The end of Mutual Destruction?

Is the US seeking nuclear primacy over all countries? This is a 4 page article written by the Council on Foreign Relations dating April of 2006, stating that the US is seeking nuclear primacy over all countries.

foreignaffairs



mod edit:
Please use this in the post creation window in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's can alter the width of the page.
Or alternatively you can use: [url=www.urlhere.com]link name here[/url]
A good walkthrough to explain in more detail is ATTN :Image Size Guidelines



[edit on 20-7-2006 by UK Wizard]

posted by RetinoidReceptor

Is the US seeking nuclear primacy over all countries? This is a 4 page article written by the Council on Foreign Relations dating April of 2006, stating that the US is seeking nuclear primacy over all countries.

Hmm? First off, Mr RR, the US has had nuclear supremacy over all other nations since 1945. Even if the Ruskies had more bombs than we had - still estimated and not real census numbers - our ICBMs were so much more accurate than those from the USSR that it was nearly a joke. Whereas we could hit a neighborhood, the Ruskies would have bene lucky to have hit the state they aimed for. That’s why we favored 200K ton bombs and the Ruskies used 5-6 megaton H bombs. We had plenty of H bombs too. Not to even get into MIRV. Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles. Up to 8 or 10 per Minuteman II.

Once upon a time we made 8 inch artillery shells loaded with small so-called “tactical” nuclear bombs. Then there was the trump card in the one-upmanship game, the so called “neutron” bomb that would not blow down the walls. Just incinerate the people. Lower collateral damage.

Actually RR, I believe the Mutually Assured Destruction concept passed away with SALT 1. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, No. 1. I think there was a SALT 2 but I’m not sure if there were any more. I also understand both the USA and the RF have agreed to reduce the number of nuclear bombs to about 3,000 each plus 500 more not to be counted. I suppose those are out at Cheney’s ranch. I don’t know how close we are to reaching those numbers.


[edit on 7/19/2006 by donwhite]

donwhite the article is very interesting, it goes into the mechanisms, etc. and is very informative, perhaps you should read it.

Well, it's a darn sight more than 4 pages. I've copied it to my Word Perfect so I can print it out and at 17 pt size type, it is 16 and 1/2 pages long!

But, yes, I'll read it. Thanks for the recommend.

true although it may not be as easy as forecasted.

But, according to the new Russian source material, Soviet designers worked around the slow speed of the interceptors by passing target data to them from huge battle-management radars positioned thousands of kilometers away. That gave them enough warning to launch the interceptors in time to kill the incoming warheads. The Russians also made clear that the main ABM system protecting Moscow was just as dependent as the SAMs/ ABMs on receiving target-tracking data from distant battle-management radars.

The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.

www.findarticles.com...

From the mid-1950s until 1991 the Soviets followed a two track program: ABM systems designed by Kisun'ko and his successors to protect the apex of the party-state nomenklatura at Moscow with battle-management radars (Dog House, Cat House), from NIIDAR, and SAM/ABM systems designed for nationwide deployment by Raspletin and Bunkin with battle-management radars (Hen House, LPAR) from Mints' RTI, which also designed the Pillbox multi-functional radar in the ABM-3 system for Moscow. Although the SAM/ABMs could be relocated fairly quickly, however, and could be deployed nationally at relatively low cost, the battle-management radars were expensive and fixed.

* * *

Construction of the second-generation LPAR battle-management radars began in 1972 as negotiations on the ABM Treaty were completed. The U.S. delegation's attempt to limit ABM battle-management radars resulted in agreeing to construction of 18 such radars (article III), which was precisely the number the Soviets needed for redundant coverage by both first-generation Hen House and second-generation LPAR battle-management radars. The LPARs provided more precise target tracking to enhance the effectiveness of SA-5/10 SAM/ABMs but did little to improve early warning.

* * *

When the Soviet Empire went out with a whimper in 1991, about 10,000 SA-5/10 interceptor missiles were operational at more than 250 complexes, and 15 of 18 planned battle-management radars--nine Hen House and six LPARs--were

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...

They have a 10,000ABM interceptor system although i would say there's some bandwidth issues to overcome as well as these radars which would be easy targets.

They also have a signifcant civil defense program. All apartment buildings have a bomb shelter,industrial hardening, and big underground bunkers that are hardened.

However these are short terms bunkers so they would all die a slow death. Impressive but now withoutt it's disadvanytages. MAD would still hold true although with a slight twist. Great article though! Pretty soon our nuke arsenal will be the best!

Your avatar reminds me of Kim Jong Il, U58. And his recent tests.

posted by urmomma158

When the Soviet Empire went out in 1991, about 10,000 SA-5 and SA-10 interceptor missiles were operational at more than 250 complexes and 15 of 18 planned battle-management radars - nine Hen House and six LPARs . . although I would say there's some bandwidth issues to overcome as well as these radars which would be easy targets . . [Edited by Don W]

Issues for me are more basic. There is no gain in reciting the past. You may have read my prior posts. I don’t think ABM works, I don’t think ABM is needed and I don’t want to spend any more money on ABM.

They also have a significant civil defense program. All apartment buildings have a bomb shelter, industrial hardening, and big underground bunkers that are hardened. However these are short terms bunkers so they would all die a slow death.

I had the privilege to work in the official Civil Defense in the late 1950s. My job was instructor in the basic use and field level care of several models of Geiger counters. “Field level” means changing batteries. Wiping off the dirt. I went to civic groups that had invited us to lecture and demonstrate. The kicker for me - not a secret but not dealt with either - was that the US CD program was a 14 day plan. Yet, we were told in other settings that the radioactive isotopes likely to be encountered had a half life up to 70,000 years. So what’s 14 days?

The real choice was to die in a hole in the ground or to die like a human, out in the sunlight. I was smart enough not to raise these issues so I kept my job as long as the grants lasted.

Pretty soon our nuke arsenal will be the best!

I’m sorry to hear that. I was 11 years old in August, 1945. I was fully in agreement to drop the bombs to win the war. I’m sorry other factors entered in, socio-economic and political, that ordinary citizens did not get to participate in offering solutions. Which reminds me how important leaders are. You don't know how good or bad one is until after they are in office.

I saw somewhere that 69 USAF men died in “overflights” of the Soviet Union that went wrong. Violations of a foreign territory. But not 1 Russian shot down over the US or Alaska. Hmm? The USS Liberty was a casualty of the Cold War. And etc. After the Cold War, from 1945 really to 1991, about 46 years - 2 generations - and I don’t know how much of our wealth expended, what do we have to show for it?

So instead of an up swelling for peace and serious attention to the really hard problems facing the planet and its inhabitants after 1991, we hear the same old stuff but with no enemies in sight. We are working hard on that. We push NK, a country will less GDP than my city of Jacksonville, and we pump up Iran - another non-starter outside W-DC - and still the public says nothing. Yet we - say the military industrial complex - plan to spend 10s of billions we don’t have because the Rich and Famous won’t pay taxes. Geez. What a mess!

And no end in sight.


[edit on 7/20/2006 by donwhite]

Don, I find the whole notion of nuclear supremacy hard to fathom - it's a bit of a cliche but it's true; a nuclear war has no winners. That was the whole point of deterence and it meant that the US could no more attack USSR than USSR could attack USA etc - whether the Soviet's missiles were less accurate is moot. That is why the US doesn't want North Korea to get nukes - it makes everything else pretty irrelevant.

posted by planeman

Don, I find the whole notion of nuclear supremacy hard to fathom - it's a bit of a cliche but it's true; a nuclear war has no winners. That is why the US doesn't want North Korea to get nukes - it makes everything else pretty irrelevant. [Edited by Don W]

I agree, but not in insolation of any other factors effecting the world. We can’t just have that one overriding goal. There are too many shades of gray in real life. So what gives with NK anyway? Why has the US felt it was in our interest to avoid restoring normal diplomatic ties with NK since 1953? Heck that is almost as long as we’ve ignored Cuba. Well, longer actually. We started ignoring Cuba in 1959.

We may have had sufficient reasons in both cases that long ago. But what has it got us? The Kim family is still ruling NK and Fidel shows no signs of dying before 2009, so he will out live yet one more US president. Eisenhower. Kennedy. Johnson. Nixon. Ford. Carter. Reagan. Bush41. Clinton. And maybe Bush43.

Do we ever admit a policy of ours has failed? Do we ever ask ourselves, “hey, is there another way?” Are we as citizens to be a blockheaded as our leaders and follow them blindly forever and forever. Geez. What’s this democracy malarkey anyway if we have it but don’t use it? Are we at risk of losing it? If we can’t change a 1953 (or 1959) policy that does not work, why not quit democracy and turn it over to the Commander-in-Chief, maybe make him President for Life. I dunno.


[edit on 7/20/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite


I agree, but not in insolation of any other factors effecting the world. We can’t just have that one overriding goal. There are too many shades of gray in real life. So what gives with NK anyway? Why has the US felt it was in our interest to avoid restoring normal diplomatic ties with NK since 1953? Heck that is almost as long as we’ve ignored Cuba. Well, longer actually. We started ignoring Cuba in 1959.

We may have had sufficient reasons in both cases that long ago. But what has it got us? The Kim family is still ruling NK and Fidel shows no signs of dying before 2009, so he will out live yet one more US president. Eisenhower. Kennedy. Johnson. Nixon. Ford. Carter. Reagan. Bush41. Clinton. And maybe Bush43.

Do we ever admit a policy of ours has failed? Do we ever ask ourselves, “hey, is there another way?” Are we as citizens to be a blockheaded as our leaders and follow them blindly forever and forever. Geez. What’s this democracy malarkey anyway if we have it but don’t use it? Are we at risk of losing it? If we can’t change a 1953 (or 1959) policy that does not work, why not quit democracy and turn it over to the Commander-in-Chief, maybe make him President for Life. I dunno.


[edit on 7/20/2006 by donwhite]

I don’t really know if the US’s Korea policy is failing or not because I’m not sure what the behind-the-scenes aims are. In fact I’m not even sure if there is a consistent policy. Being a natural cynic I’d point out that the long standing hostility to the North – something which the US doesn’t seem to have attempted to change in 40 odd years as you rightly point out – plays into Bush’s hands. Our current leadership certainly gets great stock out of its war on terror/proliferation/axis of evil etc.

The current nuclear threat from N.Korea and Iran plays into the hands of defense contractors, fuelling a race to build various anti-missile defenses which are somewhat questionable both in terms of reliability and as a long term issue of promoting another arms race. Remember that anti-ballistic missiles were outlawed in an effort curb an arms race – now the race is back on. What’s next – a nuclear torpedo? Let’s hope the DPRK aren’t reading this I don’t want to give them ideas.

But is there a serious study of the economic/cultural impact of even a modest nuclear explosion in a key US city such as New York? The home and medical insurance business would collapse overnight leaving many unemployed except as aid workers – the loss in business would be massive and the clean up operation, both environmental and social (SS payments etc) would be crippling for the US economy(?).

As it stands the US is preoccupied with intercepting ballistic missiles. Yet the Russians have already demonstrated maneuvering re-entry vehicles and boost phase intercept still seems some years off. Only Russia, UK and France currently have a regular SSBN deployed threat to US (China’s is latent but about to expand with the new sub). SSBNs are a 1960s (or before) concept of delivery system and whilst they will remain effective even after the ABM systems come online (because only one warhead has to penetrate the net to be deterrent enough), the ‘new’ nuclear powers like Pakistan, India and Israel – plus Iran and DPRK – are likely to pick cheaper options like cruise missiles launched from conventional subs. And it’s not a leap of faith to think that those cruise missiles could be stealthy. Asymmetrical warfare sucks; if you focus too much on one threat (say ballistic missiles) your enemies will look for ways AROUND that narrow-scope doctrine.

I’m rambling, but what I guess I’m trying to say is that if anything I think mutual assured destruction is here to say – once a country gets the nukes it is essentially immune to outright war – even from the US.

Just look at how the US has pussy-footed around China over Taiwan despite having a clear preference to the smaller republic – even as China’s military fumbles around in not so impressive Vietnam (China-versus-Vietnam) and India (India-versus-China) wars at the tail end of the 1970s. But China still held sway and US realized this. Today China is catching up fast and unlike the USSR, is a commercial as well as ideological opponent – and US can only tip toe around the edges.

EDIT: please delete

[edit on 20-7-2006 by planeman]

posted by planeman

I don’t really know if the US’s Korea policy is failing or not because I’m not sure what the behind-the-scenes aims are. In fact I’m not even sure if there is a consistent policy. Our current leadership certainly gets great stock out of its war on terror/proliferation/axis of evil etc.

I’m rambling, but what I guess I’m trying to say is that if anything I think mutual assured destruction is here to say – once a country gets the nukes it is essentially immune to outright war – even from the US. Asymmetrical warfare sucks; if you focus too much on one threat your enemies will look for ways AROUND that narrow-scope doctrine. [Edited by Don W]

Well, if you’ll notice, Bush43 has “mellowed out” since about 3 months ago when he bottomed in the popularity polls. He was told or suddenly realized on his own that his last two years in office could be as miserable as Richard Nixon’s if the Dems gain control of Congress. He is fighting for his political life right now. Mr nice guy. Sucking up to the NAACP. Taking a slap in Moscow. And etc. Everything that happens now is only for November 7. The real Bush43 will stand up on November 8. Humble as a kitten or as wild as ever! Cowboy Rules Again!

Look at how the US has pussy-footed around China over Taiwan despite having a clear preference to the smaller republic . . “ [Edited by Don W]

The so-called China Lobby - an odd collection of missionaries, anti communists and entrepreneurs - has managed to keep the US actively supporting Chiang Kai-shek after he lost to Mao Zedong on the mainland in 1949. Here we are, in 2006, and we are still “locked” into that policy. We got caught by the Israel Lobby in 1948, and here we are, in 2006, still “locked” into that policy. We got caught in Cuba in 1959 by the Havana Lobby, and here we are in 2006, still “locked” into that policy.

Today China is catching up fast and unlike the USSR, is a commercial as well as ideological opponent – and US can only tip toe around the edges.

I think it is easier understood if we look at the alternatives between the US thinking of itself as an Asian power and the US content to be a Pacific power. The former puts us in conflict with China and the latter leaves us in competition with China. Conflict or competition. Our choice. China has not invaded a foreign country in a thousand years. Well at least not since the Kamikaze Winds stopped their would have been excursion into Japan. (Tibet is claimed to be a part of China.)

China has hegemony over its own territory and wants hegemony over that immediately adjacent. We’re not in conflict if we do not intrude into that geographical area. When we do - as in South Korea and especially Taiwan - we are confronting China in its own backyard. So, for what gain? We are never going to get our missionaries back into China. What interest does America have inserting itself into mainland Asia politics at some considerable risk? Our businesses are there now but only as minority partners and that often with the PLA. Were it not for the cheap labor, we our businesses would not be there.

Even Chinawhite here says the next move is to Africa. Why don’t we by-pass China, avoid the conflict, and go straight to Africa? Because we run huge deficits here only China has the surplus to buy our paper. Africa has no surplus. Poor economic policy at home weakens us abroad. Domestic policy dictates foreign policy.



[edit on 7/21/2006 by donwhite]

Have any of you actually read the article? I wanted people to discuss what they thought of it and if it was possible due to the facts presented there.

Back to the article...

I don't think the US could execute a succesfull first strike. Under current circumstances we probably could knock out Russia's entire nuclear arsenal in a mater of minutes, but we're not going to hit Russia unnanounced.

I think we'd only hit Russia if tensions rose considerably - nukes have long lasting effects and such an attack would have dramatic effects on the worls economy. So we'd only resort to a nuclear strike if other options had been tried and failed, and I would think that would give Russia time to prepare.

The radar gap described in the article could easily be plugged with mobile arrays. SSBNS can be deployed (Russia's submarines are held back out of economic needs, and can move out if needed) and the aircraft armed fairly easily. Mobile ICBMS can be repositioned as needed in only a few hours. By the time political/economic situations had reached the point where a nuclear strike was desired, Russia would be able to gauruntee "2nd strike" capability. And with that we'd be back to "Cold War Standoff" mode.

China sounds like they'd be harder off - I doubt any country could get liquid fueled ICBMS airborne today. The only thing they could count on is their sole SSBN. But this isn't a new development, they've been vulnerable for years and we haven't hit them yet.

Realisticaly I doubt we'll ever face the situation the article describes. We could win the war, but as a teacher told us, "all that maters in war, is who gets what afterward." The economic devestation the US would face after it's "victorious" destruction of a major trading partner is reason enough to keep our finger off the triger.