It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump wants to expand U.S. nuclear arsenal, make it 'top of the pack': Reuters interview

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

On this issue, President Trump = Ronald Reagan. "Peace through overwhelming strength".


President Trump has the right idea, but he needs to let the leaders of countries know that if they launch an attack, the leader will be SURGICALLY TERMINATED. No need to kill millions of innocent people, when it's just one crazy guy who started the conflict. That dog-eating guy who runs North Korea comes to mind. The moment he even APPEARS like he's going to launch a strike against the U.S., or our allies.. TAKE HIM OUT.




posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
If America can't take of it self in a fight, no one can. Patriotic paranoia works though.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's running most of the old systems? 5.25" floppys or reel-tapes?


Rebuilding those systems would be a very bad idea. They are very close to perfect, if we could eliminate the current false positives that would be a good thing, but these systems run outside the current technological grid. They're hard to access, require very specialized knowledge these days, have great established security procedures, and have been time tested for 50 years. We know they're secure and reliable.

Newer isn't always better.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolAquarius

originally posted by: Noncents
Nukes are deterrents. If another country has more or better than your deterrents aren't as effective so they deter less.



I understand the principal behind MAD and the strategic balance of nuclear weapons from a tactical point of view.

But when I step back it truly does seem MAD maybe whoever came up with the term was on to something.

This balancing act of weapons that can kill all life on planet earth is like a madness and seems to speak of some sort of

collective insanity in the human species to be willing to go this far with a weapon that can pratically

end all life on this planet.

It is surreal, it is quite literally MAD.


I agree. The problem is similar to gun laws, except with nukes everybody loses. With guns, we can't tell honest unviolent people to not arm themselevs when there are so many humans who are armed, violent and criminal. With weapons of mass destruction, we can't get rid of ours even though nobody wants to actually use them unless we feel that everyone else in the world would honorably do the same.

Human defects are the problem. Just think how long the earth would last if we gave everyone a button that could destroy it. I think in would be in the milliseconds. So I think we are stuck in this nuclear state until humans evolve out of it or some head of state starts the end of the world. It sucks to be us because we are thousands of years away from evolving to complete non-violence, if it is even within us to do so.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Interesting point. We could rebuild it with Chinese backdoored parts and mean time between fail at a dismal level.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: roadgravel
I would think the US has the best nuclear weapons and delivery systems.


Oddly enough, I always thought so too. Perhaps Trump can see something even the experts have missed.


yeah. president cheeto face is an expert on all things.
thought people already knew that.

like with everything else he is ahead of the media and the experts....

go trump....



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: alldaylong
How " good " does a nuclear explosion have to be exactly ?


Good enough to ENSURE no other nation ever pushes us into using it.


They're already at that level. So what's the point?


My point is there is no reason for the US to not constantly be increasing it's nuclear arsenal. We're the primary target in this world, so we may as well make that target one which guarantees "if we don't walk out of here under our own power, ain't nobody leaving alive."

You are the "primary target" for one of 3 reasons :

1. You are the aggressor.
2. You are not the aggressor and a.n.other country/leader just doesn't like you for no reason in particular
3. You are deluded and you are not in fact a primary target.

If 1 who protects us against you ?
If 2 no amount of nukes will protect you and the more you have the more they will make and the more likely they get used.
If 3 who protects us against your exceptionally dangerous delusion ?



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
We have plenty of nukes, we just need to focus on a faster counter strike, anti-ICBM missles, or lasers. Hypersonic inti-missle missles. Focus being able to knock off incoming nukes even before they leave the launch pad. Infiltrate their launching abilities when the enemy goes to hit that red fire button. In other words a super advanced Israeli type iron dome.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
What a great way to spend a few billion dollars. *sarc*
edit on 23-2-2017 by RainbowPhoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan




but every now and then the warning systems deliver a false positive and it no longer comes down to national policy, it comes down to individuals deciding if they want to launch, and so far when put in those positions the people have chosen not to launch.


Like the time Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov listned to his gut instead of what the faulty system was telling him.

This mans decision saved the world from nuclear disaster.



Im sure this has happened other times as well and we just haven't heard about it.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SolAquarius

Yes, there have been a few.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Military is the only thing the federal government actually should be spending money on.

The U.S. should have the best nuclear capabilities in the world, peace through strength. Whether that means we need more nukes I don't know, but we definitely need to have the best delivery and defense systems. This is one area where the government spending our money is actually important.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

It's no longer how many nuclear missiles a country has, it's more of how many ways a country can deliver them and how they can defend against them. It only takes one or two nukes depending upon the size of the nuclear war head to create enormous devastation. The radiation and environmental damage alone can end up causing deaths years after the initial impact.

Even if a country like North Korea would launch a successful nuke attack on the U.S., the U.S. response would literally leave a massive hole where North Korea once stood.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolAquarius
Im sure this has happened other times as well and we just haven't heard about it.


I can think of three different times (your example is one of them) on the Russian side where people were put in a launch/don't launch situation, and erred on the side of not launching. All three times they were correct, but they still got punished by the Russian military, because if it had been real they would have doomed Russia... despite the fact they averted nuclear war.

I've read about two different occasions something similar has happened on the US side, but I don't remember the details... it's tougher to get the US screw up's when you're in the US. One that does come to mind though is the incident where we accidentally dropped an armed nuclear weapon over Mars Bluff, South Carolina and it's only through sheer luck that it didn't explode. If that had gone off, all our systems would have launched a counter attack in response to the strike.

Anyways, my point is... these nuclear systems are damn near perfect, I seriously doubt that God itself could engineer a better system. They have a few failings, but those are few and far enough between that I would rather trust the proven system than build something new. This goes double when we're sourcing hardware manufacturing from around the globe. The current stuff was either US built, or too old for anyone to exploit.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

We don't need nukes.

We have better.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

According to this Trumps buddy Putin has more. They have 8000 and the US has 7300


www.businessinsider.com...


It’s pretty crazy that the world isn’t trying to find a way to peace so these weapons will NEVER be used again.


This isn’t a moral, reasonable or sane statement by a US president.

If Putin is his friend, they should be thinking about decreasing these ghastly weapons that literally could wipe out the entire human race



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   


9 November 1979
A computer error at NORAD headquarters led to alarm and full preparation for a nonexistent large-scale Soviet attack. NORAD notified national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski that the Soviet Union had launched 250 ballistic missiles with a trajectory for the United States, stating that a decision to retaliate would need to be made by the president within 3 to 7 minutes. NORAD computers then placed the number of incoming missiles at 2,200. Strategic Air Command was notified, nuclear bombers prepared for takeoff, and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) crews were presumably placed on alert. Within six to seven minutes of the initial response, satellite and radar systems were able to confirm that the attack was a false alarm. It was found that a training scenario was inadvertently loaded into an operational computer. Commenting on the incident, U.S. State Department adviser Marshall Shulman stated that "false alerts of this kind are not a rare occurrence. There is a complacency about handling them that disturbs me." In the months following the incident there were 3 more false alarms at NORAD, 2 of them caused by faulty computer chips.

Wiki lists quite a few close calls.


Accidental train simulation leads to near accident. 2200 incoming missiles...


5 October 1960
Radar equipment in Thule, Greenland mistakenly interpreted a moonrise over Norway as a large-scale Soviet missile launch. Upon receiving a report of the supposed attack, NORAD went on high alert. However, doubts about the authenticity of the attack arose due to the presence of Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev in New York as head of the USSR's UN delegation.


The moonrise.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
If 1 who protects us against you ?

(I say this with the kindest of intents) Why would I give a rat's ass about any country's protection abilities if they're standing opposite my country? That's the type of globalist KumBaYah horseflop that makes zero sense to me. If you are in the USA's way, it impacts me not if you find yourself steamrolled, PERIOD. Deal with your own nation's inadequacies and security holes, don't expect the other countries to play pat-a-cake with you until you catch up.


If 2 no amount of nukes will protect you and the more you have the more they will make and the more likely they get used.

Again, if we reach a point in this world in which my loved ones (I'm being honest here, and not going to make some BS bragadocious claim of this being "I regret I have but one life to give for my country" nonsense... I'm in this for my own and only my own.) are vitrified by an attack, I hope to watch from my rock in hell or cloud in heaven as the entire sphere glows like the ball in Times Square on New Year's Eve.


If 3 who protects us against your exceptionally dangerous delusion ?
Re-read my first response above, feel free to insert a few random middle fingers, self-slaps against my left buttock accompanied by a kissing noise, and miscelaneous low level profanities into it and read it a third time for emphasis.

Not sure how or why we've become a society that is so concerned about other nation's successes over their desires to see their own nation out front in the lead... but it seems incredulously fairy tale-ish to me.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Gee, I wonder if this could benefit the military-industrial complex somehow?



Well, maybe this is how Trump is gonna bring jobs back to America. >.>


What's running most of the old systems? 5.25" floppys or reel-tapes?


Believe it or not, some of this stuff still runs on 8" floppies.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
I would think the US has the best nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Way off...
In fact our nuclear arsenal is one of the most outdated on the planet.
US Nuclear arsenal controlled by 1970's computer floppy disk.
While we were dismantling our arsenal so was Russia who was also replacing outdated technologies with updated safer more powerful warheads.


Oddly enough, I always thought so too. Perhaps Trump can see something even the experts have missed.

Trump is just aware of the facts I pointed out above that's all.
edit on 23-2-2017 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join