3rdnlng Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Which one's don't we need, specifically? #'s 6, 4, 101-300 and 457. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Which one's don't we need, specifically? Like it was discussed before, we don't really know which ones specifically should be dismantled. But if it's not needed get rid of it. I find it hard to believe we need 1500+ weapons. If the Russians want to stockpile more who cares. As fore needing the right weapon at the right place at the right time... Perhaps the right weapon is not a nuclear weapon. Most of the nations that we point them at are so centralized in their line of command that by the time the get the ok from the top to launch, their launch facility isn't there anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 And accuracy. And purpose. And your overall strategy. And how it's deployed (SLBMs can be a bigger deterrent than ICBMs, if you can't kill the subs). Yeah, and don't we have 18 of the Ohio class with 24 each? 24 x 18... carry the 1... That seems more than 350. Also, what would happen to a country (say China or India as they have a large area of land) that was hit with 30 nukes (some sort of spread pattern concentrating on urban areas) in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Yeah, and don't we have 18 of the Ohio class with 24 each? 24 x 18... carry the 1... That seems more than 350. Also, what would happen to a country (say China or India as they have a large area of land) that was hit with 30 nukes (some sort of spread pattern concentrating on urban areas) in your opinion? Just one of those subs has enough firepower to erase a nation like India as well as throw enough dirt and ash into the atmosphere to block out the sun for decades. Yet for some reason we need 18+ of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Just one of those subs has enough firepower to erase a nation like India as well as throw enough dirt and ash into the atmosphere to block out the sun for decades. Yet for some reason we need 18+ of these. Duh, global cooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Just one of those subs has enough firepower to erase a nation like India as well as throw enough dirt and ash into the atmosphere to block out the sun for decades. Yet for some reason we need 18+ of these. So what happens if the sub with all the firepower is half a world away from the launch site? If you're in a situation so dire that it calls for the use of nuclear weapons you probably don't have time to put everything on hold and send your sub thousands of miles to the location. And what if your sub gets taken out and you don't have a back up plan? Then you're Jimmy Carter making excuses for how it should have worked but didh't. Also, I think you overestimate the impact of a nuke. When your people are little more than furniture in your fiefdom you can withstand a nuclear attack and keep going. Edit: And how much money will this move save? Edited February 16, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 So what happens if the sub with all the firepower is half a world away from the launch site? If you're in a situation so dire that it calls for the use of nuclear weapons you probably don't have time to put everything on hold and send your sub thousands of miles to the location. And what if your sub gets taken out and you don't have a back up plan? Then you're Jimmy Carter making excuses for how it should have worked but didh't. Also, I think you overestimate the impact of a nuke. When your people are little more than furniture in your fiefdom you can withstand a nuclear attack and keep going. Edit: And how much money will this move save? The Trident-II has a range of like 7 thousand miles. Each missile can carry multiple warheads that exceed Hiroshima by at least a factor of 10. What Tom is saying, imo, is we have no idea what the strategic requirements are as we do not have access to that information. So some sub may be loaded with max missiles that are essentially nation busters. We may have 4 of those who move around. Others may be loaded with a different payload. Who knows? My point is, what happens to a nation when you dump say 30 nukes on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The Trident-II has a range of like 7 thousand miles. Each missile can carry multiple warheads that exceed Hiroshima by at least a factor of 10. What Tom is saying, imo, is we have no idea what the strategic requirements are as we do not have access to that information. So some sub may be loaded with max missiles that are essentially nation busters. We may have 4 of those who move around. Others may be loaded with a different payload. Who knows? My point is, what happens to a nation when you dump say 30 nukes on them? I'd say look at the surface of Pluto. I won't say the planet Pluto, as I am not sure if it qualifies as one today. It might tomorrow though. Democrats will have to accept steep cuts to entitlements. Republicans will have to accept steep cuts to the military. We can get by with steep cuts to both. Failure will bring about the end of our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'd say look at the surface of Pluto. I won't say the planet Pluto, as I am not sure if it qualifies as one today. It might tomorrow though. Democrats will have to accept steep cuts to entitlements. Republicans will have to accept steep cuts to the military. We can get by with steep cuts to both. Failure will bring about the end of our country. Agreed on the cuts. The point is that 24 warheads would wreck a continent if not the world. Not everyone would die, but 24 (I used 30 for a round number earlier, we can lower it to single warheads on Ohio class subs and be happy) nuclear missiles wrecks any country for all purposes. Each sub can kill any rival nation state. These are hidden ships, that the enemy really cannot find and who happen to have a 7k mile kill radius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Just one of those subs has enough firepower to erase a nation like India as well as throw enough dirt and ash into the atmosphere to block out the sun for decades. Yet for some reason we need 18+ of these. Redundancy. What if that sub is taken out by a kilo class ? What if the Chinese or Russians find a way to jam coms to submarine force preemptive before launching an attack . What if Russia wipes out barksdale and Whiteman afb before we can get our bombers up... etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Agreed on the cuts. The point is that 24 warheads would wreck a continent if not the world. Eh, not quite. But lots of people would still be having a very bad day. People forget (or don't know to begin with) that for the most part, nuclear weapons are little more than really, REALLY big firecrackers. Unless some !@#$ decides to use really dirty warheads, 24 city-targeted 1-megaton warheads...probably just means that you end up with Detroit 24 times over. Bad? Yes - more for dislocation than destruction (imagine the country trying to respond to 24 different Katrinas at the same time.) Continent-wrecking? Uh...no. But that's presuming, too, that you're targeting cities. Hasn't anyone heard the word "counterforce" before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Redundancy. What if that sub is taken out by a kilo class ? What if the Chinese or Russians find a way to jam coms to submarine force preemptive before launching an attack . What if Russia wipes out barksdale and Whiteman afb before we can get our bombers up... etc... And the fact those subs operate from 7,000 miles away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 And the fact those subs operate from 7,000 miles away? Not "redundancy." Deterrence. Christ...forget real sources. Has anyone on this board even read Tom Clancy??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 We all know so little about this schit that the argument here is like DIN and Conner going at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 So what happens if the sub with all the firepower is half a world away from the launch site? If you're in a situation so dire that it calls for the use of nuclear weapons you probably don't have time to put everything on hold and send your sub thousands of miles to the location. And what if your sub gets taken out and you don't have a back up plan? Then you're Jimmy Carter making excuses for how it should have worked but didh't. Also, I think you overestimate the impact of a nuke. When your people are little more than furniture in your fiefdom you can withstand a nuclear attack and keep going. Edit: And how much money will this move save? The reason that we have more than one sub is so they can be placed in areas of tactical importance. I'm sure there are some in the arctic ocean as well as off the coast of china and in the Persian Gulf. I am not overestimating the impact of one of these nukes either. Each Trident II missile can carry multiple independently aimed warheads. For instance; we launch 1 trident two at Pakistan. The payload breaks apart in orbit and releases 6 50 megaton warheads aimed at 6 different cities. Night night Pakistan. That's just one of the 24 missiles on the sub. And remember we have 18 of these subs. (I'm sure some are in port at any point in time but most are in service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 We all know so little about this schit that the argument here is like DIN and Conner going at it. It is SO much fun to watch, though. Like I said before...I at least know what I don't know. That puts me WAY ahead of the rest of you. (And actually, Paul gave me a lot of resources way-back-when. My knowledge isn't complete...but it ain't nothing, either.) The reason that we have more than one sub is so they can be placed in areas of tactical importance. I'm sure there are some in the arctic ocean as well as off the coast of china and in the Persian Gulf. I am not overestimating the impact of one of these nukes either. Each Trident II missile can carry multiple independently aimed warheads. For instance; we launch 1 trident two at Pakistan. The payload breaks apart in orbit and releases 6 50 megaton warheads aimed at 6 different cities. Night night Pakistan. That's just one of the 24 missiles on the sub. And remember we have 18 of these subs. (I'm sure some are in port at any point in time but most are in service. You don't even know the difference between "tactical" and "strategic". We're supposed to take you seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Eh, not quite. But lots of people would still be having a very bad day. People forget (or don't know to begin with) that for the most part, nuclear weapons are little more than really, REALLY big firecrackers. Unless some !@#$ decides to use really dirty warheads, 24 city-targeted 1-megaton warheads...probably just means that you end up with Detroit 24 times over. Bad? Yes - more for dislocation than destruction (imagine the country trying to respond to 24 different Katrinas at the same time.) Continent-wrecking? Uh...no. But that's presuming, too, that you're targeting cities. Hasn't anyone heard the word "counterforce" before? The missiles carry multiple warheads. Most SLBMs carry 25-50 megaton warheads. When the payload breaks on reentry it can "shower" the target nation with nukes. Continent buster: Oh yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Not "redundancy." Deterrence. Christ...forget real sources. Has anyone on this board even read Tom Clancy??? Yep, read 'em all. I particuarly like Rainbow Six novel....................................It goes without sayinh that you are referring to the novels, not the movies and video games. Hey, it just occurred to me.......Tom Clancy.................DC Tom.....................hmmmmmm. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 It is SO much fun to watch, though. Like I said before...I at least know what I don't know. That puts me WAY ahead of the rest of you. (And actually, Paul gave me a lot of resources way-back-when. My knowledge isn't complete...but it ain't nothing, either.) You don't even know the difference between "tactical" and "strategic". We're supposed to take you seriously? Yes, but since DIN knowS so much less than you he most likely knows more than you. Sucks, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 It is SO much fun to watch, though. Like I said before...I at least know what I don't know. That puts me WAY ahead of the rest of you. (And actually, Paul gave me a lot of resources way-back-when. My knowledge isn't complete...but it ain't nothing, either.) You don't even know the difference between "tactical" and "strategic". We're supposed to take you seriously? Sorry I don't want to split hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts