US nuclear supremacy

Was reading in one of my favorite periodicals and saw this interesting article here's the online version

The rise of US nuclear primacy

It basically states that the old nuclear order of the past 50yrs is on its way out. Why because even though the US and Russia are allowed a similiar number of warheads and delivery systems the Russians due to budgetary reasons haven't been able to maintain their arsenals. Russia's early warning system has also degraded significantly.

China despite modernization of its conventional forces still has a very limited arsenal.

This all adds up to the US being able to mount a successful first strike on either Russia or China and achieve a high degree of success. Some scholars fear this could lead to an emboldened US no longer restrained by MAD more willing to use its nuclear deterrent.

Something to think about

The US has always been the lead on nukes. Thanks to several German scientists whom escaped Hitler's regime to the Americas to help develop it. And lets not forget the U.S. policy, what they dont know cant hurt them.

im not so sure that the US would attack russia or china just to assert their nuclear supremacy. although there would be less retaliation from a nuclear standpoint, the nukes would do irreparable damage to the environment if used en masse in China or Russia or anywhere so MAD may occur anyway just not as soon.

besides, the US would not do something so rash or tyrannical as nuking another country because we have more. no matter how much corruption there is in the US no one can just press a button, launch some nukes and laugh maniacally except the president. And though I am possibly more qualified to be president than he is he is no tyrant.



[edit on 16-4-2006 by daedalas]

[edit on 16-4-2006 by daedalas]

Well I wasn't trying to insinuate that we'd just go around nuking other nations. But what I am wondering as are some more educated people is whether this administration or future administrations may use our nuclear deterrent more aggressively. Radioactive contamination is a major concern regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I however can forsee(I've got this Nostradomus thing going on ) situations were the american people would accept the use of such weapons even in a preemptive strike.

The situation in Iran is a perfect example. You have a nation known for promoting and sponsoring terrorism. Led by a man who has repeatedly called for the destruction of a close US allie. Now granted Iran is years away from developing a nuke but that could allow the administration Bush or the next guy in line to prepare the ameican people for the use of nukes. I really don't see it as that far fetched.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by danwild6]

I didnt mean make it seem far fetched i just meant to say that there would be a lot of deliberation and the american people as a whole or even as a majority would never except it. the risks involved with nukes is too high.

what if we launched a nuke at iran and the moment that the nuke is launched north korean empties its silos at us because they made an alliance that the US didn't know about. I know the liklelihood of the US not knowing about something like that is slim but they could lie about it. North Korea has its finger over the launch button and its nose itches.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by daedalas]

posted by danwild6: “Well I wasn't trying to insinuate we'd go around nuking other nations . . I am wondering as are more educated people whether this administration or future administrations may use our nuclear deterrent more aggressively. [Edited by Don W]

Nuclear Deterrent?

What would the hypothetical administration be deterring? It sounds to me more like the word is - aggressing.

Radioactive contamination is a major concern regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I can foresee - Nostradamus thing - situations where the American people would accept the use of such weapons even in a preemptive strike. [Edited by Don W]

My first exposure was in the 1958-1959 time frame when I got a small part time job with our local Civil Defense unit. One of the things I learned was our stockpiling and capacity calculations were based on a 14 days shelter period. Then I learned - in a different class - that the isotopes most likely to be produced in a nuclear explosion had half lives of 24,000 yeas. A transparency showing the fall out pattern of our first H bomb at Johnson Island, when placed over a map of the United States, stretched from Connecticut to W-DC. About 100 miles wide.

The prevailing winds in the northern hemisphere blow from west to east, and take about 48 hours to circle the earth. What falls out in China or India today will fall out in America Wednesday.

It is lunacy to debate the use of nuclear weapons, seriously.

The situation in Iran is a perfect example. You have a nation known for promoting and sponsoring terrorism. Led by a man who has repeatedly called for the destruction of a close US ally. Now granted Iran is years away from developing a nuke but that could allow the administration Bush or the next guy in line to prepare the American people for the use of nukes. I really don't see it as that far fetched. [Edited by Don W]

Quote: “I really don’t see -it- as that far fetched,” DW6. I regret to say, neither do I. IF America’s leaders ever again use nuclear weapons in less than an obvious survival situation, I think the reaction of the world to America would be horrific.

I can see every nation banning Americans from entry into their country. US Passport? Nein! Nyet! Nada! Nichts! No entry! I can see property of the US and its citizens being confiscated. I think the world would not tolerate such irresponsible conduct. Well, I hope the world would not.