US is leaving nuclear treaty

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

Yawn.

Anonymous Sources Story, this time by Reuters.

Absolutely no proof that it's real or not. I don't get why you guys constantly believe these stories without question or thought.

Bet you feel like Mr. Silly right around now.

[notnamed]

Cold War part 2

[boxus]

Goodness people, it is not cold war part 2, this is actually pretty trivial.

You think the US or world somehow was much safer with combined 10 thousand nukes pointing at each other? Now all of a sudden you can mount those same nukes on a ground based intermediate range missiles and the global nuke danger somehow is increased? Even though those same missiles could be mounted via air or sea and still in be compliance with the treaty?

And has no one even acknowledged the fact that the US has even expressed concerns over being in it due to China? Or even thought the logic behind Russia's decision was based on China? China, who is not a signatory on the agreement and continues full speed ahead with their military build up?

I honestly think if there was a cure for cancer, some of you would still hype it up as something detrimental.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by boxus

Or even thought the logic behind Russia's decision was based on China? China, who is not a signatory on the agreement and continues full speed ahead with their military build up?

While China does have an intermediate range ballistic missile, they don't have nuclear warheads for them.

China's stock-pile is maybe ~250 warheads, but the actual number of deployed warheads -- and that's all that matters -- is less than 200 warheads.

China's warheads are all very large, about 5 megatons. They're deployed on silo-based and road-mobile ICBMs, SLBMs and a small number of mega-ton range gravity bombs to complete the triad.

Clinton gave China the "football" and also satellite and missile technology.

That was 30 years ago, but China has done nothing with it.

Clinton's logic for doing that was to enable the Chinese to reduce the size of their warheads.

Your first generation missiles, which is what China still has, had extremely poor accuracy.

When you know you're going to miss the target by 4 miles, yeah, you need a 5 megaton warhead to ensure the target's destruction.

But, when you're going to miss the target by 10 meters to 100 meters, you only need 400 kt to 750 kt to destroy the target.

The America of 1960 is very different than the America of 2000.

You didn't have Suburbia in the 1960s.

A 400 kt to 750 kt warhead will destroy a city, but have little to no impact on Suburbia, but a Chinese 5 megaton warhead is going to wipe out the city and all the suburbs, so it's in your best interest to coax the Chinese to reduce the size of their warheads.

China has no tactical nuclear weapons.

However, Russia still has ~3,000 neutron warheads.

The theoretical limitation on neutron warheads is 20 kt, so there's no such thing as a 400 kt neutron bomb or 1 megaton neutron bomb. It's a matter of physics. Even so, the design limitations are about 12 kt to 15 kt.

For that reason nearly all US and Russian neutron warheads are 1 kt or 10 kt, although Russia does have 5 kt warheads.

Most of Russia's neutron warheads are 1 kt fired from tube artillery, with 10 kt missile warheads for FROGs and SCUDs, and then a few hundred 1 kt, 5 kt and 10 kt gravity bombs designed to be delivered by the Su-series attack aircraft, although I would venture to guess that some of the more recent MiG dual-role aircraft are capable of carrying them, too.

Russia's neutron warheads are intended for use against formations massing at its borders, and after those units cross the border. You can use neutron weapons on your own soil, and that's why Russia has them.

The point is, that Russia doesn't need an intermediate range ballistic missile system.

[GearHeadDave]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

Yawn.

Anonymous Sources Story, this time by Reuters.

Absolutely no proof that it's real or not. I don't get why you guys constantly believe these stories without question or thought.

WHOOPS.

Reality intrudes. No matter how bizarre or illogical - there is NO action that Trump would not consider, it if pumps up his already bloviated ego.

Trump's idea of foreign policy is to throw something at the wall and see if it will stick. No matter if it involves the proliferation of WMD or increase the risk of devastation to the whole world. What does he care, he's an old coot with only a few years to live anyway.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould

What the hell is going on here?

Nothing, except Reuters lied.

The INF Treaty only banned US and Russia intermediate range missiles, whether "nuclear-capable" or not.


The US was actually more afraid of the SS-20s, than the Russians were afraid of the Pershing II and the BGM-109Gs.


Your average MiG-17 pilot would get bored shooting down cruise missiles with his guns.


While the Pershing II had a longer range than the Pershing IA, it's warhead size was significantly smaller, only 100 kt for the Pershing II, but 450 kt for the Pershing IA, so the Russians actually benefit from a smaller warhead size.



The SS-20, on the other hand, was a different animal entirely.


It was a MRV system, as opposed to a MIRV system. MIRVs are independently targeted, but MRVs are like a nuclear shot-gun.


Worse than that, the SS-20 could carry three 60 kt nuclear warheads or three 4,000 lb conventional plastic explosive warheads, while the Pershing I/IA/II were nuclear only.


If the Russians launched an SS-20, what is the US to do?


It would be a grave error to respond with a Pershing II launch, if the SS-20 was conventional.



In the eyes of the World, the US went nuclear without just provocation, and the Russians would milk that error for its propaganda value.


Russia would very easily gain air superiority.


What's another way of destroying an aircraft without actually destroying the aircraft?


Kill the pilots. Or injure them.


Dead pilots can't fly, and neither can injured pilots, because the G-forces will cause even a minor wound to bleed out, the pilot will lose consciousness and the plane crashes.


Can you imagine four SS-20s with conventional warheads landing on Bitburg Air Base at 4:00 AM on a Tuesday morning?


That's a very short flight-time. No one anywhere is going to have any warning. All of the air crews would be killed or injured while they slept in the barracks, or the BOQ (Bachelor Officer Quarters) or the housing area.


Bitburg had F-15s, and it takes two to fly an F-15, not one, so how many will get airborne?


Maybe three.


Assuming the alert aircraft aren't damaged, because they're exposed, and assuming the aircrews for the alert aircraft aren't killed or injured, and assuming the runway isn't damaged, they could get airborne.



But, the rest of the aircraft? Yes, they're in their reveted hard-stands, and yes, those are atomic blast-resistant earth-covered structures, so they won't be damaged, but they're also secured with two 10-ton blast doors and each door has a massive padlock that would take hours to cut with a blow-torch, unless the key-holders are alive. It takes two people to open the locks, because they each hold a separate key, and if one is dead or seriously injured, the pilots can stand in front of the hard-stand all the live-long day and be able to get to their plane.


The Russians had enough SS-20s to put 4-6 on every US, British and German air base in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, plus the ports at Bremen, Bremerhaven and Cuxhaven, and the port at Rotterdam and the port at Antwerp, plus communications, command and control facilities.


That's a scary prospect for NATO.



Anyway, the INF Treaty did not ban short range ballistic missiles, contrary to Reuters' claim, and it did not ban the German Air Force intermediate range missiles, either.

Germany voluntarily gave up their Pershing IAs. The only difference between the Pershing I and the Pershing IA was the launcher. The Pershing I used a tracked vehicle as a launcher, while the Pershing IA used a tractor trailer truck, just the kind you see on the interstates.

There were major differences between the Pershing IA and Pershing II.

The Pershing IA had a shorter range, the guidance system was aft of the warhead, and the warhead was a multiple yield warhead. It was a fission-fusion-fission device. You could fire the fission-trigger package for a yield of 40 kt, or the fission-fusion package and get 200 kt or fire all three and get 450 kt.

The Pershing II had a longer range, and the guidance system was both forward and aft of the warhead. You actually mated the radar section to the front of the warhead, and then mated that package to the guidance control adapter. The warhead was variable yield -- what the Media calls "dial-a-yield" -- with an option of 0.3 kt to 100 kt.

You could do that, because it used compressed deuterium as the fusion fuel. If you selected 60 kt, a valve opens and bleeds off deuterium so that the yield is limited to 60 kt.

The fission-trigger was 8 kt. If you bled off all the deuterium, the yield would be 8 kt, and to get yields between 0.3 kt and 8 kt it manipulated the plastic explosive lenses to partially collapse the football at various stages.

Reagan actually unilaterally withdrew two Lance missile battalions in 1986, before the INF Treaty as a show of good-will to Gorbachev, but secretly, we brought Lance neutron warheads from Seneca Army Depot over to Germany to offset the loss of those two Lance missile battalions.

Then, in 1991 Bush ordered the withdraw of all tactical nuclear weapons from ships and overseas facilities, and that included the withdraw of the Lance, but contrary to what Reuters' claims, it had nothing to do with the INF Treaty.

And, then, in 1993, Clinton cancelled the Pershing IIB, which was supposed to be the follow-on replacement for the Lance system. It was effectively a Pershing II without the second stage booster, and a slightly smaller warhead, 0.3 kt to 80 kt.

That had nothing to do with the INF Treaty. It had to do with money. The Army had been reduced from 770,000 troops to 385,000 troops and nuclear weapons require a lot of troop support and money to maintain them, and there just wasn't enough money in the budget, not to mention the Army didn't want a short range ballistic missile system, because it really wasn't necessary.

As far as the Gulf War, that was a planned event.

Even though it was known that the entire US VII Corps would be withdraw from Germany and eliminated from the Army, they underwent desert warfare training in Turkey, in the desert on the border with Iraq.

The Tiger Brigade was a forward deployed armored brigade based at Garlstedt, Germany under NORTHAG commanded by British army officer. It's parent unit was the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood, Texas.

It also went to Turkey for desert warfare training.

If you look on a map, there are no deserts between Germany and the Ural Mountains (in Russia).

If you were in the Gulf War, then you know the Tiger Brigade was once again placed under British command, and along with British army units, was given Kuwait City as its objective.

The point is that the US knew years in advance it would be going to war with Iraq, and it made damn sure the units involved, which were the Tiger Brigade and all VII Corps units, were sufficiently trained in desert warfare, so that they would be successful.

And, they were.