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.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Sminkey, I don't have time to make a full length reply
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.
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.
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.
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?
- Do we?!
When was this announced?
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 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!).
- 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'.
- 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)
- I think this is nuts.
You're rationalising death and destruction on an unimaginable scale and picturing some sort of 'recovery', to what?
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.
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.
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.
The results of what we see today is the extreme liberal nature that Europe has evolved to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
What 'doomsday' device? Describe what it would be.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- Dress it up with whatever propaganda you like AMM but it is all about gaining a position where US interests come first.
- 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.
- 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.
- Sadly our track record is that most of what gets devised eventually gets tried out.
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?
- 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.
- 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)
- But you don't get the capabilities a manned bomber brings.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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. ]
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.
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.