Defence Department

[JohnFKennedy]

This is the new Defence Department Headquarters.

Here all policy initiatives shall be issued by my department and those seeking information on the defence policy/reporters generally being nosy should post here.

[JohnFKennedy]

Initial Opinion released on Syria.

It is the preferred policy of Secretary of Defence John F. Kennedy to follow a diplomatic solution to the issues regarding Lebanese elections and the prohibition of said elections by the Syrian government.

The Defence Department supports diplomatic pressure, especially via the United Nations which it believes should be put to Atlasia's interests and if reformed (as is currently proposed in real life) will be an object of great use to us.

In the case of diplomatic failure, the Defence department, in agreement with the State department believes that the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, located here. should be considered as a possible solution and the two departments request that the Senate review the Act.

[Peter]

I'm glad we now spell Defence correctly anyway.

[Siege40]

I'm glad we now spell Defence correctly anyway.

Here, Here.

Siege

[WMS]

Initial Opinion released on Syria.

It is the preferred policy of Secretary of Defence John F. Kennedy to follow a diplomatic solution to the issues regarding Lebanese elections and the prohibition of said elections by the Syrian government.

The Defence Department supports diplomatic pressure, especially via the United Nations which it believes should be put to Atlasia's interests and if reformed (as is currently proposed in real life) will be an object of great use to us.

In the case of diplomatic failure, the Defence department, in agreement with the State department believes that the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, located here. should be considered as a possible solution and the two departments request that the Senate review the Act.

Sounds good to me.

OOC: hey, if Barbara Boxer and Rick Santorum can agree on the Syria Accountability Act, so can this Senate.

[Sam Spade]

This opinion on Syria looks good to me.

[Platypus]

I'm glad we now spell Defence correctly anyway.

Here, Here.

Siege

I say old bean these orrid new world spellings give me the most shocking irrits. I simply must say that is appals my sense of British honour that they are allowed to exist outside the bounds of that interminable 'nation'.

Yes, I am glad we spell it defence now, too. Next stop? Multilingual signs in English and American-English Creole

[DanielX]

I'm glad we now spell Defence correctly anyway.

Here, Here.

Siege

There's a profound difference:

You keep your cows from escaping with defence.

You keep your enemies from escaping with defense.

See?

[JohnFKennedy]

*bump* I haven't really had anything to respond to of late so this has lagged back a bit.

[Peter]

This is partly out of academic interest and partly because I was wondering about cost-cutting:

1. How many nuclear weapons does the US have?
2. How are they distributed around the various delivery platforms (e.g. B52, B2, Subs, ...)?
3. How many times over can we destroy the world?
4. Given present conditions, how many times do we now need to be able to destroy the world?
5. How many nukes does this involve us getting rid of if we reduce to such capacity?
6. Importantly, how much does this save in terms of maintaining a nuclear arsenal and delivery platforms?
7. Are there any potential uses for the decommissioned nuclear warheads as nuclear fuel?

[MAS117]

Were in AMERICA, its DEFENSE!

[JohnFKennedy]

Were in AMERICA, its DEFENSE!

Well I'm not, so it's defence

[Colin]

Were in AMERICA, its DEFENSE!

Hey I'm an American and I spell it defence.

[Jake]

Were in AMERICA, its DEFENSE!

Hey I'm an American and I spell it defence.

Correct spelling is obviously Dephense

[MAS117]

Were in AMERICA, its DEFENSE!

Hey I'm an American and I spell it defence.

your an idiot, in the words of phil innamorato.

[Colin]

Were in AMERICA, its DEFENSE!

Hey I'm an American and I spell it defence.

your an idiot, in the words of phil innamorato.

Just because you can't spell correctly doesn't mean you have to take it out on me. I also have to commend you for typing a sentence that actually made sense.

[MAS117]

Were in AMERICA, its DEFENSE!

Hey I'm an American and I spell it defence.

your an idiot, in the words of phil innamorato.

Just because you can't spell correctly doesn't mean you have to take it out on me. I also have to commend you for typing a sentence that actually made sense.

who am i, naso?

[Jake]

who am i, naso?

i don't know, maybe you are mike naso mas

[JohnFKennedy]

This is partly out of academic interest and partly because I was wondering about cost-cutting:

1. How many nuclear weapons does the US have?
2. How are they distributed around the various delivery platforms (e.g. B52, B2, Subs, ...)?
3. How many times over can we destroy the world?
4. Given present conditions, how many times do we now need to be able to destroy the world?
5. How many nukes does this involve us getting rid of if we reduce to such capacity?
6. Importantly, how much does this save in terms of maintaining a nuclear arsenal and delivery platforms?
7. Are there any potential uses for the decommissioned nuclear warheads as nuclear fuel?

Remind me of these during the course of the week will you Peter, I apologise for not yet answering, I had an exam last week and have been away this weekend so have not had time to check facts and figures.

[JohnFKennedy]

Note on StatesRights' defiance of federal law.

We will not be deploying the National Guard until the outcome of the Supreme Court is given, if they deem his actions unconstitutional and he refuses to comply with their judging, it is the Defence Department's policy that the National Guard will be necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of Atlasia.

[Sam Spade]

Note on StatesRights' defiance of federal law.

We will not be deploying the National Guard until the outcome of the Supreme Court is given, if they deem his actions unconstitutional and he refuses to comply with their judging, it is the Defence Department's policy that the National Guard will be necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of Atlasia.

Sounds like a good decision to me.

[JohnFKennedy]

This is partly out of academic interest and partly because I was wondering about cost-cutting:

1. How many nuclear weapons does the US have?
2. How are they distributed around the various delivery platforms (e.g. B52, B2, Subs, ...)?
3. How many times over can we destroy the world?
4. Given present conditions, how many times do we now need to be able to destroy the world?
5. How many nukes does this involve us getting rid of if we reduce to such capacity?
6. Importantly, how much does this save in terms of maintaining a nuclear arsenal and delivery platforms?
7. Are there any potential uses for the decommissioned nuclear warheads as nuclear fuel?

Sorry this took a while, been rather busy of late.

1. 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile) (2002 figures)

2.

Strategic
Minuteman III ICBM - 530 missiles (500 planned)
Peacekeeper ICBM - 50 missiles
Ohio-class (Trident) SSBN - 17 submarines (14 planned)
Trident I C-4 SLBM (UGM-96) - 192 missiles
Trident II D-5 SLBM - 216 missiles (336 planned)
B-52H Stratofortress - 66 bombers
B-1B Lancer - 95 bombers
B-2A Spirit - Whiteman AFB - 12
ALCM - 1500 (950 planned)
ACM - 460 missiles
B53 gravity bomb - 50 bombs
B61 Mod-7 gravity bomb - 750 bombs
B83 gravity bomb - 650 bombs

Non Strategic
Tomahawk TLAM-N SLCM - 350 missiles
B61 Mod-3,-4,-10 gravity bomb - 600 bombs

3. Enough
4. Quite a few times.
5. I don't think we will be decreasing our nuclear arsenal any time soon.
6. ^^
7. Yes, decommissioned nuclear warheads can be turned into low-enriched uranium fuel.