DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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. Stop embarrassing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 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??? 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 More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Sorry I don't want to split hairs. It's not splitting hairs when you don't even know how nuclear weapons are USED. Really...just...stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Hey, it just occurred to me.......Tom Clancy.................DC Tom.....................hmmmmmm. I knew Tom was a cheap spambot. Just couldn't figure out what the !@#$ he was advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I knew Tom was a cheap spambot. Just couldn't figure out what the !@#$ he was advertising. It really does sort of fit. I mean he is a war historian with an emphasis on naval warfare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 It really does sort of fit. I mean he is a war historian with an emphasis on naval warfare... Most of which I got from playing Larry Bond's "Harpoon"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 It's not splitting hairs when you don't even know how nuclear weapons are USED. Really...just...stop. Man, you are really, really stupid. :wallbash: Here's some information for you. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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... Man, you are really, really stupid. :wallbash: Here's some information for you. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm You're killing me! For the love of God, just stop already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'm Lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 But we're both wrong, of course...because the real purpose of SLBMs is to use their 50Mt warheads tactically against Pakistan... 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 More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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. Definitely BF-squared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) : 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 ArsenalBy 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 February 16, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 What? Like as if there would be something wrong with that. Sheeesh Damn straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Back to the original post, it appears our President may have been lying (?) back in May 2010, per the NYTimes New York Times . You can modernize and reduce. See manufacturing. Edited February 16, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) 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 February 16, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Kind-of like how you're not uninformed if you can post a link to wikipedia...? Wow, you're ignorant! I am way more informed than you. In fact, I have some stuff you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_Mating_Habits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 You can modernize and reduce. See manufacturing. Except thats not what he said; President Obama promised Thursday to spend $80 billion over 10 years to maintain and modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal, a commitment that could help win Republican support for his new arms control treaty with Russia. You do not "maintain" your nuclear arsenal by reducing it 80%, certainly some reduction is necessary, but you cannot spin away the conflicting proposals here. It doesn't really matter what he said anyway, it was all BS just to try and buy Senate votes. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Except thats not what he said; You do not "maintain" your nuclear arsenal by reducing it 80%, certainly some reduction is necessary, but you cannot spin away the conflicting proposals here. It doesn't really matter what he said anyway, it was all BS just to try and buy Senate votes. . "Maintain and modernize" means that they are going to do maintenance on the nukes...which means that they will blow the dust off. Edited February 16, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 President Obama promised Thursday to spend $80 billion over 10 years to maintain and modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal, a commitment that could help win Republican support for his new arms control treaty with Russia. "Maintaining" current force levels to get support for a treaty to reduce force levels? Maybe you're using the wrong definition of "maintain"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts