New Era of Nuclear Doctrine

[Thrawn]

Heheh, may I recommend "Herzgrun", that should fool us.  

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Heheh, may I recommend "Herzgrun", that should fool us.  

No intent too fool anyone, I'd be open with the change. I just think that after all this time seeing that name predejudices how some people read my posts..

[lazs2]

no country that bans it's citizens from owning firearms because "they can't be trusted" should be trusted with nukes.

I don't care who has em but goiong by nz's crime rate... they shouldn't be allowed to have em.

lazs

[Bodhi]

The current "old" nukes are in need of replacement because of a number of different reasons.  

#1.  Guidance packages have been developed that ensure an even better amount of accuaracy (less than the 100 meters) the current Tridents warheads offer.

#2.  Rockets, especially solid fuel rockets deteriorate with age.  So, they need to be replaced.  Also, better technology allows for smaller systems which in turn can limit the size of rocket needed and it's abilities to evade launch detection.

#3.  The warhead itself.  Given the fact that the fissile material in a warhead is highly radioactive, the shielding is constantly being bombarded with high level radiation, and is constantly breaking down, and creating a danger over time that the electronics and wiring needed to start the reaction are damaged.  So, that also needs to be replaced.  Technology grows and can alos limit the blast, as well as produce a more efficient blast.

As for the need to maintain a nuclear stock pile, I feel it to be a worthwhile, but unfortunate cause.  I think MAD is accepted among the mature nations enough that we need not worry about blowing our enemy up 30 times over and can suffice with 3 or 4 times over though.  As for the "rogue states" who maintain programs to attain nuclear weapons, that is are biggest worry.  Sadly, MAD does not mean much to those rogue state's governments though.  

As for the 1st strike ability, or pre-emptive strikes in dire need, I guess I suppport it if the need demands that type of reaction.  IE. OBL is about to release a doomsday virus and we have valid intel that he is in "insert a cities name" then, I think for the good of man kind, it would be smart to do.  But God need to provide mercy upon the one who makes that decision.  All in all, this decision is a tough one to make, and one all of us are not able to make as we are not informed to the level one needs to be to make decisions on national and global security.

This brings up one other thing, neither is Kerry, as ole Herman never goes to intel briefings.....     good choice for president he is...  

[slimm50]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
BTW This sarcastic post is just me thinking outloud that sometimes I just don’t get why some guys in particular still support Bush…

Carry on…  

But but....you just outlined most of my reasons:rolleyes:

[lasersailor184]

Funny how no one so far has named China as being a huge threat.  Seeing as that they are commies and have a few billion people and have a good stockpile of nukes.

[Sikboy]

I have a hard time with pre-emptive or any "first use" policy, especially in a world where the intelligence we collect is often ambagious at best.

But we have already entered a new era of nuclear doctrine. In 1999-2000, The Russians began a shift from "retaliatory deterrence" to "launch on warning" (a first use doctrine).

I did a research paper on this as an undergraduate (how many times have I said that on this board lol), but I haven't visited the question since 2000-2001. When I first asked myself the question: What does the future of Russian nuclear doctrine look like" I had predicted that a limited budget would force to Russians to focus on highly survivable mobile missile platforms (SSBNs, Rail mounted Systems ect) in order to ensure sufficient nuclear assets to ride out a first strike, and deliver a devastating second strike.

As often happens though, in the course of research, my hypothesis came up lacking. Instead, the Russian's had determined that they could not afford to maintain second strike weapons, so they shifted weapons development and doctrine towards 1st strike in order to ensure adequate force for deterrence.

In  the pre-September 11th climate, I saw this scenario as a cloud with a silver lining. While the switch to a first use doctrine was alarming, the forced reduction of the Russian Nuclear stockpile was an excellent opportunity for overall force reductions from ALL nuclear powers.

Unfortunately, Sept. 11th has taken away opportunity. Now we are looking at the question of asymmetric force application and it bothers me.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot: What provocations would the Russian's need before gaining our acquiescence for nuclear use against Chechnya? Would there need to evidence of an imminent nuclear attack on southern Russia? Would a chem/bio threat be sufficient?

I think that's the best way to look at this policy question: not by looking at what would justify American first use, but what would justify Russian first use (unless of course, you're Russian, then ask yourself about American/British/French use ect.)

While I have no problem with Strategic nukes, tactical use scares the **** out of me, and I hope that we never choose to take that road.

-Sik

[vorticon]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Funny how no one so far has named China as being a huge threat.  Seeing as that they are commies and have a few billion people and have a good stockpile of nukes.

because they have a few billion people, if they used a nuke, the death toll would be massive if america retaliated, so neither side is itching for a fight.

[lasersailor184]

But it is a MAD situation.  Mutual assured Destruction.  If we don't have them, suddenly China becomes the super power.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
But it is a MAD situation.  Mutual assured Destruction.  If we don't have them, suddenly China becomes the super power.

I don't think anyone here is endorsing unilateral disarmament.

-Sik

[J_A_B]

"How many warheads do you have atm then rpm?"


If you judge nuclear capability by the number of warheads, then I'm afraid you are probably suffering from some nuclear misconceptions.  The number of operational waheads (9500 or so)is NOT a good measure of our nuclear capability.  That's like trying to judge our army based on the number of bullets they have.  Not all waheads are created equal; a 15 kT-yield warhead in no way compares to say a 9.0 mT -yield wahead.  In addition, most individual missles carry several warheads.    Some of those 9500 warheads we have are NOT at full readiness and would require days or even weeks of work prior to use--many of them literally do not work as of right now.  Tritium especially doesn't tend to have a very long "shelf life".


Nuclear capability is better measued in terms of how many missles you have, where they're deployed and what type they are.  In this regard, the US arsenal suffers badly in the tactical role.  Most of our nuclear weapons were designed and deployed for potential large-scale (global), MAD-type situations and aren't well-suited for pinpoint-target, regional use.

Making things worse is how OLD our weapons are.  Nuclear weapons by their very nature don't last forever, and our NEWEST weapons were built in the '80's.

Some of our weapons were updated and refurbished in the late '90's to give better performance in the tactical role.  This is exactly what we need more of.




J_A_B

[Bodhi]

JAB,

along with a new missile, the Navy received Trident II D5 Ballistic Missiles in 1990 - 1998.  These came along with new warheads.  So, the statement of the missiles and warheads all be approx 20 years old is wrong.  Will find you the name of the new warheads if you like.

Info on the Trident II D-5

[Bodhi]

A Trident ballistic missile during trials... think they could get that to happen again?  Or is it a new anti intercept tragectory!  

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Funny how no one so far has named China as being a huge threat.  Seeing as that they are commies and have a few billion people and have a good stockpile of nukes.

I believe China is going to take the long view. With a 3000 year history, they probably think they'll outlive us all.

I can't see China provoking a fight. They've got too much to lose.

[lasersailor184]

Too much to lose?  They could use people as bullets and their population wouldn't even feel the loss.

And SIKboy, wtf you talking about?  I didn't follow the quote then into what you said.