Forums | MacLife

Sec. Rumsfeld wrote:

You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have.

robco wrote:

Right. If you cant' back it up with even a guess, forget it. I don't think it's plausible - not on the scale we're currently prepared for. To be honest, I would be more worried about nuclear exchanges between other nations that don't involve the US or our allies.

Numbered odds are not the correct way to predict such a scenario. The scenario is likely and devastating enough to justify maintaining a triad.

How about a reduction then? Or would that make us too vulnerable to a nuclear attack that isn't likely to come?

Cuts happen all the time. Further savings could be realized by replacing older, more maintenance intensive systems with newer designs.

A fact I addressed by stating that we need to quit providing defense for Europe. They're grown-ups with strong economies, they can take care of themselves.

You used it as a justification for getting rid of our triad. It doesnt fit that argument.

Really? Nukes are devastating? No smurf. I didn't say the probability was zero, just that it was incredibly unlikely. If we do have a nuke explode on US soil, I doubt it will have come from the Russians or the Chinese (it will be France), nor will a large-scale retaliation be justified. It probably won't be a nation at all.

Things change quickly making it not unlikely enough to justify destroying the deterrence option.

I'd rather see resources be directed toward preventing smaller bombs from being smuggled into the US and detonated. I see that as far more likely than another nation striking at the US with nukes. We still don't monitor our borders or cargo coming into this country very well.

There are already a vast amount of resources dedicated to this task. Its a complex problem and adding resources acts somewhat like a laffer curve, more doesnt always mean better.

Again, we're talking scale. We can't predict every scenario, nor can we afford to prepare against every scenario any longer. What I'm saying is that we should concentrate on the most probable.

Racking and stacking priorities base on probability alone is useless. Consequences of the events occurring is a massively important consideration.

Subs provide a mobile launch platform that is difficult for potential enemies to detect. The odds of all of them being taken out before they can launch is pretty slim. Opposed to our land-based nukes that can be taken out with a pre-emptive strike or planes that can be shot down before completing their mission. Planes also have a much smaller capacity so it takes more of them to do as much damage.

This has already been addressed. Subs have many weaknesses, so do the other two. The triad fixes this problem.

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

robco wrote:

Yeah, I guess we need to be protected from unlikely scenarios at any cost. I think being able to destroy Russia or China once or twice is enough, but hey, I'm not in the .mil.

I guess we'll keep cutting everything else to make sure we can keep the military industrial complex going strong. Until we bankrupt the country.

China's nuclear strategy is pretty simple. They have an arsenal of around 400 warheads, some on subs, and a doctrine that focuses on defense/deterrent. In other words the nukes are there to make sure no one screws with them. And certainly 400 nukes is more than enough to wipe out anyone stupid enough to try, even if they manage to knock out all the ground-based missiles.

This isn't 1962. There's no need to maintain massive nuclear superiority in the off-chance someone launches a cataclysmic nuclear assault. Indeed there's entirely far too many nukes floating around out there.

China's a big place. We probably have it right at ~2500 warheads. Assuming everyone stays polite, it's just a jobs program anyway.

Nonsense. Target all big cities, all sub bases, and every known missile base and command and control bunker with multiple warheads and you still only need a few hundred at most.

The whole point is to not try to win a nuclear war; it is, or should be, to ensure no one with the ability to wipe you out will ever consider it. And you can do that just as easily with a few hundred as a few thousand.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

China's nuclear strategy is pretty simple. They have an arsenal of around 400 warheads, some on subs, and a doctrine that focuses on defense/deterrent. In other words the nukes are there to make sure no one screws with them. And certainly 400 nukes is more than enough to wipe out anyone stupid enough to try, even if they manage to knock out all the ground-based missiles.

This isn't 1962. There's no need to maintain massive nuclear superiority in the off-chance someone launches a cataclysmic nuclear assault. Indeed there's entirely far too many nukes floating around out there.

China's a big place. We probably have it right at ~2500 warheads. Assuming everyone stays polite, it's just a jobs program anyway.

Nonsense. Target all big cities, all sub bases, and every known missile base and command and control bunker with multiple warheads and you still only need a few hundred at most.

The whole point is to not try to win a nuclear war; it is, or should be, to ensure no one with the ability to wipe you out will ever consider it. And you can do that just as easily with a few hundred as a few thousand.

No nation has seriously thought they could "win" a nuclear war in quite some time. Sure, there were nutbobs in both the US, and the USSR, who might have thought it; but the grownups quickly realized the futility of it.

Ironically, though; what we discovered was that all that firepower hamstrings the owners. The cold war was a direct result of the fact that a "hot" war would have ended most life in both nations. So instead of shooting at each other directly, we fought proxy wars around the globe.

So, I believe that all sides having enough weapons to incinerate the planet may actually work best. The probability of any weapons being deployed goes down as the number of them go up. After all, whoever pushes the button will have to know they are about to set back all of humanity for probably a few thousand years. The trick is making sure that only people who appropriately recognize the gravity of that act are allowed anywhere near the button in the first place.

It's that last point that implies the importance of keeping nutball states like Iran or North Korea from getting the bomb. They aren't stable enough to recognize the gravity of their actions.

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

China's a big place. We probably have it right at ~2500 warheads. Assuming everyone stays polite, it's just a jobs program anyway.

Nonsense. Target all big cities, all sub bases, and every known missile base and command and control bunker with multiple warheads and you still only need a few hundred at most.

The whole point is to not try to win a nuclear war; it is, or should be, to ensure no one with the ability to wipe you out will ever consider it. And you can do that just as easily with a few hundred as a few thousand.

No nation has seriously thought they could "win" a nuclear war in quite some time. Sure, there were nutbobs in both the US, and the USSR, who might have thought it; but the grownups quickly realized the futility of it.

Ironically, though; what we discovered was that all that firepower hamstrings the owners. The cold war was a direct result of the fact that a "hot" war would have ended most life in both nations. So instead of shooting at each other directly, we fought proxy wars around the globe.

So, I believe that all sides having enough weapons to incinerate the planet may actually work best. The probability of any weapons being deployed goes down as the number of them go up. After all, whoever pushes the button will have to know they are about to set back all of humanity for probably a few thousand years. The trick is making sure that only people who appropriately recognize the gravity of that act are allowed anywhere near the button in the first place.

It's that last point that implies the importance of keeping nutball states like Iran or North Korea from getting the bomb. They aren't stable enough to recognize the gravity of their actions.

That latter point is another reason to cut everyone's nuclear stockpile.

The Israeli approach is the proper one: keep nukes as a failsafe, a just-in-case, a wipe-us-out-and-guess-what-we-do-before-we-go-quietly-into-that-good-night type policy.

Cold war thinking dies hard. It's just so damn profitable.

daemon wrote:

Israel has NUKES?!??

If they don't then they're doing a masterful job of bluffing.

How ironic that Google has a little pic marking the 100th anniversary of the publication of War of the Worlds.