RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
MADD is still a good deterrent. Even the old Soviets and guys like Putin don't want total annihilation. Those guys still care if they and their family members die.
It's those fundamentalist jihadi types you have to keep an eye on. The martyr types who don't care if they die and want to go out in a blaze of glory.
One exception was Che Guevara, a popular icon among far left hipsters. He begged Castro and Khrushchev to start a nuclear war with the US for the sake of socialism.
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
Are We still using Commodore 64 Technology on the older missiles in the silos ? Bill Clinton gave the newer guidance stuff to China and the Stealth technology to Russia back in the Bosnian war by not destroying that crashed bomber.
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
(10-26-2016 09:49 AM)CardFan1 Wrote: Are We still using Commodore 64 Technology on the older missiles in the silos ? Bill Clinton gave the newer guidance stuff to China and the Stealth technology to Russia back in the Bosnian war by not destroying that crashed bomber.
Nope, they upgraded to the Amiga 4000... with that 16bit color!
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2016 10:04 AM by muffinman.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat Wrote:Its large payload would allow for up to 10 heavy warheads or 15 lighter ones, and/or a combination of warheads and massive amounts of countermeasures designed to defeat anti-missile systems
The missile provides MIRV capabilities. Rather than simple hyperbole, what the release is probably referring to is the potential to hit multiple targets over a large area using one missile. For example, they may be able to hit downtown Houston, Dallas, Austin, Lubbock, San Antonio, El Paso, as well as military bases including Fort Hood and strategic targets such as oil refineries in Texas City and Baytown and the port of Galveston.
That is a lot of bang for the buck, and probably more scary than "wiping out a landmass", which is absurd on the face of it. Nuclear weapons are good at killing people and destroying strategic capabilities. They aren't going to be very effective at changing landscapes.
Quote:The United States last week finished removing the last MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) from its Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); these missiles will now each carry a single warhead. The move was the fulfillment of a promise the Obama administration made in its 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which stated that it would “enhance the stability of the nuclear balance by reducing the incentives for either side to strike first.”
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
The idea that if we just disarm, then everybody else will too, is one of the dumbest (of many dumb) ideas that the left tries to foist upon us. How and why on earth can anyone even entertain that as a possibly realistic scenario?
If we keep our defense at the top of the world, and keep getting better and better, nobody can keep up with us and they will be forced to give up (see Union, Soviet, 1980s-90s). If we lower our own defense posture, it will be easier for others to catch us, and that will give them greater incentive to try.
If you want peace, be stronger than anybody else by such a wide margin that nobody dares mess with you, and don't go messing with them.
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2016 10:03 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
(10-26-2016 10:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The idea that if we just disarm, then everybody else will too, is one of the dumbest (of many dumb) ideas that the left tries to foist upon us. How and why on earth can anyone even entertain that as a possibly realistic scenario?
If we keep our defense at the top of the world, and keep getting better and better, nobody can keep up with us and they will be forced to give up (see Union, Soviet, 1980s-90s). If we lower our own defense posture, it will be easier for others to catch us, and that will give them greater incentive to try.
If you want peace, be stronger than anybody else by such a wide margin that nobody dares mess with you, and don't go messing with them.
This.
Remember "Peace through strength"? (not you Owl, I'm certain you do), or "Speak softly, and carry a big stick"? Or MADD?
If we havent learned that weakness creates a vacuum and a virtual invite to bad actors to come and play, regardless how destructive, we havent learned anything.
Good grief peoples. Whats the line about doomed to repeat it?!?
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
(10-26-2016 10:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The idea that if we just disarm, then everybody else will too, is one of the dumbest (of many dumb) ideas that the left tries to foist upon us. How and why on earth can anyone even entertain that as a possibly realistic scenario?
If we keep our defense at the top of the world, and keep getting better and better, nobody can keep up with us and they will be forced to give up (see Union, Soviet, 1980s-90s). If we lower our own defense posture, it will be easier for others to catch us, and that will give them greater incentive to try.
If you want peace, be stronger than anybody else by such a wide margin that nobody dares mess with you, and don't go messing with them.
I agree. We could help ourselves though by eliminating much of what Putin is complaining about as a threat Russia. Im not sure why we feel antagonizing Russia serves us any useful purpose.
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
(10-27-2016 11:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:
(10-26-2016 10:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The idea that if we just disarm, then everybody else will too, is one of the dumbest (of many dumb) ideas that the left tries to foist upon us. How and why on earth can anyone even entertain that as a possibly realistic scenario?
If we keep our defense at the top of the world, and keep getting better and better, nobody can keep up with us and they will be forced to give up (see Union, Soviet, 1980s-90s). If we lower our own defense posture, it will be easier for others to catch us, and that will give them greater incentive to try.
If you want peace, be stronger than anybody else by such a wide margin that nobody dares mess with you, and don't go messing with them.
I agree. We could help ourselves though by eliminating much of what Putin is complaining about as a threat Russia. Im not sure why we feel antagonizing Russia serves us any useful purpose.
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
(10-26-2016 10:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The idea that if we just disarm, then everybody else will too, is one of the dumbest (of many dumb) ideas that the left tries to foist upon us. How and why on earth can anyone even entertain that as a possibly realistic scenario?
If we keep our defense at the top of the world, and keep getting better and better, nobody can keep up with us and they will be forced to give up (see Union, Soviet, 1980s-90s). If we lower our own defense posture, it will be easier for others to catch us, and that will give them greater incentive to try.
If you want peace, be stronger than anybody else by such a wide margin that nobody dares mess with you, and don't go messing with them.
I agree in general. But, the calculus of nuclear weapons is such that I don't think the reasoning applies in the same way. I'd submit that any nation that has 20 nuclear weapons, the means to conceal them enough to render a first strike ineffective, the means to strike anywhere in the world, and the ability to make the threat that they would use them credible has spent enough on defense to make almost any military conflict with the US a draw... at least until or unless a missile shield is both demonstrated to be very reliable and put to the test during wartime.
Even Saddam was able to keep SCUD missile launchers concealed enough that the US had a hard time neutralizing them in the Gulf War (1991).
The US is in a fairly unique position of having the luxury of being able to remove MIRV capabilities without substantially affecting its security. I think that it would've been better to achieve that end by way of the negotiating table, where we could commitment from the Russians to do the same. But, I can see some logic to the argument that eliminating our own MIRV capabilities reduces the likelihood of a first strike against the US. If you are going to reduce the nuclear arsenal to 200 warheads, would you rather have them in 200 different silos, or have 20 silos, each with 10 warheads? IMHO, I think about 200-800 warheads is where I'd like to see the US strategic nuclear arsenal (excluding tactical weapons). I don't see much to be gained by going too much above or below those levels (is the threat of destroying every strategic site in Russia in one night really much stronger than the threat of destroying the top 40 sites in one night, when it comes to avoiding a conflict?). Having 200 warheads when the Russians have 10,000 is a non-starter, but if they are both reduced to similar levels, then I think you have achieved the same ends - MAD.
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
The best time if it ever happens that Russia does follow through is at the inauguration in D.C. You have all the corruptocrats all sitting like ducks in a row and no president after it goes off to give the order to retaliate. I hope that if this is the Armaggedon that the Bible promises us that the U.S. has an alternate plan in case there's no one to give the red button order.
We better celebrate a great New Years as it might be our last and that includes most of the world. No way other countries like Iran will be immune just because they weren't the first. Khomeini will have his wish of having his god.
RE: capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
(10-27-2016 03:43 PM)I45owl Wrote:
(10-26-2016 10:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The idea that if we just disarm, then everybody else will too, is one of the dumbest (of many dumb) ideas that the left tries to foist upon us. How and why on earth can anyone even entertain that as a possibly realistic scenario?
If we keep our defense at the top of the world, and keep getting better and better, nobody can keep up with us and they will be forced to give up (see Union, Soviet, 1980s-90s). If we lower our own defense posture, it will be easier for others to catch us, and that will give them greater incentive to try.
If you want peace, be stronger than anybody else by such a wide margin that nobody dares mess with you, and don't go messing with them.
I agree in general. But, the calculus of nuclear weapons is such that I don't think the reasoning applies in the same way. I'd submit that any nation that has 20 nuclear weapons, the means to conceal them enough to render a first strike ineffective, the means to strike anywhere in the world, and the ability to make the threat that they would use them credible has spent enough on defense to make almost any military conflict with the US a draw... at least until or unless a missile shield is both demonstrated to be very reliable and put to the test during wartime.
Even Saddam was able to keep SCUD missile launchers concealed enough that the US had a hard time neutralizing them in the Gulf War (1991).
The US is in a fairly unique position of having the luxury of being able to remove MIRV capabilities without substantially affecting its security. I think that it would've been better to achieve that end by way of the negotiating table, where we could commitment from the Russians to do the same. But, I can see some logic to the argument that eliminating our own MIRV capabilities reduces the likelihood of a first strike against the US. If you are going to reduce the nuclear arsenal to 200 warheads, would you rather have them in 200 different silos, or have 20 silos, each with 10 warheads? IMHO, I think about 200-800 warheads is where I'd like to see the US strategic nuclear arsenal (excluding tactical weapons). I don't see much to be gained by going too much above or below those levels (is the threat of destroying every strategic site in Russia in one night really much stronger than the threat of destroying the top 40 sites in one night, when it comes to avoiding a conflict?).
Have you ever served in the military?
Quote:Having 200 warheads when the Russians have 10,000 is a non-starter, but if they are both reduced to similar levels, then I think you have achieved the same ends - MAD.
That's good, if they are both reduced to similar levels.
What if they aren't?
What if some new third player (China?) enters the scene and destroys the balance?
The argument that if we reduce ours, everybody else will reduce theirs, is the surest way to end up with a war that is not a draw but a loss.
(This post was last modified: 10-27-2016 06:23 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
/
capable of wiping out a landmass "the size of Texas
