy its spot on as the predictable kneejerk reaction of the wingnut fringe is hilarious.
Though it would have been funnier if the administrration had decided to not renew the START process when it lapsed, then the nuts would be complaining that the white house were throwing away Reagans legacy.

I usually set them straight on it
I hope you didn't set them straight in the same way you have been informing the forum about the secret army of nazi dentists that are going to take over America.

[Bubblehead1980]

Actualy its spot on as the predictable kneejerk reaction of the wingnut fringe is hilarious.
Though it would have been funnier if the administrration had decided to not renew the START process when it lapsed, then the nuts would be complaining that the white house were throwing away Reagans legacy.


I hope you didn't set them straight in the same way you have been informing the forum about the secret army of nazi dentists that are going to take over America.

Pretty sure I never said anything about secret army of nazi dentists.I was simply bringing up his remarks during campaign and the possible connection to provision in the health control bill, based on obama's past and present associations and obvious ideology.I did say I could be wrong and hope I am, because it will be bad for us all.Call me what you want, but I think independtly and do not blindly follow obama as you seem to do.You once again gave the typical kneejerk moonbat reaction to anyone who dares to challenge barry and the dangerous path he has put us on.

I set them straight by informing them that the daily show is not real news, it is comedy/satire and not even fair in anyway because Stewart is a stupid liberal and anyone who gets their news from him without looking it up or watching real sources and takes him seriously is a f*cking moron.This was mostly freshman year but surprised me and angered me at same time how many took stweart serious.I really hope things turn around in my generations thinking or we are indeed screwed.

[August]

Pretty sure I never said anything about secret army of nazi dentists.

Dude, this is what you can expect when you feed a troll. :yep:

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - the treaty itself is one thing...

However - the Nuclear Posture Review... has anyone READ this thing? Jesus H Christ - I knew that the Obama administration was more about running a campaign than they were about actual governing but I started reading that thing and my head about popped off....

Read it yourself....

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

The very first sentence says it all:

"This Nuclear Posture Review provides a roadmap for implementing President Obama's agenda for reducing nuclear risks to the United States, our allies and partners, and the international community."

Excuse me? That is NOT what this is freaking for! Its a guidline of how we WILL act - not a "roadmap for an agenda"! The Secretary of Defense's intro page consists of 6 paragraphs - only ONE of which has anything to do with the actual NPR! Of course you get to page iii (yes - they didn't even wait till they got to a real, numbered page) and there sits Barack speaking to the masses on the "world stage"in Prague....

What the bloody hell - this is little more than a propaganda document. In the executive summary - its all about Obama's speeches - .... Its filled with "the President expressed", "he declared" and the ever popular campain slogan of "we can". Then there is the "Among Key Adminstrative Initiaves:" - more well we wanna do this or that or this other thing.

This did NOTHING to enhance our security. It instead is exactly what it claims to be - instead of saying "If X occurs - Y will happen" or leaving things open ended enough to have OPTIONS. This is like putting a sign in front of your house and saying "I don't own a gun, but I have a baseball bat somewhere - so if you rob me - shoot me before I find that bat or else!" I meant - its beyond asinine!

Speaking of signs - aka PICTURES...

3 of Barack - Speaking to the masses in Prague, Chairing a Security Council meeting (he did what?), and him signing arms reduction agreements while AT the Kremlin....

Secretary of Defense Gates gets 2 - one at Minot Air base and the other at a press conferent in Turkey

Biden gets 1 - giving a speech at the National Defense Institute

Hillary gets 1 - meeting with the Russian President

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu gets 1 - speaking at a building dedication (guess he never did anything more impressive?)

Chairman of the JCS gets 1 - with the Russian Chief of Staff

9 pictures of Administration or the President "doing something important"....

11 other pictures are found throughout the brochure - depicting weapons platforms, cleanup of radioactive material and an aerial shot of one "highly critical" site in Tennesse.... How nice to provide that interesting target shot for whomever might want it. :damn:

A posture review is one of two things.... They are either "If -then" statements - aka "If you nuke us - then we will nuke you" - or they are specifically vague statements that allow you enough leeway to act in response to a future, unknown situation. They are not fairy foo foo agenda's of lets all sing kumbaya and pretend that everyone is willing to sit and roast marshmellows with us. They are not "well as long as you don't do X then I won't do Y". They sure as hell are not intended as a "roadmap for an agenda" - since an agenda is something you WANT to happen - and when it comes to nukes - you sure as hell better home that there is never a need to even go LOOK at the NPR!

These people are beyond not having a clue. It seriously needs to be November, so at least the idiocy will be in check at least somewhat.....

[Platapus]

Haplo,

Well other than just slamming Obama, your post does not support your position at all. Have you read President Bush's NPR from 2001? Or the Clinton one from 95? Reading those would give you a better insight on what the NPR is for.

That is NOT what this is freaking for! Its a guidline of how we WILL act - not a "roadmap for an agenda"!

Other than your opinion, what do you base this on? The guideline for how we will use nuclear weapons is the SIOP and that is not released to the public.

"The Nuclear Posture Review was chartered in October 1993 to determine what the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy should be."

Source http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr95/npr_.html

I don't know where you got the idea that the NPR is some sort of "A posture review is one of two things.... They are either "If -then" statements - aka "If you nuke us - then we will nuke you" - or they are specifically vague statements that allow you enough leeway to act in response to a future, unknown situation."

The NPR is the US security strategy concerning nuclear weapons. It reflects both the DOD and the President's views on the overall strategy.

Read the Clinton NPR and the Bush NPR, Both are also lacking if-then ultimatums. That's not what the NPR is for. That is what the SIOP is for.

Put your emotions aside for a moment and think about it. Why would any President publish, in an unclassified document, the triggers for the use of nuclear weapons? They wouldn't. Clinton did not do it, Bush did not do it, nor did Obama do it. But all three did reduce the significance of nuclear weapons with respect to the overall security strategy of the United States, while at the same time retained the capability to use nuclear weapons if needed.

As for the pictures..

You really spent time counting the pictures? You know, I have spent many hours reviewing the NPR at work, and we never bothered to count the pictures. I will tell our other analysts that they really need to start focusing on pictures. :har:.

Instead of counting pictures, how about checking out this

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001879-503544.html

A layman's guide to the Obama NPR.

You are getting spun up over something little. Read my post on the Obama NPR in this thread. It is simply not that big of a deal. The President still has the authority to nuke anyone he feels deserves nukin. If a shootin war starts, the NPR goes right out the window as it is just a strategy document.

Unless your post was just another excuse to slam Obama. :yawn:

[Skybird]

It's possible to imagine using a nuke, but the scenarios are very limited.

This is actually a good reason to continue work on new weapons, particularly deep penetrators. A penetrating ground burst maximizes local fallout, but minimizes distant fallout. This is critical to actually be able to use the weapon without irradiating nearby (friendly countries, or hostile nuclear powers) nations.

Having such weapons lends credibility to the threat to use them, and increases deterrence.


Yes. However, ground penetrating nuclear bombs already exist in the US, the problem is the kinetic energy makes them not penetrating deep no matter the release height - objects in free fall do not accelerate endlessly. I seem to remember that even a drop from 15 km does not make them penetrating deeper than just 10 m, and only a third of that if the ground is frozen.

[Skybird]

I took a shortcut and checked German Wikipedia. They list the B-61-11, and they refer to info in the NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) of January 2002 for describing it's characteristics: more than 5 kilotons, penetrates 7 meters at max into the ground when dropped from 13 km altitude, in frozen ground only 2-3 meters. The US possesses around 50 of these weapons.

I would say in the kT-range it makes a difference if you explode a nuclear warhead that is nburried deep in a drill hole, several hundred meters and more. but it makes no difference if you detonate a warhead on the ground, or just 5 or 10 meters below the ground.

[Tribesman]

I set them straight by informing them that the daily show is not real news it is comedy/satire and not even fair in anyway because Stewart is a stupid liberal and anyone who gets their news from him without looking it up or watching real sources and takes him seriously is a f*cking moron
I would give that more weight if it came from someone who didn't say how much they enjoyed Glenn Beck, or if it was someone who hadn't recently posted one of the funniest conspiracy theories going.
So when you had this conspiracy theory recently did you look it up and use real reliable sources?
If I recall correctly even after lots of people had posted all the information needed on the topic you still persisted with your wild claims based on a clip off you-tube.

Pretty sure I never said anything about secret army of nazi dentists
Thats true, you said the health workers were a secret private army akin to the Gestapo.

[tater]

Like I said, a reason to continue work on new weapons. There is no reason such a warhead must be unpowered, BTW. There are people I could ask, but they can't tell me (I live 90 minutes from Los Alamos, and 15 minutes from the Air Force Weapons lab, and know a people that work at both places—but they can't tell me anything, lol).

[Skybird]

Like I said, a reason to continue work on new weapons. There is no reason such a warhead must be unpowered, BTW.

You mean something like the Durandel runway buster, I assume. Well, who knows. A socalled "mini-nuke" the B61-11 is not, since that term is used for nukes below 5 kT only. Whether you can get - by conventional explosion or a rocket motor - a nuclear bomb deep enough into the ground so that the fallout after the explosion makes a difference, I somehow do doubt. I would expect that the difference lies not so much in the fallout, but the way in which the shockwave is travelling inside the ground. Sounds travells faster and over longer range in dense matter than in thin matter, I could imagine that a shockwave from a location inside earth also carries more destructive subterranean energy than a shockwave that originates from a point in the air and then hits the ground.

But I readily admit that I am a novice on these things. It's speculation that I try, almost on the basis of simple school physics :lol:

[tater]

Yeah, I can ask over beers, but I invariably get the stock "I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you afterwards" gag :)

The trick with all penetrators is having the delicate buts survive the impact long enough and still function.

Like I said, the scenarios where nuke use—particularly limited use—is practical are few and far between. What you need is for the enemy to think that such an attack is plausible—regardless of whether it is in fact possible.

[Platapus]

Did anyone notice that just prior to the signing of this new treaty with Russia, PL 111-140 was signed in to law. The title of this law is the Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act

An interesting read. Glad we are developing that capability.

[Tribesman]

Did anyone notice that just prior to the signing of this new treaty with Russia, PL 111-140 was signed in to law. The title of this law is the Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act

Hold on, wouldn't that mean ther would be tracability cioncerning nuclear materials , so people would understand where stuff had come from, so it would show if somewherer like China Russia S.Africa or France was shipping materials to places they shouldn't.
Not surprising Bibi doesn't want quesrions at the top level then.
Its hard to play the have we havn't we game when people want to know how much and from whom.

[tater]

It's not like Israel would bomb someone and try to look casual like they had nothing to do with it.

That directive SOUNDS swell, but it's meaningless. The major powers might well allow it, so what? The bomb that explodes without us watching it in flight from launch will come from some piss-any place like NK or Iran. Neither of those players will ever allow their nuclear material to be characterized.

[Tribesman]

It's not like Israel would bomb someone and try to look casual like they had nothing to do with it.

Good point, but didn't they do them bombings of American interests in the middle east and pretend it was the arabs doing it.

That directive SOUNDS swell, but it's meaningless.
Which directive?

Neither of those players will ever allow their nuclear material to be characterized. Neither of those players will ever allow their nuclear material to be characterized. 04-10-2010 08:20 PM Neither of those players will ever allow their nuclear material to be characterized. 04-10-2010 08:20 PM
Really? on what do you base that?
Neither country can stand much without business partners, in fact one of them can't stand at all without huge subsidies from other countries

[tater]

The nuclear forensics act, sorry, I said directive instead of act, my bad.

[TLAM Strike]

But I readily admit that I am a novice on these things. It's speculation that I try, almost on the basis of simple school physics :lol: Research: "Nuclear Shaped Charge"
Here is something to get you started (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071v5.pdf)
^Warning its a .PDF file

[TLAM Strike]

Chile and Ukraine agree to turn over stocks of weapons grade uranium. I however still refuse...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978713-2,00.html (http://www.timesleader.com/news/Chileans_give_up_enriched_uranium_04-11-2010.html)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35682.html