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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Sminkey, I don't have time to make a full length reply, so I will try to make some summations...

On the technology...

Yes, no one knew how the technology would pan out. The idea though is sound. Clearly at the time of Reagans SDI program, the thought was that it would work in conjunction with the nuclear triad as part of our deterence.

Now, considering we all know that the US had a policy of preemptive nuclear first strike, does not the combination of a stealth strategic bomber, the attempted development of a stealth ICBM, a stealth nuclear cruise missle, and an SDI defence combine to give you the idea that the US was in fact going for a viable nuclear first strike?

I mean, all of those systems, all of which were being developed under the same administration, clearly would work together as outlined by my self and others in this thread?


I believe that your picture of this scenerio (B-2 nuclear first strike, followed by all out ICBM launch under the cover of a SDI defence) is as an absolute. You are thinking that it would need to be carried out perfectly to work.

I dissagree.

The idea in nuclear war is to limit the other guys response as much as possable. That is how you "win".

If he can only get off, say, 200 warheads that hit targets (after the preemptive B-2 strike, secondary ICBM strike, and missle shield take out the vast majority of the response) you have "won" the nuclear war.

NATO would probably lose all of it's major cities and military bases. But the NATO countries would not be devastated beyond their ability to recover. Think of it as being significantly injured, but being able to make a full recovery eventually.

That is better then just getting killed.




posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Sminkey, I don't have time to make a full length reply


- No worries AMM; all I'm trying to do is introduce some rigorous debate, it is afterall thankfully a hypothetical scenario.
Engage however you like as you can/wish to.



Clearly at the time of Reagans SDI program, the thought was that it would work in conjunction with the nuclear triad as part of our deterence.


- Indeed, obviously.
It was so obvious that some in the US were looking for a way to 'win' a nuclear war (as opposed to detering one) that led to at least one generation of Europeans to seriously question American intent and sanity.

You see the results of that today, whereas America was once the undisputed 'leader' of the western world with vast amounts of trust and goodwill amongst 'the ordinary people' of that 'western world' (there was a time when the US was unquestionably the inspirational example for all in the west) that is now no longer quite the case and there is enormous suspicion and distrust of American motives and intent.

Reap what you sow, huh?


Now, considering we all know that the US had a policy of preemptive nuclear first strike


- Do we?!
When was this announced?


does not the combination of a stealth strategic bomber, the attempted development of a stealth ICBM, a stealth nuclear cruise missle, and an SDI defence combine to give you the idea that the US was in fact going for a viable nuclear first strike?


- Like I said, I agree the intention was clear.

It was this kind of undeniable, obvious and very apparant 'direction' in US planning that made it rather obvious to many that the idea of the 'good' west (who would only ever defend itself from an actual attack and never initiate another world war - especially one with the indescriminate horror of a large scale nuclear war) was a naive fantasy and that there really were insane Americans looking for the means to actually try this out.

Hence the 1980's revival and huge growth of CND (the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) across almost all of western Europe (despite the fact that those supposedly scary Russian IRBM nukes were pointed at us).


I mean, all of those systems, all of which were being developed under the same administration, clearly would work together as outlined by my self and others in this thread?


- I have no doubt that was the intention; as for the 'Star Wars' stuff I have yet to hear anything but the most theoretical outlines.

Patriot is a hell of a long way away from the old stuff people like Teller were hawking around - cost, as usual with that crowd, no object!
(things like the 'brilliant pebbles' x-ray lasers all the way up to the 24+ 'battle stations' in orbit!).


I believe that your picture of this scenerio (B-2 nuclear first strike, followed by all out ICBM launch under the cover of a SDI defence) is as an absolute.


- Well this predates the information gained from the first gulf war regarding the capabilities of (some) Russian arms and communications systems.

I really think my point about imaginative hindsight is much closer to the truth.

You cannot simply apply 2005 thinking to what would have been a planners thinking in 1980 on to 1990 or so.

There is no way they could have had that kind of confidence in how effective the B2 would actually have been in the real hostile environment of the old USSR in time of war (sneak attack or otherwise) back then.

That is why I contend the B2 was all about survivability and not day-dreams of a huge successful first strike.

.....and like I said you are studiously ignoring the concept of a 'doomsday device'.
Why?
The whole purpose of such a weapon is to render any super-duper wonder weapon irrelevant, which it does.
Western scientists since the 1960s theorised one was perfectly possible and many still believe they had one and so did/do 'we'.


You are thinking that it would need to be carried out perfectly to work.


- No I don't think so.
I contend that the amount of sudden and simultaneous damage you would have to do to knock out any serious and significant response is beyond the capacity of any fleet of aircraft, B2 or no.

(and like I said it ignores that which 'we' couldn't possibly have known, such as any possible doomsday device)


The idea in nuclear war is to limit the other guys response as much as possable. That is how you "win".


- Well that is the theory for those bean-counting this but the trouble is that the bean-counting takes no account of the fact that even if 'we' lose half what they lose (initially) we have still ended up with a world where huge areas have 'gone'.

Not only that but they are raging open fires (burning for months on end) and are now to be spewing out poisons into the atmosphere and oceans (bear in mind many of the developed world's population centres are on the coast line).

Thanks to rivers (also a feature of many population centres), rain and general weather this will be a feature happening for decades, centuries and even millenia.


If he can only get off, say, 200 warheads that hit targets (after the preemptive B-2 strike, secondary ICBM strike, and missle shield take out the vast majority of the response) you have "won" the nuclear war.


- Yeah like I said in the first place I think the idea you could limit them to 200 warheads is pure fantasy and secondly the idea of a functioning civillisation with even that level of destruction is hard to imagine.

I'd suggest the destruction of only a mere 5 of the world's largest and most important developed cities would cause a global economic collapse and the end of civillisation as we know it.
Think what the loss of 200 would do.


NATO would probably lose all of it's major cities and military bases. But the NATO countries would not be devastated beyond their ability to recover. Think of it as being significantly injured, but being able to make a full recovery eventually.


- I think this is nuts.
You're rationalising death and destruction on an unimaginable scale and picturing some sort of 'recovery', to what?

Handfuls of subsisting settlements the world over attempting to find potable water, avoid radioactive poisoning and starvation?

.....do you really think notions of 'winner' or 'loser' (nevermind USA, EU or USSR etc) would have the slightest relevance in such a nightmare?


That is better then just getting killed.


- No; what we had was better than any of that.

We, thankfully, had enough sane people in positions of responsibility and power (in east and west) who refused to countenance that kind of possibility as 'the only option' and never allowed such a horror to come to pass.

That was the best outcome.

Whether you have 20 B2s or 200 I think the fact still remains, the degree of 'overkill' coupled with a perfectly likely and feasible 'doomsday weapon' render the idea of a winnable nuclear war ridiculous......

.....and why the hell would anyone even want to risk attempting such a thing anyway?



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Guiness World Records most expensive aircraft: B-2 = $1.3 Billion



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
The B-2 was going to replace the B-52 and be our main bomber with 350 of them. But of course things usually don't work out they way you'd wish.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Indeed, obviously.
It was so obvious that some in the US were looking for a way to 'win' a nuclear war (as opposed to detering one) that led to at least one generation of Europeans to seriously question American intent and sanity.


And yet that vision of having a viable way to "win" (at least as much as you can in nuclear war) was what destroyed the USSR and saved us from what would have surely been generations more of the cold war.

I must question Europes sanity if they didn't want a viable way to win what was the every day threat of nuclear war. I would argue that the US having the ability to actually win a nuclear war was the best deterent of all.


You see the results of that today, whereas America was once the undisputed 'leader' of the western world with vast amounts of trust and goodwill amongst 'the ordinary people' of that 'western world' (there was a time when the US was unquestionably the inspirational example for all in the west) that is now no longer quite the case and there is enormous suspicion and distrust of American motives and intent.

Reap what you sow, huh?


No, Sminkey. The results of what we see today is the extreme liberal nature that Europe has evolved to. Europe picks and chooses when to like America and when to hate them as it suits them (and it really isn't just them, every country does the same with every other country).

When we are the ones putting our body in between Europe and evil, they like us. When they realise they aren't threatened, they then dislike us. Frankly, the US isn't doing anything today that we haven't done before. We are ousting evil dangerous dictators, and putting ourselves in a strategic position to combat any threats to the modern western world.

The difference this time is that Saddam was in bed with half of Europe.



- Do we?!
When was this announced?


I have read it in many, many places from very credible sources (like generals) that if we ever had intel that lead us to believe we were going to be attacked by Russia, we would preempt them. In fact, the only way to protect Europe from a soviet invasion was the use of tactical nuclear war. We (NATO) simply didn't have the numbers to hold them off.



It was this kind of undeniable, obvious and very apparant 'direction' in US planning that made it rather obvious to many that the idea of the 'good' west (who would only ever defend itself from an actual attack and never initiate another world war - especially one with the indescriminate horror of a large scale nuclear war) was a naive fantasy and that there really were insane Americans looking for the means to actually try this out.


Please, give me one name of someone that you believe actually wanted to "try this out", because everything about these systems was a "deterent" factor, like you so fully support. An SDI defence system is clearly a deterent, as is a viable first strike weapon. That is what I believe you are not looking at properlly. "The best defence is a good offense" - ever heard of that saying? A threatening offensive capability is what maintains MAD and deters the enemy.


Hence the 1980's revival and huge growth of CND (the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) across almost all of western Europe (despite the fact that those supposedly scary Russian IRBM nukes were pointed at us).


The lowering of nuclear arms is all well and good, and in fact plays into the US strategy of nuclear deterence. That was actually part of RR's presidency if you recall, and he was the one president who actually got through to Russia. The plan was:

Develope SDI
Develope Stealth first strike weapon systems for the nuclear triad
Reduce arms on both sides

All of that played into our hands. RR was all for this, because we knew that if we could get those 3 pieces in place, Russia would never first launch. The US would never go first strike (unless, like I said, we had intel that Russia was planning to, and thus, we would beat them to the punch), thus, the likelyhood of nuclear war would be lowered significantly.



- I have no doubt that was the intention; as for the 'Star Wars' stuff I have yet to hear anything but the most theoretical outlines.


YOu have seen the ABL, right? Right now, we don't (publically) have any weapons in space do to treaty, and thus research can't really be done.


Patriot is a hell of a long way away from the old stuff people like Teller were hawking around - cost, as usual with that crowd, no object!
(things like the 'brilliant pebbles' x-ray lasers all the way up to the 24+ 'battle stations' in orbit!).


Like I said before, I believe that this stuff would have matured if we were still in the midst of a cold war. As it goes now, we only need something to take out a handfull of missles that might be launched by say, Iran (it would be worth the price just to see Europe thank us despite their hatred).




- Well this predates the information gained from the first gulf war regarding the capabilities of (some) Russian arms and communications systems.

I really think my point about imaginative hindsight is much closer to the truth.

You cannot simply apply 2005 thinking to what would have been a planners thinking in 1980 on to 1990 or so.

There is no way they could have had that kind of confidence in how effective the B2 would actually have been in the real hostile environment of the old USSR in time of war (sneak attack or otherwise) back then.

That is why I contend the B2 was all about survivability and not day-dreams of a huge successful first strike.


I dissagree. Why would the USAF spend $1,000,000,000 on a bomber merely for survivability. That doesn't make sense. You can get nearly 100% survivability from an ICBM.

No, the only reason to spend so much on a bomber, and require STEALTH is as a preemprive strike. If you just want survivability, the US had the ability to make Mach 3+ bombers at cheaper costs.

I also dissagree that they would not have invisioned systems and how they would be used 20 years down the line. EVERY US system is designed that way. Look at the Raptor. That is how it was designed - to combat other fighters and dominate them for the next 20 years. Same with the B-2.



.....and like I said you are studiously ignoring the concept of a 'doomsday device'.
Why?
The whole purpose of such a weapon is to render any super-duper wonder weapon irrelevant, which it does.
Western scientists since the 1960s theorised one was perfectly possible and many still believe they had one and so did/do 'we'.


What 'doomsday' device? Describe what it would be.



- No I don't think so.
I contend that the amount of sudden and simultaneous damage you would have to do to knock out any serious and significant response is beyond the capacity of any fleet of aircraft, B2 or no.

(and like I said it ignores that which 'we' couldn't possibly have known, such as any possible doomsday device)


But it wasn't JUST B-2's - we were working on stealth ICBMs and cruise missles as well. Put some stealth MIRV missles on our OHIOs, through in some B-2's, add some stealth ICBMs, and back all that with a second conventional nuclear strike which would take less then an hour, and cover all of the above with an SDI system.

I think it could work, and it would sure as hell beat the old "we all die" strategy.



- I think this is nuts.
You're rationalising death and destruction on an unimaginable scale and picturing some sort of 'recovery', to what?


Our current state of course. Take the top 200 cities in NATO away and there is still a large population left with a lot of infrastructure.

Like I said, this isn't what anyone would want, but the possability of all out nuclear war had to be entertained by our militaries, and they had to come up with the best way to survive if such an event were to occur.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

I must question Europes sanity if they didn't want a viable way to win what was the every day threat of nuclear war. I would argue that the US having the ability to actually win a nuclear war was the best deterent of all.


When we are the ones putting our body in between Europe and evil, they like us. When they realise they aren't threatened, they then dislike us. Frankly, the US isn't doing anything today that we haven't done before. We are ousting evil dangerous dictators, and putting ourselves in a strategic position to combat any threats to the modern western world.

The difference this time is that Saddam was in bed with half of Europe.


All of that played into our hands. RR was all for this, because we knew that if we could get those 3 pieces in place, Russia would never first launch. The US would never go first strike (unless, like I said, we had intel that Russia was planning to, and thus, we would beat them to the punch), thus, the likelyhood of nuclear war would be lowered significantly.


But it wasn't JUST B-2's - we were working on stealth ICBMs and cruise missles as well. Put some stealth MIRV missles on our OHIOs, through in some B-2's, add some stealth ICBMs, and back all that with a second conventional nuclear strike which would take less then an hour, and cover all of the above with an SDI system.

I think it could work, and it would sure as hell beat the old "we all die" strategy.


Our current state of course. Take the top 200 cities in NATO away and there is still a large population left with a lot of infrastructure.




Are you serious or winding up??


The ability of the US to win a nuclear war a deterrent? No-one wins in a nuclear war, that was the deterrent!!

As for current US foreign policy, its probably best left alone or else this thread will turn very ugly very quickly.

If Reagan and the hawks got into a position where they seriously thought (deluded themselves) they could 'win', I would not have wanted to see the outcome!

How do you make an ICBM stealthy? The heat is impossible to hide.

Beat the old 'we all die' strategy? No chance man, the US and USSR would have become slag for a couple of hundred years, don't kid yourself otherwise.

Take the top 200 cities out of NATO, the farmland around it, the land and sea affected by the fallout moved by winds etc and what do you have left? Mad Max - beyond thunderdrome



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
You got a big chunck of the puzzle!

The origional concept was NOT for First Strike, but for Retalliation. Remember, by the time the B-2 was developed, we had earily warning sattelites. The idea was that just before the breaking point was reached, the B-2 fleet would be lauched and sent out over the open ocean to wait out the intial Nuclear exchange. Once the dust settled from the first round, the bomber fleet would be contacted by a Looking Glass Airborne Command Post and given the "Go-Codes". The B-2's would then head for Russia with Nukes to finnish the Job!

Tim



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
And yet that vision of having a viable way to "win" (at least as much as you can in nuclear war) was what destroyed the USSR and saved us from what would have surely been generations more of the cold war.


- Frankly there are many who simply conclude we got lucky; there were sufficient of the right kind of people around on either side.

The mistakes didn't prove lethal and the paranoid war-mongers weren't listened to.

As for being saved from "generations of cold war" (so long as it stayed 'cold') that was hardly the worst possibility out there, hmmm?


must question Europes sanity if they didn't want a viable way to win what was the every day threat of nuclear war. I would argue that the US having the ability to actually win a nuclear war was the best deterent of all.


- No.
How on earth can a move to first strike and an attempt to 'win' be any kind of deterrent?

At that point one has moved beyond deterrence and simply become just another in a long line of rather dreary aggressors finding any and every reason in the world (primarily, of course, 'our and our way-of-life's survival!'.......then don't forget to mention God and 'our children' several thousand times....blah blah blah) chancing their arm/luck.


The results of what we see today is the extreme liberal nature that Europe has evolved to.


- This is simply wrong.
Why should any European nation support American machinations that would very likely end up with western Europe (along with large parts of the rest of the globe) one rather large funeral pyre?


When we are the ones putting our body in between Europe and evil, they like us. When they realise they aren't threatened, they then dislike us.


- No.
When we were all on the same page acting to deter aggression and make sure there was no possibility of an actual war we got along great.

The instant significant numbers of Americans in positions of power and influence started their day-dreams of 'winning' nuclear wars (in large part on our doorstep) many of us realised many Americans had severe mental health problems.


Naturally this provoked some widespread concerns.



Frankly, the US isn't doing anything today that we haven't done before. We are ousting evil dangerous dictators, and putting ourselves in a strategic position to combat any threats to the modern western world.


- Dress it up with whatever propaganda you like AMM but it is all about gaining a position where US interests come first.

Hence the serious consideration of schemes which would most likely see your allies, like large parts of the globe, toasted.


The difference this time is that Saddam was in bed with half of Europe.


- Oh for goodness sakes AMM, not this old chestnut.

You'll find Saddam was in bed with everyone.......and many US companies (like Reagan's administration) made full use of their European connections and subsidiaries.


I have read it in many, many places from very credible sources (like generals) that if we ever had intel that lead us to believe we were going to be attacked by Russia, we would preempt them.


- I have no doubt the nutter war-perv element always make that kind of claim; of course the idea is "if we knew for sure.....but how the hell does anyone ever really "know" that?
It's a rather redundant and idiotic position to take (and as Iraq has amply demonstrated our intel is sometimes the last thing you'd trust - over something so grave - to let you "know" anything!
)

Hence the move away from the 'tripwire' policy and any kind of lunatic 'launch on warning' insanity in the mid-late 1960's.

Hence the birth of 'overkill' and the ability of each side to suffer and take the first blows but be sure to have sufficient weaponry to respond in kind with the guarantee that 'the aggressor' could not in any meaningful sense survive that 2nd strike response.


In fact, the only way to protect Europe from a soviet invasion was the use of tactical nuclear war. We (NATO) simply didn't have the numbers to hold them off.


- Hardly 'the only way'.

There was also the possibility of what actually happened which was a state of relatively peaceful balance until the message eventually got through to all concerned that Europe was as interested in trying to fight and defeat them as they were us.
In other words not at all.


Please, give me one name of someone that you believe actually wanted to "try this out", because everything about these systems was a "deterent" factor, like you so fully support.


- Sadly our track record is that most of what gets devised eventually gets tried out.
But in any case moving to a 'first strike' situation would be a major part of the 'trying it out' bearing in mind the then polarised world where each side really though they might be attacked by the other.

A true 'first strike' ability is not 'deterrence'.
Sorry mate but it just isn't.

To genuinely attempt such an ability is to go beyond the stability of deterrence and move to the instability of a percieved imminent actual threat of defeat......I suggest you consider the American reaction if the situation were reversed.

How safe and stable would things have been if it were the US on the recieving end of a Soviet SDI and attempts to move from the existing balance to gaining a realistic first strike capability, hmmmm?


An SDI defence system is clearly a deterent, as is a viable first strike weapon. That is what I believe you are not looking at properlly. "The best defence is a good offense" - ever heard of that saying?


- The ability to attack and not suffer retaliation is not what deterrence or MAD was all about.

It is not deterrence it is the ability to attack without suffering the consequences that, until then, MAD had guaranteed.


A threatening offensive capability is what maintains MAD and deters the enemy.


- That is true but MAD requires a 'balance of terror'.
Everyone involved has to accept the futility of attempting to 'first strike' the other because there is never the chance of destroying sufficient of the responsive capability.


All of that played into our hands. RR was all for this, because we knew that if we could get those 3 pieces in place, Russia would never first launch.


- RR had a huge turnabout in attitude.
To begin with he was all for the ultra right-wing war-perv agenda citing "evil empires" etc etc and generally turning up the temperature (I was there and remember it well).

Then, fortunately, he got to actually meet Mihail Gorbachov and they got along well enough for their common humanity to break through the dangerous insanity and for each to understand neither really wanted war.

Three cheers to the pair of them (and one and a half to Maggie Thatcher too who was the first western leader to meet and later indicate that Gorbachov was a decent human being and one 'we' "could do business with").

However none of this contradicts the fact that people in the US DoD were attempting to move the USA away from a balance of deterrence to a true 'first stike' capacity.


The US would never go first strike (unless, like I said, we had intel that Russia was planning to, and thus, we would beat them to the punch), thus, the likelyhood of nuclear war would be lowered significantly.


- The whole point of deterrence was that no-one would attempt a futile 'first strike'.
There never was the chance of the Russians planning one - nor us ever needing to attempt to "beat them to the punch" - because everyone knew that that 'first strike' could never succeed .


Like I said before, I believe that this stuff would have matured if we were still in the midst of a cold war. As it goes now, we only need something to take out a handfull of missles that might be launched by say, Iran (it would be worth the price just to see Europe thank us despite their hatred).


- I don't think you could find any reputable scientist group or research that would agree that the old idea of blocking a significant number (of the several thousand war heads that would be whizzing around if the USSR had been moved to retaliate) credible.

As you say even todays vastly reduced requirement to stop one or two missiles is a long way off of entering service......and even the tests to date aren't exactly a story of great and sustained success either.

(I must say I look forward to the day when the US public are going to start asking questions about this mega multi-billion $, now approaching 30yr old, gravy train. The expenditure versus result ratio is phenomenally poor.

.....and like I have said trying to claim a need to cloak this in ultra-secrecy when the whole point of it is to let everyone know is rather lame and, I'd suggest, wearing thin)


I dissagree. Why would the USAF spend $1,000,000,000 on a bomber merely for survivability. That doesn't make sense.


- Fristly you can bet those were not the original costs quoted!

Secondly it does make some kind of sense when you are faced with an Air Force determined to finally get their new bomber (so they'll say and claim almost anything) and when you are facing an environment where you are pretty certain your existing fleet (even taking into account the recent interim B1b purchase) either is incapable of survival right now or will be incapable of any serious abilty to survive very soon.


You can get nearly 100% survivability from an ICBM.


- But you don't get the capabilities a manned bomber brings.


No, the only reason to spend so much on a bomber, and require STEALTH is as a preemprive strike.


- I disagree.

I do not believe the primary motivation for producing the B2 was a first strike capacity and I do not believe such a capability exists even with the B2.

I do agree that later there were those insane enough (and prepared to ignore all the other factors that make even the use of something like the B2 incapable of giving that capacity anyway) to start thinking along those lines if SDI had worked and when it started to become apparant that 'stealth' might work better than they had originally thought.


If you just want survivability, the US had the ability to make Mach 3+ bombers at cheaper costs.


- What?
I do not believe anyone seriously imagines a mach3+ bomber is in any way 'survivable' for very long.

(although it is true that originally the Russians were convinced the Space Shuttle was such a craft.
But hardly a 'system' incapable of being countered, anyway either.)


What 'doomsday' device? Describe what it would be.


- The original idea IIRC was that they (and we) had a nuclear device so massive and specifically constructed so as to act as to make the planet uninhabitable (by being designed specifically to produce and distribute, globally via the atmosphere and oceans, as much radioactive poison as possible, of the worst and most persistant kinds).

It would not have to be 'delivered' anywhere, it would simply created within the country producing it and at some point when the need was felt, detonated.

If either side was to gain a technological advantage so as to render their 'normal' forces of deterrence incapable of averting a catastrophic war and their defeat then the 'doomsday device' would be available to ensure neither side able to 'win' (in any meaningful sense of the term).

I think you'll find that after the 'Tsar' bomb drop everyone had worked out and agreed that nuclear weapon size was pretty much about as limited as ones' desire and material ability to construct.

Another alternate possibility was the ability to simply detonate several thousand of ones' existing nuclear stockpile in one go so as to produce the necessary fallout to poison the planet.

It is not known whether they do or did exist but certainly many many scientists going back to the 1960s believed the idea perfectly feasible.


But it wasn't JUST B-2's - we were working on stealth ICBMs and cruise missles as well. Put some stealth MIRV missles on our OHIOs, through in some B-2's, add some stealth ICBMs, and back all that with a second conventional nuclear strike which would take less then an hour, and cover all of the above with an SDI system.

I think it could work, and it would sure as hell beat the old "we all die" strategy.


- No, I don't see this at all.
ICBM launches are amongst the easiest things to spot.

You can dress the warhead up as stealthy as you like but they still require a huge great hot rocket to send them on their ballistic arc.

I also think you'll find Russia is so huge that flight times would be vastly beyond the mere hour estimate you have given.

Once again the huge involvement of so many 'assets' makes the notion of this sneak attack unlikely.


Our current state of course. Take the top 200 cities in NATO away and there is still a large population left with a lot of infrastructure.


- Take the biggest 200 cities out of the equation and human civillisation collapses.

Just think about what the financial and economic collapse alone would do; no global transport, no oil, no electricity, no industry, no medicines, no large scale water production, no large scale farming, famine.

There would, IMO, be no return to 'the present state'.
So, once again one is left asking what would it all be for?
What possible 'purpose' could bringing such a situation into reality 'accomplish' for anyone (mentally healthy)?

(and with Russia then having somewhere around 15 - 20 000 nuclear warheads to throw back......in addition to the number of the world's largest cities 'we' would supposedly have just destroyed - thereby reducing all of Europe, east and probably west, much of Asia and the far east to poisoned burning ruins.
I find you idea of 'only' 200 cities destroyed lacking any credibility.)

I'd also suggest that the recent disaster in New Orleans gives a very small scale idea of how quickly it would all go downhill fast.
Consider all those things in those cities (or in the outlying areas nearby) dependant for power or fuels from those cities to keep cool or hot.
The chemical plants, the storage facilities etc etc.
The disease, poison and allround devastation would spread, be huge and prolonged - particularly if the human expertise to operate and maintain those facilities properly had just been incinerated.

It'd be one terrible ticking time bomb after another across large parts of the entire globe - on top of the horrific catastrophy that had just occurred.


Like I said, this isn't what anyone would want


- Moving from a generally accepted balance to a plausible 'first strike' capacity requires someone to 'want' it.


but the possability of all out nuclear war had to be entertained by our militaries, and they had to come up with the best way to survive if such an event were to occur.


- They did.
Make sure such an event never occurs.

Make sure it is absolutely in no-one's interests to ever attempt one; in short make sure that no-one would ever be stupid enough to attempt a 'first strike'.

Like the man said, they only way to win that 'game' is not to try to play it.



[edit on 25-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Yeah, I understand what you are trying to say... the B-2 is a great plane, I think so too... But in my opinion we shouldn't go into this. Yes they were made to respond to the whole Russian threat, but that doesn't mean that the planes were only designed for that... At the moment the
B-2 is propably the best stealth bomber on this planet (that we know of) But I think that it was made to serve much more than just USA vs Russia, I think that the plane was made to encounter problems in the future... Like transporting nukes to other countries and why not EMP...


[edit on 25-10-2005 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
goes to this whole thread!


I have often wondered about the b2, and the wisdom of using a multibillion-dollar asset over a target-poor nation like Iraq. . . .

I'm not up on modern militaria the way you people are, but I enjoy hearing your rival viewpoints and philosophies duke it out.

The originator of this thread has done some really creative thinking re the original inspiration for the B2, and different scenarios for its use.

Again I thank all of you for your input, & educating me about this bizzaro and frankly Halloweenish topic.
--- ---


But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
If I may add a little to this discussion:

Part of the reason the B-2 was developed was to fight an idea.

What was this idea? It was the concept in the 1970, which was becoming more and more popular with the Soviet High Command, that if the Soviets were forced into a nuclear exchange with NATO, the Soviet High Command and political leadership could survive the exchange. They began to believe that they could live through a nuclear war and retain effective control over (what was left) of the Soviet Union, and in essence, win. They believed this for a number of reasons:

1) They believed (correctly) that the post-Vietnam US military was in a state of decline, and that the new US administrations were seeking to coexist with the USSR in an era of pacification and disarmament.

2) They believed that the NATO nations were becoming increasingly anti-nuclear, and that in short order the US would no longer be able to stage tactical nuclear weapons within the European theater to counter the massive Soviet conventional advantage.

3) They believed (incorrectly) that their nuclear forces had a high deree of survivability. The Soviets possessed a nuclear triad like the US, except that in place of a nuclear bomber force, they relied on road and rail mobile MRBMs and ICBMs. They believed that their ICBM force was their first-strike power, and that their SLBM force and rail-mobile MRBM force were the survivable components, which would be able to ensure their domination in a post-nuclear exchange.

4) They believed in and invested heavily in ABM technology, and build one of the most formidible air defense sectors in the world around Moscow. Unlike the US, who felt ABM technology was a moot point in the 1970's, the Soviets believed it would allow them to survive and fight.

There are more factors, but the main point is that the Soviets began to think in terms of not "how can we survive a nuclear war", but in terms of "how we can win a nuclear war". When Reagan came into office, he knew this, and he set out to convince the Soviets that winning a nuclear war with the US would be impossible, and that we would do whatever it took to make sure that if we were pushed to the brink, no Russian general or politican would survive. Star Wars was a prime example of this policy. The B-2 was another.

When the B-2 was developed, it's mission was:

(publicly stated): serve as a nuclear strike option for high value targets
(privately): roam the Soviet landmass unseen and hunt down SS-25 launchers and mobile Soviet command posts.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
the post-Vietnam US military was in a state of decline, and that the new US administrations were seeking to coexist with the USSR in an era of pacification and disarmament.


- I'd be interested in what you see as "pacification".

Sorry but I can't see any examples of this post-Vietnam.

If I were a Soviet back then what I can see are (to name a few) -

several major programs to renew, update and improve the US IRBM, ICBM & SLBM capability (in the US forces and the French and British independant forces......whos' independance they seriously questioned).

a huge leap in cruise missile technology either deployed or about to be deployed.

and several significant new major military aircraft projects (in the US and European forces) deployed or about to be deployed.


2) They believed that the NATO nations were becoming increasingly anti-nuclear, and that in short order the US would no longer be able to stage tactical nuclear weapons within the European theater to counter the massive Soviet conventional advantage.


- This is simply not true.
A large element within western Europe was against the deployment of cruise missiles and the Pershing 2 missile.

That is nothing like claiming "the US would no longer be able to stage tactical nuclear weapons within the European theatre".

A large element within Europe felt Europe has 'staged' plenty of nuclear weapons, from the ICBMs of France and the UK through to the existant umteen IRBMs of the US and France to the missiles and free fall nuclear bombs of the US, French and British.

Many felt this already plenty sufficient to "counter the massive Soviet conventional advantage" without needing anything new (because cruise and Pershing expanded capabilities and did not simply update or modernise existing capabilities).
Many felt we could well do without this additional capacity fueling tensions further in a time already obviously of great (and increasing) tensions.


3) They believed (incorrectly) that their nuclear forces had a high deree of survivability.


- Correct, they did believe they had this ability to sustain and absorb being attacked and still be able to mount a devastating response is a prime component of the MAD theory each side adhered to.
It is hardly news or in any way a departure from the usual MAD 'philosophy'.

Whether that actual belief was actually incorrect is highly debateable; thankfully we'll never know now.


The Soviets possessed a nuclear triad like the US, except that in place of a nuclear bomber force, they relied on road and rail mobile MRBMs and ICBMs.


- You'll find that at that time their SLBM force was significantly smaller that the US's and that their mobile ICBM technology was a long way off of 'mature' (just as the US originally found the idea of mounting MX on railways was nothing like easy too).


They believed that their ICBM force was their first-strike power, and that their SLBM force and rail-mobile MRBM force were the survivable components, which would be able to ensure their domination in a post-nuclear exchange.


- Sorry but IMO this is pure nonsense.
The Soviets never had a 'first strike' capacity in large part because they could never counter the US SLBM force sufficiently (or the SLBMs of France and the UK).

Just because they had a large degree of 'overkill' sufficient so that they would always be able to effectively '2nd strike' and retaliate (after being attacked themselves) is nothing like the same as saying they has a 'first strike' capability.


4) They believed in and invested heavily in ABM technology, and build one of the most formidible air defense sectors in the world around Moscow.


- So they tried to build a missile defence system to defend a single political target point, Moscow, so what?
In any case everybody but everybody started fitting decoys into their MRVs & MIRV warheads to counter that.


Unlike the US, who felt ABM technology was a moot point in the 1970's, the Soviets believed it would allow them to survive and fight.


- That's one hell of a claim to be making for a highly questionable attempt to defend a single city.

It's not like they ever attempted to deploy a defensive system around their ICBMs, is it?

(and the US gave up their missile defense system because they were pointless; why spend too much time and money worrying about defending some ICBMs when even if their destruction was accomplished there was a huge retalitory force of invulnerable accurate and long range SLBMs and out there waiting to take their place?)


There are more factors, but the main point is that the Soviets began to think in terms of not "how can we survive a nuclear war", but in terms of "how we can win a nuclear war".


- I do not see that you have demonstarted this idea at all.

The Soviet 'build up' was entirely the result, IMO, of 2 decades of suspicion, threat and the resultant 'fruits' of that paranoia.

Firstly there was the lie of the 'bomber gap' in the 1950's and that was followed by the lie of the 'missile gap' in the 1960's.
Each scare falsely claiming 'they' had far more than they actually had and provoking a 'western' response that was not in fact called for..... but which in turn led to massive Soviet suspicions about true 'western' intentions and an ignoring of all the 'peaceful intent' claims our politicians regularly made.

Far from persuing a course of concilliation or "pacification" the US along with several European countries initiated several major arms programs which finally led to the dark and highly dangerous days of the 1970's and 1980's.

They clearly and obviously concluded that the only way to counter what they saw as a 'western' or a US attempt at a 'first strike' capacity was to build so many ICBMs (including difficult to hit mobile systems) that the US/west couldn't possibly 'take them all out' in a 'first strike'.


When Reagan came into office, he knew this, and he set out to convince the Soviets that winning a nuclear war with the US would be impossible, and that we would do whatever it took to make sure that if we were pushed to the brink, no Russian general or politican would survive.


- Sorry but IMO this is seriously upside down.

The Russians already knew they would suffer a huge retalitory response from the enormous numbers of US SLBMs (and those of France and the UK) if they were dumb enough to try a first strike on the USA/'west'.

The saving grace in the end IMO was an absolute acceptance allround that no-one was actually going to try a 'first strike' because everyone absolutely understood the required level of destruction could not be achieved.
Till then I seriously doubt each side thought the other really believed that and that we were all convinced that the others somehow thought some sort of 'win' possible.


They began to believe that they could live through a nuclear war and retain effective control over (what was left) of the Soviet Union, and in essence, win.


- Sorry matey but I don't believe this for a moment; it is patently insane and completely wrong.

Being sure of ones' ability to lash out (as your own country dies) in an almighty and devastating manner as a retaliatory response to being attacked is not at all the same as begining "to believe that they could live through a nuclear war and retain effective control over (what was left) of the Soviet Union, and in essence, win".


[edit on 25-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
The idea was that just before the breaking point was reached, the B-2 fleet would be lauched and sent out over the open ocean to wait out the intial Nuclear exchange. Once the dust settled from the first round, the bomber fleet would be contacted by a Looking Glass Airborne Command Post and given the "Go-Codes". The B-2's would then head for Russia with Nukes to finnish the Job!

Tim


I thought about that and it seems a good point but wouldnt the vast majority of Soviet radar installations and air defenses be wiped out after the initial nuclear exchange? If im correct and that would be the case B-52 or B-1Bs could do this role.

I know many people seem to disagree with my theory on the B-2s true role. But for those people I would ask what about the use of as of yet undisclosed Stealth Cruise I mentioned? IMHO thats well within limits of our technology and can add even more survivability and capablilty to the B-2 in even convential roles. I would like to hear peoples opinions on just that section of the theory even if you disagree with the rest.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
what about the use of as of yet undisclosed Stealth Cruise I mentioned? IMHO thats well within limits of our technology and can add even more survivability and capablilty to the B-2 in even convential roles.


- I don't disagree Shadow, high survivability and a high degree of freedom to operate where other aircraft could not, that seems perfectly plausible to me.

I just can't agree with this 'first strike' stuff.

No matter how effective anyone thinks a B2 with or without ALCMs (stealth or otherwise) you just can't 'get' enough to save yourself from the response IMO.
The huge number of ICBMs and the SLBM fleet are the clincher IMO.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The more this kicks around, the more I think it builds the case for a first strike capability

If they felt that they could decapatate the USSR's command and control ability, it may have been possible if you sortied a large force of B-2's to do so.

Coupled with a limited strike aimed at the fixed ICBM silos you may have a chance to pull it off.

HOWEVER such an attack would have to be a "Bolt out of the Blue" and this assumed that the USSR was at the US equivilent of DEFCON 5. If tensions were already high, no doubt a launch on detection would be in force and the missiles would be flying after the first B-2 dropped in payload.

If I recall in peacetimes a nuclear strike can be ordered by the president, but a second person has to confirm it. If under attack, that second person could be the General in the "Looking Glass" plane. I would suspect that the USSR may have even tighter procedures in place. A bolt out of the Blue type attack aimed at the leadership may cause enough confusion that the go-codes would not be issued.

As I said above, the scenario would have to be implimented perfectly and any mistake would result in WW destruction.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Frankly there are many who simply conclude we got lucky; there were sufficient of the right kind of people around on either side.

The mistakes didn't prove lethal and the paranoid war-mongers weren't listened to.

As for being saved from "generations of cold war" (so long as it stayed 'cold') that was hardly the worst possibility out there, hmmm?



Actually, just about everyone attributes the end of the cold war to Russia over spending in an attempt to keep pace with the US.

What war mongers? I want to see one person on either side who promoted war with the other side. Certainly both sides planed for it, and both sides sought to get an advantege on the other, but I can't recall reading about one person who wanted a war.

Generations of extended cold war would have eventually led us to nuclear war. No doubt about that. Hell, there are dozens of instances where both sides thought the other was attacking - such as the time where a training program was mistaken for a Soviet first strike or when Russian radars picked up blips on their radar which seemed like a limited nuclear launch.

If the cold war continued, eventually it would have gone thermo nuclear hot. On top of that, how many people are better off not living under soviet rule? How about east Germany? What of them and the dozens of countries like them?



- No.
How on earth can a move to first strike and an attempt to 'win' be any kind of deterrent?


Simply sttated, you don't pick fights with clear superiors. You won't see a 3rd grade bully pick a fight with a high scool sports star, and you won't see a country like Russia attack NATO if NATO is clearly stronger.



At that point one has moved beyond deterrence and simply become just another in a long line of rather dreary aggressors finding any and every reason in the world (primarily, of course, 'our and our way-of-life's survival!'.......then don't forget to mention God and 'our children' several thousand times....blah blah blah) chancing their arm/luck.


Wrong. And the cold war proved you wrong. Build up and superiority ended the cold war coldly.


- This is simply wrong.
Why should any European nation support American machinations that would very likely end up with western Europe (along with large parts of the rest of the globe) one rather large funeral pyre?


Simply put, because if it wasn't for them, you would be soviet communists. Or else why did every western European country ally with the US? If we are so bad, and are only going to get you nuked, your government surely would have realised this.

The fact is, you were reliant on the US for your defence, and because the US is great a great and noble ally, we put OUR country on the line for YOU!

My how history is twisted. It was EUROPE in danger from the USSR, not America.



- No.
When we were all on the same page acting to deter aggression and make sure there was no possibility of an actual war we got along great.

The instant significant numbers of Americans in positions of power and influence started their day-dreams of 'winning' nuclear wars (in large part on our doorstep) many of us realised many Americans had severe mental health problems.


Naturally this provoked some widespread concerns.


Please, this is just non-sense.

Show me these "significant numbers of Americans in positions of power and influence" having 'day dreams' of nuclear wars. I want links with specific quotes from the 80's.



- Dress it up with whatever propaganda you like AMM but it is all about gaining a position where US interests come first.


Yes - US intrests DO come first for America, just like French intrests come first for France and Russian for Russia.

Dress it up however you like, but had certain members of the UN security panel not been on Saddams pay role, it would be the UN in Iraq and not the coolition.

Bottom line, according to UN LAW, Iraq was violating it's terms for peace. The UN under it's own law should have been compelled to take action. Instead, Russia, China, and France chose their own intrests over what was supposed to be done and called the US on it's bluff. We weren't bluffing.




- I have no doubt the nutter war-perv element always make that kind of claim; of course the idea is "if we knew for sure.....but how the hell does anyone ever really "know" that?


Funny, a few short posts ago you were saying that spies and assets could track any preperation for a first strike, but now they can't?

Make up your mind Sminkey!


It's a rather redundant and idiotic position to take (and as Iraq has amply demonstrated our intel is sometimes the last thing you'd trust - over something so grave - to let you "know" anything!
)


Actually, it is proven that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, hence, our reason to go in was perfectly justified. We have all of his scientists, and they all say the same thing, "we would have had the bomb in under half a decade".


Hence the move away from the 'tripwire' policy and any kind of lunatic 'launch on warning' insanity in the mid-late 1960's.


Except that no such move was made, Sminkey.


Hence the birth of 'overkill' and the ability of each side to suffer and take the first blows but be sure to have sufficient weaponry to respond in kind with the guarantee that 'the aggressor' could not in any meaningful sense survive that 2nd strike response.


And yet you are the one saying that no one could survive a nuclear war. So I guess only weapons can survive, which are surely the primary targets.



- Hardly 'the only way'.


Sorry, but you are completely wrong here Sminkey. Just do a little research and look at the numbers. Every NATO commander agreed. If the USSR made a move to invade western Europe, the only chance NATO had was the use of tactical nukes.

We simply didn't have the numbers to fend the Russians off.


There was also the possibility of what actually happened which was a state of relatively peaceful balance until the message eventually got through to all concerned that Europe was as interested in trying to fight and defeat them as they were us.
In other words not at all.


That state of relatively peacefull balance was maintained by each side trying to one up the other, Sminkey. Namely, the US and Russia getting into a nuclear arms race.



- Sadly our track record is that most of what gets devised eventually gets tried out.


You made a statement Sminkey, name me one person. Just one.



A true 'first strike' ability is not 'deterrence'.
Sorry mate but it just isn't.


Wrong again Sminkey. The MX Peacekeeper was the greatest ICBM deterent the world has ever known. It was also a first strike weapon. The nuclear ballistic submarine is the greatest naval deterent the world has ever known. Yet again, another first strike weapon. The B-2 bomber is the greatest bomber deterent. First strike again.

The same goes for Russias high speed bombers. Those were first strike weapons.


To genuinely attempt such an ability is to go beyond the stability of deterrence and move to the instability of a percieved imminent actual threat of defeat......I suggest you consider the American reaction if the situation were reversed.


No, the attempt to gain such an ability is by it;s nature deterence. If you are vastly superior, you will not be attacked.


How safe and stable would things have been if it were the US on the recieving end of a Soviet SDI and attempts to move from the existing balance to gaining a realistic first strike capability, hmmmm?


Not safe at all, hence we would not have attacked them


The main thing to keep in mind here, is we knew Russia would have to try and keep up or else they would hand us superiority. Hence how we beat them in the cold war.



- RR had a huge turnabout in attitude.
To begin with he was all for the ultra right-wing war-perv agenda citing "evil empires" etc etc and generally turning up the temperature (I was there and remember it well).

Then, fortunately, he got to actually meet Mihail Gorbachov and they got along well enough for their common humanity to break through the dangerous insanity and for each to understand neither really wanted war.

Three cheers to the pair of them (and one and a half to Maggie Thatcher too who was the first western leader to meet and later indicate that Gorbachov was a decent human being and one 'we' "could do business with").

However none of this contradicts the fact that people in the US DoD were attempting to move the USA away from a balance of deterrence to a true 'first stike' capacity.


You are mistaken about RR. His whole strategy was to back Russia into a corner militarily so that they couldn't keep up, and then come to them in a peacefull way. In that case he had the upper hand, and he made the rulse because Russia was at our mercy. They couldn't afford to keep up, so arms reductions were the best option for them.




- I don't think you could find any reputable scientist group or research that would agree that the old idea of blocking a significant number (of the several thousand war heads that would be whizzing around if the USSR had been moved to retaliate) credible.

As you say even todays vastly reduced requirement to stop one or two missiles is a long way off of entering service......and even the tests to date aren't exactly a story of great and sustained success either.


I agree, it isn't viable now, but had this program beem given uninterupted funding for the last 20 years, we would be much fursther along.

As it is now, we have laser technology which is nearly mature enough to deploy. Had we continued to fund it, I think we would be at the point where 15 or so years from now, a viable multi-layer missle shield capable of taking out, say two to four hundred ICBMs before they released their nuclear warheads would be there.

As it is now, it will probably take half a century to get us to that point, but it is still something we should persue.


(I must say I look forward to the day when the US public are going to start asking questions about this mega multi-billion $, now approaching 30yr old, gravy train. The expenditure versus result ratio is phenomenally poor.


And I must say that no one will care, since it will have yielded a shield that protects us from medium threats such as North Korea and Iran.


.....and like I have said trying to claim a need to cloak this in ultra-secrecy when the whole point of it is to let everyone know is rather lame and, I'd suggest, wearing thin)


I'm not sure I know what you are speaking of... It seems to me that all of the hardware was discussed openly, but the details were wwhat was secret.



- But you don't get the capabilities a manned bomber brings.


When talking about nucear deterence you do. Hell, none of ther air defence systems would be worth a damned by the time any bombers got to the USSR. EMPs and thousands of MIRV warheads you know?

B-2's would do just time. You might even say it would be easy.



- What?
I do not believe anyone seriously imagines a mach3+ bomber is in any way 'survivable' for very long.

(although it is true that originally the Russians were convinced the Space Shuttle was such a craft.
But hardly a 'system' incapable of being countered, anyway either.)


The US flew missions over Russia with the Blackbird all the time. Over 1000 missles were shot at it and never once was any damage done. The time envolope it gives operators of any kind of defence is simply too small to make a difference.

We had the technology in the 80's to make such a bomber (hell, we had one designed and flying before that), and at MUCH cheaper costs.

Again, the only reason to go for stealth over speed is for surprise, and the only reason for surprise is for a first strike.


What 'doomsday' device? Describe what it would be.


- The original idea IIRC was that they (and we) had a nuclear device so massive and specifically constructed so as to act as to make the planet uninhabitable (by being designed specifically to produce and distribute, globally via the atmosphere and oceans, as much radioactive poison as possible, of the worst and most persistant kinds).

It would not have to be 'delivered' anywhere, it would simply created within the country producing it and at some point when the need was felt, detonated.

If either side was to gain a technological advantage so as to render their 'normal' forces of deterrence incapable of averting a catastrophic war and their defeat then the 'doomsday device' would be available to ensure neither side able to 'win' (in any meaningful sense of the term).

Seems more fantasy then fact to me. Even the anti-matter bombs being worked on now wouldn't be that powerfull.


I think you'll find that after the 'Tsar' bomb drop everyone had worked out and agreed that nuclear weapon size was pretty much about as limited as ones' desire and material ability to construct.


Actually, that is completely untrue. Nuclear devices get less and less effecient as the yield gets to such extreme sizes. Otherwise Tsar bombs would be all anyone produced for strategic purposes.



- No, I don't see this at all.
ICBM launches are amongst the easiest things to spot.

You can dress the warhead up as stealthy as you like but they still require a huge great hot rocket to send them on their ballistic arc.

I also think you'll find Russia is so huge that flight times would be vastly beyond the mere hour estimate you have given.


The heat is something I would not presume to know much about, but I am sure if such a weapon was being worked on, it was theoretically possable.

As for the flight times... This is a fact - anywhere in the world in about an hour. Usually the cited time is 45 minutes from launch to target. These missles are doing Mach 20...AT SEA LEVEL! More important however, they fly against the rotation of the Earth, and so move even more quickly.

As it goes though, I have a feeling we are going to be told to "stay on topic", so I won't get into the ability to 'win' a nuclear war anymore here. If you would like to continue the conversation, let's do it in another thread.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
One thing as it looks U are all forgetting. Stealth technology used in B2 is really not so stealthy. It is a yin yang combination. On one hand size signature decreases a lot but plane because of the design produces a big turbulence which can be detected with weather radars. That how USA lost its first F-117 combined with bad luck. The theoreticly solution i see is just 2 combine weather radars with "classical" radars in array + heavy computer processing and U have a working anti stealth radar.

Russia and Australia have anounced long ago that they have technology in place to see stealth based planes on turbulence. As for UK they were experimenting and had some success with huge number of cellular telephone towers. Thou cant see this technology be od any help.

I belive Russia would know really good from 1990+ or so if a fleet of B2 bombers is in coming 2 close. That it a big enough time gap which gives enough time 2 launch before they would be struck. There are probably even more advanced anti stealth radar developed in which was probably even used a bit kwnolidge that they got from F-117 remains.

So with B2 u can do lots of things 2 most countrys but I'm afraid not 2 technology warfare leaders.




[edit on 26-10-2005 by G_o_l_d_y]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by G_o_l_d_y
I belive Russia would know really good from 1990+ or so if a fleet of B2 bombers is in coming 2 close. That it a big enough time gap which gives enough time 2 launch before they would be struck. ]


Hmmm if so the currency strapped Russians would have sold such a system to the Serbians and probalbly the Iraqi's No evidence exists that such a system was actually in place and could detect stealth aircraft.

I also not too sure if they really gained a whole lot from the downed F-117 and I can' help but wonder if that was deliberatly allowed to be taken. The USAF had ample oppurtunity to bounce the rubble after it was downed and chose not too.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I don't think that US worth have more B-2 than B-1. We should knew that every Sprite's load carried are not only much less than B-1, but also less than B-52. even its rang is lower than below two.
As we mentioned undetecting, we have known that LancerII is enough, whereas because of such long rang missle nowadays, even B-52 have no use for reaching the enemy defence line. On the other hand Tu-160 has M2 superconice speed, why we don't spent more money on raising speed of B-1 Lancer.
So my post is US should accoute more B-1 but B-2

[edit on 26-10-2005 by emile]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmm if so the currency strapped Russians would have sold such a system to the Serbians and probalbly the Iraqi's.


Hi tech systems aren for sale usualy. Also few radar units that could detect stealth planes wouldnt be of any use 2 Iraq. The only thing that would save them if they had a military of similar "strength".



I also not too sure if they really gained a whole lot from the downed F-117 and I can' help but wonder if that was deliberatly allowed to be taken. The USAF had ample oppurtunity to bounce the rubble after it was downed and chose not too.


Well judge for your self. F-117.MPG



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join