Obama limits use of nuclear weapons

[JJM 777]

Back to the interesting idiocy: let "us" kill 10 of "them" for each of "us" that "they" kill. Notice the homogenic units "us" and "them".

Your neighbour murders someone. Then "they" (the ethnic, religious, political, sports fan or other context group of the murdered person) recognize you as one of "those" (based on ethnic, religious, political, sports fanhood or other definition), so they come to kill you along with 10 other of "those". Justice needs to be done you know.

who do you suppose is keeping the whereabouts of OBL all these years? (...) If that doesn't make the masses in this case willing accomplices

If the great masses knew where Osama bin Laden is hiding, also Israel and USA would easily know. Not to say that one man really is worth anything in the big world. Hype I say.

 

[BeAChooser]

However, was it really neccessary to have 20 times as many nukes that could completely oblitertae the entire planet?

How do you know the number that were needed to effect deterence?

Do you know the number of launch vehicles needed to provide a credible deterent after a first strike by Soviets?

Do you know the number of warheads needed to make a typical Soviet command center housing leadership vulnerable?

Do you know how much of the Soviet leadership and populace was to be protected in the event of war? You'd probably be surprised.

Do you know that the Soviets, during the buildup, planned to survive AND win a nuclear war, and therefore took extreme measures to protect leadership, military, industry and populace throughout the country from nuclear attack? It took a lot of warheads to leave doubt that such a infrastructure wouldn't work. Whether those measures would in reality have worked is debatable, but as long as the Soviets 'believed' they might, we had to counter that belief with overwhelming numbers. So we built enough weapons to guarantee that we could dig the leadership out of any hardened shelter, destroy their military, overwhelm any hardening of industry, and put most of their populace at risk. And we built enough weapons to guarantee that we could keep putting parts of the USSR under a nuclear cloud for many years. And frankly, I see little change in the Russian approach from the USSR approach, and China is also talking much the same philosophy. At a time when Obama is banning even the development of new weapons, the other side is developing and fielding whole new generations.

Don't make the system less stable chasing the "dream" of a nuclear free world. It is not going to happen. The consequences of a nuclear attack on us needs to remain such a terrible thing that not even the most optimistic enemy will ever attempt it. And by the way, Obama is asking us to trust the same folks who for decades grievously violated arms control agreements. That's very foolish and utterly naive. But very leftist.

 

[BeAChooser]

odd , I read into that statement the idea of there being no nukes on Earth. In such a case it would severly limit the ability of anyone to launch a device that does not exist.

Prior to 1945, there were no nuclear weapons in the world. Hate to tell you but the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back. In a world with no nuclear weapons, there is a greater likelihood of conflict. And once conflicts start, history proves time and again that they are very hard to stop. If one side thinks it's losing, nuclear weapons will once again *magically* appear (out of hidden stockpiles or simple be produced in next to no time at all because that's now possible for powers like the US, Russia and China). And instead of the bombs only being used at the end of a world war, when all sides were exhausted and one side was already defeated, the bombs will appear while the outcome is still uncertain. And they'll get used. And then the other side will use them too. And back and forth we will go until one side or the other hasn't enough left to make any more. And what do you think the world will look like then?

 

[BeAChooser]

Did someone insist that Iran should be allowed to develop nuke weaponry?

That's effectively what the left is allowing to happen.

 

[Praktik]

How do you know the number that were needed to effect deterence?

Oh oh! (raises hand enthusiastically) I know! I know!!

The answer is: 311. (recent report in Strategic Studies Quarterly)

They say that America can do this unilaterally: "'Moreover, it does not matter if Russia, who is America's biggest competitor in this arena, follows suit. The relative advantage the Russians might gain in theory does not exist in reality. Even if one were to assume the worst--a bolt from the blue that took out all of America's ICBMs [Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles]--the Russians would leave their cities at risk and therefore remain deterred from undertaking the first move.'"

The makeup of the 311:

100 Land-Based ICBMs
192 on ohio-class subs
19 air-launch on B2 bombers

 

[Just thinking]

If the great masses knew where Osama bin Laden is hiding, also Israel and USA would easily know. Not to say that one man really is worth anything in the big world. Hype I say.

Hype? I didn't even get started on world wide donations to Al Qaeda.

 

[Drysdale]

Have you?

Yes, enough to know better than to tip my hand.

 

[Thunder]

GOPers want the USA to have 40,000 nukes.

the more the merrier...right?

 

[Drysdale]

An example of some of the hyperbole being tossed about on this thread.

The policy does not apply to any country that does not adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so it does not apply to Iran or N.Korea. Thus the USA is not saying it will not attack N.Korea if for eg. it was obvious that N.Korean agents laced NYC with Ebola. -- this treaty leaves open the option of bombs away in such a senario.

The USA reserves the right to nuke at any country that attacks the USA with bio weaponry only allowing that this would require an exception to the policy. Basically it all but voids the policy of not using nukes in relatialtion to a bio attack.

So this policy is basically hyperbole too no?

Do we (USA) have a history of nuking countries to warrant this statement/position?

Just another in a long line of change BS that means nothing in essence.

 

[BeAChooser]

The makeup of the 311:

100 Land-Based ICBMs
192 on ohio-class subs
19 air-launch on B2 bombers

Several points.

First, these authors explicitly reject the vision of a world without nuclear weapons promoted by Obama and the left. For good reason.

Second, they advocate about 450 fewer ICBMS than we currently have. Curiously, they recommend keeping 100 older Minuteman IIIs (from the 1970s) rather than a mix of those and the 50 newer MX missiles in the current arsenal. They substitute single warhead missile for each of the current MIRVed ones. Now I ask you, why is 100 a magic number here? What makes that number any more a credible deterent than … say 50 … or 200? What analyses have they actually done to show that a credible number would survive a first strike by an existing Russian or Chinese threat? Or are they implying (but not saying) that we go to launch on warning? If so, wouldn't that be rather destabilizing and dangerous? And note that we could halve the number of missiles and still keep the same numbers of warheads just by MIRVing them. In fact, we could put 100 warheads on just 10 MX missiles. So why didn't they recommend that? That way we only would have had to guard and maintain 10 missiles and silos. Wouldn't that save costs? Wouldn't that make the system safer overall from accidents? With just 10 missiles, wouldn't there be less fear on the part of other countries that we'd break out and deploy thousands more missiles because we'd already be at the maximum we could deploy? You see, I'm not sure how well thought out this proposal really is.

Third, the 12 Ohio Class missile firing subs they recommend we keep would in number be about what we currently have (I believe we have 18 Ohio class subs, four of which currently carry conventional cruise missiles … a weapon system which Obama in his *great wisdom* is also eliminating). But again, they seem to be keeping the older missiles … the Trident Is … and substituting single warhead missiles for MIRVed ones. All the newer Trident IIs I would be junked. So essentially, both our land and sea based components of this deterrent will rely on weapon systems developed in the 1970s. While our opponents have been and still are fielding new systems. And again, I ask why is 12 a magic number. I believe we currently have 14 such subs. If 12 is just as safe and credible as 14, perhaps 10 is even safer (and with MIRVing of a few missiles) still just as credible? Maybe 8 even better? And less costly. Again, what real analysis (or war gaming) went into this choice? Or was this number just pulled out of thin air?

Fourth, there are the 19 B2s. They're apparently only going to carry 1 cruise missile each (although I hadn't heard that B2s are set up to carry nuclear armed cruise missiles at all … just 16 nuclear bombs). But how will our adversaries know that they each have only a single warhead on board? Countries that view us as potential adversaries are more likely to assume the worst and plan for the possibility that each bomber is carrying 16 bombs. For that matter, how can our adversaries be sure the missiles in the other legs of the triad only carry a single warhead? Most likely, their planners will consider the possibility that those platforms are MIRVed. Meaning they might face tens of thousands of warheads … even if we say we only have 311. And being human, and much less wise than Obama and these couple analysts, and certainly more suspicious, they will likely size their retaliatory force accordingly. So in the end, we will still live in a world with tens of thousands of deployed warheads … just on the other side. On the side that is more likely to use them offensively and less likely to keep careful control of them and keep them out of terrorist hands. In short, you'll have accomplished a whole lot of nothing.

By the way, Forsyth and Saltzman also advocate that we no longer intervene in anything overseas: http://www.au.af.mil/au/cadre/aspj/apjinternational/apj-f/2009/hiv09/eng/forsyth_saltzman.html . Realistic?

 

[funk de fino]

First, these authors explicitly reject the vision of a world without nuclear weapons promoted by Obama and the left.

People who dont have this vision are morons.

Visions do not have to be achievable but there is nothing nobler than hoping for it instead of salivating over a nuclear war and wanting to build more.

 

[applecorped]

Who is salivating over a nuclear war?

 

[Oystein]

Hm, incidentally, suppose that a country organizes a terrorist attack against US targets with WMDs, causing mass casualties. We'll also say the country can't be invaded easily.

For the sake of the argument, we'll say that it was North Korean agents who had a few agents inoculated with Ebola wander the New York subway and JFK airport, sparking an epidemic killing two million US citizens and two million others in two weeks and forcing a complete shut down of New York for months, and general chaos in North America, Europe and elsewhere. North Korea denies involvement, China condemned the attacks but maintains North Korea is innocent, despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. They also say they would be willing to come to their aid in the event they got invaded as a result.

What would be the appropriate response?

The scenario is unlikely, I agree, and I hope nothing similar ever happens, but what kind of response could US (and allies) give in such a case?

McHrozni

The answer is in the OP:

...
White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes United States vulnerable to a devastating strike."

I guess, at the DOD they currently see no feasible scenario by which B and C weapons could be in fact quite as devastating as you make them up to be in your fantasy scenario. Ebola-epidemics for example can be relatively easily contained using run-of-the-mill quarantine measures.

 

[Paradox74]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

"To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those adopted by his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.


White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes United States vulnerable to a devastating strike."

In my opinion, when it comes to nuclear weapons, this is one of the FEW times for me to be praising Obama for something. I have to agree with Obama's proposal (assuming that he IS going to keep this promise *rolls eyes*. Unlikely that he is going to do so in my opinion).

Hypothetically speaking, when Colombia inserts a virus in our network, we can either accuse them and demand repayment or react with a cyberattack of our own or invade the country but, there is no need for the A-bomb in this situation (Now bunkerbusters or Tomahawk missiles however...). Chemical and biological weapons...well it depends on how deadly they are, as stated in the report. At least, from what the report is saying, Obama isn't completely discarding our nuclear weapons.

 

[BeAChooser]

Visions do not have to be achievable but there is nothing nobler than hoping for it instead of salivating over a nuclear war and wanting to build more.

Remember the law of unintended consequences. It will often bite you in the butt. Even with the best of intentions.

 

[funk de fino]

Remember the law of unintended consequences. It will often bite you in the butt. Even with the best of intentions.

That's all folks

 

[applecorped]

That's all folks

If only.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think this is a timely reminder …

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,687920,00.html

04/09/2010

New Research Sheds Light on Soviet Plans for World War III

… snip …

When a number of archives were opened after the end of the Cold War, the world learned that -- if push came to shove -- the Soviet army was prepared to take the West by surprise with a decisive attack.

… snip ...

During the first 90 minutes, this ground assault would have been accompanied by a hail of conventional and nuclear warheads aimed at thousands of predetermined targets.

NATO facilities, airfields, communications centers, government offices, power plants and traffic junctions as far as the Rhine River would have been reduced to ashes. Currently accessible campaign maps of the Warsaw Pact have red circles above Antwerp, Amsterdam, Bremen, Cuxhaven, Emden and Munich.

Seriously folks. If the Soviets hadn't faced tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on thousands of highly survivable platforms back then, they might have been tempted to attack … especially if they had projected where things were headed in terms of the balance of power given what our respective economies were doing at the time. They might have believed their own propaganda that a nuclear war is not only survivable but winnable and gambled that they'd come out the victor and their leadership and population would emerge from the shelters into a world that was theirs. Americans need to understand that the Soviets went to great lengths to harden their total infrastructure. A CIA report from 1978 (report number NI-78-10003) stated the entire Soviet political leadership, 12 to 24 percent of their essential workforce and 10 to 20 percent of their urban population could be protected in blast shelters. It was concluded that under some circumstances, sheltering and evacuation could keep casualties down in the low tens of millions from a US retaliatory strike. And that was with tens of thousands of warheads and thousands more delivery vehicles in our arsenal than proposed by Forsyth and Saltzman. Imagine how less we'd be able to attack such preparedness with Forsyth's and Saltzan's arsenal?

Back in the 70s, the Soviets had over 1500 nuclear hardened shelters for their top party officials alone … and they still had that many in 1989. And Russia is still serious about civil defense. Since the end of the Cold War, it has pumped billions and billions of dollars into it. We have spent nothing comparable. I'll give you an example.

There's a mountain called Yamantau in the Urals with a huge, nuclear hardened, underground complex that Russia to this day refuses to discuss. It's so big that there are literally two cities on top of it. Russians pumped an estimated $6 billion into the complex during the 1990s. In 1998, then Commander of the STRATCOM, General Habinger, said Yamantau is "a very large complex -- we estimate that it has millions of square feet available for underground facilities. We don't have a clue as to what they're doing there." Representative Barlett (R-Md) at the time said "The only potential use for this site is post-nuclear war." He said "Yamantau Mountain is the largest nuclear-secure project in the world. They have very large train tracks running in and out of it, with enormous rooms carved inside the mountain. It has been built to resist a half dozen direct nuclear hits, one after the other in a direct hole. It's very disquieting that the Russians are doing this when they don't have $200 million to build the service module on the international space station and can't pay housing for their own military people."

And Yamantau is not the only such facility. Russia currently has over 200 other deep underground facilities, whose only purpose can be nuclear war fighting or post-war survival. And whereas we've allowed Russian military access to key facilities including Cheyenne and the STRCOM headquarters in Omaha, no foreigner has ever been allowed in Yamantau … or even near it. Repeated requests by US officials have been turned down or ignored. And finally note that in 2003, the Russian government tripled its civil defense outlays.

And keep this in mind. Russia has several ACTIVE nuclear warhead production facilities. The US closed it's last one more than a decade ago and Obama just announced we won't build any more, period. We haven't built a new warhead since 1990. Ours are aging. They may not be a credible deterrent much longer simply because of their age.

Just food for thought as Obama goes around *negotiating* his *legacy*.

 

[funk de fino]

I bet the Soviets say the same things about you pesky Yanks.

 

[Oystein]

...Imagine how less we'd be able to attack such preparedness with Forsyth's and Saltzan's arsenal?

...We don't have a clue as to what they're doing there." ...

You need to square your imagination with reality.

But since "we don't have a clue as to what they are doing there", feel free for once to speculate on why the Russians might be templating to attack the West with an all-out nuclear attack, now or in the foreseeable future?

Who would stand to gain what?

Just try to back up your speculation with first attempts at discussing a whole picture. Like: How would destroying their most valuable business partners benefit the Russian economy? How would the Russian government continue to effectively govern if only the few hardened shelter sites remained - what would happen to communications infrastructure in this huge land, and what about the conventional armed forces? Would they try to exert control of Europe and / or North America, and how so?