Ok, smart guy. YOU solve the deficit!

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Soviet?


.

It would be extremely naive of us to imagine that new development are going to cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Soviet?


.

What did you think they were through with us?

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

What did you think they were through with us?

[Skybird]

If the ability to wipe out the 10 biggest Russian cities and kill two dozens of millions of Russians, and intoxicate this number again over the next decade - if that is not recognised by the Russians as a believable deterrance, than the ability to wipe out 1,000 Russian cities would not be recognised as a deterrance either.

Moscow alone has over 10 million population. Petersburg has 4,5 million, 10 more cities have between 1 and 2 million.

You do not need 2000 warheads for a nuclear deterrance. A hundred already would be enough for intimidating not only one but all possible enemies on this earth simultaneously.

Not to mention that if you want a huge military, you need to have an economy able to maintain it.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If the ability to wipe out the 10 biggest Russian cities and kill two dozens of millions of Russians, and intoxicate this number again over the next decade - if that is not recognised by the Russians as a believable deterrance, than the ability to wipe out 1,000 Russian cities would not be recognised as a deterrance either.

Moscow alone has over 10 million population. Petersburg has 4,5 million, 10 more cities have between 1 and 2 million.

You do not need 2000 warheads for a nuclear deterrance. A hundred already would be enough for intimidating not only one but all possible enemies on this earth simultaneously.

Not to mention that if you want a huge military, you need to have an economy able to maintain it.

Its not the ablity to wipe out a thousand Russian cities over ten its the ability to make sure our warheads reach those ten cities. Don't forget that the Russians have a ballistic missile defense system in place (and its been in place since the 1960s). We need those warheads to saturate their defenses and reach the their targets, which are BTW the Russian ICBM sites and not their cities. We need something like one warhead for each enemy ICBM plus one for each ABM... its adds up.

EDIT: Correction... we need one ICBM for each ABM not one warhead since the Soviet/Russian ABMs are area effect weapons (nuclear) they can take out several MIRVs each.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike...

Not Soviets obviously but need to stay strong as a deterrent to say "ex" soviet Putin who runs Russia, China in the future. Let our guard down and it emboldens our enemies.Must always stay on offense, ready for a fight in this world, to think "hey cold war is over so lets have a weaker military to save $$" is just naive.

Here is an idea, stop giving money to all the charity cases around the world like Haiti and various African nations.Stop the lavish travel of Obama, his wife and various officials, it adds up and would save us.Eliminate earmarks, talking all special projects not approved in the budget.Reform trade policies.etc etc etc

[GoldenRivet]

The obvious issue is that our government spends way too much money on BS

they need to eliminate social security completely for example (IMHO)

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending?

Nope your not the only one!



My Plan:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=w11jj5lq

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending?

Me too!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zxqmgjp0