Bush disarming our nation's ultimate self defense weapons

T

tooltimey

Moderator
This has to be the biggest but least talked about subjects on earth: how bush has been unilaterally disarming this nation. We normally talk about PERSONAL self defense weapons as they relate to the disarmament skirts, but as far as our nation's ability to defend itself against two tyrannical nuclear threats (russia and china), bush is doing the equivalent of you disassembling all your home defense firearms and hoping for the best in the city of Detroit.

1. Bush unilaterally took down the big MX missiles just over a year ago. Not only is bush not demanding Russia/China do ANYTHING of the sort, his administration has continued the past administration's policies of looking the other way as Russia/China cheat on EVERY nuclear treaty.
2. He has unilaterally disarmed scores of minuteman missiles.
3. And now he's UNILATERALLY doing this http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218...ear_weapons;_ylt=AsBHfnLOQoMxfqOdC7_rOnes0NUE

Are YOU taking apart YOUR handguns and storing the ammo in a separate place (the personal equivalent of what bush has done)?

Where are the Reagan republicans? Are they asleep or dead? This disarmament is 180 degrees the opposite of what Reagan would have done. Are republicans now PRO disarmament and anti self defense when it comes to nuclear weapons or do they just not know what bush has done?
 
I'm not too worried about it.

I fear the man with one gun and knows how it works.

If he has twenty guns, then cuts his stockpile to ten guns, he still has just one or two loaded in his nightstand or under his bed. The rest are in the safe probably.

1500 to 2000 nukes are more than enough to do our share of MAD. I'm sure we're keeping the newest and best ones online, de-arming the oldest and least potent and least reliable ones.

Seriously: how much of a $#!+storm would we create if we even used half a dozen nukes in the middle east? Or even one nuke?

About as much a $#!+storm as if you shot half a dozen rounds down your neighborhood street, or even one round.

We've got plenty.
 
I'm not all that concerned. He's dismantling half of the nuclear stockpile from what I understand. The other half is a pretty potent deterrent, enough to destroy China, Russia and all major population centers in the Middle East.

In turning swords into plowshares, the excess fissionable material will be sold to nuclear generators, and help allieviate our energy crisis that seems to always drive us to the Middle Eastern wars. I see lots of new permit applications for nuclear power plants, so I liken this to the equivelant of having four hundred pistols laying around and one or two burglars in the house. How many are we going to need?

The Trident Submarines alone are enough of a deterrent to help me sleep well at night. Thanks Navy!
 
The massive MX missiles were our ONLY, please let me say our only deep penetration retaliation weapons, they are now GONE, and I'm seeing people say:
I'm not all that concerned.
Click to expand...
I'm not too worried about it.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Russia has built a missile defense shield that USES A WARHEAD (our few puny interceptors barely work and have NO warhead).

Russia has built multiple massive underground facilities, the largest under Yamantau mountain with an opening FIVE train tracks wide and a hardened entrance that can survive SEVERAL direct nuclear hits, and our government has said for years it has no idea what's going on in there (even though the consensus among analysts is that it houses full blown nuclear weapons factories that are designed to survive and operate DURING a nuclear war).
 
Russia has built multiple massive underground facilities, the largest under Yamantau mountain with an opening FIVE train tracks wide and a hardened entrance that can survive SEVERAL direct nuclear hits, and our government has said for years it has no idea what's going on in there (even though the consensus among analysts is that it houses full blown nuclear weapons factories that are designed to survive and operate DURING a nuclear war).
Click to expand...

Doesn't much matter if we hit it with a nuke and bury the entrance in hundreds of cubic acres of radioactive rubble.

Even if they dig it out after a year, we can just hit it again.

They can build all the bombs they want underground; if they can't get them back up they aren't a threat to us.

Our submarine fleet has superceded the need for the long range Minutemen. Lots harder to shoot down a faster, smaller missile launched from a roving platform that could be anywhere in the world, than a missile the size of a spaceship that you know is coming from Kansas and has 8000 miles to cross before it reaches you.
 
Also, according to globalsecurity.org:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/yamantau.htm
...
The New York Times quoted Russian officials describing the underground compound variously as a mining site, a repository for Russian treasures, a food storage area, and a bunker for Russia's leaders in case of nuclear war. "The (Russian) Defense Ministry declined to say whether Parliament has been informed about the details of the project, like its purpose and cost, saying only that it receives necessary military information," according to the New York Times.
...
According to one recent account ["We Keep Building Nukes For All the Wrong Reasons", By Bruce G. Blair, The Washington Post Sunday, May 25, 2003; Page B01] "... the Yamantau and Kosvinsky mountains in the central and southern Urals ... were huge construction projects begun in the late 1970s, when U.S. nuclear firepower took special aim at the Communist Party's leadership complex. Fearing a decapitating strike, the Soviets sent tens of thousands of workers to these remote sites, where U.S. spy satellites spotted them still toiling away in the late 1990s. Yamantau is expected to be operating soon. According to diagrams and notes given to me in the late 1990s by SAC senior officers, the Yamantau command center is inside a rock quartz mountain, about 3,000 feet straight down from the summit. It is a wartime relocation facility for the top Russian political leadership. It is more a shelter than a command post, because the facility's communications links are relatively fragile. As it turned out, the quartz interferes with radio signals broadcast from inside the mountain. Therefore the main communications links are either cable or radio transmitters that broadcast from outside the center."
Click to expand...

You can't transmit from inside. It's comm resources and energy feeds are fragile.

It's a place for "important" people to get out of the way and stay out of the way of the generals and soldiers who do the actual fighting. Once there, they are kept alive but effectively decapitated from command.

Less sensationalism, please.
 
i hope noone will take this offensively or mistake me as an anti but it seems sensible to me that the mx missle system is being dismantled. the U.S. defence system has come a long way since the mx'rs and the Reagon/preReagon era. the U.S. has the capability of making smaller, more powerful tactical devices that are mobile and concealable on a practical scale.
 
I'm no Clauswitz, but I think the first Persian Gulf War showed the Russian's to be tactically impotent. Russia has a well-founded anti-invasion complex in their national character. Yes they can nuke us and we can nuke them right back. It doesn't take a lot of nuking before both sides are totally incapacitated. Remember the big flood in Houston year's ago and it flooded one computer room that took out nearly all the ATM machines in the country? I think five well-placed nukes in certain cities would bring our economy to a halt. Of course, our retaliation would be equally devestating. I think a trident sub could take out nearly any seriously inhabited city in Russia. I think just taking out a lot of their infrastructure could grind them to a halt too.

Massive warfare is still a losing game for both sides. There isn't an army on the planet that can touch us in a conventional war, so yes- I sleep well knowing my tax dollars and the sons and daughters of this country do a dilligent job at defending this nation.:cool:
 
Good grief kjm, no one is saying "the sons and daughters of this country" :rolleyes: are not doing "a dilligent job at defending this nation." :rolleyes: Hiding behind emotionalism like that is really nauseating, especially since I made it extremely clear that our unilateral disarmament (when the Russians/Chinese are doing the exact opposite) is something that is coming from the TOP, and not from "the sons and daughters of this country." You pretty much twisted the whole issue in such a way as to try and make it look like I don't trust "the sons and daughters of this country" or something. :barf:

Then kjm you bring up the Trident subs, but clearly you are not aware that by treaty, we keep half of our nuclear subs in port at any one time. I'm all but positive that I just gave you new information, so I'm interested to see how you spin it. A first strike would take out half our subs in one shot.

I'm rather surprised at the strong and universal level of denial in the responses here. People are cherry picking a few things to respond to, they ignore the rest, and then throw in hypotheticals as if they were scripting a movie. I haven't seen anyone respond yet to what I already said about Russia having a powerful missile defense shield and we have effectively nothing.

azredhawk44, you were the only one to even respond to the issue of Russia having these massive underground nuclear SECURE bunkers (their Yamantau "bunker" is estimated to be the size of the D.C. metro area), but you started with a super simplistic post and then graduated to "copying" and "pasting" something from globalsecurity.org which wasn't very current and did not contradict a single thing I said. Not only that, but what you pasted was mostly generalities about Yamantau and completely sidestepped the main issue: the Yamantau bunker complex is huge, it's COMPLETED, and we've never been inside, even though the Russians/Chinese have been given tours of our sensitive facilities.

Look folks I get it, everyone wants to believe that their country is totally invincible. I don't expect to be able to convince people to abandon their fantasies but I would hope that the facts I've laid out will get the ball rolling in that direction. Yes we have some super high tech weapons, but the supply of those is rather small (a fact that most people avoid). Russia alone has us so outnumbered in every weapon system that when you add China to the mix, then when you add bush's unilateral disarmament, it paints an unsettling situation that we're in.
 
I'd say the bigger problem is his depleating our armed forces in a BS war and ensuring that a minimal amount of new recruits sign up for fear of being forced to risk life and limb while shoving democracy down the throat of a third world $h!#hole.:mad:
 
I'd say the bigger problem is his depleating our armed forces in a BS war and ensuring that a minimal amount of new recruits sign up for fear of being forced to risk life and limb while shoving democracy down the throat of a third world $h!#hole.
Click to expand...
Different issue, but that is something else that is definitely weakening us.
they do not place all the tridents in the same port.
Click to expand...
I said HALF are in port at any one time. Sheesh.
 
sorry....they do not put half the fleet of boomers in the same port at the same time. thet are not that stupid. there are ports at washington state, s.carolina, georgia, etc....
 
throw in hypotheticals as if they were scripting a movie
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, the assertion that our President is somehow disarming the United States and leaving us defenseless against China and Russia is something I'd expect to see in a movie. :D
 
C'mon... we have appropriate nukes for pounding the entire planet into submission. We have the best nukes on the planet. We have the best delivery systems on the planet. I really don't think MAD even works anymore. We could pound all of the other "club" members into vapor, before they could destroy more than a couple of our cities.... and if SF is on their list.... well I'll miss the views and the.... cable cars.

The MX is old technology and while we're not developing new warheads at the moment, the delivery systems and accuracy of those systems have undergone continuous improvement and will be for the foreseeable future, unmatched by anyone.

There are more important things things to worry about.
 
sorry....they do not put half the fleet of boomers in the same port at the same time. thet are not that stupid. there are ports at washington state, s.carolina, georgia, etc
Click to expand...
We're talking subs here not "boomers." ;) And for the third time now, I said IN PORT AT ANY ONE TIME. I did not say the "same port" :rolleyes: Clearly you don't bother to read before you respond (time after time).

yeah, the assertion that our President is somehow disarming the United States and leaving us defenseless against China and Russia is something I'd expect to see in a movie.
Click to expand...
It's not an "assertion," it's fact that he has finished taking down the MX missles last year, announced taking down a large batch of minuteman missiles this year, and now a 2/3 reduction in warheads. This is publicly available information pal.
The MX is old technology
Click to expand...
I am utterly amazed at the uninformed statements in some of these posts. The MX may have been developed a few decades ago, but to imply it is outdated means that clearly you're not aware that it had 10 warheads per missile and MIRV capability. This sucker scared the crud out of the russians and got them to develop their TOPOL-M missile which isn't as advanced as the MX (but it's close thanks to stolen technology). Thus, the MX is still the best of it's class on earth. We had 50 of those bad boys until bush decided that he preferred the russians to have all of that type of weapon.
There are more important things things to worry about.
Click to expand...
:eek: You're kidding right? You're not kidding are you. What is more important than protecting your nation from two well armed predators like Russia and China? Fine, if this isn't important to you, then you are free to go read the Enquirer or something. Go see what Britney is up to.
 
Considering that the only time we dropped WMD on another country was with planes I see no reason not to use that system in the future.

We have nukes and jets all over the world. Retaliation will be swift, brutal, and too close to hide from.

If we dropped our total inventory to 400 monster nukes we would still wipe out damn near every living being on the planet if they were all used.
 
I read the article. I saw no mention of the MX missile, or it being our only deep penetration option (*cough* Cruise missile *cough*), or Minuteman missiles, Trident Submarine(AKA 'Boomers' to the Navy types) required docking, or any cheating by Russia and China.

Perhaps you would appear less "unnecessarily concerned" (diplomatic or what) if you provided some links to this public information you referred to.

I think this quote from the article is a bit more of a concern as far as national security.......
Meanwhile, the administration faced a setback in its hopes of developing a new, more reliable and robust warhead that would eventually replace the existing, aging warheads.

The broad omnibus spending bill expected to be approved by Congress eliminated money for the Reliable Replacement Warhead for the current fiscal year. The administration had asked for $88 million for design and preliminary work on the proposed warhead.

"This (warhead) would have sent the wrong signal around the world encouraging the very proliferation we are trying to prevent," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a critic of the new warhead program said.
Click to expand...

Reducing the number of facilities seems like a wise idea considering the potential of nuclear materials being released by explosive attack of that facility. It also tracks as prudent to replace aging, high maintenance technology with newer updated systems.

We are still far and away the most nuclear armed nation on Earth. The Russian program isn't anywhere near former Soviet levels and the Chinese aren't mass producing intercontinental level weapons.

Give up some links or tone down the condescension. You'll find this bunch reluctant to bite bait for frenzy's sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top