Obama to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons 80% - no reductions for other nations mentioned (employment, wage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And no, 100 is not enough to kill billions of people. Are you referring to the nuclear winter theory? It would take many more than that to have that effect.
Nuclear winter is not the only possible collateral consequence of a nuclear exchange. If civilization stops, if there is no internet, no financial system, no transportation, no grocery stores--I'll let you imagine how many people can slaughter cattle and hogs to survive.
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.
How dare the President reduce our ability to bomb and rebomb and rebomb the rubble. Everyone knows the rubble must be destroyed and we need thousands and thousands of weapons to do that. We dare not be so weak as to risk attack by nuclear rubble.
Really guys, sad you have to politicize this so much.
1) What Obama says <> what he does. This may be nothing more than election year posturing. The fact that I have to point this out to some of you regardless of whether you are a D or an R should be embarassing as it shows you've been zoned out for the last 3 years.
2) We would still have plenty of deployed nukes to crush anyone messing with us if needed, even in the most extreme of the 3 options. We'd still have many thousands of un-deployed nukes which wouldn't take long to put into action.
Remember, the bombs we droped on Japan were in the 15kt range. Many of our deployed warheads are 15mt (or more) so just using a loose rule of thumb each of those 400 warheads is 1000 times stronger on average (swag) than what leveled nagasaki.
Personally I think this is just political grandstanding and all the far lefties and righties here are just bickering back and forth. Some of your arguments are truly non-sensical.
Because of the concerns I brought up in my post below that sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Not really. For example, the Russians are light years ahead in MARV technology, and you can all thank Blow Job Bill for that, since he gave the Russians not one, but two Cray Super II super-computers.
You might be correct in this statement, but you missed what I was getting at. I mentioned other nations' ABM systems, not ours. 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Good portion? No. Even in the mid-1960s when the technology was still basically in its infancy, there was only 10% fail rate. That's been reduced significantly, and the fail rate is overwhelmingly caused by the platform and not the warhead.
Failed ignition
Partial ignition
Ignition termination
Ignition explosion
Ignition no thrust
Ignition silo door failure
(all of the above would occur before the missile even cleared the silo or launcher)
Ignition launch failure
Failed booster separation
2nd stage ignition failure
Failed second stage separation
Failed 3rd stage ignition
Failed bus launch
Failed trajectory
Failed telemetry
Failed ejection from bus (for MIRVs only)
There's a few more than that if you want to get technical about it.
For the warhead, there's only a few conditions, mostly related to PAL systems: altimeter failure/incorrect reading, pressure sensor failure/incorrect reading, speed sensor failure/incorrect reading.
The assumed failure rate now is 2%-3%.
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. Each of the points I bring up aren't convincing numerically when taken individually, it's only in aggregate that there could be an erosion of our deterrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Depends on the threat.
Only one warhead in excess of 300 kt is needed for Europe. Maybe four for South America. About 60-100 for Russia/Eastern Europe/Central Asia. 50-60 for Africa. About 25 or so for Asia.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yes. It isn't just the warheads and missiles, it's the entire infrastructure to support them.
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.
As far as storage/development costs go, this is pittance compared to the $ spent on maintaining bases around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
They aren't necessary. In fact, as the world becomes more developed, even fewer will be needed.
Your opinion. I see them as a valuable tool for peace, and I think most political scientists would agree with me. MAD will always have a purpose in preventing war until we get over our urges to fight (I won't hold my breath for this).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No possible way it could ever produce a Nuclear Winter. That theory was all lies, naturally, because if Sagan told the truth, then he couldn't frighten people.
Deterring...
Mircea
Agreed. Volcanic eruptions have a much greater impact on sunlight impairment. If nuclear winter is possible (and to be honest it likely is given enough nukes) it would probably take thousands of them, not a mere hundred.
Many people on here are grossly overestimating their destructive power.
YOu actually think a few nukes will destroy the planet? The old gal will be around a long time after that unless that global warming gets to her first.
Planet doesn't concern me so much, its humans that I slightly worry about.
Seeing as the United States has enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living thing larger then about an ant 20 times over, I think cutting that by 80% will be ok.
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.
What, you don't like your leader playing chop the carrot with his male appendages?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.