It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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]
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
Originally posted by FredT
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.
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.
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.
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.
How are you going to keep tabs on 200+ men scattered across the globe on the most secure airbases in the world?
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.
Yes, you can, and the US does so on a regular basis!
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?
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?
we all know situational awarness and communications are key in modern warfare. Those assets are fairly easy to take out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.