US Navy to deal with NRO's screwup by destroying it.

[Ritterin Sophia]

People keep harping about the current political situation and how the US will not attack anyone with nukes "just because" (at least in it's current stance)

Okay, listen you idiotic, pool of dried cum, why don't you prove that the US will nuke someone, this entire time has been nothing but you acting like a full blown asshat asking people to present you with some kind of negative proof. So I'm tired of your idiotic, Rar, Amerikaz the evilz cuz it wantz to getz rid of a nuclear weaponz platform so'z it can nuke us all! Put up or shut the fuck up, asshole. What motherfucking evidence does your condescending, idiotic, ass have as evidence that once ICBM's and SLBM's are off the tables, America is going to go all TBO on the world!?

[Medic]

What motherfucking evidence does your condescending, idiotic, ass have as evidence that once ICBM's and SLBM's are off the tables, America is going to go all TBO on the world!?

what's yor proof we WON'T Shatten?

Oh right, history contradictory to Stas's position is off the table like the 50's strategic build-up just being US over-reaction to a soviet technological threat that we weren't sure about because of Soviet secrecy and that the Carribean crisis was a situation equally created by Soviet secrecy concerning strategc arms and general asshattery, not cause it was inevitable.

[K. A. Pital]

So I'm tired of your idiotic, Rar, Amerikaz the evilz cuz it wantz to getz rid of a nuclear weaponz platform so'z it can nuke us all!

Hey Shatten, fuck off. This is a strawman: I never said America is pursuing an ABM system to kill everyone, moron. So shove that where it belongs - your ass.

Neither did I say it will nuke everyone, merely that it could. You know, practical ability, asshole.

Do I need to explain to you what a practical ability is, retard? When you hold a gun pointed on someone, you have the practical ability to kill him. When you don't - there's none.

"Oh, there's no antagonism right now!" is an argument that there won't be a nuclear conflict, ever? Just fuck off if you're too stupid to understand why this argument is bullshit from top to bottom.

Oh right, history contradictory to Stas's position is off the table like the 50's strategic build-up just being US over-reaction to a soviet technological threat that we weren't sure about because of Soviet secrecy and that the Carribean crisis was a situation equally created by Soviet secrecy concerning strategc arms and general asshattery, not cause it was inevitable.

Hey look, what a pathetic mishmash of a defense! "Oh noes, nuclear conflict is not inevitable! Just secrecy and asshatery!" - idiot, nuclear planning is the asshatery and state secrecy concerning nuclear developments IS the secrecy. That's how it FUCKING works, that's how the industry worked back then and that's how it works now.

Yes, the cause of a new conflict would be all the same: overreaction, escalation, asshatery. Except one little thing - there's no escalation if there is no threat, and if there's a threat, there's escalation.

What is a threat? Well, the downing of it's nuclear deterrent to irrelevancy is a threat for a nuclear power. The reverse action - the attempt to stop the gap and gain the ability to retaliate - would be taken as a threat by the US.

Answer me, asshole - if the US completes it's ABM and 5 years down the road other nuclear powers devise some weapons to surpass that and effectively retaliate, would the US consider that a threat or not? Would it just sit back and relax as it loses it's invulnerability and primacy? Or would it not, just like it didn't really say "well, dandy fine!" in the Carribean Crisis?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Hey Shatten, fuck off. This is a strawman: I never said America is pursuing an ABM system to kill everyone, moron. So shove that where it belongs - your ass.

Oh my apologies, you're only insinuating it. I forgot how much of a huge fucking difference that is. Go jam your head on a railroad iron, idiot.

Neither did I say it will nuke everyone, merely that it could. You know, practical ability, asshole.

We could nuke anyone right now, we could have done it in the fifties, but we don't and didn't, now we have parity, then no one could compare. Again, it's your lazy ass to prove we will do so.

Do I need to explain to you what a practical ability is, retard? When you hold a gun pointed on someone, you have the practical ability to kill him. When you don't - there's none.

Your analogy depends on the question of whether I want you to be able to kill me. I don't, thus if I want to kill you I'll remove the gun.

"Oh, there's no antagonism right now!" is an argument that there won't be a nuclear conflict, ever? Just fuck off if you're too stupid to understand why this argument is bullshit from top to bottom.

You see this is a strawman, you were insinuating we would nuke someone with parity, ignoring that our bombers are vulnerable to anyone with a modern SAM system.

Or would it not, just like it didn't really say "well, dandy fine!" in the Carribean Crisis?

No, but we didn't nuke you fuckers before you could set up those IRBM's either, we negotiated a peaceful solution. Precedent beats idle speculation, asshat.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh my apologies, you're only insinuating it.

Idiot. Why do people procure nuclear weapons? To kill people or to have a nuclear weapon? I think the latter. But you can kill with those weapons. Is that too advanced a logic for your puny mind?

We could nuke anyone right now

And be nuked in return. Does that sound very wise, to nuke someone if you become cinders too? No, it doesn't.

...we could have done it in the fifties

And almost a full-scale nuclear war broke out when you were about to lose the ability to emerge unscathed.

Your analogy depends on the question of whether I want you to be able to kill me.

However, that ability is the only close-to-100% technical reason guarantee you won't kill me.

You see this is a strawman, you were insinuating we would nuke someone with parity, ignoring that our bombers are vulnerable to anyone with a modern SAM system.

So fucking what? SAMs aren't ABMs and the bomber is not a ballistic missile. You could still pull off an air attack and it would succeed. Oh, your bombers are vulnerable? You think in case of a nuclear war the lives of it's pilots would be treated more important than the destruction of the enemy?

Now tell me please, where is the parity between a country that has it's strategic airforce grounded and it's unlikely any of it (save for a few Tu-160s) would get through, and a country whose airforce can successfully throw huge numbers of bombers to kill?

...we negotiated a peaceful solution

And this means we should get reckless with nukes! Boo fucking hoo, because historical precedent is some sort of underlying truth! You see, if you get reckless with nukes a crisis may happen, but we don't care, since once upon a time we managed to settle that down! So of course we'll find a way to solve a possible newer crisis. Yeah.

Did you even understand what I said, idiot? I didn't say the US shouldn't be building it's ABM - merely that it's in the interests of other nations to hinder that process while advancing their own ABM designs and increasing their strategic airforce potential.

Because the US might not be so happy with other countries aquiring a deterrent again, once it's system is finished. So we need to get means of killing you before the imbalance or shortly after it arises.

[Surlethe]

And almost a full-scale nuclear war broke out when you were about to lose the ability to emerge unscathed.

Do you have evidence for this assertion?

[K. A. Pital]

Do you have evidence for this assertion?

1962.

That was a stopgap measure by one nuclear power to achieve a deterrent against a hitherto nuclear hegemon. The result was a conflict.

Now, if we assume all nations are fitted with ABMs, it's only natural that the weaker powers will seek for ways to challenge this screen; to find newer means of deterrent and restore parity. Which can lead to a conflict again.

In fact, there already is an ongoing diplomatic conflict - it is happening because the old picture of how deterrent works is falling apart. Now, let's drive it to the logical end - a large fraction of nuclear weapons become obsolete as all nuclear powers are fitted with ABMs. They will attempt to cut the gap and get new means of deterrent. What those will be I don't know, but the US will be losing it's supremacy in the process while other nations, for example, build larger airfleets and put airbases closer to the US, using allied territory or something.

Do you think this will not prompt a conflict situation? That the US will allow the advantage and the temporary security to fade away as other nations grow new nuclear offensive weapons, and do so without incidents like the aforementioned CMC?

[Kane Starkiller]

Now, if we assume all nations are fitted with ABMs, it's only natural that the weaker powers will seek for ways to challenge this screen; to find newer means of deterrent and restore parity. Which can lead to a conflict again.

Why would their attempts to reach parity be any more "natural" then US attempts to have an ABM shield? The name of the game is "Don't get blown up" not "Don't change status quo". Having an ABM shield is a far superior protection than threatening someone to blow him up after you are already lying in ruins. It seems pretty natural to want to acquire it from where I'm sitting.

In fact, there already is an ongoing diplomatic conflict - it is happening because the old picture of how deterrent works is falling apart.

It's falling apart because there are more and more countries that can blow up US cities. To use your analogy when there are two guys pointing guns at each other that situation might even go on indefinately but when there is a third, fourth and in the future maybe even fifth and sixth guy coming in with a gun then the American guy will finally loose his nerve and say "fuck this shit I'm getting a bulletproof vest". If the Russian guy can't afford a bulletproof vest or can't afford a new gun well that's tough luck as far as the American is concerned but there are these other guns to think about now.

Now, let's drive it to the logical end - a large fraction of nuclear weapons become obsolete as all nuclear powers are fitted with ABMs. They will attempt to cut the gap and get new means of deterrent. What those will be I don't know, but the US will be losing it's supremacy in the process while other nations, for example, build larger airfleets and put airbases closer to the US, using allied territory or something.

Well if you don't know what those will be then you can't know how much they'll cost or will other countries afford to buy them. So again, you are talking about some vague possibility versus protecting yourself here and now. This is a no brainer as far as US is concerned.

Do you think this will not prompt a conflict situation? That the US will allow the advantage and the temporary security to fade away as other nations grow new nuclear offensive weapons, and do so without incidents like the aforementioned CMC?

Then other nations shouldn't try to reach parity with US and conflict will be avoided.

[K. A. Pital]

Why would their attempts to reach parity be any more "natural" then US attempts to have an ABM shield?

Because of the nature of deterrent. Or do you think there should exist no deterrent to a nations' strategic weapons except possible moral inhibitors? I'm afraid neither political leaders of other independent nuclear powers, nor their population would agree with that.

If the Russian guy can't afford a bulletproof vest or can't afford a new gun well that's tough luck as far as the American is concerned but there are these other guns to think about now.

Everyone can get a vest and will attempt to get a new gun, which is fucking clear as day. The problem is - quite likely this won't satisfy the US.

So again, you are talking about some vague possibility versus protecting yourself here and now.

Once again, I'm NOT arguing that the US should not get an ABM. I'm just saying that other countries should actively pursue their own goals at the same time hindering US progress. Because this progress only benefits the US, but not other nuclear powers - those countries are benefitted by their OWN ABM systems and new offensive weapons, which is what they should get.

All I was saying. Build own ABM, search for ways to kill the US, meanwhile hinder US progress.

Then other nations shouldn't try to reach parity with US and conflict will be avoided.

Then the US shouldn't seek to lift itself above the rest and the conflict will be avoided. Oh wait. I guess that isn't natural, but searching for a deterrent against the United States is "unnatural" somehow.

[Kane Starkiller]

Because of the nature of deterrent. Or do you think there should exist no deterrent to a nations' strategic weapons except possible moral inhibitors? I'm afraid neither political leaders of other independent nuclear powers, nor their population would agree with that.

It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what US thinks. And it thinks that no one should be able to blow it up. And it has every right to think that. It is no less natural than a desire to reach parity which is ultimately driven by the same motive: not getting blown up. It's just that US can do a better job of protecting itself.

Then the US shouldn't seek to lift itself above the rest and the conflict will be avoided. Oh wait. I guess that isn't natural, but searching for a deterrent against the United States is "unnatural" somehow.

They are both natural. That was the point. Which means that if there are some rash moves in the future to regain parity with US and they lead to a crisis then the country which made those moves will be at fault for the crisis not the US.

[K. A. Pital]

It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what US thinks.

I already said that the US is acting as it should be, even if that's bad news for other nuclear powers. I don't see what's the disagreement.

Which means that if there are some rash moves in the future to regain parity with US and they lead to a crisis then the country which made those moves will be at fault for the crisis not the US.

If the US preventively nukes another country for trying to get a deterrent ability, that would count as "US is at fault" in my book. That single case aside, I agree.

The point is both actions are natural but they're destroying the old nuclear balance where each nuclear power is able to inflict losses on the other nuclear power. The mere state of the off-balance situation is a danger in my view, not one that can be avoided, however, unless the other nuclear powers already are creating a workable deterrent and will finish that when the US is done with it's system or shortly thereafter.

[Patrick Degan]

As an aside, how would the shift back to manned bombers alter the science of nuclear targeting? I'm doubting that we'd go back to the old multimegaton city busters as wasteful of material but what would be the new scheme?

[Kane Starkiller]

I think we scared off Stuart with all our amateurish drivel.

[Sidewinder]

Do you have evidence for this assertion?

1962.

That was a stopgap measure by one nuclear power to achieve a deterrent against a hitherto nuclear hegemon. The result was a conflict.

You forgot that one reason the Cuban Missile Crisis occured was because the USSR tried to keep the construction of missile bases in Cuba a SECRET, which led to the US assuming the USSR planned to launch a Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack. As others had pointed out, if the Soviet government had publicly and loudly declared it would build missile bases in Cuba to counterbalance the NATO missile bases in Turkey, the US wouldn't have responded so strongly.

[Sidewinder]

Once again, I'm NOT arguing that the US should not get an ABM. I'm just saying that other countries should actively pursue their own goals at the same time hindering US progress. Because this progress only benefits the US, but not other nuclear powers - those countries are benefitted by their OWN ABM systems and new offensive weapons, which is what they should get.

All I was saying. Build own ABM, search for ways to kill the US, meanwhile hinder US progress.

Which nuclear powers will seek to hinder American acquisition of ABM, and why?

Russia: Strategic rival of the US, and therefore has a reason to try to hinder the US.

UK: American ally. No reason to try to hinder the US.

France: Not a threat to the US, doesn't feel its existence as a nation is threatened by the US. No reason to try to hinder the US.

China: Simultaneously a strategic rival and a business partner of the US. Has a reason to try to hinder American acquisition of ABM, but at the same time, has a reason to want the US to continue to exist.

India: Not a threat to the US, doesn't feel its existence as a nation is threatened by the US. No reason to try to hinder the US.

Pakistan: Its government is an American ally, but a significant portion of its population declares itself an enemy. The government has no reason to try to hinder the US, considering its dependency on foreign aid, including military aid. The anti-Americans in Pakistan have a reason to try to hinder the US, but currently lack the means to do so.

North Korea: A threat to an American ally, and thus has a reason to try to hinder the US.

Israel?: American ally. Dependent upon the US for survival, and has every reason to HELP the US acquire ABM, so it may gain access to the technology.

Iran?: Declares itself an enemy of the US, and thus has a reason to try to hinder the US, although it currently lacks the means to do so.

Out of all the nuclear powers, most of them-- the UK, France, India, and maybe Israel-- are US allies. Two of them-- China and Pakistan-- have reasons to want the US to continue to exist, and are therefore willing to look the other way to American acquisition of ABM. Russia and maybe Iran are the only nations to feel threatened by American nuclear supremacy, although Russia is fortunate that the US considers it a mere rival, not a direct threat to its continued existence-- unlike the USSR.

[Sidewinder]

Forgot to include North Korea, but they know as well as we do that threatening the US with nukes will result in devastation comparable to what was delivered to Japan during WWII. North Korea's nukes are there mainly to cow South Korea and Japan into NOT opposing its interests.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You forgot that one reason the Cuban Missile Crisis occured was because the USSR tried to keep the construction of missile bases in Cuba a SECRET, which led to the US assuming the USSR planned to launch a Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack. As others had pointed out, if the Soviet government had publicly and loudly declared it would build missile bases in Cuba to counterbalance the NATO missile bases in Turkey, the US wouldn't have responded so strongly.

Do you honestly think the US would even allow the Soviet Union to build a missile base even if the latter announced it?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Idiot. Why do people procure nuclear weapons? To kill people or to have a nuclear weapon? I think the latter. But you can kill with those weapons. Is that too advanced a logic for your puny mind?

You keep insinuating that the only way to ensure we won't nuke you is to have nuclear parity, by that same logic, every civilian in Russia and the US should have access to some form of battle rifle to ensure that they don't kill each other.

And be nuked in return. Does that sound very wise, to nuke someone if you become cinders too? No, it doesn't.

So? We aren't arguing with what's wise, purposefully leaving a whole in America or our allies defenses, just so you can feel good is very wise.

And almost a full-scale nuclear war broke out when you were about to lose the ability to emerge unscathed.

But it didn't, again because we aren't interested in the business of removing whole pupulations of people from the world, we have the ability to do so, and have plans for just such a necessity, but we don't/

However, that ability is the only close-to-100% technical reason guarantee you won't kill me.

Nice to see you've become pro-gun.

So fucking what? SAMs aren't ABMs and the bomber is not a ballistic missile. You could still pull off an air attack and it would succeed. Oh, your bombers are vulnerable? You think in case of a nuclear war the lives of it's pilots would be treated more important than the destruction of the enemy?

Again a strawman, no what I'm saying is that both ballistic missiles and bombers can be intercepted, it's not that hard.

Now tell me please, where is the parity between a country that has it's strategic airforce grounded and it's unlikely any of it (save for a few Tu-160s) would get through, and a country whose airforce can successfully throw huge numbers of bombers to kill?

Why does there have to be parity? There are numerous carry & conceal permits issued each year that allow a civillian to carry a weapon on his person. Under your logic we should be watching them with extreme scrutiny, yet they're the ones less likely to go insane and shoot someone.

And this means we should get reckless with nukes! Boo fucking hoo, because historical precedent is some sort of underlying truth! You see, if you get reckless with nukes a crisis may happen, but we don't care, since once upon a time we managed to settle that down! So of course we'll find a way to solve a possible newer crisis. Yeah.[/quote[ Once again, Stas ignores historical precedent in favour of his own brand of fear mongering.

Did you even understand what I said, idiot? I didn't say the US shouldn't be building it's ABM - merely that it's in the interests of other nations to hinder that process while advancing their own ABM designs and increasing their strategic airforce potential.

Like what countries?

Because the US might not be so happy with other countries aquiring a deterrent again, once it's system is finished. So we need to get means of killing you before the imbalance or shortly after it arises.

Why do you need a way of killing us?

[Medic]

So fucking what? SAMs aren't ABMs and the bomber is not a ballistic missile. You could still pull off an air attack and it would succeed. Oh, your bombers are vulnerable? You think in case of a nuclear war the lives of it's pilots would be treated more important than the destruction of the enemy?

Again a strawman, no what I'm saying is that both ballistic missiles and bombers can be intercepted, it's not that hard.

Actually, this is a winner for Stas Bush. (i.e., our boogeymen bombers) In any large nuclear strike, intercept rates of bombers can be as high as %20 and still doom the country defending from such a strike. The defender has to be nearly perfect to escape unsurvivable harm, especially since bombers can be rerouted; those that do get through will invariably hit our highest-priority targets, I'd bet stuff like refinery's, railyards, or other things whose removal can cripple a state. (that's just bias speaking though, I would think if the U.S. did go to war with Russia and it went nuclear, they'd deign not to put try and wipe out the Russian military or population (a "counter-military" or "counter-population targeting strategy) since both are in the end nuke sponges and instead persecute a counter-energy, -economic or -industrial target list. Besides, outlying oil refinery's are low-hanging fruit compared to trying to crack open Moscow. /speculation)

Intercept rates that high though when you're persecuting a conventional bombing campaign would be disastrous and you'd soon not have a bomber force left, especially with the numbers we're talking today. It isn't just that "bombers CAN be intercepted" but that in such a situation they HAVE to be and nearly in their entirety, certainly a majority of any strike force.

[K. A. Pital]

You keep insinuating that the only way to ensure we won't nuke you is to have nuclear parity, by that same logic, every civilian in Russia and the US should have access to some form of battle rifle to ensure that they don't kill each other.

You're an idiot, aren't you, Shatten? All I'm saying is that nuclear deterrent is a more potent motivator not to nuke someone than nothing.

Nice to see you've become pro-gun.

Hey look fucker, for once look seriously on your analogy. The US is not a world policeman, and not the world government. If there were a world government that would control all nuclear weapons of humanity, I would welcome such a structure. But there's none, so fuck you and your meaningless, idiotic attempts at irony.

Like what countries?

Russia, China, India, Pakistan - for starters.

China: Simultaneously a strategic rival and a business partner of the US. Has a reason to try to hinder American acquisition of ABM, but at the same time, has a reason to want the US to continue to exist.

Of course it wants the US to exist. Hell, I doubt there are any huge nations which literally want to wipe the US out. That doesn't mean it won't work towards it's own goals.

India: Not a threat to the US, doesn't feel its existence as a nation is threatened by the US. No reason to try to hinder the US.

India is an independent nuclear power. Just a few decades ago, under Indira, I'm pretty positive it didn't harbor much love towards the US. And they will advance their own designes. There are many Russia-India joint military ventures today, from fleet training to joint-development ASMs, etc. India also proceeds to aquire it's own ABM system.

I agree on Pakistan and Israel.

As others had pointed out, if the Soviet government had publicly and loudly declared it would build missile bases in Cuba to counterbalance the NATO missile bases in Turkey, the US wouldn't have responded so strongly.

You mean the US could've invaded Cuba under some pretext and simply make the putting of missiles there impossible. Because that's a far more likely turn of events than the US just saying "Oh shit. Well, fine".