Obama vows to pursue a planet free of nuclear weapons

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/commentisf...-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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 ("power projection capability&quot 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.

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 "likely enemy" 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.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by 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.

Um, no. It was Kennedy backing down and agreeing to take the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey that resolved the situation.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Max2147

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.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Max2147

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.