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.
posted by RetinoidReceptor
Is the US seeking nuclear primacy over all countries? This is a 4 page article written by the Council on Foreign Relations dating April of 2006, stating that the US is seeking nuclear primacy over all countries.
But, according to the new Russian source material, Soviet designers worked around the slow speed of the interceptors by passing target data to them from huge battle-management radars positioned thousands of kilometers away. That gave them enough warning to launch the interceptors in time to kill the incoming warheads. The Russians also made clear that the main ABM system protecting Moscow was just as dependent as the SAMs/ ABMs on receiving target-tracking data from distant battle-management radars.
The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.
From the mid-1950s until 1991 the Soviets followed a two track program: ABM systems designed by Kisun'ko and his successors to protect the apex of the party-state nomenklatura at Moscow with battle-management radars (Dog House, Cat House), from NIIDAR, and SAM/ABM systems designed for nationwide deployment by Raspletin and Bunkin with battle-management radars (Hen House, LPAR) from Mints' RTI, which also designed the Pillbox multi-functional radar in the ABM-3 system for Moscow. Although the SAM/ABMs could be relocated fairly quickly, however, and could be deployed nationally at relatively low cost, the battle-management radars were expensive and fixed.
* * *
Construction of the second-generation LPAR battle-management radars began in 1972 as negotiations on the ABM Treaty were completed. The U.S. delegation's attempt to limit ABM battle-management radars resulted in agreeing to construction of 18 such radars (article III), which was precisely the number the Soviets needed for redundant coverage by both first-generation Hen House and second-generation LPAR battle-management radars. The LPARs provided more precise target tracking to enhance the effectiveness of SA-5/10 SAM/ABMs but did little to improve early warning.
* * *
When the Soviet Empire went out with a whimper in 1991, about 10,000 SA-5/10 interceptor missiles were operational at more than 250 complexes, and 15 of 18 planned battle-management radars--nine Hen House and six LPARs--were
posted by urmomma158
When the Soviet Empire went out in 1991, about 10,000 SA-5 and SA-10 interceptor missiles were operational at more than 250 complexes and 15 of 18 planned battle-management radars - nine Hen House and six LPARs . . although I would say there's some bandwidth issues to overcome as well as these radars which would be easy targets . . [Edited by Don W]
They also have a significant civil defense program. All apartment buildings have a bomb shelter, industrial hardening, and big underground bunkers that are hardened. However these are short terms bunkers so they would all die a slow death.
Pretty soon our nuke arsenal will be the best!
posted by planeman
Don, I find the whole notion of nuclear supremacy hard to fathom - it's a bit of a cliche but it's true; a nuclear war has no winners. That is why the US doesn't want North Korea to get nukes - it makes everything else pretty irrelevant. [Edited by Don W]
I don’t really know if the US’s Korea policy is failing or not because I’m not sure what the behind-the-scenes aims are. In fact I’m not even sure if there is a consistent policy. Being a natural cynic I’d point out that the long standing hostility to the North – something which the US doesn’t seem to have attempted to change in 40 odd years as you rightly point out – plays into Bush’s hands. Our current leadership certainly gets great stock out of its war on terror/proliferation/axis of evil etc.
Originally posted by donwhite
I agree, but not in insolation of any other factors effecting the world. We can’t just have that one overriding goal. There are too many shades of gray in real life. So what gives with NK anyway? Why has the US felt it was in our interest to avoid restoring normal diplomatic ties with NK since 1953? Heck that is almost as long as we’ve ignored Cuba. Well, longer actually. We started ignoring Cuba in 1959.
We may have had sufficient reasons in both cases that long ago. But what has it got us? The Kim family is still ruling NK and Fidel shows no signs of dying before 2009, so he will out live yet one more US president. Eisenhower. Kennedy. Johnson. Nixon. Ford. Carter. Reagan. Bush41. Clinton. And maybe Bush43.
Do we ever admit a policy of ours has failed? Do we ever ask ourselves, “hey, is there another way?” Are we as citizens to be a blockheaded as our leaders and follow them blindly forever and forever. Geez. What’s this democracy malarkey anyway if we have it but don’t use it? Are we at risk of losing it? If we can’t change a 1953 (or 1959) policy that does not work, why not quit democracy and turn it over to the Commander-in-Chief, maybe make him President for Life. I dunno.
[edit on 7/20/2006 by donwhite]
posted by planeman
I don’t really know if the US’s Korea policy is failing or not because I’m not sure what the behind-the-scenes aims are. In fact I’m not even sure if there is a consistent policy. Our current leadership certainly gets great stock out of its war on terror/proliferation/axis of evil etc.
I’m rambling, but what I guess I’m trying to say is that if anything I think mutual assured destruction is here to say – once a country gets the nukes it is essentially immune to outright war – even from the US. Asymmetrical warfare sucks; if you focus too much on one threat your enemies will look for ways AROUND that narrow-scope doctrine. [Edited by Don W]
Look at how the US has pussy-footed around China over Taiwan despite having a clear preference to the smaller republic . . “ [Edited by Don W]
Today China is catching up fast and unlike the USSR, is a commercial as well as ideological opponent – and US can only tip toe around the edges.