Yet another hijack

[Vendetta]

Wrong. It has air to ground standoff capability. It's called releasing JDAM at Mach 1.6 from 55,000 plus feet. And there are already talks about rocket boosted JDAMs to fill many of the roles that JSOW does.

Which gets you about 40km strike range, whereas JSOW has a 120km strike range from high altitude lanch, and carries multiple warhead configurations.

[MKSheppard]

Which gets you about 40km strike range, whereas JSOW has a 120km strike range from high altitude lanch, and carries multiple warhead configurations.

Too bad that the Small Diameter Bomb has a 110~ km strike range; which will no doubt be improved by release from high altitude, high mach profiles such as the F-22 can fly.

[phongn]

Until Kennedy's dismantling of the US air-defense system, it was entirely possible that the US would've come out virtually unscathed in a nuclear war. I'm quite serious.

What is "virtually unscathed" in a nuclear war? Aside from that being a best case scenario which isn't likely to be entirely the case, that still sounds significantly less safe than our situation today. Even if only a handful of missiles could make it through the US defenses, that's still a MUCH bigger threat than anything that exists today.

How? A handful of missiles leaking through versus entire national arsenals?

Neither Russia or China are threats to us today, despite claims to the contrary.

Why not? While we are certainly at peace with either nations (thankfully), their nuclear arsenals are certainly a threat to the United States (as our arsenals to them).

We are much safer from them now than we were in the 60s. At this point we are more at danger from shitty Chinese consumer products than we are from any missiles they may have.

We are safer insomuch as world tensions are lower, yes. But given actual hot conflict, the US homeland is in a significantly weaker position than 1960.

[Gil Hamilton]

How? A handful of missiles leaking through versus entire national arsenals?

Because there doesn't exist a nuclear arsenal today that is pointed at us. Hence, a handful of missiles back in the 60s were a bigger threat to an American citizen than any modern nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it was VASTLY more likely to be an issue.

Why not? While we are certainly at peace with either nations (thankfully), their nuclear arsenals are certainly a threat to the United States (as our arsenals to them).

No they aren't, Russia and China aren't US enemies anymore. At this point, they are largely economic allies. By your logic, France is a threat to us because it's got nuclear bombs, Japan is a threat to us because it could be a major nuclear power a month or so after it decides it needs to be, and Canada and Mexico are threats out of sheer proximity.

Hell, if you are creative enough you can claim that pissant middle eastern countries are threats too.

We are safer insomuch as world tensions are lower, yes. But given actual hot conflict, the US homeland is in a significantly weaker position than 1960.

A hot conflict with who exactly? Give some evidence that such a conflict with a nuclear armed enemy is within the bounds of reason to occur, please. I'm sure North Korea with a busted nuclear bomb and the ten man pulley team that they call a "delivery system" are terrible threats, but you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about the DIRE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR nowadays. That's why we are considerably safer now than in the sixties.

Hell, I can honestly claim to be personally safer because there isn't a chance my ass is going to be drafted and sent to trudge through a Vietnamese rice paddy. Same for you, I'd wager.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Because there doesn't exist a nuclear arsenal today that is pointed at us. Hence, a handful of missiles back in the 60s were a bigger threat to an American citizen than any modern nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it was VASTLY more likely to be an issue.

Huh? I don't think the Russians have changed the coordinates on their launch computers. So how does that compute?

No they aren't, Russia and China aren't US enemies anymore. At this point, they are largely economic allies. By your logic, France is a threat to us because it's got nuclear bombs, Japan is a threat to us because it could be a major nuclear power a month or so after it decides it needs to be, and Canada and Mexico are threats out of sheer proximity.

Russia and America are Economic allies? You are joking right? I think the right word is economic and strategic competitors. And China? You are fucking kidding right? The Chinese regard the Americans a threat to their nation and have taken lots of steps in recent years to make sure the Americans don't budge into their backyard. Taiwan remains a sticking point between both nations and if some Bush type demagogue returns to the White House you can be certain that there will be lots of tension.

Hell, if you are creative enough you can claim that pissant middle eastern countries are threats too.

Uh hello? Syria and Iran? Also there's no guarantee none of those middle eastern countries would never have a coup led by anti-American elements.

A hot conflict with who exactly? Give some evidence that such a conflict with a nuclear armed enemy is within the bounds of reason to occur, please. I'm sure North Korea with a busted nuclear bomb and the ten man pulley team that they call a "delivery system" are terrible threats, but you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about the DIRE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR nowadays. That's why we are considerably safer now than in the sixties.

Last I checked, Russia and America aren't the best of friends, and both sides have plenty of demagogues who view each other with plenty of suspicion. I see a possible precursor for more conflict in the future if that trend continues. The Georgia-Russian war is pretty much an indicator of that.

Hell, I can honestly claim to be personally safer because there isn't a chance my ass is going to be drafted and sent to trudge through a Vietnamese rice paddy. Same for you, I'd wager.

You probably wouldn't be if you accidentally crossed the border into Myanmar.

[Guardsman Bass]

How? A handful of missiles leaking through versus entire national arsenals?

Because there doesn't exist a nuclear arsenal today that is pointed at us. Hence, a handful of missiles back in the 60s were a bigger threat to an American citizen than any modern nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it was VASTLY more likely to be an issue.

This won't always be the case. The US, China, and Russia are strategic competitors (along with the Indians), and while they get along quite well now, wait until they start having some more entrenched interests. Last I checked, those missiles are still targeted.

Besides, the Shep Plan actually makes things safer with regards to strategic deterrent, since the bombers can always be called back at the last minute, and the ABM system makes it so that it's much harder for any particular regime to just stick a nuclear warhead on top of a missile and give it a launch. Basically, it amounts to homeland protection, so the US could sit on its laurels if it wanted to.

Why not? While we are certainly at peace with either nations (thankfully), their nuclear arsenals are certainly a threat to the United States (as our arsenals to them).

No they aren't, Russia and China aren't US enemies anymore. At this point, they are largely economic allies. By your logic, France is a threat to us because it's got nuclear bombs, Japan is a threat to us because it could be a major nuclear power a month or so after it decides it needs to be, and Canada and Mexico are threats out of sheer proximity.

Yet this hasn't led to the dismantling of the nuclear deterrent, and both countries are still looking into ABM, no?

[Guardsman Bass]

Look, at some point you are going to have to replace those missiles with a new nuclear deterrent simply from technological obsolescence. Why not do it the smart way, and throw in some defense against the other guy's deterrent in the process?

[K. A. Pital]

Because there doesn't exist a nuclear arsenal today that is pointed at us.

You are wrong. Our nuclear arsenal points at you. All the time. You are the "Probable Enemy #1" for strategic nuclear forces. Probable Enemy #2 is probably China since 1960, but they would be totally raped if they dared to test our nuclear weapons... on themselves.

And no, economy and mutual trade has little to do with war. Europe used to buy gas and oil from USSR, and during both World Wars there was intense trade between nations.

And of course all nations are a threat. Who would think otherwise? Look at Russia. 20 years ago if you said Georgia would attack a Russian enclave in Ossetia, you'd be laughed at and probably face-pounded even by the Georgians themselves. We thought we are surrounded by allies. Now some of them are enemies.

The difference between probable enemy and real enemy in ground (conventional) war takes years to materialize and thus it's easier to predict and react to.

In nuclear weapons, when we are minutes away from possibly destroying the enemy nation, tensions are far more time-constrained.

[Adrian Laguna]

If you want to get technical about things, in 1960 the USA would have been completely unscathed in a nuclear war. Barring really bad luck, Soviet bombers could not have penetrated US defences. As for ICBMs? In August 1960 the USSR had four and they were still undergoing testing.

[K. A. Pital]

The USA had a huge lead on air defense and air offense over the USSR in 1945-1960 anyway, so that's not exactly a testament to the US' ability, more to the fact that the USSR had a long way to catch up.

[Guardsman Bass]

There's a very good speech by Robert Gates on this subject on C-SPAN. He's pointed out that the US's nuclear arsenal is in trouble from aging, and the fact that we haven't designed and tested a new weapon since the 1980s (the last testing was in 1992).

This is one of the areas where I split with my usual Democratic stances. I really wish they'd get over their own squeamishness on this issue, and at least allow for the full funding for design and testing of new nukes, at the very least to maintain the deterrent.