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

Trump's new nuclear weapons plan meant to send a message to Russia
=============

The message isn't meant for Russia, it's propaganda for the "bewildered herd" of the gullible portion of America.

The message is, "we are still the same old war mongering idiots that we have been throughout our long and deeply evil war mongering past."

beerftw said:

New low yield nukes???? we have had nukes with a 10 ton capacity since the 60's, that is not much bigger than the moab in terms of tons, seriously I think people are willfully ignorant of history and fail to realize low yield nukes had been the norm for quite a while, and not a new thing that just suddenly sprang up with trump.

Click to expand...

Whether or not people know the history of low yield nuclear weapon development is irrelevant. What I am concerned with is Trump "sending messages" using nuclear posturing for emphasis.

As was mentioned earlier, this looks very much like a deliberate effort to reignite the Cold War. Why would he feel the need to do this?

The post-WW2 Cold War was the mechanism for proxy wars all over the globe and massive defense spending on R&D as well as production and sales in the MIC.

I certainly hope Trump is not pushing for this.

Yet more evidence we were ****ed no matter who won the ****show of 2016...

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...

Conservatives say that, but they seem more then willing to have American troops throw their lives away on wars that only benefit politicians and business men, like in Vietnam and Iraq.

I guess all the dead American troops in Iraq was worth it, Halliburton got some no bid contracts and Iraq got dominated by ISIS due to the power vacuum removing Saddam created, eh?

I think its sad that conservatives claim to love the troops, but are so reckless and willing to throw them into meat grinders, often for the benefit of a few.

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...

I thought Trump was Putin's puppet.

How does this fit in with that narrative?

trouble13 said:

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

Click to expand...

Do nuclear weapons last forever?

If not I think it is smart to build new ones to replace old ones.

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...

Low yield warheads are also called "tactical nukes" and are a ploy to enable their use in conventional skirmishes and are meant diminish the MAD deterrent. We must never stop making nuclear war unacceptable. It is extremely foolish and dangerous.

beerftw said:

New low yield nukes???? we have had nukes with a 10 ton capacity since the 60's, that is not much bigger than the moab in terms of tons, seriously I think people are willfully ignorant of history and fail to realize low yield nukes had been the norm for quite a while, and not a new thing that just suddenly sprang up with trump.

Click to expand...

no, but the idea that trump had in his head is new and radically dangerous.

this is from the Castle Bravo test, the largest nuclear device ever tested by the united states at 15 megatons

https://youtu.be/T2I66dHbSRA

during the cold war, it was made crystal clear that nuclear weapons are so powerful that they make themselves too dangerous to use. Dr. strangelove got it right: Only maniacs would be crazy to use nuclear weapons.

So here is the 6 billion person question: What sort of idiot would want to develop nuclear weapons that can actually be used? why develop tactical nukes? scientists who tested these weapons could see the results of these weapons of annihilation.

Nukes are a deterrent.

Lerxst said:

The post-WW2 Cold War was the mechanism for proxy wars all over the globe and massive defense spending on R&D as well as production and sales in the MIC.

Click to expand...

Proxy wars are a foregone conclusion for the Future, as States seek to gain control of resources.

Mason66 said:

Do nuclear weapons last forever?

If not I think it is smart to build new ones to replace old ones.

Click to expand...

No, they degrade over the long-term. Thermonuclear devices have the greatest maintenance load, since it is necessary to replace the deuterium or deuterium-tritium reservoirs about every 18 months.

Deuce said:

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.

Click to expand...

A 750 kt warhead produces the same amount of radiation as a 20 kt warhead.

Unitedwestand13 said:

no, but the idea that trump had in his head is new and radically dangerous.

this is from the Castle Bravo test, the largest nuclear device ever tested by the united states at 15 megatons

https://youtu.be/T2I66dHbSRA

during the cold war, it was made crystal clear that nuclear weapons are so powerful that they make themselves too dangerous to use. Dr. strangelove got it right: Only maniacs would be crazy to use nuclear weapons.

So here is the 6 billion person question: What sort of idiot would want to develop nuclear weapons that can actually be used? why develop tactical nukes? scientists who tested these weapons could see the results of these weapons of annihilation.

Nukes are a deterrent.

Click to expand...

It is literally not a new idea, though it is radically dangerous. During the cold war leaders in both america and the soviet union thought nuclear wars were winnable, this went on even after the fall of the soviet union and the cold war, still plenty of cold war era people in govt in both countries, luckily common sense has prevailed every time over those who thought nuclear war was winnable.

15 megatons is not massive, the russians have way bigger nukes, which was russias solution to poor targeting, if they could not shoot the broadside of a barn make the shock big enough to take out the barn anyways, basically older russian systems many still in use today could miss by entire cities where they aimed their nukes, so essentially they made the biggest nukes so if they missed by miles it would still take out the target. tp put it simply, the russians biggest nuke was 50 megatons, while americans were certain they did not need such a big bang as their icbm's would hit their target.


It was not crystal clear during the cold war about nukes, that is why america and the soviets were on the brink of nuclear war until the collapse of the soviet union. The 10 ton nukes were designed for tactical use by america against the warsaw pact, knowing they had superior numbers, and believing micro nukes did not invoke mad, or possibly that any war between america and russia would by default involve nukes so why not use them first mentality. If you need to ask, the moab is a 6 ton charge while the davy crockett in it's smallest configuration was 10 tons, for nuke standards that is tiny, so tiny they mounted them on jeeps and even set them up like mortars.

essentially tactical nukes are actually much bigger than micro nukes of the 60's, they were designed to strike non nuclear nations ration then invoke mad, however for them not to invoke mad it would require the international community to sign off on it's use,something that will never happen. While america has the moab and russia has the even bigger foab(bigger bang that our smallest nukes) and has intended to replace their micro nuke reserves with the foab since the foab does not invoke mad since it is non nuclear. I have a feeling america may follow suit and turn the explosive power of the moab into more compact missiles to replace where tactical nukes would have been intended.

Lerxst said:

Whether or not people know the history of low yield nuclear weapon development is irrelevant. What I am concerned with is Trump "sending messages" using nuclear posturing for emphasis.

As was mentioned earlier, this looks very much like a deliberate effort to reignite the Cold War. Why would he feel the need to do this?

The post-WW2 Cold War was the mechanism for proxy wars all over the globe and massive defense spending on R&D as well as production and sales in the MIC.

I certainly hope Trump is not pushing for this.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that is igniting another cold war, rather it is a factor among many igniting another cold war. Besides nuclear issues, we have military expansion up to russias borders, this has cause russia to develope new arms to combat ours, which in turn we will develope to combat theirs, a new arms race. We have had economic isolation of russia which has caused russia to form it's own economic ties, much the same as it did during the cold war, it is also pushing it to be more self reliant. We also are returning to east/west proxy wars as well, a big feature of the cold war.

The less we work with russia and try to hold a relationship, the more russia will seek it's own former power and position during the cold war, trump on one hand is reigniting some cold war tensions while at the same time removing many of them, so truthfully I have no idea where trump actually stands on the issue, he does not seem solid in either direction.

beerftw said:

I am not sure that is igniting another cold war, rather it is a factor among many igniting another cold war. Besides nuclear issues, we have military expansion up to russias borders, this has cause russia to develope new arms to combat ours, which in turn we will develope to combat theirs, a new arms race. We have had economic isolation of russia which has caused russia to form it's own economic ties, much the same as it did during the cold war, it is also pushing it to be more self reliant. We also are returning to east/west proxy wars as well, a big feature of the cold war.

The less we work with russia and try to hold a relationship, the more russia will seek it's own former power and position during the cold war, trump on one hand is reigniting some cold war tensions while at the same time removing many of them, so truthfully I have no idea where trump actually stands on the issue, he does not seem solid in either direction.

Click to expand...

Great comment, thank you. I believe Trump clearly falls into the "hawk" archetype politician. He likes flexing U.S. muscle through rhetoric, pushing heavily for increased military spending, and continuing with the interventionist foreign policy of previous administrations (or at least trying to).

I think he is trying very hard to be Reagen'esque in how he presents himself. He's not cut from the same cloth as Reagan however, and I personally think he fails miserably.

Mircea said:

Proxy wars are a foregone conclusion for the Future, as States seek to gain control of resources.

Click to expand...

Sadly I agree with you, but obviously this a very bad thing. And given how our foreign policy has shifted from the Cold War "proxy" strategy to a direct interventionist policy (where we are actually putting boots on the ground and aircraft in the skies), this can only mean that we are sure to find ourselves in an increasing state of military conflict.

The U.S. has been at war so long we have become numb to it. It's just assumed there is no real end in sight, and as such, regardless of the economic situation, we must spend heavily on defense.

Conflict narrative is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Moderate Right said:

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?

Click to expand...

I am not in the "Trump conspired with Russia to let Russia control the US" camp, or at least not until I see evidence. I'm in the "Trump probably had illegal business dealings with Russian oligarchs" camp. But either way, I'm not okay with escalating tensions with Russia, and I'm not okay with blocking investigating how Russia might have interfered with the 2016 election. It's called nuance.

FieldTheorist said:

I am not in the "Trump conspired with Russia to let Russia control the US" camp, or at least not until I see evidence. I'm in the "Trump probably had illegal business dealings with Russian oligarchs" camp. But either way, I'm not okay with escalating tensions with Russia, and I'm not okay with blocking investigating how Russia might have interfered with the 2016 election. It's called nuance.

Click to expand...

So, what do you think we should do about Russia meddling in our elections, slap then on the wrist to teach them a lesson? Even Tillerson said just yesterday, I believe, that if they continue meddling there will be consequences. What consequences? More slapping on the wrist? I mean the left wants Trump to do something. What do they realistically think we should do that will actually get Russia to stop? The bottom line is Russia is not going to stop and we actually need their help with the North Korea situation. What we really need to do is put safeguards in place so that anything Russia does will be negligible.

Mircea said:

Proxy wars are a foregone conclusion for the Future, as States seek to gain control of resources.



No, they degrade over the long-term. Thermonuclear devices have the greatest maintenance load, since it is necessary to replace the deuterium or deuterium-tritium reservoirs about every 18 months.



A 750 kt warhead produces the same amount of radiation as a 20 kt warhead.

Click to expand...

N..no it doesn't.

The energy release on a nuclear weapon is all radiation. Greater yield, more radiation. That's literally the basis for the function of the weapon. What turns it into a great big kablooey is the material around the bomb absorbing the massive amounts of radiation and superheating. Much of the energy then becomes thermal and kinetic, but a percentage stays as ionizing or residual radiation.

Percentage being a key word.

Why doesn't Trump simply tweet his threatening message directly to Moscow like he does with everything else.

Oh yeah. Trump never ever warns or threatens the Russians. About anything.

Deuce said:

N..no it doesn't.

The energy release on a nuclear weapon is all radiation. Greater yield, more radiation. That's literally the basis for the function of the weapon. What turns it into a great big kablooey is the material around the bomb absorbing the massive amounts of radiation and superheating. Much of the energy then becomes thermal and kinetic, but a percentage stays as ionizing or residual radiation.

Percentage being a key word.

Click to expand...

I mistyped. What I actually meant to say was that a 750 kt warhead and a 20 kt warhead produce the same amount of radioactive fallout.

Mircea said:

I mistyped. What I actually meant to say was that a 750 kt warhead and a 20 kt warhead produce the same amount of radioactive fallout.

Click to expand...

Neither true nor relevant to my post.

Rogue Valley said:

Why doesn't Trump simply tweet his threatening message directly to Moscow like he does with everything else.

Oh yeah. Trump never ever warns or threatens the Russians. About anything.

Click to expand...

Trump is Putin's lap dog.