Obama Plans to Take Off America's Pants

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I think I'll leave it at that

[edit on 1-3-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

And the thread is better off for it. Thanks, hon!

XOXO,
- Z

reply to post by zenser


Two SSBNs is enough of a deterrent.

Each boat carries 24 ICBMs with 8 100kt warheads each

Each boat can effectively obliterate a city the size of LA 24 times over.

The weapon dropped on Hiroshima was about 15kt.

That is enough destructive firepower to ensure no nation would dare attack the US with nuclear weapons alone. A vast stockpile of nuclear weapons is a security risk and a danger to national security.

A vast stockpile of nuclear weapons is also OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive to maintain and guard.

They are not needed.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm with you WF. I think the Op is merely stroking his GOP pet elephant.

I honestly don't know what makes some people so ignorant, but whatever it is sure seems to be working.

reply to post by zenser


Your sensationalism is tiring.

Where does it state that if we disarm, we WILL be attacked by nukes?

Since when have the only weapons being used been nuclear weapons?

How does disarming mean we are handing things over on a silver platter?

And when in history has it proven that dropping nukes was the correct answer to anything?

And you are choosing to deny a part of your article, we are not disarming all of them.

We also have other means of attacking people.

I also have this question...what is your agenda with this thread?

The US destroyed 2 cities so we didn't have to lose our men trying to take the country. In war it is either you or the enemy who dies. I'll inflict the "horrors" of a nuclear strike over the long, blood and costly ground war any day. This comes at a funny time since the UN watch dogs admitted that Iran is capable of enriching uranium. We heard all that crap about peaceful nuke programs w/ N. Korea and we see how that played out. This timing is very odd

I would have to see what the proposed levels would be after the cuts, but my initial reaction is that it is not a good idea. We appear to be heading into a period of uncertainty and of relative military weakness in the middle of this century and I'm not sure it makes sense to start unilaterally cutting our one area of maintainable strength at this time. The perception our potential adversaries to such a move concerns me, and if they believe that our reduced stockpiles are not a sufficient deterrent, it could make the world more dangerous instead of less.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by zenser

 

Two SSBNs is enough of a deterrent.

Each boat carries 24 ICBMs with 8 100kt warheads each

Each boat can effectively obliterate a city the size of LA 24 times over.

It takes 4 SSBN's to maintain 1 SSBN at sea at all times. In your scenario the US only gets a nuclear deterrent six months out of the year and each time with just 24 SRBMs.

Thanks for your contribution, honey! Next?

(BTW - That's the problem when the armchair generals like you, Obama and Ethel Rosenburg make nuclear warfighting policy. You don't have any clue about reality and go with "what sounds nice.")

reply to post by zenser


Fine 4 SSBNs is enough.

One at sea at all times is all that's required to maintain an effective deterrent.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It took me 1 sentence to get you to double the "minimum" nuclear deterrent you think is acceptable.

Another sentence and I could have you double it again.

In a paragraph you would be agreeing we needed 20,000 warheads instead of the 8,000 or so we have.

But I don't need to bother. The point is made: sideline observers like yourself don't understand reality. Even a paint speck explanation can bring you around.

reply to post by zenser


So give me once sentence then.

Explain why the US needs more than the ability to destroy 24 mega cities of any nation on earth at the drop of a hat.

During a nuclear show down, you and I both know all four of those boats would be deployed barring some engineering catastrophe that forced them to remain in port.

As long as one of those boats is at sea, that's enough of a deterrent.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Fine 4 SSBNs is enough.

One at sea at all times is all that's required to maintain an effective deterrent.

What happens if that one deployed submarine is sunk in a first strike or if it does not receive the launch order for some reason?

An adequate deterrent requires multiple layers of redundancy in order to guarantee that it will remain effective.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Fine 4 SSBNs is enough.

One at sea at all times is all that's required to maintain an effective deterrent.

What happens if that one deployed submarine is sunk in a first strike or if it does not receive the launch order for some reason?

An adequate deterrent requires multiple layers of redundancy in order to guarantee that it will remain effective.

Because if one is at sea, logically it stands to reason it will not be destroyed in a first strike.

Those boats are invisible when deployed.

During a nuclear show down, they would be ghosts.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Explain why the US needs more than the ability to destroy 24 mega cities of any nation on earth at the drop of a hat.

What if we are attacked by most of the rest of the world simultaneously? That would be a reason to destroy more than 24 mega cities at a time.

What if our whole country was attacked by nuclear weapons, and we decided well if we are going out we are taking the whole planet with us?
That would be a reason to destroy more than 24 mega cities at a time.

These arguments as to why we NEED such a huge arsenal sound funny...

WE GOTTA HAVE A BUNCH SO WHEN (if) WE ARE ATTACKED, WE CAN BLOW THEM TO SMITHEREENS!

That's some preservation of human life right there...

I will come under fire for saying this, but I don't think this is a good idea. With Syria and Iran in the region, so obviously using aggressive pressure on both Israel and America, it'd be unwise to take away one of the greatest threats posed to these nations. I don't like the idea of a nuclear armed world either, but we cannot roll back the technology; right now nations are using their nuclear potential as a defense mechanism, or, as in the case of North Korea, a way to brag about possessing big balls.

First rule of all successful civilizations: disarm your enemies before disarming your friends.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Explain why the US needs more than the ability to destroy 24 mega cities of any nation on earth at the drop of a hat.

What if we are attacked by most of the rest of the world simultaneously? That would be a reason to destroy more than 24 mega cities at a time.

What if our whole country was attacked by nuclear weapons, and we decided well if we are going out we are taking the whole planet with us?
That would be a reason to destroy more than 24 mega cities at a time.

There's never a reason to destroy more than 24 cities.

In fact, there's never a reason to destroy any city.

If a country deems it necessary to launch a full scale nuclear attack against the US, whether we destroy 0, 24, or 1000 cities in retaliation doesn't make a bit of difference anyways.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Those boats are invisible when deployed.

I absolutely disagree with you on that one. Both the United States and the Soviet Union built a fairly large number of attack submarines during the Cold War designed with the sole purpose in mind of tracking and destroying opposing ballistic missile submarines before they could launch.

reply to post by zenser


As a young man, or kid I used to be cute. But then again that was a long, long time ago. Now my mind wanders in what may have come. Pity. Not any more.

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


Plus, maintaining a "humanitarian" nuclear warfighting posture requires we target only weapons on a first volley. Twenty-four SRBM's (non-MIRV) would be enough to take out 24 silos. Most enemies willing to commit to nuclear war would be content to absorb the loss of 24 silos.

To make a 24 SRBM deterrent feasible it would require we target cities on a first volley instead of silos.

This is why those who would like a minimal deterrent are unwittingly unleashing the potential of the greatest wartime horror the world has ever before known.

We need to maintain weapons of such a level that the possibility of a limited weapon-to-weapon exchange can be maintained, even if there's a good likelihood it - in reality - would spiral out of control. To commit ourselves to a city-to-city exchange of weapons is a catastrophic bloodbath and the certain extinction of the human species. With 24 weapons we have backed ourselves into the corner of a city-to-city exchange. With an adequate deterrent of a few thousand we can maintain the hope of a limited, silo-to-silo exchange that spares cities.

During the Cold War, even Soviet strategic warfighting doctrine called for their weapons to target only American silos, not cities except in an exigency. If both the old USSR and the US had only had a smattering of weapons that would have changed and the Soviets would have had no choice but to target New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas ...

[edit on 1-3-2010 by zenser]