Forums | MacLife

Do you honestly think the Russians would nuke us if they could get away with it? Or the Chinese? The French?

what we need is MORE nukes!
arm every citizen with a suitcase bomb!

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.

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.

Again, deterrence is what makes the scenario unlikely

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.

There are plenty of areas that can be cut in both the .mil and the .gov in general, however it is a lot more complex than simply saying a large chunk of the DoD is unneeded and should get gotten rid of.

i wants a nuke for my very own

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.

robco wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Again, deterrence is what makes the scenario unlikely

I disagree. I think the grown-ups at the table realize just how horrific nuclear war would be. I doubt they would use it as a first-strike - even if they didn't fear reprisal.

Leadership and situations change. The world has been close to nuclear war before, it is unreasonable to assume that it will never happen again.

We keep hearing that, but then every suggested cut gets shouted down as <insert program or base here> is necessary for our national defense. Keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Europe and Japan for example. Cutting the F-22 wasn't easy. We can't let of of the idea that the US can't intervene militarily anywhere in the world in a short time, but we need to.

There will always be contention over cuts. However, proposed cuts are only useful when they take into account the side effects of those cuts. Suggestions like getting rid of two legs of the triad without considering the severe consequences of such an action arent very helpful in reducing expenses in an intelligent way.

I understand that y'all in the .mil want to keep having new enemies lurking around every corner to justify our high military spending, but we can't keep this up any longer. The US military should be able to defend US sovereignty.

You understand incorrectly. (most) people in the .mil want to effectively defend the US. Cuts obviously can be made, but it takes a lot more thinking than just selecting programs to be cut without carefully analyzing the effects of such actions.

Seriously.  Just think of Sarah Palin's finger on the button.

It's a little late for that...

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Steyr's "strategy" is pretty simple: be prepared for every eventuality, regardless of how absurdly unlikely.

Of course that approach has zero allowance for limited resources, manpower, funding or political support. It's as though these things are dreamed up in a bubble.

Well once you get rid of those lazy civilians in the .gov, resources will be limitless.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Leadership and situations change. The world has been close to nuclear war before, it is unreasonable to assume that it will never happen again.

But how likely is this scenario? Ballpark odds - 1:100? 1:1000? 1:1,000,000,000?

There will always be contention over cuts. However, proposed cuts are only useful when they take into account the side effects of those cuts. Suggestions like getting rid of two legs of the triad without considering the severe consequences of such an action arent very helpful in reducing expenses in an intelligent way.

You don't think Gates had teams of folks looking into cutting the F-22?

Our biggest nuclear allies - France and the UK have gotten rid of their triad. They deemed it too costly. Seriously, the B2 isn't cheap to build or operate. The cruise missiles (our way of getting around the free-falling bombs restriction) aren't cheap either. Land-based ICBMs also require a lot of care and feeding. All this for a scenario that isn't nearly as likely as it was thirty years ago. Wouldn't these resources be put to better use by strengthening our intelligence agencies or defending against scenarios that are far more likely than nuclear holocaust?

You understand incorrectly. (most) people in the .mil want to effectively defend the US. Cuts obviously can be made, but it takes a lot more thinking than just selecting programs to be cut without carefully analyzing the effects of such actions.

Perhaps the folks on the ground, but the higher-ups know where their bread is buttered. If we're not preparing against a potential threat, then crazy liberals start talking about a "peace dividend".

I didn't say that we shouldn't make cuts willy-nilly, but we need some hard goals. We need to reduce the defense budget. It's going to be difficult while we're still entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, but after those are over, there's no reason not to reduce the size of our forces. The military also must be more selective about the toys it buys with taxpayer money - or get ones with fewer bells and whistles. More importantly, we need to realize that the military is a blunt instrument. It's not the solution to our problems. In hindsight, using the military to go after AQ may not have been the best strategy.

We need to recognize that the era of American dominance on the world stage is coming to an end. We no longer need to be a military superpower - we can't afford it either. We need to alter our budget and our foreign policy to reflect this reality. It's better to do it on our own terms, thoughtfully and methodically, than to start hacking away at the budget quickly, hurting lots of people and programs, when we can no longer raise the debt ceiling. See CA and many other states and the pain they're going through right now - think of it as a preview of what is to come for the feds.

robco wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Leadership and situations change. The world has been close to nuclear war before, it is unreasonable to assume that it will never happen again.

But how likely is this scenario? Ballpark odds - 1:100? 1:1000? 1:1,000,000,000?

You cant produce odds like that on forecasted scenarios, especially when the forces acting on the actors can be so unpredictable. However it can be put like this: the threat of a nuclear confrontation is still plausible scenario that necessitates a strong deterrence, since the consequences can be so devastating.

There will always be contention over cuts. However, proposed cuts are only useful when they take into account the side effects of those cuts. Suggestions like getting rid of two legs of the triad without considering the severe consequences of such an action arent very helpful in reducing expenses in an intelligent way.

You don't think Gates had teams of folks looking into cutting the F-22?

Our biggest nuclear allies - France and the UK have gotten rid of their triad. They deemed it too costly. Seriously, the B2 isn't cheap to build or operate.

They dont need a triad as long as we have one since they are our allies.

All this for a scenario that isn't nearly as likely as it was thirty years ago.

The point is nuclear weapons havent gotten any less devastating, and the scenario, while less likely, isnt completely unlikely. World events could quickly change that. As long as nuclear weapons are around, deterrence will be needed.

Wouldn't these resources be put to better use by strengthening our intelligence agencies or defending against scenarios that are far more likely than nuclear holocaust?

There are many events even the best intelligence simply cant predict. Reactionary forces will always be required.

I didn't say that we shouldn't make cuts willy-nilly, but we need some hard goals. We need to reduce the defense budget. It's going to be difficult while we're still entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, but after those are over, there's no reason not to reduce the size of our forces. The military also must be more selective about the toys it buys with taxpayer money - or get ones with fewer bells and whistles. More importantly, we need to realize that the military is a blunt instrument. It's not the solution to our problems. In hindsight, using the military to go after AQ may not have been the best strategy.

Proposing the dismantling of two thirds of the triad without good reasoning is a "willy-nilly" cut. After Iraq and Afghanistan the defense posture will naturally trim down as things that were formerly needed no longer are, such as MRAPs.

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.