Maggie’s Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

Bushmaster7

Bushmaster7

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 10, 2002
26
1
74
CONUS
#1
From the BBC:

Maasive Reduction of US Nukes

In this scenario, a combined strike from Russia and China could effectively destroy any capability we would have for a retaliatory strike. Not to mention they are both developing new generations of nuclear missles along with the Iranian and N. Korean threats. But we are going to show the world the path forward, and once they see us doing so, they will gladly follow our lead, right?
sick.gif
 
#4
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

The whole point of an undersea nuclear deterrent is to ensure that they cannot be targeted by a preemptive strike. Not quite sure how the Russians and Chinese are going to get around this one.

As for the Missile reductions, I'd like to see what the Joint Chiefs have to say before I step off the parapet.

Greg
 
#5
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

Anyone with enough skin in the game to have more nukes than us has no motivation to initialize Armageddon. It's the guys who only want/have a couple that worry me.
 
#6
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone with enough skin in the game to have more nukes than us has no motivation to initialize Armageddon. It's the guys who only want/have a couple that worry me. </div></div>

Great post.
 
#8
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

Hey, hey, hey....lighten up around here.

the Iranian nuclear project is strictly for peaceful purposes.

Seriously.

I know, I just watched the Iranian delegate to the IAEA tell the committee just that.

Phew. I know <span style="font-style: italic">I'll</span> sleep a lot better tonight.

I mean, it's not like anyone would lie to infidels. Santa told me so
whistle.gif
 
#9
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYshooter338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">not so much. they could gives a rats ass what we do. they will still have more nukes then us combined. </div></div>

But, I'll bet ours will work.My guess, Iran will be first to pop a Nuclear cap. Then Isreal will turn Iran into a glass parking lot.(with U239 made at Savannah River)
 
#10
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The whole point of an undersea nuclear deterrent is to ensure that they cannot be targeted by a preemptive strike. Not quite sure how the Russians and Chinese are going to get around this one.

As for the Missile reductions, I'd like to see what the Joint Chiefs have to say before I step off the parapet.

Greg </div></div>

Greg, I wish I could put the confidence in the Joint Chiefs that you have, I don't see them as independent voices, more political than anything else. That's how they got to where they are today. Not so sure about the ongoing long term viability of underwater stealth as well. That has been around too long to not be countered with our own technology which gets into their hands way to fast. Most here are focused solely on small regional threats/scenarios vs. the need to defend from global threats as well. Just so happens the same day these reductions were announced Russia announced plans for a new strategic bomber and Chinese military called for an end to US dominance as well. I think most of you have your heads up your ass on this one. What is going on here is the exact opposite of how Ronald Reagan won the Cold War from a position of strength, not weakness.
 
#12
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

Not necessarily, that could have come from some bad ice in your scotch.
smirk.gif
Also please note I am not minimizing the threat of countries like Iran, N. Korea, or Venzuela. Even if they do not currently have an intercontinental launch capability, they could still introduce nukes here via other means.
 
#13
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WASP7067</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So is it a bad omen that last night (before I read this article) I had nightmares about a nuclear detonation within several miles of my home? </div></div>

You’re not too far from Bangor which is the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the country.
 
#15
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

Our military is subordinant to the civilian authority, so yes if he ordered them to do so as he is doing they would have no choice but to obey. Hannibal has it right.
 
#16
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bushmaster7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our military is subordinant to the civilian authority, so yes if he ordered them to do so as he is doing they would have no choice but to obey. </div></div>

"History" shows different, POTUS Nixon was removed from the Nuke COC and did not have the codes for along time after just running his lips, one time.
Anyone that thinks the US Militray will just curl up in a corner and lick they'er selfs is dreaming. If they (Military) were to agree to give up the security of the United States by demilling nukes, you can bet your ass they have something bigger an better field'ed.
 
#17
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jr81452</div><div class="ubbcode-body">raise your hand if you actually believe the military would reduce our nukes to the point of us being disadvantaged. Just a dog and pony show, nothing to see here. </div></div>

I worked at Malmstrom AFB in Montana, right after I left, they disarmed one of the squadrons of missiles, reducing the bases capacity by 25%. So it is happening, just don't know to what extent.
 
#18
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

With the advent of stealth and precision guidance, conventional weapons can cover a larger segment of the targeting role than was originally allocated to the nuclear option. Simply put, the massive effects of multiple nuclear targeting were mainly a hedge against limited accessibility and delivery imprecision. The modern battlefield can get by without many of the original number of nukes for actual tactical purposes. The remainder can still serve admirably for deterrent purposes.

These are not new arguments and have been widely accepted in military circles.

I, for one, will not feel disadvantaged by reductions, and can actually see the saving in maintenance and security costing as a wiser means to apply limited resources to support more effective and modern technology.

Greg
 
#19
Re: Kiss our Nukes Goodbye

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's cut our arsenal to prevent the spread of nukes? How does this work? Could someone please explain this to me? </div></div>

Sure, it's not exactly rocket science. Drop excess nukes on enemies trying to make nukes, then they can't prolifer.... uh wait, you mean they just want to throw them in the trash? Aaah, nevermind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edsel
GET YOUR NUCLEAR STIFFY RIGHT HERE!
Replies
36
Views
3K
Edsel
Edsel
PatMiles
The other side of the broken windows theory
Replies
129
Views
4K
clcustom1911
clcustom1911
gr8fuldoug
Industry News and Updates
Replies
0
Views
748
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
VA-Varminter
A Warning from Noor bin Laden
Replies
10
Views
2K
RUTGERS95
RUTGERS95
SilentStalkr
Pandora Papers
Replies
11
Views
2K
vinniedelpino
vinniedelpino
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts