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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought we are talking about the security of the country here. Surely, cost efficiency is not the only concept of consideration. What? The treaty says you cannot put say 120 warheads in 10 subs instead of 240 warheads? The very concept of America (who pays more than anyone every year for the right ("power projection capability") to attack people almost anywhere in the world, almost any time of their choosing) complaining about other people "bolstering" their "offensive forces" 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. 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 "likely enemy" and will have to settle for having enough deterrent to put some hurt in them. 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 "reasonable people" against which deterrence might work (and hasn't been proven to fail so far), then you don't need that many warheads. 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 "broke the camel's back". 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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed, 100%.

Why, exactly?

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!

:har:

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Please justify this.

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

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

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.