This can't be a real political ad... can it?

#26
#26
therealUT said:
I am going to have to categorically disagree. With or without a defense system, if any country ever decided to attack the US with nuclear, ballistic missiles, they would almost certainly spend as much of their arsenal as they could spare while maintaining enough to attack any of our allies.

No major nuclear power is going to pussy-foot into a nuclear fight.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If a full nuclear power (unlike a Iran, let's say, that only has a few) takes a punch...it's going to be a full punch.

My point is that a perceived imbalance in MAD could lead the Russians to abandon current dismantling schedules - ultimately resulting in more weapons to throw our way in the event of an all-out attack. But, as I noted, the number would likely not make a huge difference to our overall security because of the nature of the nuclear beast. About 100 is plenty....
 
#28
#28
Perhaps a fundamental question is ... is the world any safer with 1000 nuclear weapons than 10,000 nuclear weapons ... I tend to say yes, but the answer it not obvious.
 
#29
#29
Disarmament simply forces a country to have a plan to fully mobilize the means needed to produce these weapons, in abundance, once said country has made the decision to use the weapons they already possess.
 
#31
#31
therealUT said:
Disarmament simply forces a country to have a plan to fully mobilize the means needed to produce these weapons, in abundance, once said country has made the decision to use the weapons they already possess.
Click to expand...

That is true to some extent, but just look at the Nuclear Weapons Complex restructuring efforts currently underway in this country. Also, look at the strong resistance to the RRW program. We are very close to eliminating our ability to quickly respond to the need to build up nuclear weapons stockpiles.

P.S. I'm not endorsing this...just stating what I fear is happening...
 
#32
#32
therealUT said:
I would say no.
Click to expand...

The only reason I don't completely say no is because of proliferation risks, which is a weak argument - that is why I say the answer isn't obvious (to me). There is really no difference in the effects of 10,000 vs. 1,000.
 
#33
#33
War as our great grandfathers knew it is over. The new age war is more like the Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq wars. MAD will hardly apply.

Wondering if we should have allowed the former USSR to win in Afghanistan knowing that we won the cold war.. But, if allowed to win in Afghanistan would we have won the cold war.. Probably not.
 
#34
#34
Umm....MAD may still apply. It seems the only way to keep large nations from hurtling large, very destructive rocks back and forth. MAD will not apply to certain new wars, where we have irrational enemies - I will agree with that. And, this is where the importance of an effective MD shield would come in...too bad we don't have an effective one (unless they are stupid enough to fling one ICBM at us with no decoys aboard).
 
#35
#35
TennTradition said:
That is true to some extent, but just look at the Nuclear Weapons Complex restructuring efforts currently underway in this country. Also, look at the strong resistance to the RRW program. We are very close to eliminating our ability to quickly respond to the need to build up nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more with you that we are eliminating our ability to respond quickly. However, I guarantee you that Russia is doing everything in their power to show the world that they are committed to disarmament, yet have numerous facilities that are off the map in which they are doing the exact opposite.

The thing that bothers me about treaties and legislation such as this, is that for some ungodly reason Americans are willing to trust every single government other than their own. They have this utopian view that these dictators and "show congresses/parliaments" are committed to making the world a better place.
 
#36
#36
My points were definitely directed at our efforts, but I was implying an extension to our (former) enemies. And you are right...that extension might not apply.

An interesting question along these lines is would the world be a better place if the US and Russia completely disarmed. The answer is obviously no...but some would argue otherwise. Many make these arguments that by our hanging on to some weapons, it places political importance on them that causes states like Iran to pursue them. I've never heard a larger pile of bull. I wish it were the case, but its not. The Iranians want them because they know what they can do with them. It is a weapon unlike any other we have ever known...it's psychological effects alone are overwhelming. Could you imagine Ahmenijad with a few nukes and us with none? Geez....
 
#37
#37
They may be off of the map to you and I, but I feel assured we know about them. And I am also assured that our recent defense strategy that Putin is against is directly associated to this. I'd say this is our way of saying what we don't need to say to Putin.


I guess I should have said with MAD, wars like our grandfather's are obsolete.
 
#38
#38
tim said:
They may be off of the map to you and I, but I feel assured we know about them. And I am also assured that our recent defense strategy that Putin is against is directly associated to this. I'd say this is our way of saying what we don't need to say to Putin.


I guess I should have said with MAD, wars like our grandfather's are obsolete.
Click to expand...

Putting up a minimally- to in-effective MD shield hardly seems to be an effective defensive counter or statement to Putin's (purported) buildup of nuclear weapons. If anything, it would give him an excuse to continue doing it....it seems to me.
 
#39
#39
TennTradition said:
Well..it could very well be more one-sided. We built thousands of interceptors and they just simply don't dismantle their weapons....

I guess the investment in new interceptors could be a good kick to the economy..but so could investment in new energy systems development.
Click to expand...
the positive is once again leaving the rest of the world way behind, like the middle eastern loons that provide a threat today.
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
the positive is once again leaving the rest of the world way behind, like the middle eastern loons that provide a threat today.
Click to expand...

Have we left them behind if our interceptors don't work against their weapons? I'm not saying that is definitely the case...because I think we may be able to get the job done if we have about 30 interceptors per re-entry vehicle tossed our way...so maybe 100 interceptors per MIRV? But...that is a lot of interceptors...

If the system were to work, then yes, I agree that is the advantage....
 
#41
#41
TennTradition said:
Have we left them behind if our interceptors don't work against their weapons? I'm not saying that is definitely the case...because I think we may be able to get the job done if we have about 30 interceptors per re-entry vehicle tossed our way...so maybe 100 interceptors per MIRV? But...that is a lot of interceptors...
Click to expand...
an arms race is about far more that interceptors. it's where we ramp technology spending through the roof. that's the way to prolong China's second tier status and to keep the middle easterners as cavepeople.
 
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
an arms race is about far more that interceptors. it's where we ramp technology spending through the roof. that's the way to prolong China's second tier status and to keep the middle easterners as cavepeople.
Click to expand...

Agreed .... there would be wide-spread missile and sensor technology investment. I wouldn't mind seeing similar attention on energy investment, though...
 
#43
#43
Thats basically the real issue for the US. China/Russia/Japan are all developing MD sheilds, so if we go by history its better to be ahead of the game. And it is also about driving research, since MD's will not stop some crazy extremist from coming over here or Europe with a Nuclear bomb in a truck or ship.

also, I think your being too hard on our MD shield, but you probably know that :)
 
#44
#44
tim said:
I guess I should have said with MAD, wars like our grandfather's are obsolete.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this. I agree most combat will result in surgical strikes, spec ops and littoral warfare. But the US has a history of not being prepared for the wars it gets into. I would bet if we got into a war with China, once the ground troops go in we would be staring right back at a war that our grandfathers faced.
 
#45
#45
Wouldn't like the idea of warring with China like our ancestors fought wars.
 
#46
#46
The Chinese and the N. Koreans could make an American cry with all the crap they are capable of...
 
#47
#47
Volnis..I sent you a PM to ask you a question..but your inbox is full...could you clean it out and I'll resend?
 
#48
#48
MontereyVol said:
I think your being too hard on our MD shield, but you probably know that :)
Click to expand...

I am very tough on it...I know that. I have some issues with the MDA administration and while I would love for us to have a great MD shield, I worry about a not-so-great MD shield.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top