Putting the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine to rest.
Ronald Reagan called the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine as a "suicide pact". His proposed alternative was the Strategic Defence Initiative, which proposed that we created (in game theory lingo) an absolute deterrent from any adversary. The technicalities aren't that complex. Namely, that we send up a constellation of laser satellites, that would shoot down incoming ICBM's from rogue countries. But, I don't want to focus on that.
What I do want to focus on is how do we eliminate the rationale of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, which is a source of angst for anyone with a cognizant mind. They say climate change is an existential threat. But, even in a limited confilct between two countries like Pakistan and India, would bring catastrophic results in terms of a cold winter globally.
It's my understanding that Reagan's concept at the time was infeasible due to not being quite there yet technologically and economically. But, things have changed considerably since then. Rocket launch costs have drastically decreased due to the efforts of Elon Musk along with every country pursuing laser technology to defend against hypersonic missiles and such arising threats, which can be mounted on land, sea, and air-based systems.
The situation is almost a catch-22. As it stands there is no country in the world that presents a danger to us. After all, the Cold War is over and we won, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But, the appeal of the Star Wars concept first introduced by Ronald Reagan is appealing due to in an absolute manner eliminating the viability of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine.
If anyone is getting my drift here, I think it is an existential imperative that we render, what Reagan called "a suicide pact between adversarial parties" as impotent.
What are your thoughts?
What I do want to focus on is how do we eliminate the rationale of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, which is a source of angst for anyone with a cognizant mind. They say climate change is an existential threat. But, even in a limited confilct between two countries like Pakistan and India, would bring catastrophic results in terms of a cold winter globally.
It's my understanding that Reagan's concept at the time was infeasible due to not being quite there yet technologically and economically. But, things have changed considerably since then. Rocket launch costs have drastically decreased due to the efforts of Elon Musk along with every country pursuing laser technology to defend against hypersonic missiles and such arising threats, which can be mounted on land, sea, and air-based systems.
The situation is almost a catch-22. As it stands there is no country in the world that presents a danger to us. After all, the Cold War is over and we won, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But, the appeal of the Star Wars concept first introduced by Ronald Reagan is appealing due to in an absolute manner eliminating the viability of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine.
If anyone is getting my drift here, I think it is an existential imperative that we render, what Reagan called "a suicide pact between adversarial parties" as impotent.
What are your thoughts?
Comments (118)
If I’m reading you right you’re for the Strategic Defence Initiative. If so is that because it finalises the situation once and for all as opposed to the constant threat under Mutually Assured Destruction? And that only one power have this ability.
Edit: Mutually Assured Destruction as a preventative idea works only if opposing sides are operating rationally, right?
Yes, to every question...
Did MAD actually work or have we just been lucky?
But I’m not sure if STI can really give a country security in an age of Terrorism. Assuming it did then, if America had the power and security of SDI, geo politics would definitely look different. How could anyone stop America doing this and what would it do to America as a nation?
Yeah, but who wants to live in fear in perpetually?
Quoting Brett
Actually, it was due to a sane and sober submarine officer that averted catastrophe. You don't hear about these stories because no nation wants to be portrayed as incompetent or irrational... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov_(vice_admiral)
Quoting Brett
That's open for debate, but I think we've been pretty lucky thus far.
Well yes. Exactly. Lol.
Under STI America would no longer live in fear and why should they, and their allies.
‘Might is right’ finally confirmed.
Happy wife (USA) happy life (the rest).
I have to say I never considered just what this laser was.
Well that is the frequently expressed, longer range problem with MAD. People don't stay afraid, and the growing apathy, or rather, oblivious disregard, becomes an ever greater danger in itself.
What the USA military is now apparently doing is converting the B-12 bombs, with about 15-Kt yield, into 'nuclear bunker busters.' Because they are converting rather than building new ones, the USA claims this does not break the START treaty. They should have about a hundred ready at the end of this year, which Trump may use against North Korea, again claiming it does not abrogate existing treaties because the DoD says, by converting them into nuclear bunker busters, they are 'tactical nuclear devices' rather than WMDs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
What the Trump administration did in last year's budget was transfer the authority for manufacturing these things to a new group, avoiding legal obstacles. I forget the name of the specific organization now in charge of the conversion.
The 2016 flight test is in public domain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14GMtf8Vwk
The USA already did enact it. The name says it. It was only strategic. It was always a technical impossibility. And it was effective.
Oh, no wonder it sounded like a disease. Thanks.
That’s interesting. Then both are illusions. An illusion for each age.
Im a bit confused here. It can only be enacted if we had the lasers. Yet you say it was effective. But in fact we were still living the MAD strategy.
At the time Reagan made the announcement, it was not even possible to detect the rockets from orbit. Now it is somewhat possible to detect the rockets from orbit with infrared cameras.
It was also impossible to target them. It is now vaguely possible to target them, but there are problems with keeping semiconductor circuitry in orbit, because above the Van Allen belt, there is alot of solar radiation which causes semiconductors to break down. Satellite computers are made of 'radiation hardened' sapphire on silicon, which cannot make devices as complex as modern computers. So the information mostly has to be processed on the ground, which introduces control latency. so it's vaguely possible only.
It was never possible to make something to blow up the incoming satellites. Missiles are too slow. Originally it was going to be particle beams, but they require even more energy than lasers. A laser still has not been made which is powerful enough, even on the ground, because it needs a 'controlled nuclear explosion' as energy source. Not even nuclear power stations are designed to deliver the needed amount of point power for a laser with enough energy to knock a missile out of the sky.
But it was effective. The technical problems were hidden, scientists were prohibited from publishing about the impossibilities, and instead there was an enormous amount of noise and distraction from the facts.
The Russians were scared out of their wits by it.
That’s very interesting. Once again, did it work or have we been lucky? I’m guessing it worked in the sense, as I understand it, that the USSR backed down. SDI was poker.
There was good news. Matthis himself has been dissuaded from using the term 'tactical nuclear device,' as wanted by progenitors of the Iraq war.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/mattis-no-such-thing-as-a-tactical-nuclear-weapon-but-new-cruise-missile-needed/
But Matthis already resigned. Now it is Acting Defense Minister Shanahan in control, who has made no statement I know off. Trump's NSA advisor, John Bolton, who also was a major proponent for starting the war in Iraq, is said to want to be Defense Minister.
Note also, this article claims that the russians started making tactical nuclear devices first, well I have been following this for years, and that is the first time I ever read that claim. Maybe it has some justification, but mostly I have been reading of two nations complaining about the USA's program to convert B61-12 nuclear bombs into nuclear bunker busters: Russia, and Canada. Canada is where the things fly over between the USA and Russia, so it is understandably rather concerned, rather like Japan in the N Korea/USA faceoff to date.
But the point is, B61-12s can be dropped from bomber planes. So all the USA needs is an aircraft carrier near N Korea. The problem with that is, we don't really know where the aircraft carriers might be. The last time there was news of a US aircraft carrier near N Korea, it turned out to be in the South Pacific. The USA now has fake convoy groups too.
The reason why this thing started, back in 2016 when the problems first started with N Korea again, was because the bunkers in N Korea are too deep for conventional weapons to penetrate. The USA conducted a 100-missile test on Sharyat, in Syria. It found that even with 100 conventional warheads, it could not do significant damage.
So that's why the B61-12 program was kicked off again. Here is Trump approving the spending in 2016.
We're getting there...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-air-force-f-35s-f-15s-and-f-16s-might-soon-have-laser-weapons-60362
That means the radar-invisible B2 can also deliver nuclear bombs now. It can glide almost totally silently, too. Juyst about the only thing you can hear on this landing is the wheels turning.
Yes; but, the whole appeal in my mind of Star Wars is to render the entire nuclear armament industry as irrelevant. Something unimaginable in the USA, I suppose.
Warmongering? What else is new in the great states?
For information on current land-based nuclear missiles, see the full report:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1606503
"United States nuclear forces, 2019"
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
It may seem unlikely to you that a nuclear-weapons attack from an aircraft carrier could in fact happen next year, but there's been alot of preparation for it in the last few years, since Kim Jung suddenly scared the world by lobbing a nuclear missile over Japan, something people thought he couldn't do. Trump even made his first secretary of state go to Japan and try to sell Japan nuclear weapons. The secretary of state since resigned, calling Trump an idiot. One does have to wonder whether Trump even knows what happened at Nagasaki, so he had a point. The real point is, Japan won't do anything about it, just like Canada. So Trump really does have a reason to approve Bolton making nuclear weapons to drop on N Korea which bypass START treaty restrictions.
What about Iran? I secretly think Trump is Islamophobic.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a28147/north-korea-bunker-buster/
Also on the tactical nuclear device:
"Why the B-61-12 Bomb Is the Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon in America's Arsenal"
National Interest, October 2018
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-b-61-12-bomb-most-dangerous-nuclear-weapon-americas-arsenal-32976
To permit a directional nuclear blast for bunker busting, the Air Force modified the bomb's tail fins so that it would strike the ground at a known angle, permitting a directional nuclear blast. This article described the mechanical modifications in 2015, stating at that time, production was planned in 2020:
"Development and flight testing of B61-12 nuclear bomb"
Air Force Technology,
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b61-12-nuclear-bomb/
Boeing was awarded the contract to perform the manufacturing in April this year.
"Boeing awarded $127.6M contract for nuclear bomb life extension"
UPI Defense News, April 20
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/04/29/Boeing-awarded-1276M-contract-for-nuclear-bomb-life-extension/6201556549973/
The conversions will be performed in Albuquerque's nuclear research facilities, where the modifications to the nuclear containment shape were made to create a more directional blast:
"Stockpile Stewards,"
Sandia News, March 2017, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
https://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/labnews/articles/2017/03-03/stockpile.html
I know your secret.
I propose that all nations be armed with a doomsday mechanism. Some may accuse me of being idealistically egalitarian, but I assure you that I am only idealistic.
As a fail safe. In case any nation became suicidal, a system of underground bunkers could be drilled out to provide a refuge with a reasonably satisfactory quality of life during the fallout. We would be looking at no more than a century and a half until the radiation levels will have subsided to a nominal level so as to safely harbor the re-emergenc of humanity to the surface.
It is really all basic and necessary, at the most elementary levels of intellect.
All your posts contain very accessible information. How do we know this isn't another version of Reagon's SDI strategy?
That's exactly right, M., but the problem is, USA's NSA chief, John bolton, has figured out a way to bypass triggering of the Doomsday Device, and has already got funding to Boeing to manufacture the nuclear bunkerbusters.
But in doing so, Bolton has created a paradox for himself.
Bolton now has the paradoxical job of persuading the Acting Secretary of Defense that Matthis was wrong, and the modified B612-12 is not a WMD.
So that is the current state of the MAD.
But this doesn't address Wallows thoughts on SDI which is a defence strategy making America impregnable. What you're talking about us another offence weapon.
Some progress has been made in that direction, but even if the number of bombs on ready-to-launch missiles is an impoverished 400 or 500 per Russia and the US, that's enough to make life very difficult, if not impossible for everybody. (It isn't just the 1000 nuclear blasts and nuclear fallout; it's the fire storms that would be initiated by the atomic blasts that quite possibly would degrade the environment beyond survivability. Billions, trillions of tons of soot and dust carried aloft by the thermal columns could trigger the nuclear winter that people were afraid of just before global warming surfaced in the public angst machine.
How long would nuclear winter last? Oh, depending, maybe 5 to 10 years. 5 to 10 years Is more than enough for the world to eat its stored food and then slowly starve to death (all while dying of radiation poisoning, bad water, no infrastructure in working order, no internet, no cell phone service. We'd starve because it would be very difficult to bring enough crops to harvest to feed even a small fraction of the people.
(As I've often predicted, the masses will resort to cannibalism as soon as the Internet and cell service fails.). Cannibalism is repugnant, but keeping the most desirable people alive by feeding them the least desirable would be difficult to organise. I mean, how do you manage the logistical problems of mass cannibalism with so much infrastructure wrecked?
That's why politics don't work with war. It's the greatest cowards with the most to lose who have their finger on the trigger. Not the ordinary folk like you and me just trying to put bread on the table.
How do we know that raunchy meat in our Slim Jims isn't Soylent green?
To be precise, it is an old offense weapon, that was a WMD, with a new delivery system and shaped charge, making it more like a gun than a bomb, because it targets a particular thing. Therefore, Bolton will be arguing, it is not a WMD, and does not invoke MAD.
But to defend against an attack with radar-invisible B2 bombers carrying nuclear bombs from aircraft carriers, a satellite-based laser would not have 120 seconds to respond. It would have to move its target faster than the aircraft can change direction until the laser destroys an entire plane. The cost of deploying SDI has now gone up one or two orders of magnitude.
So SDI program was dropped, and the NSA is about to manufacture tactical nuclear bombs instead. Next month.
The problem is, Bolton claims that nuclear bunker busters are not WMDs, and therefore do not justify massive retaliation. That's why the USA is now making 'tactical nuclear devices,' and Russia is following suit.
What now happens, is, Bolton claims, there will not be mutually assured destruction after he uses tactical nuclear devices. The most the Russians can justifiably do is use nuclear bunkerbusters themselves.
So MAD no longer stops the use of nuclear weapons. It broke down. It still stops massive retaliation, but it no longer stops nuclear weapons. As the USA keeps most of its active nuclear arsenal in Turkey, people there are scared out of their wits, because that's the first thing someone would target first, if they were attacking us in the same manner as we would attack N Korea.
Interesting. So they’ll fight each other on an agreed upon breaking of the rules. Sort of a gentleman’s agreement.
Exactly Bolton's view. If he says the B61-12 modifications don't qualify as making a new kind of nuclear weapon, then the Russians can make nuclear bunkerbusters too. So the Russians get to attack, say, Kiev's military bases with their own nuclear bunkerbusters. That's the way it is now.
Pretty fucking insane. I mean, to have a full proof measure of nullifying any attempts at nuclear war via Reagan's Star Wars and yet not pursuing it. As far as I'm aware it's an engineering problem as it stands...
No, actually it's a problem of a lack of sound and wholesome rationality.
As far as getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely? I say dream on.
Make the rockets shiny, and it's game over for lasers...
Regarding M.A.D, the rub is that whoever disarms first is then at the mercy of the other, which is why denuclearization is so difficult (it requires a hell of a lot of trust, and nobody is willing to risk the other holding back a few nukes).
But there's a significant upshot that must be recognized: MAD not only prevents the usage of nuclear weapons, it also prevents direct conflicts between nuclear armed nations, for fear of escalation.
If we did deuclearize, we would have to fight a bunch of areal-drone and boots-on-ground wars to re-establish hard territorial control. Imagine a hot war between the U.S and Russia (which would almost certainly have occurred if not for M.A.D).
EDIT: I should also mention that if we do make satellites with lasers strong enough to melt ICBMs, they would probably be strong enough to harm surface targets as well. Somehow the idea of being cooked with radiation from space isn't any less terrifying than nuclear explosions...
Actually it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible even now.
What exists are only the clumsy video graphics of laser interceptors in space we saw during the Reagan years, nothing else. Let's not forget a thing called physics here: a satellite has fly quite fast not to fall back and a satellite in geostationary orbit is useless as it's so far away with over 35 000km (for comparison the ISS is in orbit 340km above the Earth). Not only does this mean the issue is very difficult, but also there has to be a ton of those satellites orbiting in space. Add to this the large size of Russia and China and think just how many satellites should be there. And then there is of course the fact that Russia uses MIRVs and shooting down intercontinental ballistic missiles is totally different from shooting down basically WW2 technology rockets like Scuds (modified V-2s) or Katyusha-rockets fired at ranges similar of ordinary artillery fire.
Quoting Wallows
Look at it the other way around: possessing an actual nuclear deterrence is the most obvious and practical way to deter US aggression if your country is already in the "axis-of-evil" sphere in the minds of the American neocons. Libya very stupidly stopped it's nuclear and chemical weapons programs, but on the other hand the totalitarian state run by a crazy loon had meager chances in them being highly successful. Syria's nuclear weapons program was on the other hand destroyed by Israel (just like Iraq's).
If your country isn't in the "axis-of-evil" category, then the international backlash of having a nuclear program can be too costly and that's why several countries have stopped their nuclear weapon programs: Sweden, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa have all abandoned their nuclear weapons programs. Which is just sound thinking from their position.
This is the, should I say "politically incorrect" and taboo-like, argument that when publicly said will get more flak than the US bombers over Germany.
Saying anything good has come from nuclear weapons, like that the MAD prevented the US and Russia escalating their proxy wars into a full blown conflict, angers a lot of people. And it's the age-old problem in history of trying to argue that some issue prevented a war.
True; but, the rationale isn't limited to laser weaponry, which in economical terms is and always will be cheaper to utilize than conventional munitions or even nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons.
And, in physical terms even mylar coating isn't 100% reflective. But, I digress on the issue due to lack of knowledge.
I mean, you can have other directed energy weapons implemented in space. The only hurdle is getting a sufficiently powerful laser or lasers to focus a beam in one spot long enough to melt the coating, whatever that coating may be.
No, your confusing equilibria points with something else. MAD led to an arms race between the US and the USSR. Each nation was in a frenzy to limit antiballistic measures as to not disrupt the balance of terror.
Well, getting a laser from space to be offence against ground units would require an incredibly powerful laser from space. I think, that a constellation of 1 MW lasers could do the job with ICBM's flying in close proximity to the height of the defensive measure during the entry-coasting-reentry phase that an ICBM goes through.
Can you explain your reasoning as to why practically impossible? My limited understanding on the matter is the miniturization and power needs to make the idea viable from space to counter threats like ICBM's.
Quoting ssu
Well isn't Elon Musk's Starlink a type of proof of concept for the idea of placing constellations of laser defense satellites orbiting the Earth...?
We humans almost certainly have not fought our last major global war yet. The last one will be a monster...and may do the universe the favor of removing humans from the list of species that imperil the progress of sane, reasonable beings.
We may be lucky, though. We may develop AI before destroying ourselves...and the AI may not have the less desirable characteristics of its parents.
Sure, just to bring up few issues:
1) In order to stay in orbit at LEO, a satellite has to go something like over 27 000 km/h. Hence it's not in one spot for long to have the ability shoot at the target. Just look at the night sky and find an overflying satellite. It doesn't take long for it race across the sky. Just think of how many satellites you need for one satellite being over you 24 hours. And this ought to be the weapons platform for something that engages a nuclear warhead in mid-flight?
2) Nuclear warheads flying in space are small. There can be many of them (why the term MIRV) and the can change in mid-flight their course a little bit making them hard to hit. And they are going roughly the same speed as satellite.
3) Target acquisition, communication and command of the whole system is very complicated. Add there the fact that the enemy can target your communications facilities or try to shoot down satellites itself. And usually would fire a salvo of missiles.
4) Effective lasers today need basically a huge jet to carry them. And even if the would be able to engage just launched missiles that still are slow, the huge contraptions would be sitting ducks for enemy air defence. Lasers can be used in various ways in the modern battlefield, but this isn't simply the way to do it. Far more better to have a cheaper fighter or drone patrolling the area and try to attack the firing position before the rocket is prepared with your off-the-shelf bombs. And then there is the issue about submarine launched missiles.
Imagine, all of this you should put into a satellite:
Hence nearly all of the systems are ground based and basically follow the Russian style ABM systems. Nope, to put everything into a satellite simply isn't cost effective, even if it would be possible. The Russians have actually had an anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow operating I guess from the early 1970's the A-35 Anti-ballistic missile system:
And they have installed it only around Moscow (with a new upgraded system now in use), so that tells something about the cost-effectiveness of even these land based systems.
Unfortunately, no, the penultimate could prove far worse than the last global war. It appears World War 3 won't be the last. There could be at least two more world wars, with WW3 creating large zones of nuclear scorched earth first, starting in January next year.
NSA chief John Bolton leads the charge. His position now is, the Russians have nuclear bunkerbusters too, so the USA can use them as soon as they roll off the assembly line, next January. Say we use them in N Korea first, and maybe later Iran, Syria, and Mexico's South border. Then there is a 'gentleman's agreement' with Russia that they don't break the START treaty, because they aren't WMDs. Hence Russia gets to use its own nuclear weapons that are not WMDs too, with impunity from massive retaliation also. Russia might go for military installations in Ukraine right now, if it could; although Russia would probably want to warm up first in Yemen or Afghanistan.
In April 2019, John Bolton approved Boeing to manufacture 'nuclear bunkerbusters' by modifying B61-12 nuclear bombs, for deployment in N Korea next year. He claims the modified B61-12s will no longer be WMDs, because the nuclear chamber containment shape was modified to focus the blast downwards, into the ground, and the bomb's tail fin was modified to enable control of the angle at which the bomb strikes the ground, under satellite control.
In January this year, the prior secretary of defense, 'Mad Dog' Mattis, said they were still WMDs, and the Russians started making them first. But Mattis was fired the following month. John Bolton has been NSA chief since April, 2018, and is still in power.
Last year, Sandia National Labs announced the manufacturing space and tooling in Albuquerque would be ready in July this year. At first the funding was blocked by Congressional law stopping nuclear bomb development by the Department of Energy (DoE). In Trump's budget for 2018, the NSA was granted authority for nuclear bomb development, because the NSA has authority over the DoE, and so could legally fund the nuclear bomb development program independently.
After the funding approval in December, the NSA took only four months to select Boeing as the manufacturer for nuclear bunkerbusters. Boeing has been an active military contractor for the Department of Defense since at least its proposed alternative, and more technically advanced, 'delta wing' prototype for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Catobar, which, together with the radar-invisible B2 Stealth Striker Bomber, would be the two airplanes dropping nuclear nuclear bunkerbusters any time after January next year.
This is the USA's second attempt to create a viable attack strategy on North Korea since Trump too power. First, former head of state Rex Tillerson was ordered to sell nuclear weapons to Japan. While trying to do as told, Tillerson called Trump an idiot (probably because Trump suddenly revealed he did not know what happened at Nagasaki, or the ilk). Tillerson was fired the following week, in March 2018, and Marine General Pompeo took over the Secreatary of State role. In April 2018, John Bolton took over the NSA. In March 2019, Patrick Shanahan became Acting Secretary of Defense, and is still not Senate approved.
In March 2019, after only one month in office, Shanahan deployed the largest nuclear mission since the Cold War: six B-52 bombers flew from the UK over Norway, the Baltic States, Greece, and Morocco. Four of the six B-52s were nuclear-capable. The other two were probably fuel tankers for escort jets.
In regards to #1. Elon Musk is deploying satellites in LEO that can provide internet to the world. Can't the same logic apply to defensive warfare satellites?
Also, have you heard of the new 150+kW lasers to be equipped soon on F-35's and F-22's? Hypothetically four of them operating in unison *could* eliminate the threat of ICBM's?
Thank you for interesting information and questions.
Further investment in laser-based attack systems has, as far as I know, been totally discontinued for quite a long time, in favor of the "MM104 Patriot" Surface-to-Air (SAM) Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM), since their spectacular success in Isreal, in 2014. They are still there, this is from three years later:
While they are not as effective as laser-based systems could be, public approval of their success in Israel led to the USA wanting NATO to pay for a EU defense grid.
Northrop Grumman also makes wireless-networked sensor and control vehicles, one each for a pair of Patriot launchers. The sensor vehicle includes laser tracking sensors. The lasers are not used for destruction. They are for painting a pinpoint target for the Patriot missiles.
The patriot control vehicles were designed to communicate and coordinate across multiple groups via an Engagement Operations Center (EOC). The first EOC for the USA's Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) was delivered to the Army, at Huntsville, Alabama, last month.
The US navy missile destroyers, such as the USS John McCain, probably carry Patriot missiles to protect aircraft carriers, but I don't know the details.
The alternative to the B61-12 nuclear bunkerbuster, as alluded to by Mattis before his departure, is the modified Trident missile as a surface-to-surface attack device, instead of as a surface-to-air defense device, which means, the Trident missile launchers in the defense grid could also function as nuclear attack tanks. And, the USS John McCain could double as a single attack vessel, as well as be part of anti-ballistic missile defense system.
The British learned of this from their own paper, the Guardian, in January this year.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-weapons-first-low-yield-warheads-roll-off-the-production-line
A telecom satellite is a bit different than a satellite that has to somehow destroy a man size object flying something like 20 000 km/h. As I said, the real issue is cost effectiveness. Hence we have firearms that function as the one's from WW2 or earlier, not ray guns.
Quoting WallowsWhy need a laser?
The obvious thing is to destroy anything remote close to being a ICBM launcher before it has shot it's missile away. The issue really comes down to why use a laser, when even a Mk 82 High explosive bomb would do the same thing? Besides, lasers are far better used as counter measures or attack stationary targets than the most fastest objects around.
Just think about the idea of the ABM. A bullet hitting a bullet. In the 1980's a note from the archives of Vitalii Leonidovich Kataev states that the A-35M system was capable of intercepting "a single ballistic missile from some directions and up to 6 Pershing II-type missiles from West-Germany". That system had 100 launchers and featured a nuclear-tipped exoatmospheric interceptor missile (so exactly hitting the warhead wasn't so important).
The 2019 budget did include 800 million for 'laser systems,' but that will also cover GPS and land/sea-based laser targeting systems. the 20200 budget proposal instead includes 235 million for "Directed Energy investment to support implementation of directed energy for base defense; enable testing and procurement of multiple types of lasers; and increase research and development for high-power density applications."
For nuclear bombs, the 2019 defense budget included $13.9 billion. The 2020 defense budget proposal no longer includes funding for nuclear bombs, because that is now part of Homeland Security.
The 2020 budget does provide $14 billion for space-based laser detection, infrared detection, and optical detection systems. Also it provides as follows for ABMs which could double as nuclear attack devices:
* 37 AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (SM-3) with Install - $1.7 billion
* Land-Launched Conventional Prompt Strike, Extended Range Weapon, Space-based Discrimination
Sensor Study - $1.5 billion
* Ground Based Midcourse Defense - $1.7 billion
* 37 THAAD Ballistic Missile Defense - $0.8 billion
* 147 Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancements - $0.7 billion
I think the Israelis favour more their own Iron Dome system than a missile that actually was developed in the 1950s. But then again, the to be intercepted targets are basically Katyusha-rockets. And basically Patriot is great to shoot down aircraft, not so actually at ballistic missiles (as we saw during the Gulf War).
Quoting ernestm
Nope. It would be absolute heresy for the US navy to use a missile system from another branch!
And carriers usually aren't attacked by ballistic missiles (even if they can be, especially the Chinese have these kinds of plans). Something like a torpedo works better.
The Navy uses basic Standard-missiles, just with a version converted to the anti-ballistic missile defence role. The idea is to shoot the enemy missiles in mid-term flight before the terminal phase with typically the Navy ship deployed in the route of the potential missile launching site and United States. (Again a simple example how crazy the idea of the putting these weapon systems in a platform in space by trying to cram it into a satellite that has severe limitations in weight and scale.)
Quoting ernestm
They will have a problem with the nuclear arsenal, because now it's very old. The US hasn't renewed it's nuclear arsenal, unlike Russia has been doing all the time. Just renewing it will be very costly, as we know how costly these things are made to be. A new budgetary fiasco in the making I guess.
Well it's a major relief to hear about turf wars that stop Trident nuclear missile deployment on ships as well as submarines, airplanes, and land-based carriers. But the reason aircraft carriers aren't attacked by missiles is because the destroyers in the convoy group are stopping missiles with ABM countermeasures, as you say, so so far, the opposition forces have simply tried sinking a defense destroyers with torpedoes, or ramships, at least a couple of times, and so far managed only to cripple its movement. That only immobilizes the aircraft carrier convoy until a fake convoy joins back in, and so far, that's as far as its got. but after knocking out a destroyer, the next logical thing is to attack the aircraft carrier with ballistic missiles as fast as possible.
I find it hard to believe that laser systems are in some way inferior to conventional chemical-based munitions. It's like comparing an electric car to a gasoline one.
What's to stop someone else from building their own SDI to take out your SDI system? And so on.
There is a navy-based laser system which the Navy tried to upgrade to 180 kW last year, which was what the 600 million in last year's DOD budget was for. With it they made a power delivery system of 18 drawers with 480 Li-Ion phosphate cells. What they do is, charge them continuously with 450 kW, then burn them for a single-use shot by sudden short circuiting. Three sets of 18 steel battery drawers, each the size of a small bank vault, are themselves encased in thermal insulation to stop the sudden discharge from setting the ship on fire. That creates a brief 150KW pulse, strong enough to make people look away, and to burn out small sensors.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/us-navy-will-fire-150-kilowatt-laser-on.html
Here is a drawing from 2016 showing the design concept.
Huu? It's a defence measure, not an offensive one. And, the more SDI's the better for peace and prosperity.
Yeah, I was wondering how they intend to power these weapons by air-combat defense systems... Secrets unknown.
This is not difficult:
You build and launch a set of satellites equipped with laser weapons that can shoot missiles down so that they're not a danger.
Someone else builds their own set of satellites equipped with laser weapons that can shoot your satellites down so they're not a danger to their missiles (or their satellites, and so that your missiles are not a danger to them, as well).
You mean a surprise attack? I don't see how this is possible to do without giving away your intentions and spoiling the whole plan by doing that. Essentially, you attack first, you lose.
the problem is, laser weapons that can shoot missiles down need something the size of three small bank vaults, and then all they can do is burn sensors out. It's not possible to put something into orbit even that powerful, or even in a ground vehicle. They have to be carried on warships.
What in the world? Where did I say anything that suggested "surprise"?
Empty your mind. Read what I wrote above slowly.
I wasn't commenting on whether an SDI system is currently feasible. Just the logic of it being an advantage given the assumption of present or future feasibility.
Your concept doesn't really make sense if you care about my opinion.
First, you would need offensive laser systems to shoot down your enemy defense system.
Second, you couldn't do this without giving away your intentions about the purpose of your "defense" system.
Third, you would need to invade the domain of your enemy territory due to the fact that no nation would allow your satellites to operate above their territory.
So on so forth.
It's not an unknown secret. Its impossible. Its an old bluff that's already run out of steam. the USA has submarine based nuclear Tridents, ground-based nuclear Tridents, and next year, air-based nuclear bunker busters. The SDI bluff can no longer stop nuclear weapons. Neither can 'MAD.' they are both outmoded concepts.
Because Trident defense systems can also mount a nuclear attack, and an SDI system could not stop B2s dropping B61-12s, the 'logic' on whether to pursue SDI as a defense system has become null and void.
Whether anything is called "offensive" or "defensive" doesn't really matter here. That's simply a relative matter of positioning. But it doesn't matter.
There are plenty of satellites that are not in geosynchronous orbit.
Tell Wallows. He started the thread.
I did. And the first nuclear weapons for attacking N Korea, and Iran, and Syria, and the Balkans, and anyone attacking Gibraltar, not the least, could be ready in September. That's why Trump is in the UK getting a full military parade.
Tell Wallows what? That the SDI was a hoax to bankrupt the Soviets? Because that's all I'm getting from @ernestm's logic hereabouts.
?? In your view, we'd not be able to attack North Korea, say, with nuclear weapons today, but we would be able to in September?
It wasn't to bankrupt the Soviets. It was a bluff to get them to the table for START 2 so the USA did not need to commission another heavy water plant. The two which the USA had have both expired and closed down. The USA no heavy water plant now, it is living on reserves. thats also why the older nuclear weapons are being recycled now.
Isn't that a more specific idea than "the first nuclear weapons for attacking N. Korea . . ."?
They can't use the old nuclear weapons for attacking N Korea without violating the START treaty, so they have to convert the old ones into nuclear bunker busters first. And they had to wait for Russia to start doing it too. To avoid MAD. Now Russia is doing it too, according to Mattis Russia started it in fact, so now they can use nuclear bunker busters in September. That's why Kim Jong suddenly started being really nice. Because he worked that out last year, about the same time I did.
Weird, "Isn't that a more specific idea than 'the first nuclear weapons for attacking N. Korea . . .'?" seems like a yes or no question to me. Either it's more specific or it's not.
So that's a more specific idea, no?
Sure. Thanks for chat. See you in the air in September, perhaps.
You see, there is the issue of HOW you use a weapon and from what is the weapons platform. These are extremely important issues here. It's not comparing an electric motor to a gasoline motor.
Above all, there's one huge disadvantage that laser weapons have to missiles: they immediately show the location of weapon system and the weapon system has to have a visual contact with the target. Weapon systems that acquire a target one way, hopefully passively in order not to set of any alarms, and then attack by a missile or a smart weapon (fired from another place) simply are far better as they far more survivable in the modern battlefield. And the laser weapons they are extremely costly. And big and cumbersome. Even after decades of work into them.
You can see from the above thread (from me and ernestm) see just HOW BIG these laser weapon systems are. Yes, you can have one in a cruiser (planned) or airborne with a Boeing 747, a program which was cancelled. Then Robert Gates made this comment in a hearing about it:
So, with that in mind, lets start designing A SATELLITE that does the same thing from even further away. And when you observe that the technology is with its present test-beds so large it has to be put into a huge aircraft (that still lacks the power) and planned to be employed with ships. But nope, let's put it into a rocket and send it up to space. It didn't happen in the 1980's and isn't happening today. But technology will solve it because.... we have Elon Musk. So hopefully, after nearly 30 years from the initation of SDI, people can observe how ludicrous the idea then was...as it still is now.
Yet if you really are going to prevent launches of ground based ballistic missiles, why on Earth waste your money on a plane that costs billion and a half piece, is one of the most expensive aircraft to operate and is a sitting duck for enemy SAM's or aircraft, when you simply can have ordinary ground attack aircraft or cheaper drones patrolling the area and attacking anything that looks like a mobile launcher? The whole US war fighting strategy depends on air superiority right from the start. And are you going to have these airborne lasers patrolling all the Worlds oceans?
Nope, sorry, the actual solutions and weapon systems that various armed forces (US, Russia, Israel) have developed and are in operation tell just what the technological limits there are.
Besides, the whole thing about shooting down missiles is far more a political issue than a military one. Apart from nukes, ballistic missiles are simply a nuisance which typically just gets politicians upset if their civilian population is put into peril in an otherwise totally one sided conflict. Let's not forget that V-2 rockets killed actually far more Jews and prisoners of war working on them than British civilians. And ballistic missiles are still very costly. Still, any opponent facing the wrath of the US military it would be a good strategy just to have a few mobile launchers around, which would fire one to two missiles as they they would put the US Air Force on a wild goose chase to find them. And this actually happened during the Gulf War.
(But the paintings are so fine about laser weapons!)
When you have weapons you cannot use, they can be no deterrent.
No.
In fact those wars show quite the opposite what you say. Nuclear weapons indeed are weapons of last resort.
What these moments shows is that decision to escalate to nuclear weapons isn't taken lightly. The Falklands war is especially a good example, because the Argentinian junta could totally count on the British NOT nuking Buenos Aires or even using nuclear weapons on their ships. That (nuking Buenos Aires) would have been simply insane and a deathknell to Thatcher and the conservative party. The woke people around the World would likely be still be boycotting the UK and the British would have their own guilt-complex like the Germans do. So Argentinians invaded an island basically with just sheep around and few people and the British then would have made Buenos Aires sound as scary as Hiroshima. Doesn't go that way with nukes.
Also that the idea of a small clash somehow could just spiral out of control to all out nuclear war is also an unreal idea, which usually used to create panic among people.
US and Soviet aircraft fought each other many times during the Cold War and US or allied planes were shot down (Gary Powers wasn't the only instant). It was evident that the US was fighting Soviet Air Force jets in the Korean War, but it was also very evident that this was kept secret from the US population.
(Earlier during the Cold War these kind of aviation history books weren't around: )
The last time we were truly on the verge of a nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when unknown to the US, the Soviets had deployed also tactical nukes into Cuba. Those would have been used, especially Fidel Castro's insisted they would be used, to counter the Marines landing in Cuba. But that wasn't the only time. For example Able Archer '83 was again a hair raising incident which few even noticed (among others like it). Even now during Trump debacle the US has attacked and killed Russian troops, politely named to be 'mercenaries' to save face, yet no threat of nuclear weapons coming into play.
You are bing absurd,
Argentina was completely free to invade since the British government had expensive and useless weapons.
Had the British government spent the same money on a better navy, Argentina would not have invaded.
In the same way that Russia was free to roll in to Crimea and Georgia at will.
This crisis was caused by the USA installing nukes in Turkey. We were never "on the brink". As soon as the US agreed to move them Khrushchev, pulled his nukes out of Cuba.
Kennedy used this to try to look tough but basically it was all just childish posturing.
It's not my view, no. It is the view of NSA Advisor John Bolton's view that the modifications to the B61-12, scheduled to roll off production from Boeing at Albuquerque in September, mean that it is not a WMD, but only a tactical nuclear device, therefore not breaking the START treaty and therefore not starting mutually assured destruction. So far, the only person stopping him is Trump.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/06/john-bolton-on-the-warpath
But if Trump thinks he might get impeached, or might lose the election, Bolton is ready.
You already responded to that. I was hoping you'd answer, "So that's a more specific idea, no?"
Im not trying to be so provocative. If I call it a nuclear war, then I get weird people from the Middle East writing me and asking for my support in their criticisms of the USA.
I'm stumped at what that response has to do with the simple question I was asking.
You are welcome to say that nuclear war could start in September. I am just saying that tactical nuclear devices will be ready to destroy bunkers in N Korea and Iran in September, but that the NSA says they are not nuclear weapons. Mattis said they are WMDs, but he was fired.
Acting Defense Minister Shanahan just flew the largest nuclear bomb flight test since the 1950s out of the UK, and Triump is there now with military pomp.
No. Nuclear weapons are for last resort. Hence every nuclear armed country also has a conventional army.
Quoting Sculptor
The UK actually didn't even need to spend on a better new navy, It simply should have spent to retain it's flat top aircraft carrier Ark Royal that had F-4 FG.1 Phantoms. The Sparrow-armed Phantoms likely would have posed enough of a deterrent to Argentinian aircraft that had just short-range IR missiles. And of course, the "Jump Jet" hadn't been proved in combat. So thanks to the policy of making the Royal Navy to only fight Soviet subs, we had the Falklands war. Now btw the British have understood this and have new flat top aircraft carriers.
Quoting Sculptor
First, the Soviet response was more about the "Bay of Pigs" and saving their new ally.
Secondly about "not being on the brink". The US was in DEFCON 2 and had the plans to start the airstrikes and invasion on the third week of the crisis. Operational Plan 312/62 was to start on Monday the 27th and OPLAN 316/62, the invasion of Cuba, a week later. The plans were OK'd by the President and just by luck did we get an agreement. And then there was the Russian submarine B59, which had it's commander order the use of nuclear tipped torpedoes after been attacked by depth charges and was only to be talked down by two other officers. And as I already said, the US was blissfully ignorant about the tactical nukes in Cuba. They were simply not in the plans at all and would have been an nightmarish surprise.
Above all, and this is important to understand, there was no MAD. The US enjoyed total superiority in nuclear weapons especially in ICBM's, which Soviet Union had then deployed only a few. Hence the idea of the chiefs was more like "let's have this over then". The commanders had seen WW2, so a few cities being nuked wouldn't end the US. If you read the actual orders from the time, in a top secret document now published, the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that on the 'disadvantages' of invading Cuba and attacking the missile sites the following:
See actual document here
The ugly truth why the US would have dared to invade Cuban in 1962:
So I disagree with your idea that we were "never on the brink" is simply wrong. We were on the brink.
That's true. The current posture is that there is no other option but to use low-yield tactical nuclear devices, such as the B61-12 nuclear bunker buster and B72-2 Trident, on hardened bunkers in Iran and N Korea. Conventional bombs are not strong enough to destroy them. So we will have to use nuclear ones. But they will only be SMALL nuclear weapons.
"The only option should not be to go big."
- Gen Hyten. under nomination for vice chairman of joint chefs of staff
so then Russia could use small nuclear weapons in, say, the Ukraine; and Saudi Arabia could use them in Yemen; and italy, which is buying some, could use them too. And we would not retaliate either. The good news is, so far Israel has not said it will be using them. Otherwise, there has not been international pressure not to deploy them, in fact, Russia and Nato want them too.
Trump has refused to say he won't use them or when he might use them. The USA will have two types in September, and historically, whenever the Pentagon has a new tactical war toy, it wants to use it as soon as possible, because the immediate tactical need was the justification of the spending in the first place.
That is an interesting topic, the idea of "bunker buster" nuclear weapons.
Well, you had the tactical nuclear recoilless rifle Davy Crockett in service, which was a stupid idea, but some politicians loved it. The US doesn't have them anymore. Shouldn't be a wonder to anyone why.
Actually, Mattis in the clip makes the least stupid argument about it: so if someone else uses a tiny nuclear device and the US has nothing as tiny to respond, using ordinary nukes is an escalation. Well uhh... :roll:
Yet after Chernobyl, Fukushima and the typical panics that anything nuclear makes, imagine the public outcry after someone used even small tactical nuclear weapons. Do you think that the size matters? Or do you think that the media would sit idly around and print it on the third page that "Today the US made a pre-emptive (love that word pre-emptive) strike on Iran. Among the munitions used were earth-penetrating weapons, some with unconventional warheads."?
No way.
The media response would be "N U C L E A R W A R !" or "TRUMP ORDERS A NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN". Because how many people would stop and buy a newspaper that has the headline NUCLEAR WAR? And just for a while image the Columns and Editorials after that. That finally third World War has arrived would be the topic in the social media. And the response from all other political leaders in the world. And the Pope. Wonder what they would be saying. Just think what people would be here in this forum saying.
So no, it's a really stupid idea. Bunker busting with nukes that is.
Yet the absolute panic that any use of anything nuclear will do is real. And that what's makes Russia's new de-escalatory use of nuclear weapons so troubling. Because Putin understands that war is a continuation of politics and he is a master in understanding how the West works.
Now that is really stupid and basically dangerous. But likely that the Russians have a concept of de-escalation through a limited nuclear strike is making the US also to think the same way with the low-yield weapons (which is actually the reasoning there).
Well the Russians say the USA did it first, then the USA says its the Russians fault, so I will be staying out of that catfight.
I don't see the USA using nuclear bunkerbusters in Iran right away.
If they had been available when Syria was reported to be using sarin gas, Trump would have used tactical nuclear devices in his largely unimpressive massive strike of conventional weapons on a Syrian airbase. Since then the Russians have claimed the gas scare in Aleppo was invented. So that is a real problem, I agree with you totally there.
But I think Korea is in real trouble. As soon as the USA has nuclear bunker busters, If N Korea does another nuclear test, even one, a nuclear bunker buster response would be immediate.
The Russians ALWAYS say the US did it first and meticulously make their point of them just reacting to US aggression whereas the US only sometimes make this point. Yet the Russian answer, attacking and annexing parts of Georgia, attacking and annexing parts of Ukraine, are on a different category to the actually fumbling US foreign policy that typically just makes a mess and doesn't solve anything.
Besides, they can always retreat to the fact that the West has attacked them twice, first by Napoleon, then by Hitler and sure goddammit they won't let them be surprised for the third time. And Putin has to have a reason just why he has to be in power and have such tight control. He needs the US as the bogeyman. (Just as some would say the US foreign policy blob needs bogeymen too)
Quoting ernestm
No.
Why on Earth would he have done that? Or why on Earth would have the military lead by Mattis a) purposed using nuclear weapons and b) accepted their use? There's no reason for this assumption. Besides, Trump just loved it that he could say to the Chinese leader over eating cake that he just ordered a strike on Syria.
Quoting ernestm
Again no.
The losses of well over 100 000 people in South Korea and the possibility, the mere possibility of a nuclear attack on an American city will halt any pre-emptive attack. Clinton really contemplated a strike on North Korea and decided not to because of the high estimates of casualties. Bush didn't strike either, even if he called North Korea the axis-of-evil. One might argue that there is this closing "window of opportunity" in the same way as in 1962 when the nuclear superiority was such a huge advantage that the US joint chiefs of staff did want to go to war. Yet it's extremely unlikely to happen.
No, the real ugly truth never uttered is that the US will let North Korea develop it's nuclear arsenal so that a partial MAD will emerge. Like now is with US and China. China has far inferior number of nuclear weapons compared to the US, but enought that the US cannot be certain to have the ability to destroy them all at once without some being launched and hitting mainland US.
That is the future between North Korea and the US, which basically still are at war.
Reasons why North Korea won't be attacked:
Because the retaliatory attack on Syria showed we could not blow up even one of their hardened aircraft bunkers. conventional missiles might be able to blow up a plane or sink a ship, but even a hundred of them don't do much to a military land base.
That was why the USA developed these nuclear bunker busters. the reasoning is, as Russia has them too, that Russia will use them to attack, say, a military installation in the Ukraine, and not retaliate on the USA. Russia has no allegiance with N Korea. It really is on its own on this one.
I think, the current visit is to canvas support from the UK for tactical nuclear devices. Shanahan just flew the largest nuclear test attack out of the UK since the 1950s in April, two weeks after taking office. That was 6 B-52s, plus escort fighters.
I will have to try to make this point clear.
a) All these wars the US is fighting, it is fighting with the Continental US in peace. Using nukes would be a PR disaster and a political suicide.
There is no martial law NOW in the US. There is no similar mobilization of resources as during WW2. In truth the American people are living and have lived in total peacetime and they don't care much (or are blissfully ignorant) about US troops fighting in Syria or Afghanistan or in the Sahel region in Africa. Or anywhere else. Hence there is absolutely no reason why to give them a rude awakening, to create a global condemnation with using nukes just to make sure some usually empty storage somewhere under a mountain is destroyed. It doesn't make any sense. You simply have to have the American population scared shitless and in total panic before you can use nuclear weapons (for them to accept it...and be even in a bigger panic).
b) Only in the 1940's and 1950's nuclear weapons were assumed to be ordinary weapons
You can see this from the contingency plans. As ICBM's became reality and their numbers increased, the whole idea towards using nuclear weapons casually deceased. And this is really a fact:
When planning for Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait, the US military leadership truly had to contemplate that the Iraqis would use WMD's against them and there was no assurance of Saddam Hussein not having nuclear weapons. Hence they really had to ponder what their retaliation would be if US troops or their allies (or Israel) would be attacked by a nuclear weapon nobody saw coming. They opted NOT to use nuclear weapons, but simply destroy the dams of the Tigris and Euphrates river and make a flood that would have devastating effects on Baghdad.
But who cares about a goddam flood killing perhaps 100 000 Iraqis orthe than the Iraqis themselves? Floods kill people all the time. But OMG if it was a nuke!!!
Hence this idea of using nuclear tipped bombs is just machismo from those who want them or simply or...
C) Nuclear weapons are used when already WMD's are in use.
If North Korea would hit a US City with a missile, perhaps then to respond to the bloodthirsty revenge mentality that would be the immediate response of some Americans (as we saw in 9/11) using those nuclear tipped bunker busters would actually be a more humane thing to do, actually. You see you could say that you are nuking the hell out of North Korea, yet you wouldn't be creating mass civilian casualties as with ordinary nukes. As I have said, the common idiot has absolutely no idea how different is let's say a nuclear tipped torpedoe, a Davy Crocket recoilles rifle warhead and a 1 Mt nuclear warhead are from each other. It's all just nuclear, which is horrible.
You really seem to underestimate just how much people fear and despise nuclear weapons.
Let me anser at simiolar length.
When
Kim Jong Un
performs another nuclear missile test
and
nuclear bunker busters
are available
they
will
be
used
to destroy
missile bunkers
in N Korea
because
nothing else can
and
N Korea wont stop
but
we wont be told
and
the Un security council
All whose members also have nuclear missiles
will
have
agreed
not
to retaliate
with massive force.
It
will
happen
the
only question
is
when
With Korea's vast and sieve like border, China has the manpower to take Korea in a weekend, like Russia took Manchuria.
Nukes are a waste of money, what you need is boots on the ground.
Again no.
Won't be used, will stop, we would be told, won't happen.
Funny. Thats what Macarthur said.
Whatever one thinks of the stupidity of war, Mattis was right to say there hasn't been anything like WW2 since Nagasaki, and its probably due to fears of escalation.
MAD has worked a long time, and it still works somewhat to stop escalation, but with the division of nuclear weapons into those which are and are not WMDs, MAD no longer prevents the use of nuclear weapons as it did in previous years. It's been known this division would occur for some ti me, and a number of people have tried to stop it, using the slippery slope argument, but they didnt stop it, and this year, its here.
What now exists is a massive public opinion that nuclear weapons wont be used because they havent been, so why even consider it. So it will be a bit of shock to people over the next year when the debate over which nuclear weapons might not be WMDs suddenly appears in the United Nations.
And the UN will have the debate, as soon as the USA has nuclear weapons which might not be WMDs. It's an inevitable debate, but so far, there's been no point starting it at the public level because there weren't any. This year, there are. There's about 200 of these old bombs that will be converted into nuclear bunker busters, mostly in Turkey now, and the first ones are scheduled in September.
The argument is first going to be how directed and confined the nuclear blast needs to be, so as not to be WMDs. Currently the B61-12 is not earth burrowing like the B61-11, and only has a directional blast from the surface. but the B61-11 is too heavy for F35s and B2s, and is not accurate from B52s. So there may be a reprieve, because the B61-11 currently does not have the new GPS-linked guidance tail assembly, which the B61-12 will have in September. The deployment of 6 B52s from the UK in April for 5,000 miles of flight testing probably included some shell drops to test accuracy, and the news we hear about N Korea subsequent to Trump's return from the UK is probably based on their success.
So far, today, there was a Pentagon document which suddenly appeared calling N Korea a 'rogue state,' and Trump is avoiding real issues with his usual cloud of nasty remarks.
That's the first real UN debate on nuclear weapons this year. .
We will be told, but the argument that some nuclear devices are not WMDs hasnt been presented to the United Nations yet, because there weren't any viable candidate devices before. I would guess it will be raised in confidential August meetings of the Security Council, before it reaches the general assembly floor, some time between Labor Day and MLK day.
It is known from public statements that such tactical attacks with nuclear bunker busters have the support of the USA general in charge of the nuclear arsenal, Hyten, as well as NSA Advisor, Bolton. The Defense Secretary, Mattis, was against the proposal but he was fired and physically left office May 1st. The Acting Defense Secretary, Shanahan, has made no public statement, but since he just flew the largest nuclear test mission since the 1950s in his first month of office, one must assume he is part of the cabal.
We don't know where Acting Defense Minster Shanahan is at the moment, but we know he is in this plane designed to remain operational after the start of a nuclear war. It has three decks, a crew of up to 112, 18 bunks, six bathrooms, a galley, briefing room, conference room, battle staff work area, executive quarters, and 63 satellite dishes. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/us-military-doomsday-plane-can-withstand-aftermath-of-nuclear-blast.html
So the reclassification will definitely be reaching the UN Security Council soon, but probably not until August. That's the way it is is now.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/05/11/patriot-missiles-and-an-amphibious-transport-ship-sent-to-middle-east-to-deter-iran/
Today, the White House announced Qatar's emir would be visiting the USA.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/donald-trump-host-qatar-emir-white-house-gulf-tensions-190607194633054.html
Quoting ernestm
Reclassification? And why the UN? What does the UN have to do with US nuclear policy? What does Trump have to do with the UN?
And anyway, I guess what you are saying we can see in just a few weeks. So we see in few weeks.
Quoting ernestm
Why wouldn't he be in Washington DC? He met Greek Defence Minister there last Friday.
Quoting ernestm
Please try reading correctly the articles. No aircraft carrier is carrying any strategic bombers, especially something as big as a B-52.
Then again, the US simply has aircraft carriers operating in the Middle East. Quite normal. So normal that they actually made a news article when there wasn't any US aircraft carrier on the high seas.
Above all, there's just ONE aircraft carrier there, Lincoln in the Red Sea. A bit different if there would be two or more. Nothing to see here.
Aircraft carriers dont just carry aircraft they can fly. During the Gulf was they carried road pavers, which are much larger than B52s. We dont know what they carry, and we dont know where nuclear bombs actually are. All we know is that one of the B52s landed in Qatar and there is a state visit next week.
And this has got simply stupid. I am not bothering discussing whether there will be a new INF at the UN.
Quoting ernestm
Indeed, your comments are stupid. Needless to say, but you simply cannot fit a B-52 into an aircraft carrier and why would such totaly ludicrous thing be done WHEN AIRCRAFT CAN FLY TO QATAR. B-52's wingspan is 52m, length 48,5m and height 12,4m, which is far larger than any road paver. Perhaps you are mistaken it for something else.
And INF treaty is not about if nuclear weapons are WMD's or not, so this is all clueless.
Another topic please...
that's the problem. I've repeated the argument half a dozen times, but you want to spittle on irrelevant details.
There is no INF. There's no point arguing about what the INF treaty says because there isn't one. The INF is broke, all say it has been for years, there is no plan to make new treaties at all. And MAD no longer works to stop nuclear weapons. It may stop massive retaliation still, but it no longer stops nuclear weapons.