GOP pushes back against any further cuts in nukes

The administration is weighing at least three options for lower total numbers, cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400.

Not sure if this will ever go through. I'm not even sure if the Military will let it go through. Unless there are secret weapon systems that we're not aware of, this deal will not fall through. After all these years and trillions of dollars, why now? I have few theories but I will wait until others have posted their viewpoints.

Your thoughts please.

I don't see anyone making any more cuts, especially when Russia is building newer nukes. America needs what it has to take out Russia, China and now Pakistan should that ever become a reality. We just need to have that deterrent.

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
I don't see anyone making any more cuts, especially when Russia is building newer nukes. America needs what it has to take out Russia, China and now Pakistan should that ever become a reality. We just need to have that deterrent.

"... And now Pakistan..."

Pakistan has had nukes since the 1980's... stop acting like they are the new kid on the block with nukes.

The Middle East has had nuclear weapons for more than 30 years with no problems so far. It isn't the Middle East that is the problem there...

It's the crazy frickin' Jews trying to set-off WW3.

Seriously, you think the Arabs are dangerous because of their beliefs? You should look at the Jews. They can't WAIT for the whole Middle East to attack them and to set-off armageddon.

I don't know why people think that we are trying to stop the Middle East from getting nuclear weapons... they have had them for decades, with no problems.

We are trying to spur on a war based on false info. Just like every war.

Remember those WMDs that we just KNEW were in Iraq?

Yeeeeah......

Oh the delicious irony. Iran is not allowed one nuke but the repuglicrats are arguing about how many the U.S. can have.

We should dismantle every single nuke in our arsenal.

What is the point of having a nuclear bomb? So if one countries government hates another countries government they can kill the people in that country? For what?

We don't need nukes to protect ourselves from anyone. If any country nukes any other country the entire world will be against the aggressor. Nuking another county is the same as pushing a suicide button.

I think if the US wants to go around stopping countries from creating nukes they should get rid of their nukes and set a good example. If we want nukes we have to acknowledge that other countries should have nukes as well.

Let other countries do what is in their best interest. Our interest are to become a non-nuke country and gain some moral high ground for a change.

The USA's foreign policy amounts to "do what I say, not what I do"

Having a nuke doesn't stop others from using a nuke on you. the reason nukes have not been used in war since ww2 is because of the shear destruction and death they cause it has nothing to do with the threat of being nuked back.

The deterrent is that if you nuke a nation the entire world will fight you to the death, not that the other nation will nuke you back.

Thanks for pointing out one more disgusting attribute of the republican party, their love of nuclear weapons.

If it's something good for the planet, you can bet your bottom dollar that the GOP will be against it.

reply to post by hp1229


Why now? It's because Obama is anti-American. He would love to see America fall to communism. That's why now.

Originally posted by Magnificient
reply to post by hp1229

 

Why now? It's because Obama is anti-American. He would love to see America fall to communism. That's why now.

To me this is a very radicalistic move and dream on behalf of the proposer.
Personally I think it might also be a request from some of the overseas fundraiser friends ? What i'm fishing for is a reason or motive besides the one you think is the reason. I need to dig around a bit.

1500 deployed nukes (mostly on ICBMs and subs) is about the minimum number to provide a realistic deterrance against the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF). If you go much lower then that the deterrence aspect starts to fail.

In nuclear war strategy (I know oxymoronic) there are two concepts that are pretty concrete, but that most in the general public have no concept of. I am not talking of "strategic vs tactical" or
'limited vs full scale nuclear war" although those concepts relate. I am talking about:

Counter Force
Counter Value

Counter Force are nuclear weapons that a country has aimed at another countries nuclear weapons. They exist to counter the other countries force. The vast majority of both US and Russia weapons are counter force, ie aimed at each others silos.

Counter Value is the threat against the enemies ciites (Iie civillian populous, industry)

A third concept is

2nd Strike.

2nd Strike is the concept that I have enough weapons left that after you fire your first strike (presumably counter force) I can still fire a counter value strike, crippling your country. During the later parts of the cold war it was believed that both the US and USSR had most of their weapons aimed at counterforce targets. In other words, we wanted to get each others weapons, if possible, but not necessarily the cities. However; both sides kept enough weapons that a counter force strike was unlikely to succeed 100% and the initiator of the war would suffer a counter value strike. IE the essence of Mutually Assured Destruction, which was indeed MAD, but one could also argue worked. The problem is, that under certain strategic scenarios and situations, both sides (especially the Russians) beleive that a disarming single counterforce first strike is possible. If so, and your country has it's weapons removed, it cannot respond, while the initiating country still has weapons to fire a counter value strike and can force you into capitulation.

Right now, experts state we need around 1500 weapons to keep the policy sound, especially since Russia still places huge emphasis on the SRF. Seeing that there are officials in both countries (although more so in the old USSR) that beleive nuclear war to be "winable" with the disarming first strike, there will be little desire to go below are current force levels without the Russians replying in kind.

We will not likely cut much below this, unless the Russians do.

reply to post by SrWingCommander


Well. I am also wondering about the yield of each warhead. I am assuming the low yield warheads would probably be destined for reduction (if it ever gets approved which I highly doubt it too just the way you indicated). I think election year and timeframe is approaching so basically its nothing more than stirring the pot at this point is what I think is really happening.

Another question that I personally ask myself is the REDUCTION means dismantling or actually using the core for energy purposes (just the way some of the russian stockpile is being used currently in the states to power the nuclear power stations). One can dismantle but still set aside the core for rainy days. At this time, its a proposal. I'm sure its not going to fly while the Russians still have the numbers.

Originally posted by Flatfish
Thanks for pointing out one more disgusting attribute of the republican party, their love of nuclear weapons.

If it's something good for the planet, you can bet your bottom dollar that the GOP will be against it.

Really? And you think Trumann was a Republican?

Link

If only U.S. nukes and weaponry was edible for food, we would be able to feed the entire globe for thousands of years...

No wonder we have a HUGE deficit... and republicans actually are not interested in ending it not one bit. The only cuts that republicans wish to cut are that which benefit or help the average, non-wealthy American tax-paying citizen.

Originally posted by filosophia
Oh the delicious irony. Iran is not allowed one nuke but the repuglicrats are arguing about how many the U.S. can have.

Do you think it is about the nukes? Hmmm...follow the banking industry much?

reply to post by sageofmonticello


Idealism is one thing. Reality is not. Wars have been part of the human history since the evolution.

They are nothing more than deterrants. Wish the world was that simple. It is not. This has everything to do with the circle of evolution of humans.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


Having nukes in the hands of responsible political parties and secure infrastructure is not a problem. Its the political unstability that is the scary concern. You can argue that US was the only country to use it but then again if they hadn't used the nuke, I'm sure the Germans would have just to win the psychological war. WWII had to be ended and it has to be demonstrated to the world about the consequences and responsibility that comes with the possession of the technology. Ofcourse that has been the first and last time a nuke has been used....so far. But that is what has kept the many countries from going on political escapades at a massive scale as they did during WWI and WWII.

One cannot stop Science whcih is the foundation of technology. Science in itself is its own creator and destructor. Both the Nazis and Japs were in a serious pursuit of perfecting the Nuclear Technology during WWII. Ofcourse history is very quickly forgotten but it just gives me shivers to think what the world would be like if Hitler and Imperial Japan wouldn't have been defeated during WWII.

reply to post by Magnificient


Fall to communism? How old are you?

reply to post by SrWingCommander


You obviously have knowledge of this area and explained it much better then I could. It is not really about the actual distruction you can cause, but how much destruction your enemy can think you can cause. A just in case scenario for someone who keeps a gun in the nightstand only.

"If i am going down, your going with me."

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by SrWingCommander

 

You obviously have knowledge of this area and explained it much better then I could. It is not really about the actual distruction you can cause, but how much destruction your enemy can think you can cause. A just in case scenario for someone who keeps a gun in the nightstand only.

"If i am going down, your going with me."

Well. But I think its a smoke screen....especially your last sentence .

reply to post by hp1229


Its basically a Mexican standoff.

Originally posted by hp1229
reply to post by SrWingCommander

 

Well. I am also wondering about the yield of each warhead. I am assuming the low yield warheads would probably be destined for reduction (if it ever gets approved which I highly doubt it too just the way you indicated). I think election year and timeframe is approaching so basically its nothing more than stirring the pot at this point is what I think is really happening.

Well, if my education serves me correctly, I think most US warheads are now "dial a yield" which means the warhead can be set to a specific yield.