This ought to fire you up

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Enigma

As long as there are nuclear weapons anywhere, we risk complete destruction of nations.

Is that risk as great as it was when the USSR was at its strongest? Is the Russian military in a state if nuclear readiness as it was? Is Russia still are cold war icey enemy? Are our relations with Russia consisting of teletyped messages between world superpower leaders, both hoping to avoid a nuclear war?

As someone said above. Not even close. Noone will argue with you that the risk of nuclear disaster exists today. However, I bet you will be hard pressed to find anyone that suggests we are more at risk of a nuclear strike from Russida today, as we were pre-detente. If anyone does in fact agree with that, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

To agree or disagree is not the problem when it comes to accidents ... Accidents do happen ... There is a nuclear depth charge still stuck in the mud up in Puget Sound ... Another nuclear device has never been recovered off the coast of Georgia from another mistake made by our own country.

The Russians have never kept a treaty with America yet and they don't tell the truth, even when they tell the truth they don't tell the whole truth. All of those submarine accidents lead me to believe that far worse has happened we never heard about.

But as far as Russia launching a strike on the good ole USA I agree that Putin is much smarter than every Russian president he has served under in the KGB. He's one smart dude ... so cool his own country got mad when he was slow to show remorse over losing a nuclear submarine and it's entire crew.

Did you know that Putin has a prayer chapel just down the hall from his office in the Kremlin and that it has been reported that he attends it often?

Prayer is when you trust in someone besides yourself ...

When America and Russia become real friends we will defeat the Muslim terroist together ... but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

[Enigma]

Interesting articles, thanks again for posting.....

Theres no question that aging equipment and obsolete technology is a worrisome state. No question. Especially given the fact that there are seemingly lots of folks who just love to steal a nuke and toss it into Uncle Sam's back yard. As I said before, as long as nukes exist anywhere, there is a threat, and there is a reason to worry. You can destroy nations, as long as they exist.
As the officer in that article states, Nuclear weapons are a deterrent.
Given our relationship with Russia, our mutual interests, detente, the fall of the USSR, etc, I think the chance of an accidental response launch, OR an intentional act of war, are far, far less than 1960-1990. Thats as simple as I can put it.

It's a good discussion none the less.

[bradclark1]

I think the chance of an accidental response launch, OR an intentional act of war, are far, far less than 1960-1990. Thats as simple as I can put it.

You can add a couple more far's to that. There is no comparison. It was a given the U.S. forces in europe would use nukes with even a soviet conventional attack.

[Enigma]

....and heres an article that I think supports your theory and not mine, but im a good sport.

Twenty-five years ago, an official with the Ronald Reagan administration asked my opinion on whether America was facing a clear and present danger from Russia. I said no.
Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides, the Russians never intended to initiate an attack on the West, their strategic objective being to split Europe from the U.S. On the other hand, their fear of being attacked was countered, even in the face of Reagan's hostility, by their faith in America's common sense. Why should the richest nation on earth invite horrific devastation upon itself without a logically compelling reason?
Today, I am no longer that optimistic. Washington's unwarranted presumption of global nuclear superiority -- the mainstay of this administration's National Security Strategy from the beginning -- has taken an alarming twist. And the Russians, still capable of destroying America with a nuclear strike, are seriously worried.
Too little attention has been given to a plan the George W. Bush administration is considering. It calls for certain strategic delivery systems, previously solely designated for nuclear war, to be put to use with conventional warheads. About $50 million has been allocated to three studies of placing conventional weapons on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Who cares that there is no technology to tell which kind of warhead has been launched? Russia will have to trust Washington that it is not the target of a first-strike nuclear attack.
This idea comes in the wake of an article earlier this year in Foreign Affairs, titled The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Supremacy, that contains these statements:
"The current and future U.S. nuclear force seems designed to carry out a pre-emptive disarming strike against Russia or China.''
"It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.''
"If U.S. submarines were to fire missiles from areas in the Pacific, Russian leaders probably would not know of the attack until the warheads detonated.''
If Russian leaders have read these statements and taken them as an expression of administration policy, they may have reached some very unpleasant conclusions.
Washington's intention to legitimize the use of first-strike strategic delivery systems, expecting no retaliatory move by Russia, provoked Col. Viktor Litovkin to write for the Russian news agency Novosti (and reflecting Moscow's official view): "Any nuclear power will be sorely tempted to launch a retaliatory strike after detecting incoming strategic ballistic missiles. A retaliatory nuclear strike seems to be the only way to stop an all-out ballistic-missile attack involving nuclear and conventional warheads.''
Disingenuously, then-Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meeting in August with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, suggested that Russia could do the same thing.
"Russia has some misgivings about such preliminary plans,'' Ivanov replied. "I am not ready to say that Russia agrees to join this initiative.''
This gobbledygook in no way implies indecision on Russia's part. Rather, it reflects the traditional Soviet-style presumption that any unambiguous rejection of U.S. terms by Russia may be misconstrued as a sign of fear and weakness. Rumsfeld, however, interpreted these words in line with Washington's wishful thinking, telling a news conference that the Russian defence minister would probably phone him from Moscow and call the U.S. proposal a good idea.
No such luck. Should Washington unilaterally proceed with this insane plan, and eventually an intercontinental ballistic missile launch is made -- whether intended against Iran or anybody else -- a Russian retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States could follow, triggering the unthinkable.
The United States is facing a clear and present danger, compared to which the worst nightmares of the "war on terror'' will pale. It's time to start paying attention.
Alexander Artem Sakharov is a former fellow of the Institute of U.S.A. and Canada Studies in Moscow.

[bradclark1]

....and heres an article that I think supports your theory and not mine, but im a good sport.

Not really because thats an "if" the U.S. reloads the missiles. As far as I know that hasn't happened and I doubt it will happen for the simple reason that bad things could happen. This idea was surfaced some years ago and there was some rumbleing about it then.

[Enigma]

Well, there you go then.