Obama To Decide On New Weapons 409
krou writes "Buried within the New Start treaty, which saw the decommissioning of nuclear warheads, was an interesting provision as a result of Russian demands: the US must 'decommission one nuclear missile for every one' of a new type of weapon called Prompt Global Strike 'fielded by the Pentagon.' The warhead, which is 'mounted on a long-range missile to start its journey,' would be 'capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour. ... It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special materials to avoid melting. ... But since the vehicle would remain within the atmosphere rather than going into space, it would be far more maneuverable than a ballistic missile, capable of avoiding the airspace of neutral countries, for example, or steering clear of hostile territory. Its designers note that it could fly straight up the middle of the Persian Gulf before making a sharp turn toward a target.' The new weapon is in line with Obama's plans 'to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,' and rather focus on conventional ones. The idea is not new, having been first floated under the Bush administration, but was abandoned, mainly because 'Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones.'"
Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:1, Insightful)
Subject says it all.
Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
First time I've seen something like this, where Obama is more hawkish on a military matter than Bush ? Man that seems wierd...
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
The US does not want to build nuclear weapons that can only be used defensively (for political reasons), and therefore which act primarily as a deterrent. It wants to build weapons that can be used now.
The US does not only want other countries to be scared to attack the US; it wants other countries to be scared not to do what the US wants them to, as the US may attack tomorrow.
No one is going to shoot anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia really needs to be put at ease about nuclear attack. We simply aren't going to do it. We develop advanced weaponry, but for all intents and purposes, these weapons are just stockpiled, never to be used.
Agreeing to decommission existing missiles is an easy agreeable point. We don't need them anymore. Realistically, there isn't a country in the world that America is politically ready to bomb back to the stone ages. We just like having this stuff because it makes us feel better.
This type of concern isn't new, either. Russia was worried that Reagan's Star Wars missile defense shield would allow America to attack with impunity, but we never had good reason to bomb anyone, much less Russia.
My sincere hope is that Obama can navigate these treacherous waters. It's really his first true test of foreign policy on a global scale. If he can soothe the Russians here, he'll have made huge progress that future generations will reap the benefits of for decades.
Terrible Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
This idea is bad on many levels.
1. It looks like a nuclear ballistic missile launch. Every time you fire one, you're risking nuclear war. Russia, China, and any other enemy will see the launch and has to make a very quick decision on what to do. Chances are, it probably wont' be misidentified as a nuclear first strike. Do you really want to take that risk though??? If you have to notify them first, the entire quick strike goes out the window and the entire point of the technology is lost.
2. It's fucking expensive. Having a 1 time use ballistic missile is going to cost 100s of millions to a billion dollars a shot. That figure doesn't even count the R&D money for the program. To allow for quick strike capability, they have to be manned at all times, and ready to fire, so the ongoing "maintenance costs" on it are very high. This is going to be an insanely expensive system.
3. Why? Who are you realistically going to strike with it. Anywhere in the middle east, North Korea, and most of Europe is currently within fighter range and can be hit in relatively short time from conventional fighter/bombers.
I agree (Score:1, Insightful)
When you blow shit up, you get crap everywhere.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Our efforts to blow stuff up in Iraq and Afghanistan have only worsened our image in the Middle East and created even more rabid terrorists
I could have told you that on 9/12.
In fact I did tell people that, saying going to war is not the solution,
but at the time people were thinking like animals. All they could see was "red" and revenge.
If you're going to risk billions of dollars and millions of lives, you don't do it for just 1 or 2 criminals. That's just ridiculous and totally disproportionate. Plus all it did was create a lot of orphaned children who will grow-up and want to kill Americans & Europeans. The problem is now worse, not better.
A wiser course would be to mirror what we do in our own homes. Get better locks to keep out criminals. i.e. Close the borders, in order to prevent another Bin Laden from sneaking through, unless they first had permission (visa).
Intentions are irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Only capabilities matter.
If the US can nuke Russia, Russia has to plan for the possibility that the US will nuke Russia. If the US launches missiles that could be aimed at Russia, and that could have nuclear payloads, Russia has to assume that they are and they do. Because they're fucked if they assume good faith and are wrong.
Better never to launch such a missile and best not to have them at all.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Gigantic explosions, on the other hand, make every red blooded American's cock stand just a little straighter, and very-high-performance sophisticated single-use delivery vehicles are delightfully expensive...
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the problem?
Assuming you're not kidding, there are two major problems with this approach. The first is a matter of morality: "bomb your enemies from orbit until their land is clear of any buildings, population, dogs, pine cones, or ants" may be a lot of fun in a game, but in real life it's mass murder on a scale that not even the most bloody-minded conquerors in history have ever attempted, and that is really not a contest any sane nation wants to win.
Okay, let's assume that the morality of it doesn't bother you (and it probably doesn't, although I suspect if you were ever confronted close-up with the results of such an action, your opinion would change.) The second problem is practical. Could we do what you propose to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran? Maybe we could ... but we are not the only country in the world with the capacity to do such a thing, and be assured, the rest of the world will take notice. We get too close to the borders of Russia or China with such a campaign (BTW, take a look at a map and notice just how far west China's borders go) and we are pretty much guaranteeing an all-out nuclear exchange of the sort everyone was more than halfway expecting all through the Cold War. You may be too young to remember what living under the nuclear hammer was like, and just how high the level of mutual paranoia was. Me, I was stationed in Europe when the Wall came down; trust me, we don't want to go back there.
And Russia and China aren't the only major powers we'd have to worry about if we started down that road. Japan, the UK, Germany, India, France ... they're all pretty friendly to us these days. That would change in a heartbeat if the US turned into a latter-day version of Genghis Khan's Mongolia. And all of them either have nuclear stockpiles or the ability to produce them quickly, along with delivery systems. The US, or any other country that tried this approach, would quickly find itself isolated in a hostile world full of countries just itching to scorch its cities to the ground, and willing to take the risk of receiving the same treatment in return.
The US is unquestionably stronger militarily than any other country, but we aren't stronger than everybody, and this is a good thing. There will never be another Alexander, another Caesar, another Genghis Khan, another Napoleon, another Hitler, and this is also a good thing. The rest of the world will not allow it, and for the first time in human history, the concept of "the rest of the world" makes a difference in the thinking of those who would follow in the bloody footsteps of emperors. Not because the human race is any wiser or more moral than it used to be, but because there is no other choice.
Russian Leaders (Score:1, Insightful)
Abandoned under Bush because
Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones.
Considered again under Obama because...?
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like a nuclear ballistic missile launch.
Well, no not really, But there's no reason these things can't be made nuclear and I'm sure the air force already has a version with a warhead, so for the most part your concern is valid. Other nations won't know if we fired a nuke or not, although if we fire them one at a time, any nation we're worried about can wait it out without compromising a MAD strategy.
It's fucking expensive. Having a 1 time use ballistic missile is going to cost 100s of millions to a billion dollars a shot.
An SR-71 went mach 3, had stealth capabilities, could fly anywhere on a tank of fuel, and had to have life support for pilots. They cost about 35 million a piece once in production. Why would you think a missile would cost 100's of millions to a billion dollars each? Compared to the cost of operating bases, maintaining troops, and flying conventional aircraft, these are probably a significant saving.
To allow for quick strike capability, they have to be manned at all times, and ready to fire, so the ongoing "maintenance costs" on it are very high.
Compared to the cost of maintaining fleets of conventional aircraft around the world, for the same task?
Why? Who are you realistically going to strike with it. Anywhere in the middle east, North Korea, and most of Europe is currently within fighter range and can be hit in relatively short time from conventional fighter/bombers.
The idea being, we don't have to maintain aircraft carriers and large fleets of fighter/bombers everywhere in the world. Instead we can have a smaller number of foreign bases, or at least smaller bases, without compromising our ability to hit anyone anywhere hard and fast. The air fleet is moving more and more to unmanned vehicles and this is just one more part of that strategy.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:1, Insightful)
My that's a nice civilian population you have over there. Would be a shame if something were to...happen to it.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
First time I've seen something like this, where Obama is more hawkish on a military matter than Bush ? Man that seems wierd...
It shouldn't really be a surprise, generally speaking; Democratic Presidents since Truman have responded to the Republican "soft on defense" dog whistle by acting like kids on a playground who can't back down from a dare.
In this case, though, I'm not sure the "more hawkish" label really sticks. This is about replacing one weapons system with another, not about using either weapon in any particular war. We have such a horror of using nuclear weapons that we're always looking for ways not to use them, and I don't see anything more or less hawkish in destroying an area with a rain of tungsten rods vs. destroying the same area with a nuke. The hawk vs. dove aspect applies more to whether or not we launch a strike at all.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The sites would most likely be located away from the current nuclear sites in Montana/North Dakota/Wyoming. Possibly by repurposing one or more of the old Cold War nuclear sites in Missouri or South Dakota, or by using one of the space launch sites in California or Florida.
2. We already have nuclear ICBMs on alert 24/7. Keeping conventional ICBMs really wouldn't take that much extra effort, particularly since most AFBs already have a round-the-clock maintenance group.
3. Say we find out where bin Laden is hiding. Odds are he's not going to be there for long, and 30 minutes is a much better window than the time it would take to scramble a fighter/bomber/UAV and get it into firing range.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
First time I've seen something like this, where Obama is more hawkish on a military matter than Bush ? Man that seems wierd...
I'd actually say he's more capable than Bush was. Bush couldn't deploy this because it risked war with Russia. Obama has skill as a diplomat and convinced them they could inspect the launch site and we'd remove a nuke from our arsenal for each one. Partly this was possible because Obama has a good diplomatic relationship with the Russians. So now we theoretically have another military option. This is why all those hardliners who think diplomacy is weakness are dead wrong.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, Rome wasn't a world power. They were a European and west Asian power, the Han Chinese didn't have to make treaties with Rome, the Roman's couldn't project power to South Africa or the Americas.
The Aztecs in 1400 didn't care one bit about what the Eastern Roman Empire was doing.
Is there a place on Earth that the Americans, Chinese, French, Russians or British can't affect?
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but this is a *great* idea.
It's fucking expensive. That means military contractors get more and you get less. Politics caters to special interests, NOT YOU!
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:1, Insightful)
There will never be another Alexander, another Caesar, another Genghis Khan, another Napoleon, another Hitler, and this is also a good thing. The rest of the world will not allow it, and for the first time in human history, the concept of "the rest of the world" makes a difference in the thinking of those who would follow in the bloody footsteps of emperors. Not because the human race is any wiser or more moral than it used to be, but because there is no other choice.
You're being too optimistic and not looking at how things can easily change. Economic collapse, nuclear exchange, civil war can quickly change the world and the political landscape. Countries could be occupied to protect borders and help with unrest. You also have the political and business versions that can unite powerbases without physical war whether or not it was the catalyst. The European Union could fall under a similar structure that happened under WWII.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but if Israel really is our ally, then shouldn't they be trying to work with us in trying to deal with the Arab nations? It seems lately that they are more interested in throwing more gasoline on a very large fire, and handing us a garden hose to put it out. Allies have a responsibility to keep the peace as well.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is basically what I've been saying locally for about a decade. The people we're having the most trouble with internationally don't just hate The West, they hate ANYONE that doesn't actively join their crusade. It's not enough to leave them alone, if you don't actively assist them in their genocidal goals you're going to be considered a target.
Basically extremist islam right now is pretty much the same problem with US right now, "You're with us, or you're against us."
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Very good and well-thought out post. However, there is one point I disagree with:
There will never be another Alexander, another Caesar, another Genghis Khan, another Napoleon, another Hitler, and this is also a good thing.
You can never say never. While the world has become a much smaller place thanks to technology, that does not mean some future person won't attempt (and succeed) in utilizing that technology. In addition, the real challenge is to get people to follow you - if you can build up people, everything else just falls into your hands. (For example, look at Hitler. In any "normal" environment, that would not have happened. But the people of Germany were discontent and he played to that and, as such, received FAR more power than he ever would have otherwise.)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I know people who work on weapons (Score:2, Insightful)
You might use the same style of argument to say that, when hitting babies, it is too hard to draw a line because some people are ok with it and some people are not and that there is a continuum of softly holding them to beating them to a pulp.
Still, you could in fact be right that engineers are without responsibility for how their products are used, but this is not clear from the logic you employed.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't consider that to be a lot of broken promises? I would argue that even one broken promise is too many.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:2, Insightful)
War is a way [dtic.mil] to get somebody (a leader/and its people) to do something they refuse to do otherwise.
ps: let's please stop getting all sniffy about war hurting civilians, it hurts pretty much everybody.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Promises broken - 19/504 = 3.8%
Promises "not kept" - 394/504 = 79%
It's all a matter of perspective - which side of the aisle you're looking from.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do you work on weapons? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I don't work on weapons themselves, I do work on systems used in conjunction with weapons used in war.
My belief: advanced sensors, radars, targeting, intelligence, etc saves more lives than it costs. If the military has a cost-effective way to ensure when they fire a weapon that they are killing enemy combatants and not civilians, and before the enemy can get a shot off, it's a good situation for all but our enemies. It's good for civilians who have a reduced fear of accidentally being bombed or shot. It's good for our servicemen (of which I have 2 cousins and several friends) who can rest more easily knowing that they no longer need to walk a razors edge between killing innocents and waiting to be fired upon first.
At the end of the day, I can't stop a war. I can make that war safer for our troops and civilians around the world, though, so you can bet your ass that's what I'm going to do.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been through that site a number of times. Not a strict way of looking at it, but in general, the "kept" list are tiny, neglegeable little things, while the 'broken' ones tend to be larger, and moreso towards the 'big campaign promises' that won him the election in the first place.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised you yanks get so fussed about the occasional friendly fire incident. Because you guys are just so damned good at it.
The UK has had trouble calling the US its ally since Operation Telic, or since the US military shot down a Tornado fighter, or when a US gunship opened fire on British and Afghan Army infantry, or when an American fighter bombed a British Regiment, or when American tanks opened fire on a British recon vehicles. Or when a British armor unit was destroyed by American A-10s...
Shall we move onto your other "allies?" Are you getting my point? Americans are in no position to complain about friendly fire incidents.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
and it's hardly a unique situation. With the exception of the people involved in each first migration, every piece of land on the planet was colonized in the same way by waves of people slaughtering the previous inhabitants. The people we often call natives, weren't.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Israel isn't our ally. We are Israel's ally.
Re:I know people who work on weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless your job is designing large shapeless soft foam objects, you're always going to risk someone using your creation to hurt someone else, and at each point along the continuum from plastic bag designer to nuclear weapon designer, at least a few people are going to say they're not comfortable with doing that, and at least a few people are going to say they are.
Oh please, weapons are built with the purpose of hurting, or forcing someone do something you want (under threat of hurting him). Cars and garbage bags have many other uses besides killing.
Speaking as a person who is in favor of gun control legislation, I use guns as tools for protecting my workshop from having holes punched in it by woodpeckers. (Stupid woodpeckers. I build them birdhouses, but they'd rather cut holes in the siding.) In a similar way, peace through strength, or "if we don't have a weapons system, they'll roll in and take us over", has clearly been an effective tactic for North Korea. As such, I believe it's incorrect to say that weapons are built with the purpose of hurting people. They can be built with the purpose of preventing people from getting hurt by ensuring that nobody on either side dares use them.
And, seeing as cars have killed roughly 1000 times more people than nuclear bombs in the last 100 years, I don't think it actually matters what the *purpose* of a tool is. What matters is how it is used.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Promises kept - 110/504 = 21%
Promises broken - 19/504 = 3.8%
Promises "not kept" - 394/504 = 79%
It's all a matter of perspective - which side of the aisle you're looking from.
I would say the numbers are irrelevant until compared with past presidents. And even then, you would still have to ask whether each promise is equal.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak for yourself sir. I don't think Arizona is violating human rights. I'm of the mind that _illegal_ immigrants should be kept out and if they do enter, actually punished for doing so. Asking someone for their ID isn't a violation of a human rights, unless you think society in general violates a man's sovereignty.
This is one place where the US is actually pretty lax compared to others. For instance, in the EU it is common to arrest and detain undocumented people. Deportation is not always the way it ends. So why are we getting such criticism?
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Human rights don't include being caged behind imaginary lines in the desert.
And this is America. This nation was founded by people who came here without regard to borders. We hold as one of our most cherished mores that this land is open for those who are oppressed or whose opportunities are otherwise exhausted.
We thought we'd fought a war against the idea that a man could own a country, against exclusion and selfishness. We didn't realize that those ideals could arise from within, and that those who would grow those ideals would somehow forget that they were our original enemies.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel is the only thing that unites a lot of these Arab countries, they would just be killing each other instead. The middle eastern people are totally disconnected with the rest of the world and have no idea what is going on in other countries or ever get to visit.
Anyways didn't we have some peace agreement at some camp and we watched as they became even more corrupt when Hamas took over and threw their opposition off the roof tops.
Nothing will stop the propaganda over there, especially when you have such ridiculous illiteracy rates and the people cannot make a decision for themselves.
Hopefully rocket attacks stop now that the Israelis have a C-RAM system setup to shoot down the incoming rockets, thereby not needing to retaliate with artillery and air strikes. Than they will not have an excuse, oh wait no... they'll still hate them and keep trying to kill them till the end of time.
Build a big wall and seal it off, let Egypt take care of the problem. Oh wait.... Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them and have closed their border to them as well. Maybe Jordan will help them... oh wait no... they hate Hamas too. Hmmmm.... I think I am seeing a pattern here