US Forgets How To Make Trident Missiles 922
Hugh Pickens writes "The US and the UK are trying to refurbish the aging W76 warheads that tip Trident missiles to prolong their life and ensure they are safe and reliable but plans have been put on hold because US scientists have forgotten how to manufacture a mysterious but very hazardous component of the warhead codenamed Fogbank. 'NNSA had lost knowledge of how to manufacture the material because it had kept few records of the process when the material was made in the 1980s, and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency,' says the report by a US congressional committee. Fogbank is thought by some weapons experts to be a foam used between the fission and fusion stages of the thermonuclear bomb on the Trident Missile and US officials say that manufacturing Fogbank requires a solvent cleaning agent which is 'extremely flammable' and 'explosive,' and that the process involves dealing with 'toxic materials' hazardous to workers. 'This is like James Bond destroying his instructions as soon as he has read them,' says John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, adding that 'perhaps the plans for making Fogbank were so secret that no copies were kept.' Thomas D'Agostino, administrator or the US National Nuclear Security Administration, told a congressional committee that the administration was spending 'a lot of money' trying to make 'Fogbank' at Y-12, but 'we're not out of the woods yet.'"
Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent. Lets hope they can't make it and it means they have to get rid of them. Due to the current economic crisis, hopefully they can't afford to come up with a replacement.
In the current global climate, there's no point in having nuclear missiles. Those who could strike us are no longer interested and are now allies and those who are hostile and nuclear capable can't reach us.
Golly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:2, Insightful)
>
In the current global climate, there's no point in having nuclear missiles. Those who could strike us are no longer interested and are now allies and those who are hostile and nuclear capable can't reach us.
I think someone watched The Watchmen and thought it actually happened.
News flash: There are people who don't like us just as much as they did last summer before my 401k started plummeting. Just because Obama won doesn't mean everybody loves us. What the funding should go towards is creating weapons that do effectively just as much damage without the radiation fallout.
The point of having nuclear weapons is being able to have mutually assured destruction. Even if we have an enemy whose homeland is vague, if one is detonated on US soil expect something bad to happen to anybody we suspect.
Disinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
I have this really novel idea (Score:3, Insightful)
How about you just decommission the warheads and missiles?
I mean Obama is all about curtailing military spending. Here's a good cut, right? /hippyliberalantiweaponcommentary
CS students and weapons engineers take note! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why it's important to document your code... or your warheads. Either or.
This is very scary! (Score:2, Insightful)
While I am very concerned about this, I am not surprised at all. It is by coincidence that I was reading this website [cuttingedge.org] and found out that despite perceived Russian problems, the USA is at least a decade behind Russia in missile technology!
Below are two snippets of the whole article. Scary!
"Despite the Pentagon's development of a new generation of hypersonic missile, the U.S. is still a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise-missile design, according to defense analysts. According to the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, the U.S. military is developing a new hypersonic robot missile reported to be capable of traveling in excess of six times the speed of sound and armed with its own miniature smart bombs. The new weapon, called the Advanced Rapid Response Missile Demonstrator, or ARRMD, is designed to cruise at over 4,000 miles an hour and strike targets hundreds of miles away in only a few seconds. "
"Nevertheless, defense analysts agree that the U.S. is fully a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise missile designs. Russia currently deploys and exports the supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile, NATO codenamed "Sunburn." The SS-N-22 is considered the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, and flies at over 2.5 times the speed of sound only a few feet from the surface of the water." [This speed amounts to almost 1,700 miles per hour, or 28 miles per minute]."
Folks, we can't let this happen.
just when the warranty runs out ... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a serious side to this. The US hasn't actually built any nukes, stuck 'en on a rocket, fired them and had a successful BOOM for well over 40 years. That must be coming up for 2 generations of rocket / nuclear scientists and the third generation is now in training. That means that the "new guys" will learn from people who didn't have any practical experience and in turn learned from the people who actually *did it* nearly 50 years ago.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but... Why?
Is there any particular target you can think of that would be a viable candidate for a nuclear weapon strike? Cities would seem to be the most viable option, but we'd kill millions of innocents along with the bad guys. The brass once suggested that armies in open areas could be wiped out with a single nuke. However, no modern army is going to just line up and wait to be nuked short of a parade or show of force. (And definitely not in an unpopulated area.) Supercarriers and other large ocean-going vessels are good "soft" targets for nukes, but to what effect? Only the US floats supercarriers. With over a dozen in service plus hundreds of supporting vessels, all other navies are already outclassed.
In the end, our nuclear arsenal serves one purpose: deterrence. Whoever might want to lob nukes out way is aware that we have nukes of our own to lob back. And we WANT those nukes to be as eco-unfriendly as possible so that they won't do any stupid calculations like "we'll take out 20 million of their's in exchange for 1 million of ours." Instead, the calculation should be, "if we kill 20 million of their's, we die."
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why I think the best way to secure peace is to get rid of the US...
you mother fucking idiot. There has been war for thousands of years and will continue to be as long as there are haves and have nots. You think erasing the flash in history that is the U.S. is gonna fix the world? those mother fuckers with glass parking lots have been throwing rocks a lot longer then we have been dropping bombs....
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
the best thing to do in response to a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization would be to STFU and fucking NOT retaliate.
I'm playing devils advocate in my post, I forgot to mention it. The problem is that trying to explain that to the POTUS and the joint chiefs would prove to be far more complex after millions of citizens were killed and millions more will die from the fallout.
I would love nothing more than to have world unity and nothing but love all around, but look at after 9/11. Scorched fucking earth in Afghanistan. The American people called for retaliation, and they got it. Look in Israel, a few of their people are killed in suicide bombings and they level city blocks in neighboring countries. It always seems like the political figures take Sean Connery's line from The Untouchables to heart:
He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone.
Advanced Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is what happens when you don't continue to spend money on extremely advanced engineering projects: you lose the technology. Technology isn't just a textbook and some blueprints, it requires the experience and knowledge of scientists and engineers. It's a living thing: shelve it, and it dies.
It would be nice to think this would serve as an abject lesson to congresscritters, next time they think about cutting funding for something 'we don't need right now.' Although I'm cynical enough not to believe that.
Re:Disinformation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why I think the best way to secure peace is to get rid of the US...
You think the US is the only country that would respond in kind? Newsflash: Both the British and the French have reserved the right to respond to terror attacks with nuclear weapons. I suspect the Russians or Chinese would do so as well.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Insightful)
What the funding should go towards is creating weapons that do effectively just as much damage without the radiation fallout.
We already have them. They are called fuel-air bombs.
The point of having nuclear weapons is being able to have mutually assured destruction. Even if we have an enemy whose homeland is vague, if one is detonated on US soil expect something bad to happen to anybody we suspect.
That's why non-nuclear weapons with megaton yields aren't enough. You have to know that the land will be uninhabitable for years on both sides.
Reality.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Golly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're not referring to the "we lost the blueprints to the Saturn V" urban legend. Because if you are, you need to be aware that the US has all the plans and the experience it needs to rebuild these craft. What it doesn't have is the heavy industrial base. Material science has moved the US significantly forward from the heavy metal construction and high noise/high latency electronics used in the original SatV. Rebuilding the SatV would be more effort than just designing a new spacecraft.
If you're just referring to a few components here and there, then I have to argue that these things just happen. Systems age, get out of date, and certain challenges arise in maintenance. For someone like NASA, they're not that difficult to solve. It can take quite a few man hours to understand the part properly and re-machine it (even if original staff are on hand; people tend to forget things over time), but the job still gets done with a minimum amount of fuss.
This issue is a far more worrisome problem. Due to the need for secrecy (there was a HUGE concern that the USSR would obtain our technology), many of the steps were maintained as secrets in people's heads rather than on paper. That makes it difficult to combat the brain drain that invariably happened both as the engineers and researchers aged and the Cold War wound down.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a logical, clearly reasoned and well thought out response to a hypothetical situation.
Which is why it will never be done.
9/11 was a far, FAR less traumatic event than a nuclear blast. And look at the fear-based trigger response that had, and the innocent people who took the brunt of that American fear response.
Governments are made of people. And people are stupid.
Re:Reality.. (Score:2, Insightful)
They sure "won" WWII pretty darn quick. They are meant to ensure everyone loses.
Only if everyone has them (and appropriate delivery systems). If not, see WWII. "I win, you lose, end of discussion."
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
Scorched fucking earth in Afghanistan. The American people called for retaliation, and they got it.
That's generally what happens when you provide logistical support and a base of operations to a terrorist organization that attacks a Great Power. You think Afghanistan would have come out better if Bin Ladin had murdered ~3,000 Chinese or Russians instead of ~3,000 Americans?
It always seems like the political figures take Sean Connery's line from The Untouchables to heart:
For better or worse that's how the world works. The only reason we don't see more of it is because nuclear weapons made total war too horrible to contemplate.
Re:Ah the naivety of youth (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because making a rocket go a few extra thousand miles is such a challenge compared to developing a nuclear bomb.
Actually, it is. The USA got nukes well over a decade before creating the first ICBM (1957). The first nuclear bombs were dropped from a plane. Developing the kind of aircraft that could get through the defences of the average nuclear power is even harder than developing an ICBM. You can't just load it into a conventional bomber and hope for the best. WW2-style bombing raids were only viable because the planes were cheap and it didn't matter if a load of them were shot down.
Just lay back and enjoy it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think if you want to survive, as a nation, the best thing to do in response to a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization would be to STFU and fucking NOT retaliate.
This is the equivallent of telling a rape victim to lay back and enjoy it.
No.
On second thought, HELL NO.
You, sir/madam, are an imbecile.
As to the rest of the manure you're shoveling about the world being a better place if the US disappeared? Well, that really doesn't require an answer, now does it?
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Insightful)
That's generally what happens when you provide logistical support and a base of operations to a terrorist organization that attacks a Great Power. You think Afghanistan would have come out better if Bin Ladin had murdered ~3,000 Chinese or Russians instead of ~3,000 Americans?
I think it would be the same as it always has been. We would provide millions of dollars in aide for them, there would be peace rallies and movements to bring them supplies, but ultimately we (The US) would leave it to them to resolve the problem on their own.
Re:Reality.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, granted the bombs used in WWII are nothing like what we have today, but it still seems worth noting that the only actual use of nuclear weapons was war-ending / winning.
You're talking about MAD strategy, which is one nuclear strategy but not the only one. An arms race does tend to lead to MAD, which made it synonymous with nuclear strategy (at least in the public eye) in the cold war. The thing is, MAD doesn't apply to every conceivable nuclear conflict today.
MAD assumes that there are two (or more) powers, each with enough weapons to destroy the other, who would be on opposite sides of any conceivable nuclear conflict. If these assumptions are not met, then one side can (and might) use nuclear weapons to win. If one power believes these assumptions are not met ("with enough of a head start, we can reduce their offensive capability enough that some of us will survive"), then they might try to use nuclear weapons to win.
Re:Ah the naivety of youth (Score:5, Insightful)
because making a rocket go a few extra thousand miles is such a challenge compared to developing a nuclear bomb.
Quite so. There are plenty of horrible, horrible non-nuclear weapons out there that can be delivered by ICBM that aren't nearly as difficult to develop. A good solid hit on downtown Washington and you've made as much as a political statement as a mushroom cloud. Nukes are only 'The Bomb' because of their emotional impact. Consider: people turned aircraft into weapons and now every airline passenger is treated like a criminal. Arguably more people have been effected by the World Trade Centre attacks than nuclear weapons. The sad truth is that you can kill people with a cricket bat if you try hard enough. Disposing of nukes, or guns or cricket bats won't stop violence. The only way to ensure lasting peace is through diplomacy and not engaging in international dipshittery.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
No offense, but stuff it. The US does not set out to kill as many people as possible. If we did, we would have nuked Bagdad and left. But we didn't. We put our men and women on the line to die for the war. Now people here and in other countries can argue whether that was the correct decision or not. But we do NOT set out to slaughter people en masse.
And for the record, your figures are complete bunk. 91,060 - 99,433 [iraqbodycount.org] is the complete total for civilian deaths in Iraq. If you want to blame the US for each and every one of those deaths, that is your prerogative. But having a hundred thousand people die due to being killed by their own people (#1 cause) and accidental deaths during live fire are a LONG way from heartlessly killing millions of people.
Securing peace by getting rid of the US (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why I think the best way to secure peace is to get rid of the US...
I don't know why you think that, but the rest of the world doesn't exactly have a good track record in keeping the peace. Look at Europe before the US started stationing soldiers there in 1941 - two world wars. Or look at the parts of the world the US isn't interested in, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.
Re:This is very scary! (Score:2, Insightful)
And why the hell not?
Whether or not we refurbish these Trident missiles, whether or not we have a missile as fast as the Russkies' Moskit, we still have an order of magnitude more rockets, bombs, ships, planes, tanks, and other forms of military-industrial complex hardware than is needed to keep other countries from invading the U.S.
We could halve our military budget, and still be outspending the entire European Union. Our military spending is more than ten times that of the number two nation, China. [wikipedia.org]
(BTW, you do realize that the site you link to re: the Moskit is 100% pure nutjob, right? In actual fact, the Moskit is dangerous but no superweapon [everything2.com].)
Screw the Trident missiles. Put those resources into building some solar cells or ground-source heat pumps or mass transit projects. Or training some doctors. Or fixing some sewer lines before they collapse.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it would be the same as it always has been. We would provide millions of dollars in aide for them, there would be peace rallies and movements to bring them supplies, but ultimately we (The US) would leave it to them to resolve the problem on their own.
Of course the US would leave them to resolve the problem on their own - the US wasn't attacked in the parent's hypothetical scenario. Why would the US care if somebody killed a few thousand Chinese citizens?
The Chinese (or Russians), on the other hand, would have almost certainly launched an invasion of some kind. Why do you think nobody messes with them?
Now, they might or might not have launched a full-scale takeover of Afganistan. I suspect that their style would be more along the lines of doing covert operations. Then again, the Chinese at least might look forward to an internationally-sanctioned opportunity to get some field practice for their army.
The point was that the US did what any other country in a similar position would have done. The Chinese or the Russians certainly wouldn't have given them a slap on the wrist.
Going back to the original point of this thread - I doubt any major nation would launch a knee-jerk nuclear strike in response to a terrorist attack. If the terrorists were state-sponsored they would almost certainly retalliate at least conventionally, but if the terrorists were wackos from Kansas I doubt they'd wipe Kansas off the map.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:2, Insightful)
There has been war for thousands of years and will continue to be as long as there are haves and have nots.
In today's environment, there's plenty to go around. It's not so much "haves and have nots" but "I have and you can't have" that's the problem. People call it the "evils of capitalism" and while greed is a big motivator, look at the pain it causes. They aren't kidding when they say money is the root of all evil.
Re:Actual Explanation ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese and Russians are every bit as barbaric as Americans
What you call barbarism I call self-defense. You don't respond to a terrorist attack by filing a lawsuit -- you respond by killing and/or imprisoning those responsible.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, we could reprioritize the list. We might just decide that spending ten times more than any other nation on "guns" is too much, cut it down to, say, five times, spend some of the saving on "butter" and some on repaying the loans we started taking out back in the Reagan days to buy all those "guns", and tell the military-industrial complex to go on a fscking diet already.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
Around some parts, the word "patriot" is synonymous with "racist". Some countries are actually proud of other things than just owning the most guns.
yea thats what the US is all about. we haven't contributed any technologies to the world, agriculture, charity. We all just sit at home cleaning our guns looking at our sisters funny. You sir sound like a racist that has America pinned.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:2, Insightful)
If you wipe out a few generations of innocent civilians, there is no point in poisoning the planet they lived on.
Re:Actual Explanation ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not the only time (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the reason why aircraft can be preferred to a satellite. But there is no real reason any more for a pilot on a surveillance aircraft. In fact, for the most part the only reason a pilot is in a U-2 is to get it up to working altitude and then get it back down. The performance envelope is such that it is usually on autopilot when working. So really the pilot is just extra baggage and a huge limitation. Something like the global hawk is much better and I'm sure there are/will be much better options coming. The jamming thing is really irrelevant.
Re:That Thing We Did? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my view, if even one of those thousands of civilians was against attacking the US, the bombing was not worth it.
So we should have invaded them instead? Take a look at what the Japanese civilians on Saipan did when confronted with defeat and tell me that less of them would have died if we had invaded the Japanese home islands.
But when you retaliate a sneak attack on a military base with an attack that causes more than 100x as many deaths, many of them civilians, then you've overstepped your right. That's a criminal act.
War isn't supposed to be pretty. When you mobilize the entire resources of your nation to fight said war then the entire resources of your nation become legitimate targets. Call it criminal all you want but we didn't start the war. We just ended it as quickly as possible.
Re:Rumor has it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't you read the article/summary? The torrent is dead, because all the seeds went away.
On the other hand, we should just ask China. I'm sure they have some copies of the recipe laying around...
Re:Just lay back and enjoy it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't we only allowed car analogies on here, anyway?
Re:Just lay back and enjoy it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Or dead, in this case.
Re:Not the only time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not usually the conspiracy-theory type, but I suspect that the USAF already is flying an SR-71 replacement and this is why they have been retired.
Spy Satellites and UAVs certainly cover parts of the SR-71 mission profile. However, what about battlefield survailence of a major military adversary? Current UAVs cannot survive in combat. Sure, they can loiter over Basra all day when nobody has anything other than a rifle to shoot at them with. Try to get footage of downtown Tehran with a UAV and you'll just have UAV-parts raining all over the place. Satellites certainly work better, but they're very limited in coverage and have no loiter capability. They're also very vulnerable if somebody is determined enough to actually start shooting them down.
I'm not saying you couldn't do the job with a UAV with SR-71-like capabilities. That is certainly an option. Perhaps one already exists. However, neither satellites or the currently public UAV options make the SR-71 completely obsolete. Either the US doesn't think it needs ariel recon of hot areas, or it has some other way of doing it that nobody knows about.
Re:Rumor has it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
you can download the instruction from the Pirate Bay...
Just wait a few weeks; you might be right ...
My immediate thought was related: The US government probably does have the info hidden away in some obscure department's archives, hidden behind a wall of secrecy and classification. The repair guys just don't have the right clearances, and instead of saying "We can't give you that information", the agency says "We don't have that information".
It could also be a case of Clarke's third law. The information is stored away somewhere, but the repair crews don't know the name of the archive or who runs it, and the people at the archive haven't heard that anyone's looking for it. And chances are that if you ask for the info using the part's name, they won't be able to find it; you have to tell them the code number (or whatever they call it) for that particular part.
That is, the information could be hidden by ignorance and incompetence, not by any active efforts to hide or eliminate the information. That happens all the time any large organization, businesses as well as governments.
Actually, my other thought was "Did they google it?" Chances are that google could tell them the part number(s), and maybe also the torrent name at the Pirate Bay.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Golly (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm. In that case, they could just make the missiles out of cardboard and felt (like the Clangers) and nobody would be any the wiser.
Re:Reality.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What is your point then? Nuclear weapons at the time were strictly a Soviet and American technology. That is far from the case these days and also worth noting that Japan was not wiped off the map and was already preparing to surrender.
There are theories that the detonations were just a way to show off to the world the power of the atomic bomb and for the Emperor of Japan to save face when he was ready to surrender.
Of course at the time we had a lot of trouble producing nuclear weapons and could not have continued to bombard anyone. Going up against a nuclear power ensured destruction so many countries became nuclear powers. It's hard to wipe any country off the map without pissing off one of said countries. My bets would be Pakistan and India since the fallout would cause huge problems for them.
So its still MAD and not about a preemptive strike which was ruled out after people saw how horrific the bombs were in Japan. Modern bombs are a bit more destructive too so that would be nothing to what would happen if we used our modern arsenal. In short, everyone loses.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:2, Insightful)
Look in Israel, a few of their people are killed in suicide bombings and they level city blocks in neighboring countries.
Well, if your country had to endure more than 6000 (!) rocket attacks over several years, with the attackers' elected government calling for your "eradication" from this planet, you'd probably ignore that. Am I right?
Besides, the real "leveling of city blocks" you're talking about last happened in WW2, right here, where I live (I live in a post-war building). And now I am not calling even THAT "out of proportion", since at that time, this country's government had the same plans about the Jews as Hamas has today.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
Money isn't the root of all evil.
The expression is "love of money is the root of all evil."
That's assuming you believe in arbitrary black and white distinctions of morality.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why I think the best way to secure peace is to get rid of the US...
you mother fucking idiot. There has been war for thousands of years and will continue to be as long as there are...
...people. Not everyone abides by the rules of a convention. The kinds of people who will throw acid at little girls for going to school aren't the type of people who will sit around the breakfast table to discuss their problems over a croissant.
Sometimes the only solution is violence. Done neatly, and done correctly, it can permanently fix the problem.
Good morning, Mr. Chamerlain (Score:1, Insightful)
"I think if you want to survive, as a nation, the best thing to do in response to a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization would be to STFU and fucking NOT retaliate"
It shows how child-like you are to say such a thing. And that's not a compliment.
The best deterrent to an attack is to let the enemy know that if they attack, they will be destroyed utterly and without delay. I know you think the world is all filled with people who just want to get along and conflict is a result of misunderstanding between people. It's not.
And yes, I realize that you're speaking hypothetically of a terrorist attack. One where they figure out how to build a working A-Bomb and a delivery mechanism. But once you discover the enemy, you must destroy them utterly. Destroy their family, their way of life, everything about them.
Conflict arises when you have something that I want. Land, resources, even ideological differences but they all amount to the same thing. I'm going to compel you to do something or take something from you. And I'm willing to do it because I think you're too weak to resist me.
Do you have any clue why the US and USSR never fought WW III? It's because each side was afraid of the consequences of a war. It was so awful that it was better to yell at each other from a distance and fight some skirmishes than engage in outright war.
As to the "millions have families". Of course they do. Which makes them think really hard about engaging in a war with the United States.
The idea that a good defense is a provocative stance is frankly idiotic. The idea that I will destroy you, your family, your way of life, your lands... everything! if you attack keeps you at a safe distance shouting slogans. That's the way it should be.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just lay back and enjoy it? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the equivallent of telling a rape victim to lay back and enjoy it.
No, it's not equivalent. It's nowhere NEAR the same thing. A rape victim gets raped by one person or multiple people. DNA is sometimes left behind or the victim is able to identify their attackers based on a combination of identifiable markings, voice, etc. If the system works correctly, those responsible for raping the victim will be brought to justice. You don't start killing random people in hopes that one or few of those that you kill happened to be the attackers.
I don't think you quite understood what the parent was saying. I don't think that they were saying "don't attack", I think they were saying "don't lob random nukes." Using the parent's logic, some terrorist organization manages to detonate a nuclear bomb inside America. So you decide that you want to retaliate with a nuclear bomb of your own. Where do you drop it? If you can find any shred of evidence that this terrorist organization was backed by some government or state, then that makes the job easy. But if the organization was decentralized? Do you continue to lob nukes indiscriminately within an entire region until everyone is dead?
Would you press the button to kill millions of individuals who had nothing to do with the attack? What happens if you manage to kill millions of people in countries a, b, and c, but the terrorists were hiding out in countries x, y, and z? That's the problem with terrorism. Outside of Hezbollah, they're typically not backed by any state, so you're going to have to start killing a whole lot of innocents until you find the right people.
MAD works quite well when it's between states and countries. Citizens of country X elected the officials who have the power start a nuclear war. In some way, those citizens are responsible. Those same citizens most likely don't want to die, so hopefully as educated voters, they make sure not to vote nutjobs into office. But what happens when you have a terrorist organization who is not tied to any country or state and who is not elected? There is no question that there would be retaliation, but unless I didn't understand the parent correctly, I thought they meant NOT retaliate with nukes since you have no fucking idea what you're attacking.
I'm not some hippie either. I would move to find and crush those responsible, but I don't see how killing millions in the process, on purpose, fixes anything. Those that were responsible are not afraid to die and couldn't care less if those around them died as well.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:1, Insightful)
These are two different things. Killing the latter is more effective than killing the former.
Re:Reality.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. Nukes are Mutually assured destruction. They are there only as a endgame.
It's Exactly like a room with 10 people in it, all of them covered in dynamite and a detonator in hand that you have to keep the button pressed, and guns pointed at each others heads. Pull the trigger and we all die. Problem is the 11th guy in the room without a bomb strapped to him can hold the rest hostage by threatening to kill any one of the others. The USA is hostage to the Nuclear weapons. if someone attacked North Korea, they would launch blind, that launch will trigger a cascade.
WW-II was a fluke. we had something that nobody else had so we had no fear of retaliation. That changed really fast after that day.
Re:Ah the naivety of youth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Securing peace by getting rid of the US (Score:3, Insightful)
The US doesn't prevent war anywhere except ON ITS OWN SOIL. The rest of us actually went to war to defend other nations, we didn't start the wars in the first place. The US on the other hand likes to wave a big stick at the whole world even though they have never been really threatened at home. The US actually encourages local insurgencies just to further its own political aims. Then when those insurgencies turn against them, they wade in and devastate whole countries. People like to point at the pointless "war" the UK had with Argentina over a few small islands in the south atlantic. Hello ? Small islands in the pacific anybody ? Until then it wasn't a world war, just another regional conflict, which has been going on since time immemorial.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Better yet... combine sugar, spice and everything nice (which is kind of hard to find now-a-days) and you have the power puff girls. With them around... who need these weapons.
girl power
You forgot the secret ingedient, Chemical X.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
But how would nuking Iraq help secure oil supplies?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have this really novel idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually its very logical.
Any country can put something that goes boom in a shipping container and ship it to DC. Or maybe DC and NORAD. Or maybe DC and NORAD and one to each military base. But can they be sure they got every last submarine and every last silo and every last bomber?
Its a good tool for peace, because even with a ridiculously good plan and unbelievable good luck, maybe some inside help, the bad guys still will fail to get the last 1% and that last 1% will vaporize them to get even.
Thus, world nuclear peace ensues since nuclear war is utterly un-winnable no matter how much you cheat, at least if you play against the US. Now on the other hand, think india and pakistan, one side could win if they faught sneakily enough, therefore they'll probably fight in the (near) future.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you aren't completely wrong. I believe that the U.S. did fund the Afghan mujahedeen through Pakistan. However, the U.S. did not fund Bin Laden or al-Qaeda and they did not fund any group individually. Bin Laden went into Afghanistan with his own funds and his own agenda.
Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden [wikipedia.org]
A quote from the wiki:
Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI's (Inter-Services Intelligence) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:
It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.
Re:Rumor has it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife and I do this all the time. We hide stuff from the kids in a "safe place"... only a week later we can't remember where the safe place was.
I think that's what happened here. Every body properly changed their passwords and cleaned out file drawers... and nobody did the diligence to make sure all the pieces were accounted for... because that would be "insecure" for there to be a checklist. The instructions are probably buried, like you said, and the only people interested in looking thru the archives don't have clearance... I'd venture even the archivists don't have clearance to open files not requested...
I agree with the other guy too. The DoD has been pushing to restart Nuclear Manufacturing of NEW devices since the last prez came to office. If only for the shock value of making new weapons to put some fear out there. I can't believe the current prez would fall for the ruse and burn that kind of international goodwill he's trying to muster.
Re:Securing peace by getting rid of the US (Score:4, Insightful)
My lord, are you actually suggesting that the reason there's been peace in Europe is US troops?
Given how many wars were fought in Europe in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, and how many in the second half of the 20th, something must have happened.
If it wasn't US troops, what was it? Why were the horrors of WWII enough to convince Europeans not to fight each other, when the horrors of WWI weren't?
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Insightful)
And killing 100 times as many innocent bystanders in the process -- that's ok how?
Because there are no "innocent" bystanders. Those "innocent" bystanders allowed a Government to come to power that provided support to the terrorist group that attacked the United States. I always find it amusing how the anti-war crowd clams that all Americans have blood on our hands because we allowed GWB to come to power but don't apply the same argument to the civilians placed in harms way by the actions of other governments......
Re:Ah the naivety of youth (Score:3, Insightful)
But a nuke can be small. Not suitcase small, but shipping container small with enough shielding to make detection hard. Finding this out at the boarder may not be a win if it detonates upon "attempted detection".
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a purely US mistake. Bush, to be precise.
If it were any other country, they'd go in there full-force, not half commit to it and then start another completely unrelated conflict somewhere else.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much "haves and have nots" but "I have and you can't have" that's the problem.
You're being unfair. No one (or nearly no one) is saying "you can't have", they're saying "this is mine, get your own". Wealth isn't a fixed pie to be divided up; it's something that's actively created by people's actions. Your wealth does not cause my poverty.
Money isn't the root of all evil; the desire to get money without earning it is. And that moral failing exists irrespective of the dominant economic system; it just expresses itself in different ways. Under capitalism, it's unfair and exploitative trading practices. Under socialism, it's welfare parasitism and government corruption. Different symptoms of the same disease.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Insightful)
A flamebait moderation here is completely unfair. Violence is always around us, even when we pretend it's not. Pointing out that violence has legitimate uses is 'flamebait' to the hopelessly naive.
Let's say you call the police because someone has broken into your home and is attacking a family member. Let's make the ridiculous assumption that the police get there in time to make a difference.
What do you think they're going to do to stop the criminal? Ask him nicely? Maybe once. After that they're going to beat the hell out of him or kill him. And if the criminal DOES stop after being asked nicely, it will be only because he fears the coming violence.
The police are subcontracted violence, generally used to a legitimate end.
The parent poster made the point that violence is inherent in human society, and at best we can aim to have it wielded by the competent and just. This is not flamebait, this is the plain truth.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if your country had to endure more than 6000 (!) rocket attacks over several years, with the attackers' elected government calling for your "eradication" from this planet, you'd probably ignore that. Am I right?
6,000 rockets that killed a total of 15 people in 8 years?
Yes, that's exactly what we'd do. What we certainly wouldn't do is respond with missile strikes into apartment buildings and other densely populated areas that killed thousands over the same period.
Look at Britain and the IRA. Spain and Basques. US and gangs or drug cartels. None indiscriminately use military-level power on the civilians the way the Israelis do. It's disproportionate and ineffective.
When you know where a terrorist is, you arrest them, you don't send a missile into their apartment building.
Re:Securing peace by getting rid of the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Given how many wars were fought in Europe in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, and how many in the second half of the 20th, something must have happened. If it wasn't US troops, what was it? Why were the horrors of WWII enough to convince Europeans not to fight each other, when the horrors of WWI weren't?
That's just so bizarre it's hard to know where to start...
Apart from the fact that Europeans still are fighting each other in a number of conflicts, even if there had been no armed conflict at all in Europe since WW2, why on Earth would you assume that US presence caused that? Especially given the conflicts that have occured when US troops have been present.
OK, "if it wasn't US troops, what was it?" how about:
All of these also happened around the end of WW2. And are as likely as your suggestion. Correlation does not imply causation.
Re:Rumor has it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the current prez doesn't need to look like a pussy in front of the rest of the world either. In that article, the push was for updating making replacement warheads and the like, with no new capabilities other than to replace again cold war stock. The Russians and Chinese are keeping their nukes up to date....why should we not do the same?
Re:Complicity overrides innocence. (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolute BS.
First... how did Bush get into office the second time? The Electoral College. So if someone stood up and voted against him.... in fact if a majority of the population stood up and voted against him it made no difference. He manipulated the system, and got the right votes to put him in office.
So, all those people who stood up and voted against... what are THEY supposed to do now, so you don't lob them into that guilty bucket? They tried. They attempted to use the system. They did what they could do without getting shot.
I am an adult, and I am in the US. I am innocent of any of the crimes of my government. If it was in my power to stop those crimes from happening, I would have done it. However it was NOT in my power to be able to stop my government from doing any and/or all of the things I found to be wrong and/or offensive. If I do anything more, I'll end up behind bars indefinitely under the Patriot Act.
Nothing that Obama does is going to make a difference for the better. As long as we attempt to work within the corrupt and broken system to fix it, we are going to fail. We proved once before that it took a bloody revolution to make the necessary changes. We proved that Revolution works. The country as it is, is not the country our founding fathers intended, in any way. We are in need of another revolution, to fix our current government.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very difficult to take the claims from bin Laden, Al Queda, and the CIA at face value, because they all have a large stake in denial.
Osama bin Laden needs to appear opposed to the West. Being trained and armed by the CIA would undermine his power.
Al Queda doesn't want to appear a mere puppet of the CIA, which they would if they were trained, funded, and armed by the West(It would make their push away from Osama bin Laden appear incongruent, further damaging their image, undermining their power).
The CIA, by contrast, doesn't at all want to appear even remotely associated with the 9/11 attacks. The mere thought at this point has damaged their reputation and their power, and if it were to become common wisdom and if it were to gain momentum in more populist circles, they could see their funding collapse.
I'm not saying they're lying, but I'm saying they're not trustworthy sources of information on this.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
You've never been in a fight.
That's too bad.
People are capable of hideous things, unbidden by any rational justification.
Unless you are prepared to stop them with greater force, you will be the victim of their lesser morality.
Don't confuse biased propaganda from the fight with the realities of the fight.
Fortunately, we have removed the irrationality from our own government and installed some people who understand America and justice.
At least we won't be giving the enemy a clear rationale any more.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Those "innocent" bystanders allowed a Government to come to power that provided support to the terrorist group that attacked the United States.
I couldn't vote in the 80's, so it isn't my fault. Everyone needs to remember that the United States is the one that funded Hussein and Bin Laden in the first place. Unfortunately, it looks like history will continue to repeat itself.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Insightful)
6,000 rockets that killed a total of 15 people in 8 years?
Not for the lack of trying. Or are you saying that there is some magic body count number that Israel should have to wait for until it is permitted to respond by force?
Yes, that's exactly what we'd do. What we certainly wouldn't do is respond with missile strikes into apartment buildings and other densely populated areas that killed thousands over the same period.
Look at Britain and the IRA. Spain and Basques. US and gangs or drug cartels. None indiscriminately use military-level power on the civilians the way the Israelis do. It's disproportionate and ineffective.
When you know where a terrorist is, you arrest them, you don't send a missile into their apartment building.
What do you do when missiles are fired from those apartment buildings, but when you come there, there are no uniformed enemy combatants, only "civilians", who all just shrug and say that they didn't see or hear anything, nuh-huh...
What do you do if the terrorist who you know to be commanding the operation is also a prominent political figure elected by those civilians, and attempt to arrest him is treated as an act of war by the other side?
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Insightful)
So the breastfeeding mother on the side of the road bore responsibility for the tank that helped take over her block? Her responsibility was what, exactly? To be a human shield (and die, so we wouldn't kill her later, taking the city back) or maybe to throw rocks?
There's a reason we believe in a distinction between warriors and civilians.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans in general ignore that they created modern Cuba, modern Afghanistan, the Iraq/Iran conflict, were involved in Columbia, Venezuela, Panama and a host of other semi-clandestine American projects.
Someone who doesn't deserve to be named got a Nobel Peace Prize for the way things were handled back then, can't see how or why. I understand the people wanting him tried for war crimes much more.
Re:Securing peace by getting rid of the US (Score:5, Insightful)
WWII was basically caused by the war reparations demanded by the "winners" of WWI. WWI wasn't as clear cut as WWII; everybody was basically looking for an excuse for war and everyone was working under the assumption that there was going to be a war, so it's no surprise that one started.
It ended up being such a nightmare because both sides lost so many people that the governments were afraid that they'd be overthrown by their own people if they didn't "win" the war, so no one was willing to stop fighting.
Then the US decides to come in, and our assistance allowed France and the UK to declare themselves the winner, and to subjugate the axis countries to the point where they couldn't help but try it again in a few decades.
Lot of people actually saw it coming. Hell, J.M Keynes actually wrote a book that predicted WWII [mcmaster.ca] in 1919...It was one of the things that cemented his fame as a great economist.
I think it's safe to say though that Europe lost its taste for war after WWII. It basically ended their reign as world powers, cost them an entire generation of young men (the second in a row), and laid waste to the bulk of the fricking continent.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US with the regulatory structure the way, it is not to difficult build a modest cash reserve. We have many jobs that are tied to regulation that prevent discrimination. We have much funding that is tied to regulations that prevent the good old boys network from cutting out the bad boys and all the girls. What is much more difficult is to build a large cash reserve that will insure your heirs will have the freedom to be wealthy. And that is a planned part of the structure of this country which has been codified over the past 30 years.
When I was a kid, taxes were kept high enough on the very rich so that persons of modest means could do many things very inexpensively. Taxes on people with modest means were kept modest so that the family could build capital. For instance, a family of four might be charged for a museum of zoo trip. When I was kid there was no such charge so we able to keep and invest that money in an education or stock or college. Taxes were low enough so enough income was left over so that we could spend and save. Sure the people with money were taxed, but no so much that they did not have plenty expendable income, and the tax did not seem to hinder their desire to become rich. My city has only been growing in the number of houses valued for people who several times the median income.
Now, however, it is quite different. Expendable income for many families is zero. Taxes kill the median income family, forcing them to borrow. This is the classic strategy of the third world country. Kill the middle class, Take their money,and then claim it is because they are lazy.
Wealth can only be built when their is a differential between sustenance living and value produced. This has been the basics of economics since we became agrarian. The landlord became rich by keeping the surfs poor. We are in a time where the same thing is true. Median income of the middle class has barely kept up with inflation, and with taxes it has fallen. Upper income has shot up faster than inflation, and with the lack of taxes, there is no longer the hope for the middle class because the lords are consuming all the resources.
Re:Rumor has it.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No..we are not, and to keep it that way....we should have nukes pointed at them to deter them from sending one at us first strike. The MAD situation you know.