Obama to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons 80% - no reductions for other nations mentioned (Iran, stats)

[noexcuseforignorance]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

The reason to keep our 1500 nukes is to show power as a deterrent. No one plans to use them.
Obama is doing this to:
1. satisfy his anti war voters. They are angry that he followed most of Bush's foreign policy agenda, expanded the war in Afghanistan and even helped with a war in Libya.
2. he wants us to look weak to the rest of the world. He wants to cut the US down to size.

1. Really? Have any stats to prove that?
2. What's Behind Bush's Nuclear Cuts? | Arms Control Association I guess Bush and the Republicans did also. That many nukes is a cold war relic. It's a waste of money. There'll still be plenty to nuke everyone as it is. I'm not sure if anyone told you but the cold war was a long time ago.

[destinedtodave]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

What, you don't like your leader playing chop the carrot with his male appendages?

He has multiple male appendages?

[roysoldboy]

Yep, he intends to carry out another of his promises from 2009. This one may well weaken the US to the point that China with a nuclear arsenal that ties the 300 he wants to cut us to. I would make that cut when the Russians join in but I don't know that they will. I guess the START Treaty may bring some cuts by them but we shouldn't lead out.

Here is my story from a source that many of our left leaners haven't seen up to now, I bet. More sources like AP but I wanted to please progs.

Obama Administration Considers Strategic And Responsible Nuclear Arsenal Cuts, Right-Wing Media Freak Out | Media Matters for America

[Mircea]

Nothing to see here. And by the way this...

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union.

...was non-existent. There was no arms race. The Social Democrats-now-Neo-Cons lied and skewed the intelligence reports to create a "missile gap" and then later to create a "bomber gap."

You literally wasted and threw away $Billions on a non-existent threat.

Not freaking out...

Mircea

[Just a Bill]

Nuclear arms limitation initiatives have been championed by both conservatives and liberals, historically.

Just another tempest in a teapot.

[Memphis1979]

Y'all do know that the missiles they are talking about have about 10 to 20 warheads per missile?

Way to many nukes, and if it saves money, I'm all for it. The Russians stockpile is aged beyond belief, likely they won't work. Our missile shields will work well.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance

That many nukes is a cold war relic.

Even Reagan and Bush the Elder unilaterally withdrew nuclear weapon systems. It was hailed as a breakthrough by all. The US didn't burn down, fall over and sink into a swamp as a result.

Unilaterally...

Mircea

Originally Posted by djacques

Nuclear winter is not the only possible collateral consequence of a nuclear exchange.

Nuclear Winter is NEVER a possible "collateral consequence" of a nuclear exchange.

What part of Sagan lied do you not understand?

Carl Sagan was a goddam liar. Get it? It's not rocket science. Sagan lied, cheated, skewed his data and made stuff up to get the outcome that he wanted, so people would be frightened. To a ******* like Sagan, lying and cheating is perfectly okay, because the ends always justify the means.

Nuclear depth charges and nuclear torpedoes? Those actually existed, but what role do the play in Nuclear Winter, considering that they are detonated underwater?

That's how Sagan lied and cheated and skewed his data.

And Corporal warheads? Really? How in the hell is the US going to deliver a Corporal warhead when the Corporal missiles and launchers have all been destroyed?

Sagan lied.

His whole theory was FUBAR from the start, because he was trying to equate the destructive force of an asteroid or volcanic explosion, which unfortunately is measured in kilotons to the destructive power of nuclear weapons. He didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Originally Posted by djacques

The zone of "complete destruction" is the key error in this analysis. If you live outside the zone of complete destruction and are only left blinded and maimed in a zone of 'incomplete' destruction, you are still going to die.

Not necessarily.

All ICBMs/SLBMs are fission-fusion weapons. Fusion produces what? Helium. You know helium, right? A Nobel Gas. You inhale helium and talk like Donald Duck. Helium is lighter than air, that's why it was used for dirigibles, except the Hindenburg used hydrogen instead and that's why it started sparking, flames shot out it blew up and burned everyone and some radio reporter was running around, "Oh, the humanity!" or whatever it was.

So when calculating fall-out for a 400 kt warhead, since 400 kt is greater than 160 kt, we automatically know that it is a fission-fusion weapon, and we automatically know the weapon is plutonium-based, since the maximum yield for a uranium-based warhead is 60 kt. So we calculate and plot fall-out for the fission trigger which will be somewhere between 10 kt to 12 kt depending on the country of origin.

However if the warhead is detonated above 11 miles, and a ICBM/SLBM definitely would be (except in one or two rare instances) that puts the fallout in the Stratosphere where it will circle the globe for years and years without any real impact on you (and no ejecta -- which totally destroys the asinine theory foisted on people by the idiot Sagan).

Realistically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by decafdave

You might be correct in this statement, but you missed what I was getting at. I mentioned other nations' ABM systems, not ours.

There's only a handful of countries that have ABM systems or developmental programs, and more than half of those countries are "allies." ABMs are also highly over-rated, and I still laugh hysterically whenever I hear the media or someone mention the Patriot anti-missile system. The Patriot is air defense system (and not at all effective as an anti-missile system).

[quote=decafdave;23002333] And since, as you said, we only some of our Trident missiles have MARV (I believe), I'm concerned about our missiles being vulnerable, thus damaging our deterrent. [/quotes]

MIRVs use decoys.

Decoys have always been part and parcel of nuclear and non-nuclear missile systems. The HAWK had a decoy battery. The Pershing I/IA had a decoy launcher (the Federation of Ass-Hat Scientists never could figure that out which is one of the many reasons every thing they publish is bass-ackwards or just plain wrong).

Even before the existence of ABMs, a typical MIRV bus had anywhere from 1-3 decoy warheads on it. They do now exactly what they did then, cause confusion and make threat forces waste valuable time and resources tracking the decoy, defending against it and assessing potential damage.

Originally Posted by decafdave

I was also referring to launch failure above, not just failure to detonate. The truth is, we have no idea what the failure rates are for our warheads, but you can't deny that our launch failure rate will be much higher than 2-3% in the event of a first strike against us.

Missiles used in all missile systems were always test-launch annually. Whether it was Nike-Hercules, HAWK, Patriot, Pershing I/IA. Pershing II, Lance, Sergeant, Corporal, Honest John, Poseidon, Trident, Polaris, and even shoulder fired man-pads and air-to-air systems are test fired.

Strategic systems are up-wired for Electro-Magnetic Pulse. Fission fragments, protons, neutrons, gammas and X-rays don't cause any damage to the warheads. If you look you'll see back in the early 1960s when the AEC (now the DOE) was studying the feasibility of enhanced radiation weapons, the US Air Force was exploring X-ray bombs and gamma bombs (like a neutron bomb but only X-rays). They were useless. This was in the days before ABM systems and the idea was to detonate a warhead with tailored output in an attempt to destroy or disable incoming warheads.

It didn't work. The navy and air force had no use for warheads with tailored outputs, but the army did, and of the four possibilities, the proton bomb, neutron bomb, gamma bomb and X-ray bomb, the proton bomb wasn't feasible and the neutron bomb was the only one that did significant damage to people (and actually performed exactly the way it was supposed to perform).

It's a different story for tactical and theater-based systems. Those are not protected from EMP, so cruise missile warheads and certain gravity bombs might not function as intended, but then they are tactical/theater weapons and not strategic weapons.

But as far as the strategic warheads, the risk of malfunction is negligible. The US recorded all of the data from all of the tests shots and with their handy-dandy Cray, Cray Super II or Big Red and can model any design.

They even do dry-run tests. The use a lead/boron compound that mimics the density of plutonium so they can run implosion tests. It's not like they have moving parts or anything. It's all wires and micro-chip processors.

Originally Posted by decafdave

Are those your estimates or do they come from a source? If so, I think it would be an interesting read if you wouldn't mind posting.

US nuclear weapons use and employment doctrine. Boring classroom stuff, but you get TDY pay.

Nuclear weapons are built to perform specific functions. Those functions are classed as battlefield (tactical), theater and strategic. The primary function of strategic warheads/systems is to degrade a threat's ability to wage war.

Cities, areas, countries and regions that are technologically advanced are easier to destroy. Consder that the distance from Oslo, Norway to Milano, Italy is almost exactly 1,000 miles. The half-distance is 500 miles, and that means that I could detonate a 750 kt warhead at 30 miles above the surface and that would cover about 488 miles in radius, meaning all of Europe is now in the Stone Age for the next 100+ years.

That's one nuclear warhead. I could get near identical results with a 400 kt warhead, but I want to make sure I fry the electronics in cars parked in underground garages.

For countries that are not technologically advanced, like Eastern Europe, most of Russia, all of Central Asia, which are largely impervious to the effects of EMP, you'd have to target cities and regions individually.

For developing countries that are largely rural, like those in Africa and Central/South America, you'd have to overlap your strikes to get maximum coverage. You only need 4 psi to liquify people.

Originally Posted by decafdave

I'll concede that delivery systems are expensive. But the most advanced (and expensive) delivery systems will undoubtedly still be deployed for those 20% remaining warheads. And if you try to get rid of a large portion of our SSBNs, the ones remaining will be easier for the "enemy" to track and attack in the outbreak of war.

But you have a non-nuclear deterrent as well. At last count, you had three SSBNs converted to SSGNs each with 154 Tomahawks. Those are all in the Pacific Fleet. The Atlantic Fleet has at least one SSBN scheduled for conversion.

Originally Posted by decafdave

MAD will always have a purpose in preventing war until we get over our urges to fight.

I believe that as well, however if you look at the pattern, over time, missiles and warheads have become more reliable, more accurate, with faster delivery time and better protections, plus more options. The net result has been a reduction in the number of missiles necessary to adopt either an offensive or defensive posture, as well as a reduction in kilotons per warhead. A 1 mt warhead is no longer desirable or necessary, since a 300 kt to 750 kt warhead is just as effective if used properly.

Originally Posted by decafdave

Many people on here are grossly overestimating their destructive power.

No doubt about that.

Strategically...

Mircea

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by TheThrillIsGone

Dont see too big a deal with this. How many does 1 country really need?
Getting rid of 80% means we would still have thousands. I'm pretty sure that would get the job done if needed.

It is possible that you haven't seen the whole story. That 80% will cut us to about 300 weapons. Depending on size that is more than enough to destroy the world, however, if you count much smaller tactical ones aimed at destroying enemy forces in the field and leaving the area clean enough to occupy very soon it isn't really a large amount. I don't know how Obama and his left leaners will count, do you.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance

1/5 the nukes would still leave them with plenty of atomic arsenal and more than enough for MAD. Do we really need this cold war relic of an expense?

It looks like the Bush administration was thinking the same thing as far back as 2004.

What's Behind Bush's Nuclear Cuts? | Arms Control Association

What do you know about the tactical weapons that were developed during the
Cold War to be used in the field against enemy infantry? They were not intended to big destroyers but when counted in the total number kept would have some serious affect on our nuclear capabilities.

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by Ford Beebe

How many nukes do you need to wipe the planet out? Seriously?

Apparently, we need 1550.

But that's a damn good question.