• 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!

Trump's new nuclear weapons plan meant to send a message to Russia - Wash. Examiner yesterday

apdst said:
Create a tactical advantage on the battlefield. Don't our troops deserve every advantage we can provide them? I believe they do.
Click to expand...

By getting every last one of them killed in a nuclear exchange? Not an advantage!

Listen, we already have small "tactical" nuclear weapons. There's a lower limit on the theoretical yield of a nuke - one critical mass. We can't make them much smaller than they already are because that's just how physics works.

So, again I ask, what more is added by a very slightly smaller nuke than what we have now? Keep in mind the the opposing force has been struck by a nuclear weapon and is going to respond accordingly. Do you really want to sit there and tell me you believe Vladmir Putin is going to react differently to a 1kt nuke than he would to a 3kt nuke?

Your statement is vague enough and uncritical enough to justify literally any military spending. Our troops deserve billion dollar diamond-plated robot suits that protect them eight percent better than kevlar. Don't you agree? We need to buy at least two vests per servicemember or you just hate the troops.
 
apdst said:
Leftists claim that Russia committed an act of war. If that kind of talk turns into a shooting war, I want our forces to have an overwheling advantage. It will save the lives of United States troops. Are their lives worth it? I believe they are.
Click to expand...

They already have an overwhelming advantage and no one is advocating we go to war with Russia.
 
Deuce said:
By getting every last one of them killed in a nuclear exchange? Not an advantage!

Listen, we already have small "tactical" nuclear weapons. There's a lower limit on the theoretical yield of a nuke - one critical mass. We can't make them much smaller than they already are because that's just how physics works.

So, again I ask, what more is added by a very slightly smaller nuke than what we have now? Keep in mind the the opposing force has been struck by a nuclear weapon and is going to respond accordingly. Do you really want to sit there and tell me you believe Vladmir Putin is going to react differently to a 1kt nuke than he would to a 3kt nuke?

Your statement is vague enough and uncritical enough to justify literally any military spending. Our troops deserve billion dollar diamond-plated robot suits that protect them eight percent better than kevlar. Don't you agree? We need to buy at least two vests per servicemember or you just hate the troops.
Click to expand...

While classified, the practical size of a Nagasaki-type plutonium implosion bomb can be as small as you want, within practical limits. The Trinity test core was about the size of a soccer ball. A weapon with a core as small as a tennis or golf ball is not out of reason. The attached pix are of the 1958-designed W54 weapon that was used in the Davy Crockett artillery shell, which was only 11 inches in outside diameter. The detonation yielded 6 kilotons of TNT equivalent. Smaller weapons could yield tens to hundreds of kilotons TNT equivalent.

W54.jpg XW-54.jpg
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They already have an overwhelming advantage and no one is advocating we go to war with Russia.
Click to expand...

Not if Russia can outshoot us with tactical nukes, they don't. That's a deficit in firepower.

I'm sure you're ok with using our troops as fodder, until the enemy runs out of ammo, but I'm not.
 
Deuce said:
By getting every last one of them killed in a nuclear exchange? Not an advantage!

Listen, we already have small "tactical" nuclear weapons. There's a lower limit on the theoretical yield of a nuke - one critical mass. We can't make them much smaller than they already are because that's just how physics works.

So, again I ask, what more is added by a very slightly smaller nuke than what we have now? Keep in mind the the opposing force has been struck by a nuclear weapon and is going to respond accordingly. Do you really want to sit there and tell me you believe Vladmir Putin is going to react differently to a 1kt nuke than he would to a 3kt nuke?

Your statement is vague enough and uncritical enough to justify literally any military spending. Our troops deserve billion dollar diamond-plated robot suits that protect them eight percent better than kevlar. Don't you agree? We need to buy at least two vests per servicemember or you just hate the troops.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand how tactical nukes work.
 
apdst said:
Not if Russia can outshoot us with tactical nukes, they don't. That's a deficit in firepower.

I'm sure you're ok with using our troops as fodder, until the enemy runs out of ammo, but I'm not.
Click to expand...

If someone is "outshooting" tactical nukes, we're in a nuclear war and both countries are about to be obliterated.

Nobody is going to treat tactical nukes the way you're fantasizing. Nobody is going to sit there and let their forces be wiped out by "tactical" nukes because if you're wiping out the enemy it's not tactical anymore, it's strategic and the strategic weapons are going to already be flying.

You obviously don't understand how human beings work.
 
Deuce said:
What does adding more "low-yield" nukes to the mix do for us? .
Click to expand...

It only makes it easier for someone like Trump to respond to a crisis by launching a 'limited' strike. The consequences would be incalculable & far beyond 'limited'.

For example, if he were to strike N Korea's nuclear test site, even a small scale nuke could collapse Mt. Mantap which is already unstable because of all the tunneling & the 6 nuclear tests the Norks have done inside it. If that mountain collapses it would have 2 immediate results:

1) a full scale nuclear attack by China
2) release of all the radiation trapped in that mountain which would make the entire Northern Hemisphere unlivable for thousands of years.
 
JacksinPA said:
It only makes it easier for someone like Trump to respond to a crisis by launching a 'limited' strike. The consequences would be incalculable & far beyond 'limited'.

For example, if he were to strike N Korea's nuclear test site, even a small scale nuke could collapse Mt. Mantap which is already unstable because of all the tunneling & the 6 nuclear tests the Norks have done inside it. If that mountain collapses it would have 2 immediate results:

1) a full scale nuclear attack by China
2) release of all the radiation trapped in that mountain which would make the entire Northern Hemisphere unlivable for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

The second thing is mathematically inaccurate.
The first thing is a strong possibility.

You should add: North Korea retaliates against Japan and South Korea with the nuclear weapons it already has.
 
Deuce said:
The second thing is mathematically inaccurate.
The first thing is a strong possibility.

You should add: North Korea retaliates against Japan and South Korea with the nuclear weapons it already has.
Click to expand...

https://www.trunews.com/article/china-warns-about-mount-mantap
CHINA WARNS ABOUT MOUNT MANTAP
Mount Mantap

OCT 30 2017

Chinese seismologists have reached out directly to their North Korean counterparts to strongly warn against conducting any future nuclear tests at the Punggye-ri site under Mount Mantap, which they believe is on the verge of collapse.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geology and Geophysics hosted a group of North Korean officials Sept. 20 to discuss a number of issues, but the “threat of implosions” at the Punggye-ri facility was the top concern. They repeated earlier warnings that future tests at the facility could blow the top off the mountain, causing a massive collapse that would spread radioactive waste that can be blown across the border.

The timing of this meeting is relevant, because two days later, North Korean Foreign Miniser Ri Yong-ho told the media at the United Nations in New York City that his government was considering an open-air “most powerful” hydrogen bomb test over the Pacific Ocean. The world was told by one of his subordinates to take those claims “literally” last week.

Chinese officials who attended the meeting said the atmosphere was “reserved but friendly.”

The IGG has been closely monitoring North Korea’s nuclear test activity and is believed to have an extensive layout of the Punngye-ri test site. Based on what they know and what they observed after the Sept. 3 nuclear test—which is now thought to have been in excess of 150 kilotons—they believe the facility and Mount Mantap under which it was constructed are highly unstable.

However, an open-air test could have a devastating global effect. Using a volcanic eruption as an example, he said such a powerful explosion would eject “pollutants” into the stratosphere. Substituting radioactive fallout instead of pollutants, the radiation would likely spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

TruNews copy
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
The idea that lower-yield nuclear weapons are more acceptable than large-yield nuclear weapons is like saying that a little bit of rape is acceptable because it's not a lot of rape.

Lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons (which is what the creation of low-yield bombs is all about) is an incredibly bad idea.
Click to expand...
I see no reason not to continue to develope and build nuclear weapons if the rest of the world insists on building their own.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I see no reason not to continue to develope and build nuclear weapons if the rest of the world insists on building their own.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your post seems to be ignorant of why nuclear weapons are contentious in the first place.
 
JacksinPA said:
I'd love just one toke of whatever it is you're smoking. Just to see how it warps your view of reality. 'Limited first strike' = WWIII
Click to expand...

Capability does not equal intent.
 
Deuce said:
If someone is "outshooting" tactical nukes, we're in a nuclear war and both countries are about to be obliterated.

Nobody is going to treat tactical nukes the way you're fantasizing. Nobody is going to sit there and let their forces be wiped out by "tactical" nukes because if you're wiping out the enemy it's not tactical anymore, it's strategic and the strategic weapons are going to already be flying.

You obviously don't understand how human beings work.
Click to expand...

Tactical nukes are for use on the battlefield, fired from artillery, short range missiles (air-to-ground, ground-to-ground).

I'll present the question again and this time I'll be more specific: If you're Russia, you're losing the pivotal battle of the war and you want to fire 50 nuclear artillery rounds and you know our response will be 1,000 nuclear artillery rounds. What do you do?

Let's also assume that we have air superority and have a 75% penetration rate of your air umbrella, and equipped with ATG nukes. What do you do?

Do you fire your 50 rounds, bend over and kiss your ass good bye?

Or, do you accept your defeat and take what's left of your army, call it quits and go home?
 
Cardinal said:
Your post seems to be ignorant of why nuclear weapons are contentious in the first place.
Click to expand...
Explain it then.

I think its reasonable to keep building them if other nations are building them or working toward it. Either we all stop together or nobody does.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
The second thing is mathematically inaccurate.
Click to expand...

You know this how?

The first thing is a strong possibility.
Click to expand...

You should add: North Korea retaliates against Japan and South Korea with the nuclear weapons it already has.
Click to expand...

Nork nukes are not currently weaponized & they have no means to deliver them.
 
JacksinPA said:
Nork nukes are not currently weaponized & they have no means to deliver them.
Click to expand...

That is not what any nation-state in the Pacific, nor U.S. command is assuming.
 
Cardinal said:
Lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons (which is what the creation of low-yield bombs is all about) is an incredibly bad idea.
Click to expand...

You had low-yield nuclear weapons for decades. You still have some nuclear weapons that can produce low yields.

beerftw said:
The original use of micro nukes was developed by the usa during the cold war, ...
Click to expand...

"micro nukes" is not the proper term.

Deuce said:
Listen, we already have small "tactical" nuclear weapons. There's a lower limit on the theoretical yield of a nuke - one critical mass. We can't make them much smaller than they already are because that's just how physics works.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand nuclear physics.

There are weapons in the US inventory than can produce yields in a range from 0.3 kt to 100 kt, and any yield in between.

JacksinPA said:
Nork nukes are not currently weaponized & they have no means to deliver them.
Click to expand...

Then better to address that situation now, rather than waiting until they have them.

Contrary to what you claim, North Korea could easily deliver a nuclear weapon using non-conventional means, such as a passenger airliner or a ship.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.trunews.com/article/china-warns-about-mount-mantap
CHINA WARNS ABOUT MOUNT MANTAP
Mount Mantap

OCT 30 2017

Chinese seismologists have reached out directly to their North Korean counterparts to strongly warn against conducting any future nuclear tests at the Punggye-ri site under Mount Mantap, which they believe is on the verge of collapse.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geology and Geophysics hosted a group of North Korean officials Sept. 20 to discuss a number of issues, but the “threat of implosions” at the Punggye-ri facility was the top concern. They repeated earlier warnings that future tests at the facility could blow the top off the mountain, causing a massive collapse that would spread radioactive waste that can be blown across the border.

The timing of this meeting is relevant, because two days later, North Korean Foreign Miniser Ri Yong-ho told the media at the United Nations in New York City that his government was considering an open-air “most powerful” hydrogen bomb test over the Pacific Ocean. The world was told by one of his subordinates to take those claims “literally” last week.

Chinese officials who attended the meeting said the atmosphere was “reserved but friendly.”

The IGG has been closely monitoring North Korea’s nuclear test activity and is believed to have an extensive layout of the Punngye-ri test site. Based on what they know and what they observed after the Sept. 3 nuclear test—which is now thought to have been in excess of 150 kilotons—they believe the facility and Mount Mantap under which it was constructed are highly unstable.

However, an open-air test could have a devastating global effect. Using a volcanic eruption as an example, he said such a powerful explosion would eject “pollutants” into the stratosphere. Substituting radioactive fallout instead of pollutants, the radiation would likely spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

TruNews copy
Click to expand...

Yes, a large scale event like that would eject radioactive elements into the atmosphere and spread very wide.

But "spread across the northern hemisphere" and "render the entire northern hemisphere uninhabitable for thousands of years" are very, very far apart. There simply isn't enough fissile material in that mountain to cause the damage you're suggesting.

Hundreds of nuclear weapons have been detonated in atmosphere. Tsar Bomba was around fifty megatons. The US's Mk-41 was about 25. Either of these weapons exceeds the total capacity of the North Korean facility.
 
JacksinPA said:
You know this how?
Click to expand...

...math?

Tsar Bomba was detonated in open atmosphere at 50 megatons. It's greater than the entire North Korean nuclear arsenal combined. Hundreds of weapons were tested in atmosphere.

We're still here.
 
JacksinPA said:
Trump's new nuclear weapons plan meant to send a message to Russia

The Trump administration’s new, revised nuclear weapons policy squarely targets Russia’s growing stockpile of non-strategic nuclear weapons with a more forceful doctrine and new low-yield warheads designed to send Moscow a message.

While much of the Trump Nuclear Posture Review released Friday is a word-for-word continuation of former President Barack Obama’s 2010 review, there are some notable differences that the Pentagon says are designed to enhance deterrence, not increase the chances of nuclear war.
======================================================================================================
We knew from the outset of his administration that Trump is fascinated with nuclear weapons. Now he wants to 'send Russia a message': let's restart the Cold War & the arms Race even though we already have enough nuclear weapons between our two countries to eradicate all life on this planet. Too bad you can't send telegrams via Western Union anymore. It would be a lot less expensive to send them a telegram.
Click to expand...

Why worry about it? Putin will simply blackmail Trump with all that stuff he has on him and that will be that.Heck, expect the USA to unilaterally disarm by next Thursday...
 
JacksinPA said:
Trump's new nuclear weapons plan meant to send a message to Russia

The Trump administration’s new, revised nuclear weapons policy squarely targets Russia’s growing stockpile of non-strategic nuclear weapons with a more forceful doctrine and new low-yield warheads designed to send Moscow a message.

While much of the Trump Nuclear Posture Review released Friday is a word-for-word continuation of former President Barack Obama’s 2010 review, there are some notable differences that the Pentagon says are designed to enhance deterrence, not increase the chances of nuclear war.
======================================================================================================
We knew from the outset of his administration that Trump is fascinated with nuclear weapons. Now he wants to 'send Russia a message': let's restart the Cold War & the arms Race even though we already have enough nuclear weapons between our two countries to eradicate all life on this planet. Too bad you can't send telegrams via Western Union anymore. It would be a lot less expensive to send them a telegram.
Click to expand...

Oh good, let's start the cold war again. What was missing from my life was the threat of nuclear holocaust.
 
Cardinal said:
The idea that lower-yield nuclear weapons are more acceptable than large-yield nuclear weapons is like saying that a little bit of rape is acceptable because it's not a lot of rape.

Lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons (which is what the creation of low-yield bombs is all about) is an incredibly bad idea.
Click to expand...

But, but, but, Trump is being blackmailed by Russia and is Putin's bitch. LOL. So, you don't have anything to worry about, now do you?
 
FieldTheorist said:
Oh good, let's start the cold war again. What was missing from my life was the threat of nuclear holocaust.
Click to expand...

But, but, but, Trump is in Russian's back pocket. What are you worried about? And, we need to stand up to Russia for meddling in our elections. The left blames Trump for not doing it. Now he is and you complain about it?
 
JacksinPA said:
Trump's new nuclear weapons plan meant to send a message to Russia

The Trump administration’s new, revised nuclear weapons policy squarely targets Russia’s growing stockpile of non-strategic nuclear weapons with a more forceful doctrine and new low-yield warheads designed to send Moscow a message.

While much of the Trump Nuclear Posture Review released Friday is a word-for-word continuation of former President Barack Obama’s 2010 review, there are some notable differences that the Pentagon says are designed to enhance deterrence, not increase the chances of nuclear war.
======================================================================================================
We knew from the outset of his administration that Trump is fascinated with nuclear weapons. Now he wants to 'send Russia a message': let's restart the Cold War & the arms Race even though we already have enough nuclear weapons between our two countries to eradicate all life on this planet. Too bad you can't send telegrams via Western Union anymore. It would be a lot less expensive to send them a telegram.
Click to expand...

JacksinPA:

Russia got the message and is building more nuclear capable missiles, bombers and submarines in response. The world gets the message and thus we can expect more regimes to seek to go nuclear as the only rational deterrent to a superpower willing to use nukes pre-emptively as a first strike weapon is having nukes of your own. Not really the response we were looking for I think, but the folks who produce nuclear weapons and their delivery systems for all sides are very happy now that a new Cold War is gaining traction and new orders are coming in. Sending messages by building more "usable" low-yield nuclear weapons is not a wining strategy, unless your win involves increasing the likelihood of the end of human civilisation. It is however extremely profitable, as long as producers can externalise the costs of disposal and storage of fissionables down the road unto the public sector. Nuclear waste storage/disposal facilities in many countries, including Russia and the USA, are in terrible condition and represent an existential threat to their surrounding ecosystems and human communities.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom