Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on September 07, 2004, 02:30:53 AM
-
Firstly please leave any political opinions at the door this isn't a pro or anti Bush thread. But a debate on nuclear doctrine.
Is the Cold War Nuclear Doctrine relevant today? Or are we in a new era of nuclear weapons and doctrine?
Interestingly Bush is looking to spend millions on nuclear weapons research warheads and delivery. I assume that the argument could be given that.
A new doctrine and new weapons are needed because the world has changed since the Cold War, when the United States deterred the Soviet Union from striking by developing a massive arsenal that promised complete annihilation. Now, they argue that there are new regional menaces from terroism and countries like Iran and North Korea.
To deter these threats, the Bush administration might/is seeking to research a new stockpiles of both Cold War-era and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks. Also tp propose a new policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.
Question is would you support the use of nuclear weapons in a tacticle role in a pre-emptive strike?
Personally I don't think that the current doctrine is relevant. Though at the risk of a new arms race of sorts and opening a pandoras box of moral issues regarding nuclear weapons. When terroists are willing to launch attacks like 9/11 and the recent diplorable actions in Russia I say the time has come to take the gloves off.
...-Gixer
-
The US needs to remain on top of the nuclear pile, for everyones sake. Aging weapons should be replaced. Having said that, I'm not sure we need to make new "limited" nukes.
-
What a horrible possibility.
-
I'm sure that the pile of nukes would be large enough by a huge margin if America reduced its stockpile by 90%
Nevermind me tho... im a leftist when it comes to these matters. :p
-
More good reasons to support president Bush. He is clearly the man who will show these Islamic nutbags that we in the west are firmly in charge today! He will put the mid east in its proper place I tell you! Thanks to God that he is president in this critical day for Christian Civilization. His new aggressive nuclear weapons use doctrine, his bold vision of a new, rapidly modernized, western oriented, progressive and democratic Iraq, his aggressive stance towards the vile regimes of Syria and Iran, his support for clandestine overseas torture and military trials for terrorists, his unwavering commitment to the expanding global war on terror despite the complaints of our weak allies, stuffy mid-east scholars and the human rights whiners at the ACLU and Amnesty International and his strong commitment to the moral superiority of the Judeo-Christian viewpoint over that of petty Islamic concerns and insecurities combined with his steadfast support of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel's aggressive security policies will earn my vote this November! He and his team of NeoCon advisors like: Paul Wolfowitz, Mort Zuckerman, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Norman Podhoretz and Elliot Abrams will provide the best vision for America’s foreign policy in the mid east today and in the future! I say, Bush is the new El-Cid, the new Sobieski, a modern day crusader even! He will do the right thing to ensure a safe new world for us all!
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Yep 4 more years! Better get used to it!
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… :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gixer
...smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks. Also tp propose a new policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.
Nuclear weapons where used in the past and if you ask me, its
just a matter of time when it will be used again.
Human-race opened the pandora box now we have to live with it forever :(
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Firstly please leave any political opinions at the door this isn't a pro or anti Bush thread. But a debate on nuclear doctrine.
Is the Cold War Nuclear Doctrine relevant today? Or are we in a new era of nuclear weapons and doctrine?
Interestingly Bush is looking to spend millions on nuclear weapons research warheads and delivery. I assume that the argument could be given that.
A new doctrine and new weapons are needed because the world has changed since the Cold War, when the United States deterred the Soviet Union from striking by developing a massive arsenal that promised complete annihilation. Now, they argue that there are new regional menaces from terroism and countries like Iran and North Korea.
To deter these threats, the Bush administration might/is seeking to research a new stockpiles of both Cold War-era and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks. Also tp propose a new policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.
Question is would you support the use of nuclear weapons in a tacticle role in a pre-emptive strike?
Personally I don't think that the current doctrine is relevant. Though at the risk of a new arms race of sorts and opening a pandoras box of moral issues regarding nuclear weapons. When terroists are willing to launch attacks like 9/11 and the recent diplorable actions in Russia I say the time has come to take the gloves off.
...-Gixer
Sorry Gixer, but by including Bush in your comments, you've turned this into a political thread as well. Looking kind of anti-Bush from how I read it.
You should remove your opening sentences of Firstly please leave any political opinions at the door this isn't a pro or anti Bush thread. But a debate on nuclear doctrine.
Right or wrong, your post looks like you are taking a position against Bush and his administration which nullifies your opening request.
-
Actually his comments are Pro-Bush nuke policy..
Though you coulkd clearly have this discussion without mentiong Bush.
Just discuss whether the USA should develop new small, prolly cleaner, nukes and be willing to use them as more liberally as an offensive first strike weapon against certain difficulkt targets.
That sort of topic avoids any kind of specifiv political candidate stuff.
-
Actually I wasn't talking for or against Bush I didn't mean for it to come across that way. Replace Bush Administration in the text with Government.
If Bush is the government after November then I would understand his reasoning,decision for the development of more tactical nuclear weapons and delivery systems suited for todays environment.
...-Gixer
-
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Tronsky
Too damn late. You know if Oppenheimer really was so aginst his little gadget he should have persued eastern philosophy and religion instead of physics...;)
What do you think about the new mini nukes tronski?
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Tronsky
Talk about arrogence. :rolleyes:
I am Thrawn, God/King of all!
;)
A nuke is a nuke, size be damned and everyone knows it. Start some nuclear detonations and find out have fast things turn to ****.
PS: Grun, "BTW This sarcastic post is just me thinking outloud that sometimes I just don’t get why some guys in particular still support Bush…", I swear to god I didn't know that you were being sarcastic until I read that.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I'm sure that the pile of nukes would be large enough by a huge margin if America reduced its stockpile by 90%
Nevermind me tho... im a leftist when it comes to these matters. :p
I don't totally disagree with your view, Nils. But, I want to make sure the ones we have are in tip-top shape and top of the line. You have to maintain a stockpile large enough to keep rogue states in line, i.e. N. Korea. Even "Mental Lee" Il isn't stupid enough to go toe to nuclear toe against us.
I'm pretty sure the days of runaway nuke production are over, unless China gets itchy. Russia can't afford to get back in the game, India and Pakistan are only concerned with each other, and Israel is only concerned with their backyard. France? Well...
(http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/surrender.jpg)
-
How many warheads do you have atm then rpm?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
PS: Grun, "BTW This sarcastic post is just me thinking outloud that sometimes I just don’t get why some guys in particular still support Bush…", I swear to god I didn't know that you were being sarcastic until I read that.
Go read my last post in the 10,000 thread... It's intersting how I wrote that post at the same time as you made this comment...
-
Heheh, may I recommend "Herzgrun", that should fool us. ;)
-
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..
-
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
-
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..... :eek: good choice for president he is... :rolleyes:
-
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… :rolleyes:
But but....you just outlined most of my reasons:rolleyes:
-
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 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
-
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.
-
But it is a MAD situation. Mutual assured Destruction. If we don't have them, suddenly China becomes the super power.
-
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
-
"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
-
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 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm)
-
A Trident ballistic missile during trials... think they could get that to happen again? Or is it a new anti intercept tragectory! :D
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/trident-2-DNSC8906614_JPG.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Too much to lose? They could use people as bullets and their population wouldn't even feel the loss.
Imagine the logistics. Projection of power over land requires supply lines and the means to defend them, extensive control of the airspace. They cannot win.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And SIKboy, wtf you talking about? I didn't follow the quote then into what you said.
I don't think I was being cryptic.
You said that if we don't have them (nukes I presume) then China will be the superpower. My counterpoint is that I don't think anyone is saying that we will just get rid of all of our nukes on our own (that is, without a multilateral agreement).
Perhaps I missed that argument.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by 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
Thanks for trying to bring your Gun debate into this thread. Still a bit upset that people are questioning your right to own guns?
Put your dummy back in and go back to sleep.
...-Gixer
-
Gixer,
What do you think about this thought....
OBL has issued a communique... they control a theater ballistic missile in Tehran. They intend to launch it with an improvised nuclear warhead against Tel Aviv unless the West agrees to pull out of Iraq in 2 hours. We look with Satellites, and there is indeed a weapon there, well guarded with radar and that ilk. The weapon reads as having a "live" warhead. Experts agree that the weapon will kill 100's of thousands if it is launched. Do you use a tactical nuke to take it out?
-
Bohdi simple answer considering the facts given for the current situation, Yes!
-
Why just Nukes?
We allready have FAE's bigger and better than the WWII bombs, and during my military time I was the Company NBC guy. The classes involved in Qualifying, lead me to believe that Nukes are just Big Powerfull Poisenious expolsions, the only real advantage to a tac nuke is its weight . Bring in pinpoint FAE's they will do most of the jobs just fine.....
Unless you are depending on the emotional tag attached to the N word, we got better stuff in the bunkers that dosent cost as much to maintain.
Gunns
-
Originally posted by gunnss
Why just Nukes?
We allready have FAE's bigger and better than the WWII bombs, and during my military time I was the Company NBC guy. The classes involved in Qualifying, lead me to believe that Nukes are just Big Powerfull Poisenious expolsions, the only real advantage to a tac nuke is its weight . Bring in pinpoint FAE's they will do most of the jobs just fine.....
Unless you are depending on the emotional tag attached to the N word, we got better stuff in the bunkers that dosent cost as much to maintain.
Gunns
not delivery oriented we don't.
-
Originally posted by 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....
I know accuracy is generally something you cant have too much of, but is there really that much difference in effect if a nuke is 100m one way or the other? I'm not being snide, just trying to imagine the situation where it would help.
-
"I know accuracy is generally something you cant have too much of, but is there really that much difference in effect if a nuke is 100m one way or the other? I'm not being snide, just trying to imagine the situation where it would help."
It depends on the warhead.
With something like a 1.2 mT warhead...then 100m won't matter much.
OTOH with say a 1.5 kiloton warhead...then yes the 100m is very important.
Contrary to popular belief, "nuclear" doesn't automatically = city destuction size blast
J_A_B
-
Thanks for that. Unbelievably, while googling this I found a site that claims the Bali nightclub explosion was caused by a micro-nuke. shrecking unreal.
-
I don't think nuclear attacks should ever be used pre-emptive , but the threat of using them needs to be a valid one...otherwise what threat are they?
If the US is attacked with WMD, then the response should be on at least an equal level if the nation responsible can be identified. This is another "pandora's box".....how can a nation be held responsible for an act carried out by a group not attached to it's government.
It's a mess.. The only thing I know is that the use of force and the threat of the use of force is the ONLY law man and nations respond to. No treaties or agreements have ever kept a nation secure, only military might has done this.