U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can thank Putin and the PRC this.

[Ntwadumela]

If true, this is very good news.  MAD is the only way to deter Russia and China and the best way to keep nuclear war from happening.

Anyone who thinks we are disarm and "outlaw" these weapons is way more than naïve.

[KCDem]

Disgusting.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Ugh,  The twentieth century strikes again.  That's one expensive game of chicken. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cold War II is ugh.
Putin is crazy, but maybe we can tone things down a bit.
As for China, they generally do things by consensus, and I think they're not so much of a threat outside of the Great Qing.

[Ntwadumela]

Cold War II is ugh.
Putin is crazy, but maybe we can tone things down a bit.
As for China, they generally do things by consensus, and I think they're not so much of a threat outside of the Great Qing.

Maybe Obama can hit the reset button again...or take an another off-ramp...or go on another Apology Tour.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If true, this is very good news.  MAD is the only way to deter Russia and China and the best way to keep nuclear war from happening.

Anyone who thinks we are disarm and "outlaw" these weapons is way more than naïve.

I guess only having enough nukes to destroy the world a few times isn't enough already.

[dead0man]

If true, this is very good news.  MAD is the only way to deter Russia and China and the best way to keep nuclear war from happening.

Anyone who thinks we are disarm and "outlaw" these weapons is way more than naïve.

I guess only having enough nukes to destroy the world a few times isn't enough already.

A.we have to have them
B.the boomers are getting old
C.the boomers carriers are even older (B52s air frame designed in the 50s and the Minuteman-IIIs are 60s tech)
D.thus upgrades are in order

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

If true, this is very good news.  MAD is the only way to deter Russia and China and the best way to keep nuclear war from happening.

Anyone who thinks we are disarm and "outlaw" these weapons is way more than naïve.

I guess only having enough nukes to destroy the world a few times isn't enough already.

A.we have to have them
B.the boomers are getting old
C.the boomers carriers are even older (B52s air frame designed in the 50s and the Minuteman-IIIs are 60s tech)
D.thus upgrades are in order

Essentially, yes.  Ultimately, being divided far more by class than nationality or ideology can have a beneficial side-effect: those who rule even our greatest international enemies (Russia, Iran, North Korea) are educated, affluent... they have no desire to die or see that which they rule over vaporized in a nuclear apocalypse.  Nuclear terrorism is still far, far more frightening than another American/Russian arms race.  Both understand what pushing the shiny red button means for each side. 

[Frodo]

Good -seems the prudent thing to do given how much more dangerous this world has become with Putin's revanchism and China's aggression toward its neighbors.  We have to reassure our allies who seek protection under our nuclear umbrella, and better to do that with nuclear weapons in perfect working order.  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Guys MAD is a completely irrelevant concept nowadays. Nulcear weapons continued existence are far more of a threat than the fake safety of "MAD". The US having them encourages proliferation, increases the chance of sabotage and really puts enormous pressure on the military to avoid mistakes.

Plus nearly every post-Curtis LeMay military tactician has realised they're tactically useless white elephants.

[dead0man]

wait wait wait....you honestly think the world would be a safer place if the US unilaterally got rid of most of it's nukes?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, if everybody got rid of them. A view shared such by such notorious hippies as Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara.

[dead0man]

but you said....ahhh nevermind

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Obviously the US should take the lead getting rid of them. Most of them are admitted to be worthless, just kept alive because of congresspeople from Wyoming/Montana etc. demanding they stay open as pork.

But, here, the blame is entirely with Putin.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The real issue here is that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is dangerously outdated. Like, we're talking 1960s era technology. We can either dismantle them all -- which, of course, no country in the world would ever do -- or upgrade the systems that control these potentially world-ending bombs. Doing nothing is dangerous.

[AggregateDemand]

Guys MAD is a completely irrelevant concept nowadays. Nulcear weapons continued existence are far more of a threat than the fake safety of "MAD". The US having them encourages proliferation, increases the chance of sabotage and really puts enormous pressure on the military to avoid mistakes.

Plus nearly every post-Curtis LeMay military tactician has realised they're tactically useless white elephants.

It was irrelevant when it was conceived because everyone knew that US power was based on preventing nuclear war, whereas USSR's power was believed to reside in nuclear proliferation and territorial conquest.

MAD was a thing because they didn't know what else to do. I doubt MAD has anything to do with our new nukes.

[Person Man]

Obviously the US should take the lead getting rid of them. Most of them are admitted to be worthless, just kept alive because of congresspeople from Wyoming/Montana etc. demanding they stay open as pork.

But, here, the blame is entirely with Putin.

The "pork" component is interesting if modernizing our nukes creates any novel ideas or tech. Beyond that, it's Putin's fault. I just hope if we have more militarism,  we can do it in a way that unites our allies.  In fact, this can probably be achieved by just not doing what Bush did and simply stop fighting wars before there's actually a war.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Does anybody think nukes are going to keep Putin from invading another country?  It hasn't stopped USSR/Russia in the past.

[Frodo]

Does anybody think nukes are going to keep Putin from invading another country?  It hasn't stopped USSR/Russia in the past.

Can you name any NATO countries that were invaded by the Soviet Union and/or the Warsaw Pact throughout the entirety of the Cold War?

[Deus Naturae]

So the underlying threat is that the US will nuke Russia if it invades more countries? Somehow I don't think Putin will be too scared of calling that bluff.

[Frodo]

So the underlying threat is that the US will nuke Russia if it invades more countries? Somehow I don't think Putin will be too scared of calling that bluff.

No -the underlying threat (in case you didn't get it the first time) is that we will nuke Russia if it invades any NATO countries.  Putin is free to annex Belarus, for instance, but not any of the Baltic states. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Does anybody think nukes are going to keep Putin from invading another country?  It hasn't stopped USSR/Russia in the past.

Can you name any NATO countries that were invaded by the Soviet Union and/or the Warsaw Pact throughout the entirety of the Cold War?

No, it wouldn't generally have made sense to attack a member of a powerful common security agreement that is outside your sphere of influence when other nations are available to exert your power over instead. Admittedly, if that alliance has nukes it is even dumber. But what that means now that NATO has been/is being expanded to Putin's doorstep is that there is an even greater incentive to solidify one's power over a nation to prevent it from joining, which is what we have seen in Ukraine.

[Cory]

I guess only having enough nukes to destroy the world a few times isn't enough already.

This meme is old.

The reason you have to have enough nukes to destroy multiple enemies several times over is because the main target in a nuclear war is the enemy's nuclear weapons. If the enemy launches a successful first strike you need to have enough nukes and delivery systems to retain a retaliation capability. Not to mention you have to retain a second-strike capability in the even of an exchange to begin with.

So if we only have exactly enough nukes to destroy the enemy, and they launch a first-strike and knock out maybe 1/3 of them (whoever strikes first in nuclear was has a major advantage), then where does that leave us? Nuclear strategy is much more complicated then is commonly perceived in pop culture.

[bullmoose88]

I guess only having enough nukes to destroy the world a few times isn't enough already.

This meme is old.

The reason you have to have enough nukes to destroy multiple enemies several times over is because the main target in a nuclear war is the enemy's nuclear weapons. If the enemy launches a successful first strike you need to have enough nukes and delivery systems to retain a retaliation capability. Not to mention you have to retain a second-strike capability in the even of an exchange to begin with.

So if we only have exactly enough nukes to destroy the enemy, and they launch a first-strike and knock out maybe 1/3 of them (whoever strikes first in nuclear was has a major advantage), then where does that leave us? Nuclear strategy is much more complicated then is commonly perceived in pop culture.

In my view this is correct. 

I mean, sure we're in the process of building 12 new SSBNs and 400 new or refurbished ICBMs...but we're, as far as I know, not expanding the arsenal.  The Ohios have to be retired at some point, and the new class will have 16 as opposed to 24 SLBMs on board.  Minutemen III only have one warhead each now instead of three.  The B-52 is ancient but has been kept in the air.  The russians have been developing new nuclear platforms for a while as far as I understand it, Topol and Bulova.