Jump to content

obama thinking about 80% reduction of Nukes


erynthered

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Not "redundancy." Deterrence.

 

Christ...forget real sources. Has anyone on this board even read Tom Clancy???

 

I haven't argued either yet. Sorta obvious what I am going to argue, but are you arguing against the deterrence of 1 ship capable of taking out a country or whether redundancy is needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't argued either yet. Sorta obvious what I am going to argue, but are you arguing against the deterrence of 1 ship capable of taking out a country or whether redundancy is needed?

 

No, I'm arguing that the real deterrence effect is the availability of a counterforce asset that is itself virtually immune to a counterforce strike.

 

That was the whole point of having thousands of weapons, way back when: the Soviets couldn't kill them all, so any disarming first strike against the US left enough over to nuke them back. Start putting them on a sub, and guess what? You need a hell of a lot less weapons. That's the deterrence effect - not what the sub can kill, but how hard it is to kill it. That's why the Russians always wanted US ballistic missile subs included in disarmament treaties, and why the US never agreed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm arguing that the real deterrence effect is the availability of a counterforce asset that is itself virtually immune to a counterforce strike.

 

That was the whole point of having thousands of weapons, way back when: the Soviets couldn't kill them all, so any disarming first strike against the US left enough over to nuke them back. Start putting them on a sub, and guess what? You need a hell of a lot less weapons. That's the deterrence effect - not what the sub can kill, but how hard it is to kill it. That's why the Russians always wanted US ballistic missile subs included in disarmament treaties, and why the US never agreed to it.

 

Ah, then I agree. That was my first hint in the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, then I agree. That was my first hint in the thread.

 

But we're both wrong, of course...because the real purpose of SLBMs is to use their 50Mt warheads tactically against Pakistan... :lol:

 

Man, you are really, really stupid. :wallbash: :wallbash:

 

Here's some information for you. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

 

:lol: You're killing me! For the love of God, just stop already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we're both wrong, of course...because the real purpose of SLBMs is to use their 50Mt warheads tactically against Pakistan... :lol:

 

 

 

:lol: You're killing me! For the love of God, just stop already!

 

No way dude. Your stupidity on this matter is way to entertaining right now. Here's some more information for you. I know, I know you don't believe it because it wasn't written by Tom Clancy.

 

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.174/missile_detail.asp

 

I love how you say that a nuke is like a large fire cracker. I would explain it more like having the sun dropped on your head.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way dude. Your stupidity on this matter is way to entertaining right now. Here's some more information for you. I know, I know you don't believe it because it wasn't written by Tom Clancy.

 

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.174/missile_detail.asp

 

I love how you say that a nuke is like a large fire cracker. I would explain it more like having the sun dropped on your head.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

 

"It's not Tom Clancy, it's the internet! So it must be true!"

 

You're a hoot. :lol: Definitely BF-squared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

 

 

Back to the original post, it appears our President may have been lying (?) back in May 2010, per the NYTimes

 

Obama Expands Modernization of Nuclear Arsenal

By PETER BAKER

Published: May 13, 2010

 

WASHINGTON President Obama promised Thursday to spend $80 billion over 10 years to maintain and modernize the nations nuclear arsenal, a commitment that could help win Republican support for his new arms control treaty with Russia.

 

The plan expands a previous proposal by Mr. Obama to upgrade nuclear infrastructure and was sent to the Senate along with the treaty and accompanying protocol and annexes. Mr. Obama called President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia as he kicked off his campaign to win Senate consent for the treaty.

 

New York Times

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm arguing that the real deterrence effect is the availability of a counterforce asset that is itself virtually immune to a counterforce strike.

 

That was the whole point of having thousands of weapons, way back when: the Soviets couldn't kill them all, so any disarming first strike against the US left enough over to nuke them back. Start putting them on a sub, and guess what? You need a hell of a lot less weapons. That's the deterrence effect - not what the sub can kill, but how hard it is to kill it. That's why the Russians always wanted US ballistic missile subs included in disarmament treaties, and why the US never agreed to it.

As much as it pains me to say it- Tom is dead on with this post

 

To the OP

1. Do you really think Obama thought this up between golf and watching NBA basketball? these proposals come from Pentagon think tanks.

 

2. These Proposals do not come because the members of said think tanks have started to do hits of DMT and have had a sudden epiphany on love and the oneness of the universe- These proposals come because the crafty (at least those who believe themselves to be crafty)think the proposals give them the advantage.

 

 

Personally I'm against these reduction of nuclear arms deals, as I can't help but think that someone somewhere is trying to turn a nuclear exchange from unthinkable to winnable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

2. These Proposals do not come because the members of said think tanks have started to do hits of DMT and have had a sudden epiphany on love and the oneness of the universe-

What? Like as if there would be something wrong with that. Sheeesh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original post, it appears our President may have been lying (?) back in May 2010, per the NYTimes

 

 

 

New York Times

 

 

.

Technically its not lying when you're just reading whatever appears on the teleprompter. I was waiting for Obama to end the State of Union by telling the good people of San Diego to go f#$% themselves.

Edited by Jauronimo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically its not lying when you're just reading whatever appears on the teleprompter. I was waiting for Obama to end the State of Union by telling the good people of San Diego to go f#$% themselves.

 

Kind-of like how you're not uninformed if you can post a link to wikipedia...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...