North Korea to Launch ICBM

[Crossbow]

What's a serious cut to you? Reducing them by over half, I believe is a pretty good start, and what testing are you talking about? When was the last nuclear test conducted, other than by Pakistan or India?

If you kept only 200 on missiles (I don't think we have 200 balistic missiles on the ready anyway, unless you propose 20 MIRVs per missile), then your deterent options are basically limited to strategic strikes against major cities only using ballistic missiles only. Is that really what you would rather see if it ever came to their use, as opposed to limited demonstrations or tactical weapons against limited military targets on land or at sea? We would never use them simply against population centers, so doing as you suggest amounts to unilateral disarmament. I can hear Kim whatshisname applauding you right now.

I guess this person really needs some education on these issues and that job has befallen me.

Oh well, here goes:

1) Currently, the USA has about 10,600 nuclear weapons, so reducing the number by 50% would be a good start. But even if it was cut by 50%, that would still be far, far, more than would be needed for a deterrent.

2) The USA currently has about 350 submarine based nuclear ICBMS. So the 200 number Carter wanted (it was about the same in his time) is quite achievable.

3) True, the last round of testing was done by Pakistan and India. However, the USA and USSR have conducted hundreds of tests over the years. It is all but too late now, but restricting that testing (as Kennedy wanted to do) would have done a great deal to handicap the development of new nuclear weapons.

4) I seriously doubt that once nukes start flying that there will be any restraint. Just look at current events for a guide on this sort of thing, or the many and varied military exercises and studies which show just how quickly nuclear escalation occurs once it starts.

By the way, you might want to drop the Kim references as it makes you look rather childish.

 

[Elind]

I guess this person really needs some education on these issues and that job has befallen me.

Oh well, here goes:



By the way, you might want to drop the Kim references as it makes you look rather childish.

Who is it that wants an education? In reality that is. You seem to think nuclear weapons are nice to keep around just because the generals like to stroke them now and again.

These are not pocket toys. Start with any given number that you want to have available for actual use.

Sub ballistic missiles probably carry 2,3,4, 5 or more warheads each and can't just be swapped when wanted. Maybe some could be deactivated before launch if they really only wanted one hit, but you are still left with probably 5 times 350 just to keep those functional, and you want them all functional because only a portion will be at sea at any given time. That's about 1750 warheads.

I suspect that they need spares for the usual reasons, removal and replacement during maintenance and so on. At a minimum that calls for at least one spare each, which gives us 3500 warheads.

These are probably the big guys. We need a bunch for the airplanes too and we need some for the cruise missiles and maybe for the harbor mines and a few for the space needs and a few for the EMP jobs not to mention the deep penetration bunker killers and the neutron guys. All these are different and the reason one has different ones is to allow flexibility. You know the kind of decision that helps minimize death but achieves the objectives? Another aspect of flexibility is that you can't plan to have the flexibility to transport a few of the 200 or so limited design and size weapons you want to have stored in Omaha to wherever you need them on the other side of the planet and still have any kind of deterent to someone who also has nukes, even if they have less of them.

Each of these therefore has to be quickly available to each battlegroup, if not carrier, and some land based contingencies, and each one needs at least a few backups for use, since only an idiot would plan his entire campaign on one bomb, and for the reasons above, spares are needed in Omaha, for service rotation.

Are these numbers getting too much for you? Try a few multiplications and see just how fast you get to 10,000. It's amazing that they've kept it to that, and BTW, Kim is still chuckling at you.

 

[Elind]

3) True, the last round of testing was done by Pakistan and India.

But that's not what you said or alluded to, just to keep the record straight on how you throw out "facts".

However, the USA and USSR have conducted hundreds of tests over the years. It is all but too late now, but restricting that testing (as Kennedy wanted to do) would have done a great deal to handicap the development of new nuclear weapons.

Ahh so. It is the development of nuclear weapons by the US and USSR that you wanted to limit, handicap as you say,to the big dirty ones?

Funny, if we have to have them, I'd rather see smaller potentially clean ones that have less potential for widespread catastrophy, but each to his own.

 

[geni]

Sub ballistic missiles probably carry 2,3,4, 5 or more warheads each and can't just be swapped when wanted.

UK probably has a few with only a single warhead

I suspect that they need spares for the usual reasons, removal and replacement during maintenance and so on. At a minimum that calls for at least one spare each, which gives us 3500 warheads.

Not true. The UK probably has around 190 warheads on it's subs. Toal warheads is unlikely to be much over 210.

These are probably the big guys. We need a bunch for the airplanes too

Nah. You've got maybe two bombers which might be able to get close enough to the enermy to drop a nuke. Of those you have 21 B2s and 59 F-117s. That isn't many bombs (particualr when you consider that against a halfway up to date oponet the value of thoes aircraft is somewaht questionable)

and we need some for the cruise missiles

The number of times you need to deliver a nuke within a few meters is limter

and maybe for the harbor mines

Nah. ICBMS fill that role quite well.

and a few for the space needs

Nukes in space are a waste of time.

and a few for the EMP jobs

2

not to mention the deep penetration bunker killers and the neutron guys.

You can find other makework projects for your nuclear scientists.

All these are different and the reason one has different ones is to allow flexibility. You know the kind of decision that helps minimize death but achieves the objectives?

No such thing. Conflicts between nuclear powers where they start useing them esceralate to all out heavy weapons.

Another aspect of flexibility is that you can't plan to have the flexibility to transport a few of the 200 or so limited design and size weapons you want to have stored in Omaha to wherever you need them on the other side of the planet and still have any kind of deterent to someone who also has nukes, even if they have less of them.

ICBMs can do that in a few minutes.

 

[Steve H]

Ever think N Korea might have been intending on just launching a satellite before all the hoopla started? I kinda doubt it too, but I don't recall N Korea saying anything about their true intent. The fact is, whatever their true intentions, outside of military intervention there's no way to stop them or other wannabes from building rockets or nukes.

Is that something we really want to have to do every decade or so when some country that we don't like has the temerity to develop what we have ourselves?

 

[geni]

Is that something we really want to have to do every decade or so when some country that we don't like has the temerity to develop what we have ourselves?

It is somewhat better than the alturnative.

 

[Elind]

UK probably has a few with only a single warhead



Not true. The UK probably has around 190 warheads on it's subs. Toal warheads is unlikely to be much over 210.

So? I'm not talking about the UK .

Nah. You've got maybe two bombers which might be able to get close enough to the enermy to drop a nuke. Of those you have 21 B2s and 59 F-117s. That isn't many bombs (particualr when you consider that against a halfway up to date oponet the value of thoes aircraft is somewaht questionable)

Where do you get this stuff?

The number of times you need to deliver a nuke within a few meters is limter

Assuming the first one works. Do you think everything the US builds does?

Nah. ICBMS fill that role quite well.

Rubbish.

Nukes in space are a waste of time.

Not if you are talking of chinese satelites, for example.

You can find other makework projects for your nuclear scientists.

What does that have to do with squat?

No such thing. Conflicts between nuclear powers where they start useing them esceralate to all out heavy weapons.

Ahh. You know this from history I presume, Dr. Strangelove?

ICBMs can do that in a few minutes.

You really should do away with that tank. Just read something simple, like Popular Science, or Discovery magazine and you'll learn a little more than you know.

 

[Elind]

Ever think N Korea might have been intending on just launching a satellite before all the hoopla started? I kinda doubt it too, but I don't recall N Korea saying anything about their true intent. The fact is, whatever their true intentions, outside of military intervention there's no way to stop them or other wannabes from building rockets or nukes.

Is that something we really want to have to do every decade or so when some country that we don't like has the temerity to develop what we have ourselves?

We've heard these points. Backtrack a bit first, please.

 

[Steve H]

It is somewhat better than the alturnative.

What is better? Preemptive strikes every so often "just in case?" I'm afraid I disagree geni. I'm all for a preemptive strike if we know we are about to be attacked, but I doubt in the case of N Korea or Iran they feel up to a nuke exchange with Uncle Sam at this point. I also have a problem with this or other "haves" dictating who's "allowed" to have nukes. The genie has been out of the bottle for awhile now and she ain't going back in. That's just the way it is.

 

[Steve H]

We've heard these points. Backtrack a bit first, please.

Backtrack to what?

 

[Elind]

posts before #245

 

[Elind]

What is better? Preemptive strikes every so often "just in case?" I'm afraid I disagree geni. I'm all for a preemptive strike if we know we are about to be attacked, but I doubt in the case of N Korea or Iran they feel up to a nuke exchange with Uncle Sam at this point. I also have a problem with this or other "haves" dictating who's "allowed" to have nukes. The genie has been out of the bottle for awhile now and she ain't going back in. That's just the way it is.

I doubt we will ever do a "preemptive" nuclear strike unless a hell of a lot of crap has happened to lead up to it, but we might if a) we were threatened with the same so that even Scotty believed it was inevitable, or b) we were attacked that way.

 

[Steve H]

posts before #245

Sorry Elind but I'm not about to backtrack through 7 pages just to post my two cents. If I posted something redundant - just ignore it.

 

[geni]

So? I'm not talking about the UK .

Perhaps but the uk is a useful case since the goverment policy is to keep the number of warheads down to a minium. At any one time a little under 3/4 of the UK weapons are ceployed in some form. And that includes timeout for submarine maintinence. I don't know what the exact number is because there are no figures for the number of devices kept for training and development perposes. Probably no more than ten though.

Where do you get this stuff?

There is a reason that the UK spent a fortune on buying ICBMS rather than sticking with airdroped freefall weapons or Blue Steel missiles. SAMs are good enough to neutralise anything without some pretty good stealthing and the recent reports I've seen suggests that stealthing may be loseing it's effectiveness.

Assuming the first one works. Do you think everything the US builds does?

Switching over to cruise missiles doesn't really help you with that problem.

Rubbish.

The nuclear mine only makes sense if you have a problem delivering a nuke to a target. Again the british looked into it but once ICBMs were on line they abandoned the plan (it involved putting a Red Beard device in the harbor with an X-boat)

Not if you are talking of chinese satelites, for example.

Tageted convetional explosives would work better. Particualry if you want to keep your GPS and spy satilite networks intact.

What does that have to do with squat?

At least some of the US's current nuclear programs appear to be makework programs for nulcear scientists. A fairly logical course of action to take since you never know when they might come in handy.

Ahh. You know this from history I presume, Dr. Strangelove?

War games of various types. Rathery worryingly when the US wargamed India vs Pakistan the conflict always went nuclear.

You really should do away with that tank.

Considering how long I've used it I'm thinking no. My knowlage of tanks is pretty good in any case although I'm a little shakey on the interwar years

Just read something simple, like Popular Science, or Discovery magazine and you'll learn a little more than you know.

My knowlage of nuclear weapons (at least western developments) is pretty good in so far as that is posible with all the clasification. certianly better than youyr claims that appear to be based on unjustified assumptions.

 

[geni]

What is better? Preemptive strikes every so often "just in case?"

There is no just in case. The level of infastructure needed to make nukes is such that it is pretty hard to keep secret.

I'm afraid I disagree geni. I'm all for a preemptive strike if we know we are about to be attacked, but I doubt in the case of N Korea or Iran they feel up to a nuke exchange with Uncle Sam at this point.

I do not want to be in the position of haveing to use AD against Iran. there is a risk that they would not care.

I also have a problem with this or other "haves" dictating who's "allowed" to have nukes.

The only non nuclear countires which can really infoce it are Japan and germany and they run into problems with thier constitutions.

The genie has been out of the bottle for awhile now and she ain't going back in. That's just the way it is.

While any industialised nation could have nukes given enough time only Japan could really do it fast enough to prevent us finding out and stoping them.

 

[Steve H]

That's a lot of potential "stopping them" military campaigns we'd have on our plate over the coming decades geni .. not a pleasant thought for our future.

Getting back to N Korea, I predict they won't fire their missile. I promise I will come back to this thread and eat crow if they do. The N Koreans covet attention and seem to act up every so often when other events preoccupy the world's attention. I think there will be some behind-the-scene diplomacy and the N Koreans will "delay" their launch. We'll see..

I'll drop back in when something doesn't or does happen.

 

[Elind]

Sorry Elind but I'm not about to backtrack through 7 pages just to post my two cents. If I posted something redundant - just ignore it.

Fair enough. Sorry.

 

[Elind]

My knowlage of nuclear weapons (at least western developments) is pretty good in so far as that is posible with all the clasification. certianly better than youyr claims that appear to be based on unjustified assumptions.

Look, I wasn't pretending to write the definitive analysis on nuclear armament; I was responding to someone who thinks that having a couple of hundred big booms on missiles is a serious nuclear capability in any way other than the doomsday one.

I'd like to think that we can reach that stage, or zero, in terms of global politics but the fact is that we can't. What I was pointing out is that IF we intend to remain the superpower and be nuclear, and IF we ever had to use it, we have to be capable of doing so in the most effective, and I would even say "least" harmful manner possible, which also means fastest, smallest, tailored to the need and most accurate, to name a few categories.

On that basis, without scrubbing a lot more than just warheads, I think simple math makes numbers of up to 10,000 weapons, for all the reasons I touched on before, seem quite reasonable.

 

[geni]

Look, I wasn't pretending to write the definitive analysis on nuclear armament; I was responding to someone who thinks that having a couple of hundred big booms on missiles is a serious nuclear capability in any way other than the doomsday one.

The US has about 500 tatical nukes. A mixture of Tomahawk cruise missiles and B61 bombs. Its strategic force is about 10 times that. That is in the active section.I don't know the breakdown of its 4000 odd reserve weapons.

I'd like to think that we can reach that stage, or zero, in terms of global politics but the fact is that we can't. What I was pointing out is that IF we intend to remain the superpower and be nuclear, and IF we ever had to use it, we have to be capable of doing so in the most effective, and I would even say "least" harmful manner possible, which also means fastest, smallest, tailored to the need and most accurate, to name a few categories.

Realisticaly if you are going to use nukes against another nuclear power it would be better to go for the all outstratigic destruction since you would end up there sooner or latter.

For domestic reasons it unlikely that they would be used against a non nuclear power (see korean war). The militry has developed workarounds for this problem (see MOAB).

On that basis, without scrubbing a lot more than just warheads, I think simple math makes numbers of up to 10,000 weapons, for all the reasons I touched on before, seem quite reasonable.

Not really. To start with they seem to assume a heck of a lot more tactical nukes than the US has.

 

[Elind]

Not really. To start with they seem to assume a heck of a lot more tactical nukes than the US has.

OK. I haven't bothered to research the exact numbers myself. I tried to rationalize the 10,000 thrown out earlier, when I was being educated, which is a number I've heard before, if a bit on the high side.

You seem to say the number is about 9,000. I would take a wild guess and say that, since these don't have an unlimited shelf life, and some have quite a short one (certain half lives, radiation issues, and all that), perhaps 50% are not useable at any given time. So perhaps there are 4,500 total available for use, in all scenarios by all forces everywhere. Plenty if they were all used at the same time, but of course that is not why there are more than a handfull.