News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Obama considering steep nuclear arms cuts

Started by Kleves, February 15, 2012, 11:15:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CountDeMoney

Quote from: alfred russel on February 15, 2012, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 12:02:48 PM

Only that 300 bombs in the 1950s weren't enough;  maintaining enough weapons to ensure first-strike survivability and maintain a positive retaliatory capability is no longer a strategic concern.

I'm generally the peacenik here, but is that really not a strategic concern anymore? Russia has a lot of weapons, and China could build them. I realize that no one has an incentive to strike us first, but why leave open the possibility?

Considering how real-time radar and early-warning detection systems have evolved since the 60s and the 70s, combined with the evolution of SLBM technology (not a word, grumbler!), as well as the reduction in strategic bomber forces in the world, there isn't the margin of error there once was for the old silo farms.

The reduction in force size won't negate a first strike, but the survivability of a first strike is significantly better than it was 30 years ago.  In short, we'd be able to launch fewer weapons faster, and with greater early-warning reliability, than when the old Soviet doctrine was to swamp our assets en masse' to reduce the number of second-strike launches.

Ideologue

OK, here's my question: is 300 warheads enough to win a first strike against Russia and PRChina, and if need be, simultaneously?
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Razgovory

I don't think so.  I think cutting it to 300 is to low.  600 hundred maybe.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Tonitrus

This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor.  We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that.  And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:37:06 PM
OK, here's my question: is 300 warheads enough to win a first strike against Russia and PRChina, and if need be, simultaneously?

Sure.

Razgovory

There's a lot of Chinese.  I think we need retain the ability to wipe out a third, just in case.  And still have some capability afterwords.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Ideologue

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 11:16:05 PM
There's a lot of Chinese.  I think we need retain the ability to wipe out a third, just in case.  And still have some capability afterwords.

That's not what winning a first strike means. :P
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

HisMajestyBOB

Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes.  :ph34r:
Three lovely Prada points for HoI2 help

Neil

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 15, 2012, 11:27:02 PM
Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes.  :ph34r:
The US will never achieve that level of space tech.  You guys have given up, and it will be up to others to decide if mankind ever gets to the stars.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Tamas

So you guys now trust the Russians this much, ha?

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Tamas on February 16, 2012, 07:26:52 AM
So you guys now trust the Russians this much, ha?

I trust their shit doesn't work any more.

grumbler

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor.  We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that.  And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.

It does create some interesting tradeoffs, though.  Obviously, you don't want to have 300 warheads on 30 missiles - that's too few baskets for your eggs.  OTOH, how do the two sides verify that a lower warhead count per missile has actually been implemented?
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Darth Wagtaros

Just how many MIRV'd missiles would this result in?
PDH!

Josquius

Makes sense. Its not just him promoting world peace and other hippy stuff, the US just doesn't need so many, they can wipe out any enemies well enough with a lot less.
██████
██████
██████

Tamas

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2012, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2012, 10:49:09 PM
This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor.  We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that.  And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.

It does create some interesting tradeoffs, though.  Obviously, you don't want to have 300 warheads on 30 missiles - that's too few baskets for your eggs.  OTOH, how do the two sides verify that a lower warhead count per missile has actually been implemented?

The notion that the Russians are not cheating on these easily cheat-able treaties is ridicoulous.