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.
We have the ability to launch an ICBM in a matter of minutes. The entire idea of having silos is to survive first-strikes so they can be launched in the first place.
Yep. But those ICBMs would be deployed wouldn't they?
"The term "deployed launcher of ICBMs" means an ICBM launcher that contains an ICBM and is not an ICBM test launcher, an ICBM training launcher, or an ICBM launcher located at a space launch facility."
So those deployed missiles that we can launch in minutes are the ones we're talking about getting rid of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
And an ICBM takes some time to travel. Modern missiles travel at around 15k MPH. It would take at least half an hour for most ICBMs to make it to the U.S. And there are only a handful of countries with ICBMs to begin with. It is a pointless political gesture, because nuclear weapons just aren't what they used to be. One has to be more worried about the guy sneaking in a 400lb warhead in the back of a pickup truck than the guy launching it via rocket.
You seem fixated on ICBMs. What about SLBMs? And yes, a handful of countries have these, and our having them too keeps them in check. Nuclear weapons are also a deterrent against massive conventional warfare also. In the cold war, the Soviets had the armor to take Western Europe conventionally..but they didn't. Ever wonder why?
And yes, we need to be concerned about the pickup truck nuke but that doesn't mean we should just abandon 70 years of R&D/investment into a problem that hasn't gone away.
What can possibly be accomplished by reducing them by 80%? Is it cost savings? I doubt that. It sounds like another useless "feel-good" idea.
People have apparently decided that the "realist" interpretation of geopolitics is not just wrong, but 100% wrong I guess rational actors will start putting other countries first now? Will the IMF start taking hopes and dreams as repayment of loans? LOL
I guess the old "only destroy the world x times?" bit was funny the first 15 times we've all heard it...but it's really just hyperbole at this point. With an 80% cut in nuke deployment, there is a question if that would be a complete deterrent against another superpower.
Can anyone actually give a reason to dismantle the majority of our nuclear weapons that is based on logic?
Logic for keeping nuclear deterrent: it has helped prevent full scale war between nuclear powers for 70 years.
Don't think so, but as usual the far left is more worried about American weapons than foreign ones.
What destroying the planet only 3 times over is not enough?
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.
I guess the old "only destroy the world x times?" bit was funny the first 15 times we've all heard it...but it's really just hyperbole at this point. With an 80% cut in nuke deployment, there is a question if that would be a complete deterrent against another superpower.
Can anyone actually give a reason to dismantle the majority of our nuclear weapons that is based on logic?
Logic for keeping nuclear deterrent: it has helped prevent full scale war between nuclear powers for 70 years.
Don't think so, but as usual the far left is more worried about American weapons than foreign ones.
my guess is that 40 year old ICBM sites need to be refurbished or have become ineffective due to modren Radar and anti-missile technology that Russia and China have deployed and a 35-40 year old ICBM's would get shot down before it could reach it's target..
then add in the costs to maintain and secure the sites...Then it makes some sense to get rid of the older stock piles for more for advanced smaller yield versions.
And? There's really not that big of a difference between owning 100 nuclear war heads and 10,000. 100 is still enough to kill billions of people.
Too simplistic. You really think all 100 would hit their targets and deliver max yield? What about the ones that are defective, are taken out by the enemy, or simply miss? Oh, and what about having a credible deterrent after that exchange?
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.
my guess is that 40 year old ICBM sites need to be refurbished or have become ineffective due to modren Radar and anti-missile technology that Russia and China have deployed and a 35-40 year old ICBM's would get shot down before it could reach it's target..
then add in the costs to maintain and secure the sites...Then it makes some sense to get rid of the older stock piles for more for advanced smaller yield versions.
I agree with your bolded statement. But by replacement, I don't think of replacing 2 for every 10 gone.
Your right that there is cost savings involved, and that is a logical argument. But the costs are small compared to the overall defense budget.
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.
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.
I guess rational actors will start putting other countries first now? Will the IMF start taking hopes and dreams as repayment of loans? LOL
