• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,659
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles. The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles. Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature. You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.
 
At least for three decades there will be some good jobs for people to fill.

It doesnt hurt to have a nice stack o nukes! Never know when you'll need them to bring the world to its knees ;)
 
What the author is advocating is akin to unilateral disarmament, due to the fact that adversaries of the US (Russia, China, North Korea, as well as others... and now Iran) that have nuclear capability are investing billions in modernizing their nuclear forces, while our equipment is literally rotting and the technology is becoming not only obsolete and less effective than our advisories equipment, but more and more vulnerable to technological interference (hacking).

Keeping the money to use on other needs is an admirable goal, but if we are destroyed by our enemies because our "deterrent" no longer deters them, there will be nothing left on which to spend the money.
 
Simpleχity;1065481733 said:
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles. The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles. Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature.
You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.



If either one hits you center mass you're dead so it really doesn't matter.
 
Simpleχity;1065481733 said:
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles.
The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles.
Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature. You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.



That's not near enough. We should buy about 10,000.

If you buy more they're cheaper.

:lol:

That'll put the fear of God and the USA into those Russki's
 
That should make our warmongering neocon populous very happy.

But, as far as I can tell, this is just another BS piece of propaganda. Not too worried about it.
 
Simpleχity;1065481733 said:
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles. The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles. Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature. You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.

Unfortunately the rest of the world is not going to disarm, mankind is still not fully developed enough, and with that thought in mind one must continue to improve and advance in the creation of new and better methods to fight war. Maybe a thousand years from now mankind will have gotten past this insanity or maybe we will simply not be around to advance to that point, my guess is the later.
 
Simpleχity;1065481733 said:
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles. The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles. Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature. You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.

I read about those weapons a while ago. Cool, aren't they? It makes perfect sense to innovate, as the system of international security is increasingly unstable and, if we do not change the whole system, real war - not something like Vietnam - will be unavoidable. But this type of weapon will give the US a couple more years. And that is better than a couple fewer.
 
Simpleχity;1065481733 said:
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles. The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles. Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature. You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.

So, he can basically destroy any city on Earth at the push of a button? Seems to me that's a tad worrisome.

And it's not just that Barack Obama will have that power. Anyone who becomes president will have that power. Picture any one of the front runners able to kill so many people so easily and see if it doesn't send a chill up your spine.
 
Simpleχity;1065481733 said:
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles. The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles. Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature. You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.

For one, I do not take a commentary from 2 people who served during the Clinton administration to seriously to be honest.

And the LRSO is not all that big of a deal when it comes to payload delivery. It is still simply another subsonic cruise missile. And both we and the Soviets (and now Russians) have been able to shoot these down for decades. Heck, they are little advanced in many ways then the V1 missiles of WWII. No evasion capabilities, and any jet fighter will be capable And the Russians have in place the most sophisticated air defense network in the world.

For targets right on the frontier regions of their country, something like the LRSO might work. But for more inland targets, odds are that most of these missiles would not make it to their targets. Falling prey to their defense network and interceptor fighters.

And "dual use" has yet another risk. I have long been against using the same platform for both conventional and nuclear payloads. If they do not know if it is nuclear or conventional, they should be expected to react as if it was nuclear each and every time. That is why decades ago we retired the entire Pershing missile system. The US and Russia no longer use conventionally armed ballistic missiles, so that now there is no question if such a missile is launched, it is nuclear.
 
Simpleχity;1065481733 said:
Obama Is About To Launch A New Nuclear Arms Race. There’s a Better Way.

"Despite his anti-nuclear words, the president is about to cave to the nuclear arms priesthood."

defense-large.jpg


I basically agree with the author. Perhaps the biggest looming challenge IMHO, is the development of Long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missiles. The USAF plans to buy 1,000 to 1,100 of these new missiles. Many pundits think that such a dual-use and extremely accurate weapon may make it too easy to use a tactical nuclear warhead. Another worrisome aspect is their dual-use nature. You just don't know if a conventional or a nuclear-tipped LRSO warhead is incoming.

Another BS article. We already have enough subs at sea at any one time that could change the world forever.
 
For one, I do not take a commentary from 2 people who served during the Clinton administration to seriously to be honest.

And the LRSO is not all that big of a deal when it comes to payload delivery. It is still simply another subsonic cruise missile. And both we and the Soviets (and now Russians) have been able to shoot these down for decades. Heck, they are little advanced in many ways then the V1 missiles of WWII. No evasion capabilities, and any jet fighter will be capable And the Russians have in place the most sophisticated air defense network in the world.

For targets right on the frontier regions of their country, something like the LRSO might work. But for more inland targets, odds are that most of these missiles would not make it to their targets. Falling prey to their defense network and interceptor fighters.

And "dual use" has yet another risk. I have long been against using the same platform for both conventional and nuclear payloads. If they do not know if it is nuclear or conventional, they should be expected to react as if it was nuclear each and every time. That is why decades ago we retired the entire Pershing missile system. The US and Russia no longer use conventionally armed ballistic missiles, so that now there is no question if such a missile is launched, it is nuclear.

Not all ballistic missiles nuclear tipped. Since 2006, we have been converting many "nuke" tipped missiles to conventional. Russia and the USA have been jawing back and forth about it since 2006.

Here's a snippet from "Wiki". Not the best source, but it is fairly accurate.

The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options,[13] as part of a broader long-term strategy to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed "Prompt Global Strike".

The US$503 million program would have converted existing Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per submarine) into conventional weapons, by fitting them with modified Mk4 reentry vehicles equipped with GPS for navigation update and a reentry guidance and control (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10 m class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used since the reentry vehicle's mass and hypersonic impact velocity provide sufficient mechanical energy and "effect". The second conventional warhead version is a fragmentation version that would disperse thousands of tungsten rods which could obliterate an area of 3000 square feet. (approximately 280 square meters).[14] It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time.

The primary drawback of using conventionally tipped ballistic missiles is that they are virtually impossible for radar warning systems to distinguish from nuclear-tipped missiles. This leaves open the likelihood that other nuclear-armed countries might mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.[15] Russian President Vladimir Putin, among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," Putin said in May 2006.[16]
 
I knew of that program, and it died in infancy. It was only a study proposal, and I do not even think they went as far as live fire testing of the proposed missile before it was cancelled.

Here, let me highlight some things in your own quote.

Not all ballistic missiles nuclear tipped. Since 2006, we have been converting many "nuke" tipped missiles to conventional. Russia and the USA have been jawing back and forth about it since 2006.

Here's a snippet from "Wiki". Not the best source, but it is fairly accurate.

The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options,[13] as part of a broader long-term strategy to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed "Prompt Global Strike".

The US$503 million program would have converted existing Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per submarine) into conventional weapons, by fitting them with modified Mk4 reentry vehicles equipped with GPS for navigation update and a reentry guidance and control (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10 m class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used since the reentry vehicle's mass and hypersonic impact velocity provide sufficient mechanical energy and "effect". The second conventional warhead version is a fragmentation version that would disperse thousands of tungsten rods which could obliterate an area of 3000 square feet. (approximately 280 square meters).[14] It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time.

The primary drawback of using conventionally tipped ballistic missiles is that they are virtually impossible for radar warning systems to distinguish from nuclear-tipped missiles. This leaves open the likelihood that other nuclear-armed countries might mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.[15] Russian President Vladimir Putin, among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," Putin said in May 2006.[16]

Notice the past tense. And rightly so, the entire program was cancelled by Congress in the FY08 budget.

And interestingly enough, the screams for conventional TRIDENT missiles comes primarily from those that plead for nuclear disarmament in the first place. This is a weapon that not even the Navy really wanted, the civilians in pinstripes with class rings in the Pentagon were the ones that dreamed that one up. Thankfully the Navy had enough friends in the House to get it cancelled after the initial appropriation.

Sorry, but your taking this failed proposal and then twisting it into claiming that we have been converting to such warheads for years leaves me scratching my head. It was never put into action, no live use missiles were converted, it died before it went anywhere.
 
I knew of that program, and it died in infancy. It was only a study proposal, and I do not even think they went as far as live fire testing of the proposed missile before it was cancelled.

Here, let me highlight some things in your own quote.



Notice the past tense. And rightly so, the entire program was cancelled by Congress in the FY08 budget.

And interestingly enough, the screams for conventional TRIDENT missiles comes primarily from those that plead for nuclear disarmament in the first place. This is a weapon that not even the Navy really wanted, the civilians in pinstripes with class rings in the Pentagon were the ones that dreamed that one up. Thankfully the Navy had enough friends in the House to get it cancelled after the initial appropriation.

Sorry, but your taking this failed proposal and then twisting it into claiming that we have been converting to such warheads for years leaves me scratching my head. It was never put into action, no live use missiles were converted, it died before it went anywhere.

Don't look now............ but it has happened. Four boats have made the conversion.
 
I knew of that program, and it died in infancy. It was only a study proposal, and I do not even think they went as far as live fire testing of the proposed missile before it was cancelled.

Here, let me highlight some things in your own quote.



Notice the past tense. And rightly so, the entire program was cancelled by Congress in the FY08 budget.

And interestingly enough, the screams for conventional TRIDENT missiles comes primarily from those that plead for nuclear disarmament in the first place. This is a weapon that not even the Navy really wanted, the civilians in pinstripes with class rings in the Pentagon were the ones that dreamed that one up. Thankfully the Navy had enough friends in the House to get it cancelled after the initial appropriation.

Sorry, but your taking this failed proposal and then twisting it into claiming that we have been converting to such warheads for years leaves me scratching my head. It was never put into action, no live use missiles were converted, it died before it went anywhere.

Don't look now............ but it has happened. Four boats have made the conversion.
 
it's well known that we only need 311 nukes to protect our selves.
 
Don't look now............ but it has happened. Four boats have made the conversion.

Upgrades to the boats are minimal, primarily software upgrades for targeting. But no missiles have been converted, the funding for that was cancelled over 7 years ago.

But the 4 boats you are talking about I think you are very wrong about. You see, this is because we converted 4 Ohio class SSBNs into SSGNs, carrying conventionally armed Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. These do not launch conventionally armed Trident Missiles.

So unless you can describe the 4 ships converted for conventional Trident missiles, I do not think you have anything there.
 
Back
Top Bottom