Bush pushes "Mini-Nuke" Development

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's what I thought.

W80 for the Tridents (IIRC) is lighter though, right?

[Vercingetorix]

It is not a matter of intimidation, that simply doesn’t work on many people and powers, it is a matter of military effectiveness which. A giant unitary or incendiary bomb is not viable against very large bunkers and biochemical stockpiles.

Hmm, it seems like we're arguing in circles. First, I argued that actually using tactical nukes would seriously erode taboos against use of nuclear weapons, making it much more likely that other nations would start using them. In response, you argued that the main reason for developing them is not using them in the field, but as a deterrent against petty dictators. I responded that we already have such overwhelming dominance that no further deterrence is needed, and now you argue that many people can't be deterred and that the real reason we need them is not deterrence, but military effectiveness. We need them to successfully prosecute wars. However, if you expect them to be used in the field and not just held as deterrents, you still get all the harms of my first argument. If we use them, we will do untold damage to norms against use of nukes. Are we really comfortable with other nations feeling more comfortable with using nukes offensively in their own regional conflicts? Do we want Russia to use them in Chechnya? Do we want Pakistan to use them against India? Because if the U.S. says it's okay to use nukes, all those scenarios will become more likely.

[Vympel]

Hyperbole, friend.

I know the days of the high-end MT superbombs was already ending in the 1960s.

Average warhead now is what? 300 KT?

I was thinking with the SORT agreement signed between Russia and the United States would mean bigger warheads eventually, though MIRV systems are not at all prohibited by SORT (unlike the defunct START II), I think the next US ICBM will probably be equipped with a single warhead in the megaton range, like the new Russian Topol-M ICBM (single 1MT warhead, though it has sufficient theoretical throw-weight to be able to hold 3 MIRVs)- almost 50 of them in service (regiment's worth being produced and put in service since 1998).

The issue now is whether Peacekeeper has actually been taken out of service- only 50 missiles were ever made but with Russia abandoning START 2 (and rightly so), thereby keeping it's Voivode (SS-18 SATAN) and Molodets (SS-24 SCALPEL) missiles that were supposed to be taken out of service ...

[0.1]

MIRVs, wonder if you could retrofit ICBMs with sufficiently powerful conventional warheads, and have them as a part of a conventional response. Heck, given the flight time on an ICBM, there are lots of possibilities. It might be a heck of a fast response weapon (although very expensive) if you could find a way to change targeting coordinates very fast.

[phongn]

MIRVs, wonder if you could retrofit ICBMs with sufficiently powerful conventional warheads, and have them as a part of a conventional response. Heck, given the flight time on an ICBM, there are lots of possibilities. It might be a heck of a fast response weapon (although very expensive) if you could find a way to change targeting coordinates very fast.

Show me how to differentiate between a conventional RV on the way to North Korea and a nuclear RV on the way to Siberia on the Russian EW systems and then we'll talk.

[phongn]

That's what I thought.

W80 for the Tridents (IIRC) is lighter though, right?

150kT, IIRC.

[phongn]

Hmm, it seems like we're arguing in circles. First, I argued that actually using tactical nukes would seriously erode taboos against use of nuclear weapons, making it much more likely that other nations would start using them. In response, you argued that the main reason for developing them is not using them in the field, but as a deterrent against petty dictators. I responded that we already have such overwhelming dominance that no further deterrence is needed, and now you argue that many people can't be deterred and that the real reason we need them is not deterrence, but military effectiveness. We need them to successfully prosecute wars. However, if you expect them to be used in the field and not just held as deterrents, you still get all the harms of my first argument. If we use them, we will do untold damage to norms against use of nukes. Are we really comfortable with other nations feeling more comfortable with using nukes offensively in their own regional conflicts? Do we want Russia to use them in Chechnya? Do we want Pakistan to use them against India? Because if the U.S. says it's okay to use nukes, all those scenarios will become more likely.

I think he was trying to say that conventional dominance was not a credible deterrant. We would need nuclear weapons to ensure a credible deterrance force, especially for those powers with hardened NBC weapons sites. We may not want to use them, but we should have them in reserve should it become neccessary. This should deter most of the tin-pot dictators around the world from doing something foolish.

However, there are some that are not rational actors, and thus we must be prepared for them; in this case development of more sophisticated nuclear weapons may well be needed in a conflict.

Russia would not use them in Chechnya and the leaders of Pakistan and India are intelligent enough not to go nuclear with each other. They understand the price of nuclear war, and that example is a poor one.

[Vympel]

Russia would not use them in Chechnya and the leaders of Pakistan and India are intelligent enough not to go nuclear with each other. They understand the price of nuclear war, and that example is a poor one.

*gets annoying flashback of that POS Sum of All Fears with the pronouncement of the Russians using chemical weapons Grozny, combined with grave pronouncment that Chechnya was 'another country*

retards. But carry on, I just wanted to vent.

[Spyder]

Sure, as long as the nations aren't controlled by dangerous, sadistic, egomaniac dictators. Or aren't controlled by a theocracy that possesses a strong vow to destroy everything American.

So America shouldn't have them either then?

[Spyder]

The non-proliferation treaty controls the export of nuclear weapons technology to other nations. It does not limit the five nations which already had them, USA, UK, France, USSR/Russia, China from developing it for there own uses....

This isn't related to the argument but for some reason that terminology cracks me up. "They're for medicinal purposes."

[Illuminatus Primus]

Sure, as long as the nations aren't controlled by dangerous, sadistic, egomaniac dictators. Or aren't controlled by a theocracy that possesses a strong vow to destroy everything American.

So America shouldn't have them either then?

This is a Federal Republic, not a theocratic shithole, dumbass.

[0.1]

Show me how to differentiate between a conventional RV on the way to North Korea and a nuclear RV on the way to Siberia on the Russian EW systems and then we'll talk.

Just a random thought, besides, with ICBMs, you are probably better off converting them to launch vehicles like they did with the Titans. It isn't at all cost effective to retrofit let alone keep up a staff to maintain conventional ICBMs that can may be do ten targets at a time.

I actually like the idea of retrofitting Ohios with tomahawks a lot better.

As for suitcase nukes, they don't exactly make the world safer. The real problem is if someone steals one and blackmails someone else, that's the problem with portability. Take away all the BS about political leaders, hipocracy of having these weapons, and the question really comes down to risk vs capabilities. Although the effects of suitcase nukes is fairly easy to duplicate with most conventional weapons. Suitcase nukes just really can't be justified today.[/list]

[Spyder]

This is a Federal Republic, not a theocratic shithole, dumbass.

Give the theocrats time.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is a Federal Republic, not a theocratic shithole, dumbass.

Give the theocrats time.

Concession Accepted; shut the fuck up.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As for suitcase nukes, they don't exactly make the world safer. The real problem is if someone steals one and blackmails someone else, that's the problem with portability. Take away all the BS about political leaders, hipocracy of having these weapons, and the question really comes down to risk vs capabilities. Although the effects of suitcase nukes is fairly easy to duplicate with most conventional weapons. Suitcase nukes just really can't be justified today.

No one is talking about suitcase nukes.

[Spyder]

Give the theocrats time.

Concession Accepted; shut the fuck up.

Strange, I don't recall taking part in any debates.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Give the theocrats time.

Concession Accepted; shut the fuck up.

Strange, I don't recall taking part in any debates.

You said we shouldn't have nukes and implied we are a theocratic shithole.

Thus: shut the fuck up.

[Spyder]

Strange, I don't recall taking part in any debates.

You said we shouldn't have nukes and implied we are a theocratic shithole.

Thus: shut the fuck up.

It was a question, not a statement. At worst a leading question, one that is easilly answered. Unlike some others I will make no attempt at masquerading my opinion as fact. If I want to debate I'll provide evidence, you'll provide evidence (I assume) and then we'll have a debate on our hands. Until then calm the fuck down.

[Sea Skimmer]

That's what I thought.

W80 for the Tridents (IIRC) is lighter though, right?

Annoying lost posts....

Trident uses the 100 kiloton W76. The 150 or 200 kiloton W80 arms cruise missiles. Trdent II uses the 475 kiloton W88