Interesting Obama Video

[VT-16]

EDIT: I meant "couldn't ensure your safety..."

[Adrian Laguna]

Plus, even a small nuclear strike will create a plume of nasty that will spread around quite a bit, depending on the wind patterns.

Actually they wouldn't unless the target id hard enough to require a ground burst. For most targets the weapons is usually initiated so that the fireball just barely kisses the ground. It's primarily to increase the device's efficiency at spreading destruction, but it has the nice side-effect of drastically reducing fallout.

[Covenant]

Uraniun235, I assume your comments about the navy do confirm that the nuke subs we have are still running--which does answer my earlier question about why we were so spazzy about our bombers and icbms here, since I thought the premiere launching platform for all things nuclear was either from a carrier, from a cruise missile, or from a sub--all of which were naval platforms.

As for the fissile material thing, no, you're correct. Anyone with an advanced nuclear infrastructure could convert their plants to make enriched uranium. The idea is that we'd create new powerplants in other nations with the idea that they will not be refining their own material, and will instead get it from the UN or Nato or someone, thus removing their need for expensive refining plants, and also making it impossible for them to weaponize. A nuclear power plant can't enrich uranium for weaponization, but an enrichment plant can. So long as we supply places like Iran or North Korea with their fuel rather than allowing them to create it themselves, they reap the benefits of an affordable and safe powersource and we gain the benefits of decreased nuclear proliferation as well as shifting the control of global energy dominance back towards other folks.

So that's the big thing, really. Obviously, as we saw, Iran's issue is that refining Uranium is not child's play. It takes a lot of effort to do. If they can get the fuel cheaper from us, and can be convinced not to pursue a weapon (which Ahmadinajad is) then there's no reason for them to build their own refining plants other than energy independance.

We should probably just buy up all the Uranium on the market that we can, clamp down on the mines, and restrict access.

[K. A. Pital]

Obviously, as we saw, Iran's issue is that refining Uranium is not child's play. It takes a lot of effort to do. If they can get the fuel cheaper from us, and can be convinced not to pursue a weapon (which Ahmadinajad is) then there's no reason for them to build their own refining plants other than energy independance.

How about that intel report which states Iran isn't working on nuclear weapons? Do they really want a weapon, or do they do it for PR purpose?

[Covenant]

To Adrian: But isn't it true that the new nukes we had on the slate were, quite specifically, nuclear bunker busters designed to ground-penetrate? An airburst is fine for killing men or material, and that's a sound tactical use, but when are we ever going to find a few thousand Al Qaeda all huddled together in a nice big camp? If they're underground, an airburst (or even a tower shot) will probably not do anything to the cave they're in. You'd need a penetrating weapon, and that's a mess.

You are right though, of course, about the amount of fallout generated overall by an actual precise airburst. I'm pretty sure other people would be upset with us anyway, but using a low-yield nuclear device to scorch the desert and kill Bin Ladin would probably be fine--we wouldn't even need to announce we used a nuke.

But if we see him on the surface, can't we just send a tomahawk strike with conventional warheads to do the job? I can't see many situations when we'd need to strike the entire camp with a single hit. Maybe if the leaders 1-10 are there, along with their Elite Cannibal Ninja squad or whatever. Otherwise it just seems a bit much. I know I'd sign the order in a heartbeat to nuke them with a low yield airburst, but from everything I can tell and what we've seen, the way you whack a badguy who is off in some camp is with a small missile fired from a drone or a boat or a plane. And if it's cavebusting we want, nukes are a messy way to do it.

[Covenant]

Goddamn lack of edit.

Iran's leader is certainly one to use bluster to get his way, and is loving the attention he gets from it. He speaks quite openly about nations quaking, or falling flat, or whatever at the idea of his nation achieving nuclear power. But that makes no sense. Why would we care if they had nuclear energy? India does, Pakistan does. I think he knows that we know that the insinuation is for a bomb.

Now, as you point out, they did indeed stop making bomb-building stuff a while back. But Ahmadinejad spoke at great length and with great furor about establishing a complete nuclear cycle--IE, from raw material to enrichment to energy. They have rejected the plan to depend on the US for it's nuclear fuel, but frankly I think we should see if they'd let the Russians sell them nuclear fuel instead, but they are complying with a great deal of requests and it all seems hunky dorey but I find it almost impossible to imagine a situation where Iran would not, at some point, use it's enrichment facilities to create a nuclear weapon. Their weapon program stretched back to the Shah, and unless diplomacy supercedes saber-rattling on the American's part, Iran will basically be forced to make a nuclear weapon just to stay relatively soverign, since an enrichment facility with no weapons production is going to be a continually untenable situation.

So I'd say they're doing it for the PR purposes, but like North Korea, might acutally make some kind of sloppy nuclear device and set it off in a little puff of fire just to prove they can do it. Honestly, the idea that an Iranian bomb program is dangerous is kinda backwards. An Iranian enrichment program is dangerous, as just about any moron can assemble a nuclear bomb once you have the material. Regardless, I think that Ahmadinejad would love a bomb, but that the Iran of the next 20 years may not see it as useful or necessary... but that's off topic. Us having nukes certainly doesn't make them any less likely to build one.

[phongn]

To Adrian: But isn't it true that the new nukes we had on the slate were, quite specifically, nuclear bunker busters designed to ground-penetrate? An airburst is fine for killing men or material, and that's a sound tactical use, but when are we ever going to find a few thousand Al Qaeda all huddled together in a nice big camp? If they're underground, an airburst (or even a tower shot) will probably not do anything to the cave they're in. You'd need a penetrating weapon, and that's a mess.

The idea of the new superpenetrating bombs was that they'd go so far down that the nasty nuclear products would be contained underground (and not thrown up into a huge plume of death).

[Covenant]

To Adrian: But isn't it true that the new nukes we had on the slate were, quite specifically, nuclear bunker busters designed to ground-penetrate? An airburst is fine for killing men or material, and that's a sound tactical use, but when are we ever going to find a few thousand Al Qaeda all huddled together in a nice big camp? If they're underground, an airburst (or even a tower shot) will probably not do anything to the cave they're in. You'd need a penetrating weapon, and that's a mess.

The idea of the new superpenetrating bombs was that they'd go so far down that the nasty nuclear products would be contained underground (and not thrown up into a huge plume of death).

...well I'll be damned. It's called the MOP, Massive Ordinance Penetrator. Well, if it works as well as they say it works, then it might do a decent job as some kind of groundburst weapon for a low yield nuke. I can't really say I'm opposed to that. I'm a little skeptical--they said they'd be ready in 2008 and we don't seem yet to have any actual trial evidence to suggest they can dig down far enough--but I'd give the weapon system the benefit of the doubt as yet. The science seems to support it. I'm not a fan of nuclear proliferation, but these can also mount conventional devices, and I think a smaller number of tactical nukes is preferable to huge nuclear stockpiles anyway.

[Nephtys]

I don't see what is wrong with this one bit. The US has already cut back on nukes, which makes perfect sense. We're not in a death race to out-produce any competing superpower, so why would you need so damn many? When only a handful with wreak untold havoc on any nation. A missile submarine has what? 80? More?

A quick google search says that the US has something like available 6000 nuclear weapons right now. Praytell, who would you possibly use 6000 tactical and strategic bombs against?

That nuclear missile interceptor program isn't exactly the most vital thing in the world either. If a 'rogue state' launches a missile at the US, that country is open game for being turned into dust. China and Russia and the like have NO reason to open up with their missiles on the US, and so on. They'd likewise, get hammered in response. Terrorists sure as hell aren't going to be building ICBMs, which is the only delivery system the missile defense is supposed to protect against.

So what exactly is the interceptor system supposed to protect? What will weaponizing space accomplish, aside from starting a completely unnecessary arms race?

[K. A. Pital]

So what exactly is the interceptor system supposed to protect?

Accidental singular launches. Or singular launches from "rogue nations". All of which is already possible with the currently existing SM-3, just rack up a few more complements on US ships, and the Alaska polygon.

[phongn]

So what exactly is the interceptor system supposed to protect?

Accidental singular launches. Or singular launches from "rogue nations". All of which is already possible with the currently existing SM-3, just rack up a few more complements on US ships, and the Alaska polygon.

Er, I don't think SM-3 has the kinematics to tackle full-on ICBMs right now. A bigger missile is really needed for that.

[Big Phil]

Does any reputable source have this video? If this is real, I have a hard time believing Hillary or McCain haven't jumped all over it.

[Jadeite]

Regarding missile interception, you people do realize that the US needs to defend more than CONUS itself right? Iran lobbing a few IRBMs into Saudi oilfields would make a pretty good mess of things.

[Knife]

Meh, I disagree with a couple of those for somewhat practical reasons but it's not a 'kill my vote for Obama' deal. For one, a lot of that wouldn't make it through the congress so no worries.

[Uraniun235]

Uraniun235, I assume your comments about the navy do confirm that the nuke subs we have are still running--which does answer my earlier question about why we were so spazzy about our bombers and icbms here, since I thought the premiere launching platform for all things nuclear was either from a carrier, from a cruise missile, or from a sub--all of which were naval platforms.

Well, yes, the SSBNs are still quite operational. I want to say they comprise more than half of our strategic arsenal but I could be wrong.

But what I meant was your remark about deterring the Chinese from invading San Francisco - we don't really need a nuclear arsenal to accomplish that, we can pretty easily handle any potential incoming invasion force with our overwhelmingly superior conventional naval force.

Regarding missile interception, you people do realize that the US needs to defend more than CONUS itself right? Iran lobbing a few IRBMs into Saudi oilfields would make a pretty good mess of things.

Let the Sauds pay for their missile defense, I hear they've got some loose change lying around.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, they don't. Saudi Arabia may give its royals too large an allowance, but its facing major reinvestment obligations in the gas and oil sector, a booming population, water and electricity shortfalls in the future, etc. And this is without considering conventional military spending given the likely continued pattern of instability to the north.