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.

 

True Role of the B-2 Bomber (Hidden Capabilities)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
. Do you think the Russians HAVEN'T got deep buried concrete reinforced installations designed to remain operstional in the event of a nuclear strike, just like America has?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by waynos]


Simple nuclear equiped bunker busters for the most modern missile silos. You would be suprised at the number of Nuclear silos and bunkers that could not withstand a direct nonearth penatrating nuclear hit. Many were built in a era when nukes were not pin point accurate.

The U.S.A famous N.O.R.A.D could for example not withstand a direct nuclear hit and its built under a mountain. This is the reason we have a secondary command in the air all the time. But if the bulk of the missiles it commands where taken out in a first stike its of little use.




posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
But the real point is there will ALWAYS be enough left for a devastating response and to think otherwise is nothing but blind faith. If this clinical first strike was that successful it would be the first attack in history that went 100% to plan, a hell of a risk to take.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
It wouldnt go 100% to plan, In any such attack Im sure some Missiles would get through but I think this was planned to have been used in conjunction with a missile defense system. Of course some missiles would get through even that but it would not be enough to destroy the US. Losses yes but not assured destruction.

Its not even possible without the orginal number of wanted B-2 on a country like Russia. But for N Korea or a Nuclear equiped Iran its more then enough Maybe even enough for China.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
But the real point is there will ALWAYS be enough left for a devastating response and to think otherwise is nothing but blind faith. If this clinical first strike was that successful it would be the first attack in history that went 100% to plan, a hell of a risk to take.


The idea would be to hit them hard enough so that their response was inadequate.

This is the type of thing that would be done if the US learned that Russia was planning a first strike. Hit them first by surprise with B-2's, followed with ICBMs and SCBMs. With the B-2 first strike, you would most likely take out their most accurate/modern weapons and Comand & Control centers, thus the response you would get would be as weak as a nuclear response from a superpower could be.

Couple that with our Star Wars program when/if it was deployed, and you have a nuclear war that is as close to winnable as possable.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
The govermment wants you to believe that NORAD couldnt survive a direct hit by a nuclear weapon. You have under-estimated the strucutral engineering that went into the design of the installation. Even a blast as powerful as a nulcear weapon takes the path of least resistance. This path is obviously up and away from the mountain, which is solid rock by the way. You would need a bunker busting nuc that would penetrate the front door of Norad to do any damage. This installation is located hundreds if not thousands of feet into a soild rock mountain. A thermonuclear weapon detonated above the mountain, would not cause damage to the installation. If you understand explosions, the way a nuclear weapon is detonated is about 2000 feet above the surface of the earth, to cause the most possible damage in terms of radius away from blast center, blast moves down and out. Assuming the bomb hit the top of the mountian of NORAD, I still believe it does not affect the Installation. The building itself is utterly massively reinforced and surrounded by hundereds of feet of solid rock, I think it survives.

I Think the only way to take out NORAD is with multiple thermonuclear bunker busting bombs that followed one after the other.

Train



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
For goodness sakes guys.
A little reality check here please.

The 'Star wars' stuff still doesn't work properly and hasn't during the life of the B2 so citing 'brilliant pebbles' as some kind of a part of this is just pure fantasy.
(and don't try to tell us it's a super-duper secret and does really work cos the only value of that stuff is to let people know about it and place doubt in their minds should they be considering anything nasty;
ie if it worked we'd all know about it ad nauseum).

This secret massed B2 attack idea is so dumb.

Firstly of course the Russians would have been keeping tabs on the fields they flew out of (anyone remember the bestseller WW3 book that had the Russians get the 'Manchurian candidates' fly suicide missions in civil aircraft to destroy most of them still in the hangers, spooky considering, huh?).

Secondly one could probably reasonably expect that even some sort of tabs would be kept on even the crew movements so most or all of them suddenly dropping out of sight would cause people to notice.

This would also apply to the enormous amount of activity that tanker support required would also generate (for months beforehand).
Even amassing the fuel at such a magnitude would be noticed.

Think.
You just can't do these things in secret.

Even shifting the nuclear bombs from storage you imagine would be used would be a major operation that would be highly unlikely in the extreme to go unnoticed.

Thirdly let's not forget the numerous human assets the Russians always had letting them know much of what was going on in the US (and NATO) military during the cold war (as we ourselves also had 'human assets' in their outfits telling us what was happening).

The most silly part of this is the childishly determined idea that you would or even could possibly get everything (or almost everything) in a first strike and render them incapable of a devastating second strike ability.
(particularly as we - and they - knew absolutely for sure that 'overkill' was a reality several times over for both western and Soviet nuclear arms)

As said before B2 does nothing about the Soviet SLBM force.......and if you are now going to try and say this all coordinates with a massive sneak underwater attack then I suggest this has grown way beyond any kind of secret or 'sneak' anything.

None of this horrible magic fantasy accounts for the war to spread either (or is China now to be considered part of this massive secret attack too).....and if the USA has just gone criminally insane and sparked armageddon why on earth should any of the rest of the nuclear powers leave her to get away with it scott-free.
(it is a less well known part of nuclear war planning that in a mass 'exchange' everyone gets hit so that a Brazil or Mongolia or whoever do not have the better chance if not actual instant ability to recover and rise to be the post war superpower.)

That IMO is so ridiculously off of the wall as to be funny; tragically funny for sure (that some people still really do think like that) but funny all the same.

'Dr Strangelove' clearly either went totally over people's heads or has failed to reach a new generation that is in desperate need of it.

Finally one might consider the effects of such a massive strike even were it all to magically go to plan.
The total global economic collapse, the mega-millions of deaths (human as well as animal kingdom) globally, the global famine and the decades (in some cases millenia) long duarable pollution and poisons the 'winner' would 'enjoy' woud be unparalleled;

Mineshaft gap subsistance and the complete loss of civillisation here we come!

....and how do you think even your own 'future generations' would react to this, the greatest single act of mass murder ever?
I reckon it would ultimately utterly destroy your nation, one way or another.

Cooo, that'd be some victory, huh?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
The govermment wants you to believe that NORAD couldnt survive a direct hit by a nuclear weapon. You have under-estimated the strucutral engineering that went into the design of the installation.


Interesting theory on NORAD but you might be under-estimating the over-pressure of a large nuclear weapon. This is where the accuracy of the modern nuclear weapon becomes very important. Over pressure of a direct nuclear stike can be several thousand PSI

Most ICBM Silo's are hardened to withstand 2000psi and cannot withstand a direct hit from a nuclear warhead, nor can a command bunker most hardened to withstand maybe perhaps 4000psi. Most Bunkers or Silos are only hardened to withstand a semi-accurate weapon, maybe to within a few hundred metres.

NORAD was designed in the 60s to deal with First Gen nuclear weapons with a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of a few thousand meters. This means the Warhead would touch down anywhere around the target(in a circle) over thousands of meters away, meaning it was NOT be very accurate. Modern ICBM MIRVs have a CEP of a few meters. Theres no public evidence that NORAD has had a major upgrade despite Russia now being armed with large higly accurate (city buster) thermonuclear weapons.

Perhaps they have secretly upgraded and moved major sections of NORAD farther under the mountian.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Being a structural engineer, I can assure you that the structure is designed to handle much more than 2-4000 psi of pressure, hell, light weight concrete can easily handle 3000 psi. Your also assuming that the pressure wave if the blast falls exactly perpendicular and right against the walls of the building. According the the pressure law, i forget the name, as the distance doubles, the pressure lessens by 1/4. Maybe they call it the D-Squared law? There is no way in hell that the walls of this structure would ever face 4000 psi as the whole mountain would essentially have to be smashed against the walls at extreme pressures. The solid Rock is also cutr in an arch shape, which also helps to dissapte the blast. Like I said, I think the only way to destroy it is to hit it with multiple bunker busters, you have to get deep into the rock, and have the nuc detonate inside the mountain to literally balst it apart, a blast outside the mountain will do nothing.

Train



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The 'Star wars' stuff still doesn't work properly and hasn't during the life of the B2 so citing 'brilliant pebbles' as some kind of a part of this is just pure fantasy.
(and don't try to tell us it's a super-duper secret and does really work cos the only value of that stuff is to let people know about it and place doubt in their minds should they be considering anything nasty;
ie if it worked we'd all know about it ad nauseum).


Dumb?

Everyone KNOWS the US did and currently is working on such systems. The fact that it isn't matured yet doesn't detract from the over all concept.

In fact, it was largely the fact that the USSR fell that the technology has not been rapidly advanced. If we were still locked in a cold war you can bet your arse we would be close to deploying such a system - if we hadn't already.



This secret massed B2 attack idea is so dumb.

Firstly of course the Russians would have been keeping tabs on the fields they flew out of (anyone remember the bestseller WW3 book that had the Russians get the 'Manchurian candidates' fly suicide missions in civil aircraft to destroy most of them still in the hangers, spooky considering, huh?).


You are assuming they would know where they are. Again, in the post cold war it is easy to say they would, but those were different times. The USSR didn't have a clue about our F-117's other then the fact that we were working on a stealth aircraft. They didn't know where they were kept, how they worked, or what they looked like.

The same would be true today with B-2's. We'd have them under lock and key - secretly kept away from public eyes. Sure, they might figure out where ten or so are, but keeping tabs on the whole fleet or even a significant part of it is not realistic.

Hell, it is widely known that the B-2 is a FIRST STRIKE platform. Why else have stealth then to SECRETLY attack your enemy. I think the US military has a better idea on how to run it's strategic nuclear force then you do Sminkey.



Secondly one could probably reasonably expect that even some sort of tabs would be kept on even the crew movements so most or all of them suddenly dropping out of sight would cause people to notice.


Speaking of dumb...


How are you going to keep tabs on 200+ men scattered across the globe on the most secure airbases in the world?


This would also apply to the enormous amount of activity that tanker support required would also generate (for months beforehand).
Even amassing the fuel at such a magnitude would be noticed.


What the hell are you talking about? Now Russia is tracking all the B-2 pilots AND all of our tankers?

And tanker support isn't the big deal you make it out to be. The USAF is doing tons of mid air refueling EVERY SINGLE DAY! You only need to refuel 130 aircraft, and not all from the same spot Sminkey. You can fly some B-2's out of Europe, Alaska, Australia, Japan, Isreal, etc etc etc. There is no way in hell to keep track of all that stuff and then come to a conclusion that there is anything more then NORMAL air activity.



Think.
You just can't do these things in secret.


Yes, you can, and the US does so on a regular basis!


Even shifting the nuclear bombs from storage you imagine would be used would be a major operation that would be highly unlikely in the extreme to go unnoticed.


Huh?

THose weapons are on site at the bombers home base. How the hell is Russia going to figure out they are being loaded onto B-2's when the bombers themselves are in a damned hanger?



Thirdly let's not forget the numerous human assets the Russians always had letting them know much of what was going on in the US (and NATO) military during the cold war (as we ourselves also had 'human assets' in their outfits telling us what was happening).


That is a fair point, but to assume that they would have someone telling them there was about to be a nuclear first strike (when such an undertaking would SURELY be among the most secret missions in human history) and ALSO assuming that the asset would be willing to DIE (by way of nuclear retaliation by the USSR) is not reliable. Their assets were mostly Americans wanting to make extra money. How many white collar criminals do you know that are willing to risk their family and friends - much less their own - life?



The most silly part of this is the childishly determined idea that you would or even could possibly get everything (or almost everything) in a first strike and render them incapable of a devastating second strike ability.
(particularly as we - and they - knew absolutely for sure that 'overkill' was a reality several times over for both western and Soviet nuclear arms)


I agree with this, BUT, as we all know situational awarness and communications are key in modern warfare. Those assets are fairly easy to take out. You do that in addition to attacking their most potent deterance weapons (other then boomers) and you creat a window in which you can back up that attack with ICBMs. You would probably get the attack in before any retaliation was made. In this case (since as you say, both nations had enough to destroy the other many times over) the US would have crippled the Russian AF response - the vast majority of their ICBMs and most likely the whole of their bomber fleet would be destroyed.


As said before B2 does nothing about the Soviet SLBM force.......and if you are now going to try and say this all coordinates with a massive sneak underwater attack then I suggest this has grown way beyond any kind of secret or 'sneak' anything.


This is also a fair point. The US Navy certainly dominated the Russian submarine force, but expecting the US to be able to coordinate an attack against the whole missle fleet is unrealistic. More likely the US could get about half of them in such a situation, leaving the rest to launch their weapons.



None of this horrible magic fantasy accounts for the war to spread either (or is China now to be considered part of this massive secret attack too).....and if the USA has just gone criminally insane and sparked armageddon why on earth should any of the rest of the nuclear powers leave her to get away with it scott-free.
(it is a less well known part of nuclear war planning that in a mass 'exchange' everyone gets hit so that a Brazil or Mongolia or whoever do not have the better chance if not actual instant ability to recover and rise to be the post war superpower.)

That IMO is so ridiculously off of the wall as to be funny; tragically funny for sure (that some people still really do think like that) but funny all the same.

'Dr Strangelove' clearly either went totally over people's heads or has failed to reach a new generation that is in desperate need of it.


Like I said, this would be a preemptive first strike. 'Russia is about to attack us, so let's hit them first' type of a deal.

As unrealistic as a perfect execution would be, it would be far better then getting hit with a first strike yourself. And frankly, I think nuclear war to be a lot more 'winnable' then most - especially if you can get in the brunt of your attack before the enemy has a chance to counter.

That is exactly what the B-2 was designed for - to get in to Russia and deliver a first sttrike that would take out a great majority of her retalitory ability. It may not be a fun thought, but global strategic thermo-nuclear war is something that was at the forfront of every military planners mind, and is still researched today.


Finally one might consider the effects of such a massive strike even were it all to magically go to plan.
The total global economic collapse, the mega-millions of deaths (human as well as animal kingdom) globally, the global famine and the decades (in some cases millenia) long duarable pollution and poisons the 'winner' would 'enjoy' woud be unparalleled...


If there were a global economic collapse, eventually we would recover. It beats getting hit furst in a nuclear attack.

Famine wouldn't be as big of a problem as you think, especially if losses in human life are as high as they would seem to be.

As far as global pollution...

There have been WELL over 1000 - I'll say that again - ONE THOUSAND nuclear detonations thus far. We haven't seen a nuclear winter from that. Yes there would be considerable fallout, and problems, but again, nothing that is beyond humanities ability to over come.

Frankly, you are seeing this as a plan to take out the USSR in one swift blow, where as in reality it would be a plan to be used when the US knew it was to be attacked any way in order to give NATO the best chance at survival.

No plan is perfect, but this plan would certainly be better then just letting all of our missles fly or just letting the USSR attack us first.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Interesting BigTrain but why lie about it then? Surely Russia has structural engineer which would know this if its so obvious and Russia would use multiple warheads on Cheyenne Mountian. Why lie to the American public about how well NORAD is protected from nuclear attacks.



[edit on 23-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
"It effectively shrank the USSR's radar 'net' and made the possibility of an airbourne precision strike on some targets possible for the first time in a long while. "==sminkeypinkey

I think you are closer than anyone else so far. First, the F117, then the B-2. The Soviet approach to capabilities tended to be robust, not terribly expensive, and vast quantities.
Where the US would focus on much more expensive, lots of capability, and much smaller quantities. This was particularly noteworthy in the area of air defense radars.
Both countries had vast resources invested in detection methodology. While the F117 and the B-2 almost dont make sense economically, another way to look at it
is the total defeat of the Soview Air Defense system as soon as a fighter (fighter bomber really) and a bomber are in the production phase. The air defense system
must be modernized and the cost in resources for the Soviets would be incredible. As soon as the goal looks to be achieved, then the production numbers being talked
about get slashed very drastically. Looks to me like it worked very well indeed.
Good bang for the actual buck spent.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Im not saying they are lying, and your absolutely correct, russia knows how to take out cheyenne, they also have engineers and scientists, thats not my point. Im simply pointing out that whoever said cheyenne couldnt take a direct hit, which they implied that it was an airburst explosion, was nonsense. Cheyenne isnt indestructible, but an airburst explosion, even if right on top of the mountain would not do any damage to the facility. Like i said before, only bunker busting nucs could destroy it, and it would take a massive, multi-megaton thermonuclear weapon, buried inside the mountain to disable the facitlity or vaporize it.

As for russia having the capability to actually hit the mountain is something else entirely. Not to mention, we dont even know how deep cheyenne really goes. it could be 3000 feet deep for all we know, masked by the upper levels.

And be assured, NORAD is one of many other facilties, the others being top secret of course. NORAD is possibly just a big decoy. I would suspect that the best underground facilites are still out in the deserts of nevada and the other western states.

Train



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Not to mention, we dont even know how deep cheyenne really goes. it could be 3000 feet deep for all we know, masked by the upper levels.

And be assured, NORAD is one of many other facilties, the others being top secret of course. NORAD is possibly just a big decoy. I would suspect that the best underground facilites are still out in the deserts of nevada and the other western states.

Train


Good point exact details on NORAD are sketchy , I just cant find info on its depth or anything like pressure limits of the structure. Even if I could find some exact numbers they might be wrong on purpose.

The idea of NORAD as a possible decoy is very intriguing
The best defense for a structure could be to make one that your enemy doesn't know about. You cant really hit a complex with a bunch nukes if you dont know where it is.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Sminkley,

Dumb? Hey we are discussing scenarios which is what we armchair generals do best.

While people are quick to pooh pooh the Brillian Pebbles and similar systems with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, such systems were being worked on during that time. Its not a far stretch to try to figure out how to incorporate that into the nuclear triad. B-2 would fit in that type of scenario outlined nicely.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I have a strategy that should be good enough to defeat any nation . It calls for;

1. Launch all the ICBMs that you have at the target. Don't worry about follow-up strikes, bombers will fill that requirement.

2. Encircle the area with AWACS and ABL planes (Airborne Warning And Control System, Air-Borne Laser). The AWACS is used to detect enemy interceptors, bombers, and missiles. The ABL is used to shoot down the threats. This is done to ensure that enemy counter-strikes can't get through.

3. Send the bombers in for a follow-up strike or two. This is done to lower or completly eliminate enemy resolve, and to take out any targets that wern't hit by the ICBMs. While all of this is happening, the AWACS and ABLs are still on patrol around the target area.

4. Continue bombing the enemy until they surrender or are completly destroyed.

This strategy assumes that the enemy is also a nuclear power, that there is resonable proof that they are planing to attack us first, and that simply intercepting the bombers and/or missiles is not an option (political reason etc.). There are easier plans to use, but if you need to completely decimate the enemy, this is the strategy to use.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Sminkley,

Dumb? Hey we are discussing scenarios which is what we armchair generals do best.

While people are quick to pooh pooh the Brillian Pebbles and similar systems with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, such systems were being worked on during that time. Its not a far stretch to try to figure out how to incorporate that into the nuclear triad. B-2 would fit in that type of scenario outlined nicely.


It doesn't matter what kit you have, once you start lobbing nukes around everybody loses, it seems odd that on this thread it only appears to be Americans who think otherwise? I stand to be corrected of course.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
That's a cool idea, Shadow, but I don't think the US would ever launch a first-strike nuclear attack. How about this:

The B-2 is so stealthy that it can stay in Soviet airspace on rotation. Just as B-52s routinely stayed in constant flight, the B-2 stays just outside Soviet airspace during day and goes in at night. If there's any sign that something may go down, the B-2 can use conventional weapons to do pinpoint strikes on fueling mobile ICBMS as a way of saying 'knock it off,' with nukes as an alternative.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Everyone KNOWS the US did and currently is working on such systems. The fact that it isn't matured yet doesn't detract from the over all concept.


- and so what?
All sorts of people have worked on all sorts of concepts (sometimes over a very long time and with huge effort and resources too) it does not guarantee the desired end result.


In fact, it was largely the fact that the USSR fell that the technology has not been rapidly advanced. If we were still locked in a cold war you can bet your arse we would be close to deploying such a system - if we hadn't already.


- Well you can make whatever excuses you like the fact is that the full 'value' of such systems is wholly reliant on ones' opponents knowing it exists, works and renders their attempts to attack (sneakily or otherwise) highly questionable (and of course leaves them exposed before the world and facing terrible retribution in kind).

If it ever is made to work the whole world would know about it pronto, it's the only possible thing that makes any sense of it.


You are assuming they would know where they are. Again, in the post cold war it is easy to say they would, but those were different times.


- Believe me during the entire length of the 'cold war' the Russians, Poles, East Germans etc etc were actually very good at the spying game.
(and so were' we' on them, as it turns out too)


The USSR didn't have a clue about our F-117's other then the fact that we were working on a stealth aircraft. They didn't know where they were kept, how they worked, or what they looked like.


- I doubt you or I could prove that either way but again I'd suggest their espionage was probably up to the task of finding out.
Afterall it was an American amatuer that first broke the F117, with pics; if he knew where to go looking I have no doubt they did too.


The same would be true today with B-2's. We'd have them under lock and key - secretly kept away from public eyes.


- That's one hell of an assumption and in any case 'public's eyes' are nothing to do with this.


Sure, they might figure out where ten or so are, but keeping tabs on the whole fleet or even a significant part of it is not realistic.


- Well what was talked about was the original intention to buy B2 in the hundreds.
I suggest the notion of keeping a 'fleet' that size absolutely secret is what is not realistic here.


Hell, it is widely known that the B-2 is a FIRST STRIKE platform. Why else have stealth then to SECRETLY attack your enemy.


- I think this is just to look at matters with total hindsight and utterly the opposite way about.
Stealth was/is about 'enhanced survivability' - particularly in the hugely hostile - untested - environment that was the old USSR.


I think the US military has a better idea on how to run it's strategic nuclear force then you do Sminkey.


- If I were in an arguement with the USAF's planners then you might have an excellent point, as it is we're, mostly, a collection of informed amatuers shooting the breeze here over what seems reasonable, credible or otherwise; wouldn't you say?
Seriously, huh?



How are you going to keep tabs on 200+ men scattered across the globe on the most secure airbases in the world?


- Firstly I think you're talking a hell of a lot more that 200 men for well over a hundred B2s and secondly why are you putting this in such a ridiculous way, as if a spy is following each one around?

It would, IMO, be far more than likely to be something along the lines of a couple of fairly low-level 'agents' (unwitting or otherwise) in admin in a few places passing on details of such a large movement of bomber crews.


What the hell are you talking about? Now Russia is tracking all the B-2 pilots AND all of our tankers?


- I suggest you consider just how much seemingly irrelevant stuff the allies collected and collated on Germany in WW2 (even down to material and button orders for uniform production).

Do you imagine we - or they - just forgot about doing that kind of stuff, in the more deadly environment of the cold war?
Obviously I can't prove this either way but I don't.
When I think of the UK's GCHQ or the stories of 'Echelon' I am pretty sure we are still at it (and I see no reason to believe they weren't either).

What makes you think noting a sudden massive avaition gas buy on world markets would go unnoticed - or does all 'normal' activity just stop to conserve stocks......and go unnoticed?
Or the spike in training, practice and recall of most of the tanker crews - it's not like there is capacity to carry on with 'normal' matters as well, huh?
Not with budget scrutiny post WW2.

It's not like they aren't vital in preparing for an attack, right?
Do you really think that wouldn't be something that was also being watched - one way or another?


And tanker support isn't the big deal you make it out to be. The USAF is doing tons of mid air refueling EVERY SINGLE DAY!


- Exactly so the moving from that 'normal' and easily observed activity that would be required and generated by this imaginary attack would stand out clear as day and raise immeadiate suspicions.


You only need to refuel 130 aircraft, and not all from the same spot Sminkey. You can fly some B-2's out of Europe, Alaska, Australia, Japan, Isreal, etc etc etc. There is no way in hell to keep track of all that stuff and then come to a conclusion that there is anything more then NORMAL air activity.


- I disagree......and with your attack now dispersed around the globe to other countries the planes, preparations and activity become even less likely to remain any kind of secret that would pass unnoticed.


Yes, you can, and the US does so on a regular basis!


- Keeping a relatively small handful of planes out of sight is a hell of a different order of magnitude to this 130+plane (plus support) imagined attack.
No-one ever kept that kind of bomber 'fleet' secret.


THose weapons are on site at the bombers home base. How the hell is Russia going to figure out they are being loaded onto B-2's when the bombers themselves are in a damned hanger?


- Well correct me if I'm wrong but is USAF practice so different from that of the RAF?

Nuclear weapons are not kept in the hangers with the planes.
Therefore is it not reasonable to assume that large amounts of activity at the various known bomber bases would not go un-noted?

(and with a 130+ B2 fleet I do not believe for an instant that most of their bases would not be known and observed in short order)


That is a fair point


- Phew, at last a little consideration and conceding that once in a while I might have a point.



but to assume that they would have someone telling them there was about to be a nuclear first strike (when such an undertaking would SURELY be among the most secret missions in human history) and ALSO assuming that the asset would be willing to DIE (by way of nuclear retaliation by the USSR) is not reliable.


- There would have still been plenty of people who would have IMO, and
involving other countries in the attack (so you would have to be telling them something to get permissions for landings and take-offs etc) pretty much guarantees it IMO.


Their assets were mostly Americans wanting to make extra money. How many white collar criminals do you know that are willing to risk their family and friends - much less their own - life?


- That's true of some.
You are however ignoring those that took a highly principled stand (which just happened to come with financial rewards too, apparantly).

More than a few cold war spys were motivated by what they saw as the need to maintain a balance precisely to stop a world suffering an insane and mass-murderous USA - or USSR - doing exactly this kind of thing.


we all know situational awarness and communications are key in modern warfare. Those assets are fairly easy to take out.


- All I can say here is that is one hell of a set of assumptions there - and a not inconsiderable dose of hindsight.
We did not know everything for sure; we did not know just how 'layered' and survivable their 3c was.

That alone would make a huge difference to any attack - and have fleets of elint planes (and their support etc) now joined in on the secret too now?


This just keeps growing and getting further and further away from any realistic idea of secret and sneaky, huh?


the US would have crippled the Russian AF response - the vast majority of their ICBMs and most likely the whole of their bomber fleet would be destroyed.


- Yeah, maybe; but I think this is just guessing (who knows if well maintained and properly operated - by Russians - Russian kit would have had the same outcome as Iraq?), anyhoo like I said and like you know the Russians, like the west, had 'overkill' several times over.


This is also a fair point. The US Navy certainly dominated the Russian submarine force, but expecting the US to be able to coordinate an attack against the whole missle fleet is unrealistic. More likely the US could get about half of them in such a situation, leaving the rest to launch their weapons.


- Ifs, buts and maybes is the meat and drink of this.
One can argue whether they would or wouldn't have gotten half the Soviet SLBM force (and remember after the mid 1970's they expanded that fleet hugely, apparanly they were launching one a month at one point).

Frankly I think you are just guessing on that......if you do have any rationale for making such a claim go ahead and say, I'll entertain the idea.

But seeing as the B2s are now also supposedly in the business of destrying the communications network as well as the ICBM force you'll understand that I have my serious doubts.


In any event again I say so what, they had overkill several times over - and let's not forget this new additional expansion of activity to this supposedly sneak 'first strike' attack - now involving the US sub fleet - just surely makes the whole prospect of anything being secret about it receed further and further away.


Like I said, this would be a preemptive first strike. 'Russia is about to attack us, so let's hit them first' type of a deal.


- Er, hang on.
Anyone could make that kind of claim - and they often did.
You comment here is actually reintroducing the idea if a time of rising international tensions (which was not the original idea put).

In any case supposedly that was what the cold war was all about (or so the propaganda on 'our' side went).
They were always supposed to be gearing up to attack us and we were always supposedly having to 'deter' that crazy wicked desire of theirs.


Like I said more than a few never believed that kind of simplistic stuff anyway and there were sufficient on either side that told the other what the true intentions (of the political leadership on each side, anway) were.

Naturally the 'war-perv' element on each side were always on about how 'they are about to attack us! and how we should 'move before it was too late and 'they' got too strong'.

(Le May for one made a career of it.....even going as far in the 1950's of personally trying to provoke an all out war "to get it over with now rather than later" by unauthorised spy flights over Soviet territory).

Same old same old.


As unrealistic as a perfect execution would be, it would be far better then getting hit with a first strike yourself.


- .....and yet so much much worse than simply being wrong and getting it all wrong.


And frankly, I think nuclear war to be a lot more 'winnable' then most - especially if you can get in the brunt of your attack before the enemy has a chance to counter.


- Well here we part company AMM.
I find this idea utterly insane.

BTW it also discounts the prospect of any so-called 'doomsday' device specifically designed to poison and pollute so heavily that the idea that there ever could be any kind of winner is risible.

Certainly it was/is widely believed in the west that the Russians (like us) had/have one.
I have seen no proof it was/is a myth and a B2 strike does nothing about that.


That is exactly what the B-2 was designed for - to get in to Russia and deliver a first sttrike that would take out a great majority of her retalitory ability. It may not be a fun thought, but global strategic thermo-nuclear war is something that was at the forfront of every military planners mind, and is still researched today.


- Well I'm sorry but I disgree that even a fleet of 130 or so B2s could strike and 'kill' (each one 100% successful every time) sufficient of the Soviet 3c and also ICBM capacity to accomplish this task.

I have no doubt there are people examining the various permutations and possibilities, that is a given; thankfully most conclude the idea is insane....who wants to go down in history forever as the evil nutcase POS that killed more innocent people in one fell swoop?

I disagree with what you see as the prime purpose of the B2.

I say it was primarily designed to survive a hostile environment (and at that time one is talking about a hostile environment almost utterly untested and still enormously unknown and open to question).


If there were a global economic collapse, eventually we would recover. It beats getting hit furst in a nuclear attack.


- If that were the only option you might have a point; however the point originally outlined in this thread was simply a US first strike so as to be done with once and for all of those pesky Russians.

However you dress it up (and try to introduce rising tensions etc.....which in turn introduces yet more 'knock-on effects and make surprise attacks less likely to succeed) that is mass murder of an unimaginable scale......and even your own shattered, poisoned and desperately struggling surviving generations would curse you forever and a day for it.

That is a major part of this; the actions one attempts to take have direct follow on effects and the resultant ripple effects from them render the notion of this imagined successful sneak attack so unlikey - no matter what impressive but relatively small aspect of the overall weaponary you possess.


Famine wouldn't be as big of a problem as you think, especially if losses in human life are as high as they would seem to be.


- I think that the accompanying collapse in movement as well as production would see famine a vast problem the world over.


As far as global pollution...

There have been WELL over 1000 - I'll say that again - ONE THOUSAND nuclear detonations thus far. We haven't seen a nuclear winter from that. Yes there would be considerable fallout, and problems, but again, nothing that is beyond humanities ability to over come.


- AMM this is probably the wekest part of everything I've seen you write here.

Solitary nuclear tests every once in a while (either underground, at ground level or in air or in space) are nothing like what would happen in an attempt this kind of attack, even if there have been 1000 of them.
(although having said that ground level and atmospheric testing was damaging enough to have almost everyone agree to banning them quite early on)

There would be attacks on cities (cos funnily enough people tend to be near where this stuff is - when you count dockyards, production factilities, storage areas etc etc) creating huge amounts of debris, fires, smoke etc etc.

Basically to have any chance of success you would be attempting to neutrlise the entire Soviet/Warpac capacity to wage war (unless you imagine nuking several of their population centres - not everything is analogous to some of the US silos/capability in the middle of nowhere - would not provoke a determination to retaliate?).

It's not realistic and thankfully (probably for that reason as much as anything) it never came to pass.

.....and again the theoretically possible 'doomsday device' is completely ignored in this point.
Our scientists believed one perfectly possible, no doubt theirs did too.....the rationale for one is absolutely all about countering a weapon such as an all-powerful B2 or whatever, so why just ignore the possibility?


Frankly, you are seeing this as a plan to take out the USSR in one swift blow


- Well that was afterall the original idea at the beginning of this thread.


where as in reality it would be a plan to be used when the US knew it was to be attacked any way in order to give NATO the best chance at survival.


- That was not mentioned originally.
I think you are just trying to make ideas of a 'first strike' more palitable and comfortable.


No plan is perfect, but this plan would certainly be better then just letting all of our missles fly or just letting the USSR attack us first.


- If the outcome is the same (nuclear annihilation and the complete destruction of he civillised world in any meaningful sense) what's the odds?

Like the film (War Games) said the only way to win this one is not to 'play'.




[edit on 24-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


It doesn't matter what kit you have, once you start lobbing nukes around everybody loses, it seems odd that on this thread it only appears to be Americans who think otherwise? I stand to be corrected of course.


Nuclear war is indeed a crazy prospect yet we make weapons for just that role. ICBMs SLBM etc.. weapons whos designed role we hope we never have to use.

M.A.D was a stalemate but you better believe both countries were looking for ways to break that stalemate. You can find evidence of Americas opposition to MAD if you look like the withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an agreement based on MAD.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

M.A.D was a stalemate but you better believe both countries were looking for ways to break that stalemate.


Of course they were (the UK too), I never said anything to the contrary. Doesn't mean it can be done though.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join