calm down...."boomers" are tridents. its a colloquial term given to that class of sub. and as far as the half the fleet in port at any given time stipulation, well i couldn't find anything on that within any of the START treatises. i did find something about a strategic number of slbm's not being counted account of 2 subs always in port for upgrading/repair/resupply though.
Bush disarming our nation's ultimate self defense weapons
- Thread starter tooltimey
- Start date
grymster2007
New member
I worked on the MX, Pal. Think I'm fairly well informed regarding it's capabilities and limitations.
Yup, there are more important things to worry about... now where's my Enquirer?
... wait... done with the Enquirer.... switching to Jerry Springer!
Last edited:
Tooltimey: Not implying that you were saying anything derogotory about the "son's and daughters" but I love to acknowlege that it isn't the Pentagon that is protecting us, but it is the people who protect us. In fact, when I look at a whole generation of kids, and see that we can still staff an Army, and perhaps one of the most professional in the world, I must say my hat's off to all the Generals, Officers, Sergeants and Enlisted who do what they do.
Also- I did not know that half are in ports- so that's new info to me. I'm still OK with it. Didn't we make that treaty with the Soviet Union? Do they still exist? If not- why do we have to abide by it? Send out the subs!
Also- I did not know that half are in ports- so that's new info to me. I'm still OK with it. Didn't we make that treaty with the Soviet Union? Do they still exist? If not- why do we have to abide by it? Send out the subs!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Regan wanted to get rid of all nuclear weapons and share Star Wars tech with the Soviet Union. Where are those Regan Republicans???
As long as we mutated supporters of the RKBA can hold a AR in each of our 8 arms, we can defeat the Ruskies when they arrive in their row boats after WWIII.
Wolverine was a mutant BTW, is this a hint of our future? Wolverines!!!
As long as we mutated supporters of the RKBA can hold a AR in each of our 8 arms, we can defeat the Ruskies when they arrive in their row boats after WWIII.
Wolverine was a mutant BTW, is this a hint of our future? Wolverines!!!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Why would China or Russia first strike us and then suffer the economic consequences? They certainly can't conquer us after a nuclear war.
China has some major dam projects. Hitting those would mess up their country immensely as would hitting their major ports. They only have 1 or two boomers of suspect quality.
China's nuclear forces are really deterrents against us. I've read a lot of estimates of their plans and abilities. They want regional control. If they decide to attack Taiwan, they want to be able to deter our ability to strike against their mainland.
They are doing this by:
1. Adopting a strategy of not invading Taiwan but bombarding it with missiles to cause an economic castrophe for Taiwan if it declares independence.
2. Making the straits between Taiwan and the mainland too dangerous for carriers. Carriers have shorter range planes nowadys due to loss of the A-7s and cancellation of the A-12s among others. They would have to get in close and that would be very dangerous.
3. Having enough nuclear deterrence to hit the West Coast so that we won't blithely threaten to use nukes against them.
In the abstract, this is quite sensible for them.
Russia is not going to invade Europe through the Fulda Gap anymore. One might have argued that the MAD strategy might have allowed a conventional invasion. Those forces don't exist anymore. The Europeans are quickly scaling down their conventional forces. They are shedding jet fighters by the droves. Sweden is going down to 100 planes from a force of 700. Same with the rest of western countries. The Netherlands is selling off its tank force to South America.
If Russia wants a secure HQ, that doesn't sound the alarm bells. We still can splash the major cities and economic targets. That's what MAD was about. The game of first strike on silos is over.
China has some major dam projects. Hitting those would mess up their country immensely as would hitting their major ports. They only have 1 or two boomers of suspect quality.
China's nuclear forces are really deterrents against us. I've read a lot of estimates of their plans and abilities. They want regional control. If they decide to attack Taiwan, they want to be able to deter our ability to strike against their mainland.
They are doing this by:
1. Adopting a strategy of not invading Taiwan but bombarding it with missiles to cause an economic castrophe for Taiwan if it declares independence.
2. Making the straits between Taiwan and the mainland too dangerous for carriers. Carriers have shorter range planes nowadys due to loss of the A-7s and cancellation of the A-12s among others. They would have to get in close and that would be very dangerous.
3. Having enough nuclear deterrence to hit the West Coast so that we won't blithely threaten to use nukes against them.
In the abstract, this is quite sensible for them.
Russia is not going to invade Europe through the Fulda Gap anymore. One might have argued that the MAD strategy might have allowed a conventional invasion. Those forces don't exist anymore. The Europeans are quickly scaling down their conventional forces. They are shedding jet fighters by the droves. Sweden is going down to 100 planes from a force of 700. Same with the rest of western countries. The Netherlands is selling off its tank force to South America.
If Russia wants a secure HQ, that doesn't sound the alarm bells. We still can splash the major cities and economic targets. That's what MAD was about. The game of first strike on silos is over.
JuanCarlos
New member
A favorite quote of mine, attributed to Einstein:
Referring to nuclear weapons as "self-defense" weapons seems a bit silly to me. Unless I'm mistaken, and we've figured out a way to deliver a disarming nuclear first strike. They're weapons of mutual destruction, not self-defense. I can shoot an intruder with my handgun and kill him before he has any chance to harm me in return, but I'm not seeing any analog with nuclear weapons.
Now obviously you do have to maintain an arsenal large enough to assure that mutual destruction, but I've always gotten the impression that that that arsenal need not be as large as we had at the height of the Cold War.
WeedWacker
New member
I have a question. What makes you think that Nukes are our only defensive weapon against foreign super powers? We may have bigger and better things than nukes to fry the commies with when it comes to it.
Nuclear weapons CAN be self defense weapons, if you stop watching crappy Hollywood movies, and understand that they are not just for vaporizing cities.
There are two uses for nukes: Counterforce, and countervalue. A countervalue strike is where you go after the things of a country that are valuable in an economic sense: In other words, cities, power plants, harbors, etc.
Counterforce is where you strike at the oppositions nuclear forces, including command and control targets like Presidential Emergency Facilities (including the one at Raven Rock Mountain- believed to be the "Undisclosed Location" that VP Cheney disappears to), Cheyenne Mountain, etc.
Since many of these targets are hardened against a near miss by nuclear weapons, precise targeting is needed to destroy these facilities. Each silo must be hit inorder to destroy it. This takes hundreds of weapons.
The CEP (the accuracy) of submarine launched missiles is too large, the missiles too inaccurate to do that job. Air launched weapons, including bombs, are easy to defend against by simply shooting down the aircraft carrying them. Land based ICBMS are usually the ones that are used as counterforce weapons, because of their accuracy.
Since I do not think that this country is stupid enough to be defenseless, I am assuming that there is another delivery system available, perhaps a classified one, that is taking over the job.
There are two uses for nukes: Counterforce, and countervalue. A countervalue strike is where you go after the things of a country that are valuable in an economic sense: In other words, cities, power plants, harbors, etc.
Counterforce is where you strike at the oppositions nuclear forces, including command and control targets like Presidential Emergency Facilities (including the one at Raven Rock Mountain- believed to be the "Undisclosed Location" that VP Cheney disappears to), Cheyenne Mountain, etc.
Since many of these targets are hardened against a near miss by nuclear weapons, precise targeting is needed to destroy these facilities. Each silo must be hit inorder to destroy it. This takes hundreds of weapons.
The CEP (the accuracy) of submarine launched missiles is too large, the missiles too inaccurate to do that job. Air launched weapons, including bombs, are easy to defend against by simply shooting down the aircraft carrying them. Land based ICBMS are usually the ones that are used as counterforce weapons, because of their accuracy.
Since I do not think that this country is stupid enough to be defenseless, I am assuming that there is another delivery system available, perhaps a classified one, that is taking over the job.
What makes you think the commies are coming? What about the Japs? (just a quote from a book where the old guy calls all bad guys "Japs")
Seriously- we can defend our borders. We can defend the seas (hence shipping). I'd rather have clean electric power than a gazillion warheads. We only need a few hundred or maybe thousand nukes.
What I'd really love to see now is a concerted effort by the US and UK navies and anybody else who has a lot riding on sea lanes to find and destroy pirates off Africa and Asia. Small, well-armed boats that look like yachts to act as bait for pirates!
WeedWacker
New member
kjm- It's tongue in cheek. I forgot to add the 
smiley
smiley