US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers On 24-Hour Alert (defenseone.com) 578
DefenseOne reports on new preparations at Barksdale Air Force Base:
The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991. That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base's 11,000-foot runway -- dubbed the "Christmas tree" for their angular markings -- could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment's notice... Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come...
Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale -- home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service's nuclear forces -- to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building -- where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment's notice -- is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside... Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words "Peace The Old Fashioned Way," written underneath.
General Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat... 'It's no longer a bipolar world where it's just us and the Soviet Union. We've got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It's never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.'"
Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale -- home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service's nuclear forces -- to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building -- where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment's notice -- is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside... Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words "Peace The Old Fashioned Way," written underneath.
General Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat... 'It's no longer a bipolar world where it's just us and the Soviet Union. We've got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It's never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.'"
Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I've got no idea whether this site is a reliable source for such information, it does seem like a step backward.
Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea. The public relations cost of using them alone could devastate our country. They were always sold to the American public as a temporary weapons system due to the Soviet, then Chinese, threat. Today no country on earth will let lose with these armaments because the retaliation would be devastating.
Even North Korea must know that internally.
But it sure seems like a bad idea to have these systems on 24 hour alert. Especially since retaliation with nukes essentially destroys both sides.
Of course I'll take a lot of heat for taking this position. But after reading books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with survivor accounts, and photographs- I could draw no other conclusion.
Nukes go way beyond military supremacy issues- into overkill. No pun intended.
Re: Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea.
Unless you also have a valuable resource, such as oil, then being in possession of a nuclear weapon dramatically decreasses the possibility of a direct invasion by a foreign army. Saddam sure coulda used one to the Yankees at bay.
Re: Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Saddam got invaded, (at least the excuse) was because he was acting like he was going to get nukes, which is the same reason N. Korea is getting special attention now. N. Korea (that insane boy leader there) is being a special dumbass about it. Without nukes they have Seoul as hostage to their gazillion conventional guns and have China as a protector. Knocking them off wasn't worth it for either the US or S. Korea, an annoyance which can be safely ignored. With nukes they become dangerous enough for both countries to calculate if it is worth it to try a first strike and get those nukes on the ground, and China may just figure it isn't worth protecting a nutcase who will get them involved in nuclear fallout themselves. The leaders of N. Korea had a pretty good three generation run without nukes. Sooner or later, this nuke thing doesn't end well for them. It may not end well for a bunch of other people but it makes N. Korea a goner.
Re: Strange days indeed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately our insane boy leader of the US doesn’t know how to deescalate these problems. They are both trolling each other until one side hits first. Neither will be the adult and back down. Our only saving grace is that both sides are big cowards and want to have the other guy strike first.
Neither leader cares about the loss of life, nor the effect these weapons will have on the world. They just want everyone to like them, and are hopping they get attacked first so they look like the poor victim.
Re: Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the solution to NK? How do we de-escalate? We've spent decades playing softball with them and allowing their continued research into nuclear armament.. at what point to we stop appeasing them and start dealing with them directly? When they can actually nuke California? The whole point of this isn't to nuke NK. It is to make China realize that we will strike NK if necessary and to finally take responsibility for this crazy nation on their border.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean his chips, noodles, and rice?
Re: Strange days indeed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Leaving aside the loaded question of the role of oil in US Middle East policy, security is why Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, back in the day. Iran is bordered by Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other, both countries which the US toppled regimes by overwhelming force in a matter of weeks. Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack than either of those countries, but there's no question that radical elements in US politics were greatly emboldened by how easy it was to eliminate a hostile regime in those places, just as radical elements in the Iranian regime might think taking a nuclear pot-shot at Israel isn't such a bad idea. Every functioning political system has its lunatic fringe.
Now Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing for us; it's a bad thing for the region; but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an entirely bad thing for Iran. Like most complicated questions it has two sides. People don't like questions to be complicated, so they don't like the idea that Iran might have rational reasons to want a nuclear weapons (as well as rational reasons to avoid having one).
Re: (Score:3)
Toppling the regimes was a piece of cake. Establishing a new friendly regime was basically impossible -- at least with military force.
Re: No,no,no,no,no! (Score:3, Interesting)
There are strategic resources for the equipment needed for renewable energy production and use. Rare earth metals for motor magnets for electric cars, as one example. Some of the 'new' critical resources are more localized and scarce than petroleum ever could have been. There will be new resource wars, just as there have always been.
Re: No,no,no,no,no! (Score:5, Interesting)
Rare earth metals are not localized, they're deposited all over the world. They're rare because they're spread out and it is expensive to concentrate them. The US was a major producer before the Chinese started selling cheaper.
You are aware that ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... those “30 years” of war between Iran and Iraq, where more than a MILLION people died, by the way, were because, remember, Saddam, who had always been a major asshole, was still the USA‘s favorite "ally" (read: vassal/dog) in the region, and the US told him, that if he stops Khomeini, he’d get to keep the oil wells he conquered, and would keep getting the support (read: weapons, training, money) like all that time before.
But Saddam didn't get in, because the stupid Persians kept defending themselves, because they had the third or fourth largest military in the world at that time. This changed literally overnight, when Saddam became stroppy, wanted his promised oil wells anyway, and decided to take them from Kuwait. Suddenly, the USA got stroppy too... we can’t have it that Saddam doesn’t invade what he’s told to invade! ... But honestly, *what did he do different than before?* All he did, was *turn around*. ^^
Suddenly he was "The new Hitler".
And the best part is: The only reason Iran became such a big military power, with the third or fourth biggest military in the world, was because the USA previously armed them to their teeth too! "As a stronghold against the reds." ... Yeah, unless millions of you are prepared to die for it, your system won’t improve either. Things still need to get a *lot* worse for that to happen.)
But they had installed such an evil cruel dictator, that the Persians turned to Khomeini as the better alternative, in their desperation. Imagine how fucked-up of a situation you would have to be in, to turn to the WBC, to get rid of your president! (Okay, nowadays, that sounds almost reasonable. ^^)
Which, interestingly, ended in a semi-peaceful revolution! The military stopped shooting people because they realized that the people were so determined, they stopped giving a fuck about if they died. (So much about how you actually get rid of a dictator.
So whatever fake news reality distortion scheme about these things is going on in your "Number One!" (in propaganda, online trolls, and population control too) country... using the war between Iran and Iraq as an argument, for them to NOT have nukes to stop the USA from fucking with them, is REALLY FUCKED-UP! :)
That whole shit might not even have started, if they would have had nukes. (Remember, that Iran and Afghanistan were comparatively very modern countries back then, with women wearing mini-skirts and going to universities; with philosophy and sports clubs; and being a cool tourist destination for hippies! Extrapolate THAT!
But yeah, Pakistan did have nukes, and still got made to breed "mercenaries" for Afghanistan by the USA. Now known as the Taliban. I guess it also requires being determined enough to actually threaten the CIA with *using* them, instead of being best friends and drinking tea together, like those CIA operatives did with Hamid Gul (Pakistan’s ex military general who oversaw the construction of the nukes, told Bin Laden what to do, and was so crazy that the *Al Qaeda* gave him house arrest because he threatened to fly nuclear warheads to the US, and even Al Qaeda leaders knew that wouldn’t have ended well for them!).
So what do I know. I only have a dad who worked as an reporter and operative in this clusterfuck for 4 decades now. I’ve only been threatened to be killed by terrorist groups twice. One of those being backed by my own western government.
Maybe my flaw is that I don't hate *anyone*, not the USA, not Kim Yong whatever, not Israel, not the Palestinians, not even the literal Nazis. They're all fucked-up people, and all I want, is to fix shit so that we can have a self-determined happy life. Even you.
Re:You are aware that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what do I know. I only have a dad who worked as an reporter and operative in this clusterfuck for 4 decades now. I’ve only been threatened to be killed by terrorist groups twice. One of those being backed by my own western government.
Well, you clearly know more than the average American. As you know, Americans have foreign policy presented to them as a Western, in which the good guys in white hats (The USA) deal with the bad guys in black hats (America's enemy du jour). It's a neat, simple morality play that Americans love to see played out again and again. Connections are never made between the various actors motivations, actions and reactions. Everything seems to happen in a vacuum. So Americans think they are watching an old western, when really they're watching the Godfather.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty good recount, but missing a few things. Iraq attacked Kuwait, 2 years after the Iran war, when their economy was tanking while tryign to repay the US.
See Iraq economy was sinking, owing USA $60B, while other OPEC members (Kuwait) were over producing. Kuwait was knowingly killing Iraq financially for years. Then Iraq accusing Kuwait of slant drilling Iraq's oil, and the world(US) shruged.
I belieave it's important to see more than the military actions.
Re:No,no,no,no,no! (Score:5, Insightful)
I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
The public image of our opponents is generally outrageously stupid, and it's encouraged by the press who will uncritically reproduce any claim about the opponents. We're not that different, any claim about North Korea is deemed credible.
But cruel dictatorships are often easy to negotiate with. We call them mad because it suits us, that's all.
In the case of North Korea there is a long history of their willingness to negotiate.They still are ready to talk. They will no longer consider getting rid of their nukes an option though. For good reason.
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
Re: (Score:3)
> I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
No, not really. The real nuclear powers have arsenals measured in the thousands with well tested means to deliver those weapons to targets.
None of these so-called "new nuclear powers" have that.
The best they could really do is a sneak attack with a cargo container or something along those lines. That makes them somewhat dangerous by highly unpredictable. That puts them on the same level as some non-state actor.
N
Re:No,no,no,no,no! (Score:4, Interesting)
The neighbouring country, Ukraine has plenty of oil, so does the recently annexed Crimean Sea. For some reason, Russia isn't worried about oil from the middle-east.
From wher do you get your facts? Ukraine is an importer of gas and oil. Coal they do export but that's not what this discussion is about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Has it really come down to creating facts to support your viewpoint on a country?
Rational days indeed.... (Score:2, Insightful)
MAD only works against a RATIONAL enemy. Guess how many leaders aren't rational.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not seeing any irrational leaders. There are no Kaiser Wilhelm's here. Pyongyang's chest thumping is as much for North Koreans' benefit as the US's.
You sir underestimate the power of the echo chamber.
Re: (Score:3)
It's best not to assume that people are entirely rational OR irrational.
Most people who rise to a point of power, or who maintain power in an adverse environment, display a certain self-preservatory cunning. To a first order, you can model them as rationally self-interested actors. But to that model you have to add the universal human ability to make irrational, emotionally driven choices, and the ability to rationalize those choices.
It's better to assume a political leader is a rational actor who is cap
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
who nuke first don't survive long enough to send a second nuke
You have no data to base that assertion on.
Re: Rational days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
None of those things are things we really have to lead the world in though. The only things we really need to lead in are things that actually make us more powerful and our military and economic power still ensures we are very diplomatic even if we are complete assholes. But it is certainly true that while other nations may not have a choice but to deal with us, avoiding dealing with us where they can get away with it will certainly erode our position over time.
Given that for the most part the choices remain The US, Russia, and China though, the US is still the least distasteful of the bunch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's already the case. The US is already the schoolyard bully of international politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, when we give countries $40-50 billion in foreign aide every year, I'm sure we're being total bullies. Please tell us who they turn to when looking for defense help? The US has 19% of the worlds immigrants...more than any other nation...people just hate coming here.
So yeah, when there's not another bully like the former Soviet Union around, it comes back to envy and resentment. Yeah, we thump our chest way too much. I've been around military overseas, and many of our young troops act as "ugly Americ
Re: Rational days indeed.... (Score:4, Informative)
There is no winning a nuclear war, ever. Radiation from Japan made it all the way to the west coast. The bombs of those days might as well have been a stick of dynamite compared to what we could release today.
Both are mostly true, but the implication doesn't necessarily follow. One of the reasons that modern nuclear weapons are higher yield is that they are more efficient. 'Radiation' didn't travel from Japan to the West Coast of the USA, because radiation only travels in straight lines and is blocked quite well by the curve of the planet. Radioactive fallout travelled that far. Radioactive fallout is the leftover radioactive material that is not consumed in the nuclear reaction and is dispersed by the explosion. In other words, it's a waste byproduct of inefficient nuclear weapons. The more efficient the weapon, the less radioactive material is left after the explosion to become fallout.
There's no such thing as a completely clean nuke (in theory there could be, but nuclear weapons are trivial to build in theory, it's only the engineering that's hard), but a modern weapon can have a much higher yield for the same amount of fallout.
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Even North Korea must know that internally.
You have a dumb-ass histrionic narcissistic [csbsju.edu] "supreme leader" vs a impulsive narcissistic [csbsju.edu] moron world leader.
North Korea is dumb enough to nuke the USA.
The USA is dumb enough to wipe North Korea off the face of the earth.
You do the math. Stupid people do stupid things.
Intelligent people will occasionally act stupid.
Stupid people act stupid all the time.
There is no hope for these two.
--
Judaism is the source of Christian indulgences: Murdering an innocent animals for heaven insurance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think Kim would start anything, his behaviour is too rational for that. The main danger is that he is deposed and someone worse takes over, but ironically Trump has actually strengthened Kim's grip on power by handing him some easy PR wins.
Both Kim and Trump consider saving face to be of the utmost importance, but fortunately for Trump that often just means lying and pretending he is winning, rather than actually having to come out on top. To an extent Kim can do that too, but he cares more about ho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
North Korea doesn't get nukes to attack the US and wait to be attacked back.
North Korea get nukes so that if USA attack North Korea they can attack back.
The idea isn't at all to launch a nuclear attack, the idea is to avoid being attacked in the first place.
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you think that?
Do you recall Bush's Axis of Evil speech after 9/11, which for some reason mentioned Iran, Iraq and North Korea? The administration proceeded to invade Iraq, and tried to gin up an invasion of Iran. There were leaks suggesting they'd have liked to invade North Korea, too.
Would that be stupid? Yes. Would it be murderous? Yes. Would it turn the world against us? Yes. But all of that was true about Iraq and Iran to a lesser extent.
Re: (Score:3)
While I've got no idea whether this site is a reliable source for such information, it does seem like a step backward.
Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea. The public relations cost of using them alone could devastate our country. They were always sold to the American public as a temporary weapons system due to the Soviet, then Chinese, threat. Today no country on earth will let lose with these armaments because the retaliation would be devastating.
Even North Korea must know that internally.
We don't really know what some of the leaders of nuclear states are thinking. And it's not only North Korea to worry about.
1) President Xi is more belligerent than any Chinese leader since Mao and he seems to think he is Mao. The CCP has been whipping up the military into an anti-US frenzy for years now and it's only gotten worse under Xi. While I think he is rational, if perhaps a bit short sighted at times, my fear is not that he will start nuking anybody but military people under him may quickly spi
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Funny)
No, there were only two Superman films in that series. Just like how there were only three Indiana Jones films and only one Highlander film.
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:4, Informative)
Also, only one Matrix film [xkcd.com].
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Funny)
only one Highlander film.
Duh. Everyone knows there can be only one Highlander.
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, a single nuclear weapon removes the need for tens of thousands of soldiers to risk their lives. It is also drastically more cost effective. It's also the only way to reduce the loss of lives in cases like Seoul where people will have to endure "only" several hours of artillery strikes rather than weeks.
Ah, so you actually think a single weapon will be used? Anyhow let us back off from that idea for a sec, so as we can get your atomic lust some info.
Pyongyang is 118 miles from Seoul. Kaesong is around 30 miles to the center of Seoul. So lets say that the assholes start shelling from near Kaesong. So we decide to nuke Kaesong. A 1 megaton will suffice. Whether an air or ground burst is to be determined, and terrain is a factor as well
Seoul isn't going to like that very much, because they gonna get irradiated. China will get some of that radioactive goodness as well, especially if we decide to take out the North Korean Capital as well. China is about 100 miles away. Japan getting dusted will depend on how the upper atmosphere winds are blowing.
As likely as not, NC will set up multiple shelling locations, and while the radiation effects will eventually kill those further away after a short time, they can continue to shell SC before they croak. So some nucs will be needed there as well to stop that shit. And of course, they have their missiles in the first place, so more nucs for them. Also a problem for China. Probably for Japan as well. So yeah, if Trump gets his wish of wiping NC off the map, it will be multiple weapons, and a lot of people killed in both North and South Korea by our weaponry, we will spread the radiation into other nations, who also have nuclear weaponry. They probably won't like this at all.
By golly, since this has now become a critical international act of war incident wht with making a mess out of the place, and contaminating other countries, one might not be too surprised if old Alex in Russia decided to help the rest of the world by sending a few gifts our way. And us them. And it wouldn't be too surprising if the rest of the world supported them.
All manner of scenarios are being gamed out right now, and your simple happy one nuc scenario, then happiness all around afterwards is almost certainly not one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Pyongyang is 118 miles from Seoul. Kaesong is around 30 miles to the center of Seoul. So lets say that the assholes start shelling from near Kaesong. So we decide to nuke Kaesong. A 1 megaton will suffice. Whether an air or ground burst is to be determined, and terrain is a factor as well
Seoul isn't going to like that very much, because they gonna get irradiated.
With a neutron bomb this wouldn't be a problem. And it wouldn't take a huge one to cripple North Korea.
But imho nukes are a war crime.
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But imho nukes are a war crime.
Most of the world will concur with you. The history of nucs and their testing brought some interesting things to light. First, it eally sucks to be in the vicinity where one goes off. The things are completely indiscriminate. Thy make one hella mess. And with few exceptions the shakers and movers in the Military loathe them. There really isn't a good way to use them, the exception being the EMP pulsing, but even then, there is the travelling radioactivity. But the concept of quickly killing millions, mostly civilians, and leaving many of them terribly injured, is going to get the country first using nucs instant pariahhood.
And despite the murderous wet dreams of some folks, the US has been waging war for 16 years now, and that uses up a lot of money. I severely dougt we could stand against the combined forces of the rest of the world. That might be blunt,
And of course deterrence use (Score:3)
>. There really isn't a good way to use them, the exception being the EMP pulsing
And of course the way we've BEEN using them, as deterrents. I'd say the primary use of nukes is with them remaining in their silos. Having them in strategic locations has been very useful, without pressing the button.
Here we have the US military using them, by freshening up the paint on the runway near them. That gets people's attention, and that's the point.
Re: (Score:3)
>. There really isn't a good way to use them, the exception being the EMP pulsing
And of course the way we've BEEN using them, as deterrents. I'd say the primary use of nukes is with them remaining in their silos. Having them in strategic locations has been very useful, without pressing the button.
Here we have the US military using them, by freshening up the paint on the runway near them. That gets people's attention, and that's the point.
Well, not using them is a stretch definition of use. But point taken.
The Concept of Mutually Assured Destruction actually does work. It is brinksmanship to be sure, but it caused the old Soviet Union and USA to be very very careful. This also took some brave heroic people like Stanislav Petrov, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] who managed to not start WW3 after a satellite malfunction.
But MAD isn't in effect here. It's a nutjob with nuclear ambitions versus another one who is itching to use these thi
Re: (Score:3)
We wouldn't be able to maintain high levels of production for long without trade.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We've got decades of promoting lunatics to high positions because they increase tension, and tension is good for business. I'm sure they all think 'Trust me I know what I'm doing.' Or 'we've had 70 years without nuclear war, we know what we're doing'. The US is now posing a serious danger to the planet and Trump is just a symptom.
Re: Strange days indeed.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The fallout will be far worse than in Japan because most of the fallout consists of soil that has been activated by the neutron flux from the explosion. The fission products are a secondary issue.
Yup, fallout is mostly soil. And the physics and pragmatic effects of any state deciding to use nuclear weapons as part of it's diplomacy eludes some folks. My mini essay with cites on the effects of a few 1 megaton nucs were met with "they are better designed now, and radiation isn't a problem" Bolshy yarblockos - what the fuq?
From what I've been able to suss out, the idea is that we turn Pyongyang into molten glass, the world will be forever grateful, and we'd establish permanent dominance. Any country or group that disagrees with us will then have the option of obeying us, or likewise be the target of our nuclear force. All will be well as we enter a new age of peace or else.
The problem of course is that not everyone in the world is all that hot on the idea of killing millions, even in a shithole like NK. Especially not with nucs.
Then there is the matter of precedent. Despite what some might think, the world has a lot of these little cuties. If we decide that turning NK into glass and irradiating a lot of countries nearby is just a great thing to do, well, we've opened Pandora's box, and we ourselves are now a justifiable target.
Note this in no way means support of that asshole regime. And it doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to remove their capability to be any threat to anyone by more conventional things that go boom. But even then, it is a touchy situation, given that NK is not without some allies.
But altogether too much of the clamor to use nucs as a pre-emptive cure for the problem NC represents is a weird sort of end-of-the-world lust.
And while Pat Robertson and the merry death cult with major wood over the Rapture and end of the world might think this is greasing the skids for a glorious exit into the loving arms of their god, some of us would like to keep the world in better condition, and not turn ourselves into a worldwide pariah.
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I would like to disagree with you (as nukes are disagreeable), the fact remains that combat deaths, and the number of conflicts worldwide, has dropped dramatically since nuclear weapons were invented.
I’d like to see the stats to back up that claim. Since WWII there hasn’t been one single year without armed conflict somewhere in the world. Casualties have been in the thousand to tens of thousands each year.
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering World War II caused between 50 and 80 millions deaths, military and civilian, it would take a long time to equal that number even with tens of thousands of deaths per year now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Informative)
As much as I would like to disagree with you (as nukes are disagreeable), the fact remains that combat deaths, and the number of conflicts worldwide, has dropped dramatically since nuclear weapons were invented.
I'd like to see the stats to back up that claim.
Here you go: https://ourworldindata.org/war... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:3)
> Is that drop due to nuclear weapons or Europe's determination not to repeat the same mistakes?
Both. As I understand it, Stalin was eager to raid Europe for political and economic resources. What was left of Europe's military and economy would have had difficulty fighting off the Soviet army in the decades after WW II. The presence of American and ongoing development of European nation's nuclear weaponry, capable of striking Moscow, was a very strong deterrent against Soviet wars of invasion.
Re: Strange days indeed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US got rid of nukes
China would attack Taiwan, and maybe Japan too. There'd be a regional war as all the other Asian powers divided into pro China and anti China groups.
Russia would invade all of Ukraine, and threaten one of the Baltic States. They'd be opposed by the UK, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. France and Germany may intervene on the NATO side or might decide to sit it out.
Iran and Saudi Arabia would escalate their proxy war into actual open war.
It's worth pointing out that Japan, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan are all able to build nukes relatively quickly if they are forced to. The reason they haven't done so is because the US has done a deal with them - so long as they don't claim to be a nuclear power they're under the US's nuclear umbrella. Of course if you're China then it is in your interests to strike before Japan or Taiwan have built a survivable second strike force which is non trivial - you need a SLBMs to guarantee that a first strike won't wipe out all your warheads. Submarines take time to build.
Iran would become an open nuclear power. So would Israel. Israel might decide to strike Iran before Iran had a viable second strike force. Or Saudi Arabia might.
I.e. US hegemony has frozen in a lot of conflicts that would otherwise have escalated. In particular a lot of US allies have not developed nuclear weapons in return for guarantees from the US that it would retaliate against a nuclear attack on them. If that guarantee goes away they would probably build their own nukes but they'd be vulnerable to a nuclear armed opponent striking before they'd built a survivable deterrent force.
One of the things that make dealing with Iran hard is these sorts of calculations. From a US point of view Iran having a small number of ICBMs isn't fatal - the US could probably shoot them down and in any case deterrence applies. What makes it hard is that US allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia may regard Iranian nukes as being something they cannot tolerate and threaten to leave the current arrangement they have with the US where they do not openly wield nukes in return for US protection.
It's the same in a way for North Korea. Japan has not openly nuclearised in return for security guarantees from the US. They may well regard a nuclear NK as being intolerable. On the other hand China may regard a nuclear Japan as intolerable.
The US's hegemony allows it to interpose itself in between the two sides of all these conflicts and that is beneficial. If it pulls back, I think you'd see one of them explode.
Russia and China have both made clear statements that they are wannabe expansionist powers. Right now the US keeps them in check. If it didn't it's hard to see who else would. On the other hand expansionism is something which always leads to war in the long run because expansionist powers keep grabbing more and more until they inadvertently make the case that appeasement has failed and that war is inevitable. .
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, medical - Four for College, One for Bad Feet [nytimes.com]. His medical condition was so bad that he could only play football, tennis, squash & golf.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's without question that a single city hit on the US (LA/Long Beach) or NYC or Houston or some other key city (those are all major ports) would result in substantial economic disruption. Population displacement and refugees, the near-total loss of the struck region's economic capability, and so on.
The "good" news is that this would also collapse the entire world economy, including China who depends heavily on exports to the rest of the world. And they all know it.
In fact, I think China is so aware of it
Major 'King" Kong (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He knew how to handle a lot more than nukes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Sending A Clear Message (Score:5, Insightful)
This would send a clear, unambiguous to each and every nation that would do America harm:
"We have no idea what we're doing, but we're gonna look real tough doing it."
Re:Sending A Clear Message (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody pretended they didn't exist. What got us to this point is that we stopped talking to them out of anger, when we had a deal in place to prevent plutonium production.
They were secretly trying to enrich Uranium, and the Bush admin stopped talking to them, essentially walking away from the Plutonium deal. NK went back to the Plutonium and had a bomb in short order.
Diplomacy run by idiots.
Bombers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious the strategic use of bombers on 24 hour standby, when there are enough ICBMs, including those in nuclear subs which are likely really, really close to North Korea already, to totally decimate that country. North Korea could be a smoldering ruin before the bombers would even leave US airspace (even if they were on standby). So I wonder if the bombers would simply be more "obvious" to Kim Jong or what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just a return to the posture of old, with the "unstoppable" nuclear triad. In short a pissing contest.
The problem as I see it: No one else is playing, so why?
Re: Bombers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a foreign audience I feel talked to... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately this is what the US folks want. What they forgot is that because they elect the president, they're responsible for a huge nuclear arsenal. It's a very large minority that is batshit crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
ICBMs don't have to carry their full design compliment - the British Trident nuclear weapons delivery system only carries 3 warheads per missile rather than the Trident missiles capability of 12 warheads per missile.
It's also strongly suspected that some British Trident missiles carry as few as a single missile for a single target strike in a "tactical" deployment.
Re:Bombers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true for major weapon systems. (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, there is no reliable means of reception by the missile or a reliable command system to transmit such messages, and if there were, it could be exploited by an enemy. Warheads are made to be very robust and sealed, given that they re-enter the atmosphere at stupendous speeds. They don't have any antennae or radios.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Planes can be recalled without destroying the weapon and dropping weapons grade materials into the hands of others.
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage that bombers have over sub-launched missiles and ICBMs is that a bomber can be recalled from an attack. It is a human-guided delivery system, with crews that can potentially adapt tactics and switch targets in wartime.
And greater flexibility, too. (Score:4, Informative)
The air-dropped weapons are likely more precise and more suitable to use against reinforced underground structures with less surface yield.
Ballistic missiles, whether land based or sea-based can only use one particular warhead intimately configured with the delivery system and guidance, because of the need to match the mechanical dynamics & mass with the guidance. I.e. there is no way to change the weapon. Additionally, they are not as precise--they re-enter the atmosphere at extreme velocities within a giant ionization cloud, and prior to re-entry they have only one chance for guidance, immediately after release, and are thereafter falling, unpowered.
The ICBM and SLBM warheads are also very large (200-500 kt) and intended as retaliation. If you want genocide, any of them will do, but if you intend a military attack then you'd want to be more specific.
Against DPRK you'd be looking at using 'bunker buster' weapons---there are rumors that there are nuclear designs which may direct maximum force downward seismically (e.g. use the primary to accelerate a secondary penetrator downward?)---and probably low-yield neutron weapons against the artillery units threatening Seoul. Probably under 10kt.
Those need to be launched by bombers, or maybe from cruise missiles carried by those bombers.
In any event, it's insanity as it undoubtedly gets Seoul, Tokyo or maybe even Seattle obliterated. DPRK has plenty good enough missiles to put whatever size warhead they have already over Korea and Japan---and missile defense is awfully difficult. DPRK could easily launch 40 missiles simultaneously, four of which are nuclear, and each one puts out 10 decoys in space .
ICBM targeting (Score:3)
After launched, their course is fixed, and non-recallable. Ballistic missiles run out of fuel very quickly after launch and fall to their targets on gravity alone (which is the meaning of 'ballistic'). The course is set by the launch dynamics, and a bit of maneuvering in space for a minute or two refines the target accuracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious the strategic use of bombers on 24 hour standby, when there are enough ICBMs, including those in nuclear subs which are likely really, really close to North Korea already, to totally decimate that country. North Korea could be a smoldering ruin before the bombers would even leave US airspace (even if they were on standby). So I wonder if the bombers would simply be more "obvious" to Kim Jong or what?
Fail Safe explains it fairly well https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Bombers? (Score:4, Informative)
Our land-based ICBMs can really only hit Russia. The Minuteman III silos are basically pointed at Russia, and the missiles don't really have the ability to alter their trajectory enough to hit anything. MX missiles could, but those were a lot more expensive to build and maintain, so we retired them in favor of keeping the Minuteman IIIs going.
That leaves sub-launched ICBMs as the only ones that could reliably hit anywhere in the world. But sub-launched ICBMs suddenly appearing out of the water make a lot of countries very, very nervous since they can hit anywhere. So using them to attack North Korea has the very real danger of China or Russia retaliating in fear that it is a first strike.
Bombers are slow enough that other nuclear countries can take the time to watch where the bomber is headed, reducing the danger of retaliation.
Bipolar? Oh no... (Score:2, Interesting)
He's a narcissist sociopath with senile dementia.
But at least there's all that winning going around.
In the words of Darth Vader: Yippee! [youtube.com]
Why bother doing this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Given how easy it is for the US to launch enough missiles (both land based and submarine launched) to turn North Korea into a smoking hole in the ground, why would they need nuclear-armed bombers that take far longer to get to the target?
Re: Why bother doing this? (Score:2)
They probably want the opportunity to use a conventional missile/bomb before thing's start getting nuclear.
Re:Why bother doing this? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a statement that can be photographed and noticed - putting your ballistic missile force on high alert has few physical signs as potent as bombers sitting on ready alert at the end of a runway.
Re: (Score:3)
You are right about bombers being slow as well as a very visible indicator of our intent. We can prep the staging area (what is currently happening) stage the bombers, start drilling the crews on rapid responses, launch the bombers to their refuel/o
So, who's up for orgy? (Score:3)
Also, I always wanted to try heroine without suffering the consequences.
If you didn't vote for Hilary Clinton... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you voted for Hilary Clinton instead of a sane candidate who would have unquestionably defeated Trump, this is your fault. Fuck you.
Re:US uranium (Score:4, Informative)
That's a really interesting take on the Rosatom transaction. Did you get it from Fox News, perhaps? Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?
What really happened is that Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, bought a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian company with 20% of the US uranium mining capacity. This deal had to be approved by a committee composed of a dozen different US government agencies, of which Clinton was the head of one (as Secretary of State), along with agencies in Canada and Kazakhstan, and stock markets in Toronto and Johannesburg.
Apparently none of them found sufficient reason to halt the sale. Are you arguing that Clinton has somehow secretly convinced all those people involved to permit the sale AND stay silent about the convincing? And even if Clinton had decided that the deal wasn't a good idea, she couldn't have unilaterally stopped it -- she would have had to convince Obama that there was a national security reason to do so.
So was there a national security reason to halt the sale? What Rosatom bought was the mines, meaning they can dig up rock and refine it, but they can only sell it to the same people that Uranium One could always sell it to. They don't have a license to export the uranium, so who cares?
dom
Re:US uranium (Score:4, Insightful)
Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?
Of course not. I much prefer just to take the word of random ACs on Slashdot who don't cite a single source.
A vote for Hillary was a vote for..... (Score:3)
Exactly!
The approximately half of the US voters who voted for Trump are directly at fault!
The approximately half who voted for Clinton, after all, were supporting war again Russia, much more sane!
Or, just possibly, not.
WHAT. THE. FUCK. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just started replaying Fallout: New Vegas (Score:5, Funny)
Once upon a time, I bought and started playing Pandemic [zmangames.com]. Right after, just as I started enjoying the game, there was the West African Ebola outbreak [wikipedia.org]. And now? I start replaying Fallout and this happens.
That's it. From here on out my only entertainment will be re-watching the Death by Snu Snu [cc.com] episode.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate being the one to break it to you, but - Bea Arthur’s dead.
the pilots need the flight hours (Score:2)
What I like about this is (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I truly do believe within a few weeks we will be at war with North Korea. Maybe even a nuclear war without a doubt if it is started.
Trump over and over makes quotes saying diplomacy is a waste of time, we need to bomb North Korea, America won't stand for a nuclear North Korea, I can't believe it takes 3 months to plan for a war, to last Lindsey Gramm saying he just spoke with Trump and he is ready to bomb them and prefers to loose regional security over a threat to the United States unless Kim gives up his
Pointless saber rattling (Score:5, Insightful)
When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.
Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.
Re: (Score:3)
On the Beach... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
O.M.G (Score:5, Interesting)
North Korea doesn't have the ability to launch a massive counter-strike, so their continued existence after rattling the nuclear sabre the way they've been doing depends on utterly on the US sticking to the "no first strike" policy. Yet TFA claims that General Goldfein is asking his staff to come up with ways to use nukes in combat. To me that sounds very much like the US Joint Chiefs are preparing contingency plans for pre-emptive strikes and "small" tactical nukes after that. To be fair, it is the clear duty of the Joint Chiefs to come up for contingency plans for pretty much every possible scenario, even the incredibly unlikely ones. But, one doesn't juggle squadrons around and re-assign personnel for unlikely contingencies.
Meanwhile, there have been a slew of articles which suggest the US Navy is in dire straits. It's my understanding that successive administrations have forced them to cut back on new ship purchases and skimp on maintenance so long for the sake of short term availability, that now some ships are sitting in dry dock for years, waiting for repair. Likewise, there has been a clear trend to lower head counts in the ground forces as well. The focus has been on smaller, more nimble forces, aimed at dealing with insurgents and the like. That smaller force has become very sensitive to combat losses, has been forced to keep guys posted in combat far longer than expected (stop-loss) and is deployed in a number of hot spots all over the world. The ground forces are just not prepared to get into a land war in Asia right now. As an aside, I'm not sure I buy the fears of fanatically loyal human wave attacks. There was some concern about that in Iraq as I recall, because both Iraq and Iran had an established history of using such tactics. There were human wave attacks in the Korean conflict sure, but as in Iran, Iraq and WWII Russia, human waves always rely on political officers at the back, sending the hapless troops into battle at gun point, threatening family members back home if necessary. But, as we saw in Iraq, once the troops got totally cut off from high command, most couldn't surrender fast enough. (there is an apocryphal tale of an Iraqi regiment that tried to surrender to a BBC camera crew)
The only arm of the US forces that seems to be ready to open a can of whoop ass in Korea is the Air Force. Problem is, there is a long standing dictum "You can bomb it, shell it until the rubble bounces, but you don't control it until you stick a kid with a rifle on it." The Air Force is guaranteed to wipe out anything on the surface taller than a dandelion with conventional weapons alone. But the Koreans have had decades to dig in and there is a lot of evidence of their tunnelling prowess in the tunnels the south Koreans have intercepted at the DMZ. The upshot is that the Air Force can not win the war on it's own.
With that situation, it is going to be very tempting to just nuke the place.
And we have Donald Trump with his finger on the button.
Donald Trump...let that sink in for a moment.
Tactically, this is shaping up to be a bigger version of Vietnam and the US had to worry back then about the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China who were not only pretty close allies at the time, but backing the north Vietnamese. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all far more savvy poli
No longer a MAD world (Score:3)
The "threat" posed by NK is completely different, and an administration's failure to recognise that means they are helping NK in its goals, not reducing the possibility of an attack. Kim Jong Un does not seem to be fearful of american aggression - he seems to be actively provoking it. A small gesture on his part produces a massive reaction from the USA. What an ego trip that is!
And the thought of having thousands of megatons "pointed" at his tiny, little, country: 25 million people, means nothing. A nuclear war wouldn't do much to alter their standard of living - at least, not that of the survivors. So the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction is a failure. If it was ever a plausible concept, that is because it was intended to be used against an adversary who "loved their children too". But KJU is not in that category.
But really, this response has nothing to do with trying the dissuade North Korea from progressing down the nuclear route. This is just a "fear response". Just like all those scared americans who are armed to the teeth. Their guns and other weapons are merely safety-blankets: bought and hoarded in an attempt to make them feel safe. And resurrecting the bomber readiness status is just another act of domestic reassurance. Just like the gun-nuts who spend all their time cleaning and oiling their weapons to keep their emotions of fear and panic under control.
So have I got this right? (Score:3)
The United States of America has more nuclear weapons than any other country on the planet.
And they have handed the launch codes to an intellectually lazy, narcissistic asshole.
Have I got that about right?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually they don't, Russia has 4300 deliverable weapons, while the US has 4000. At the height of the cold war, the Soviet Union had roughly 40,000 warheads while the US had 23,000. The difference was made up because the US delivery systems were much more accurate.
Also, authorization to recall retired troops (Score:3)
Interesting "coincidence" around Trump's executive order authorizing the activation of retired military personnel was signed recently..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the... [whitehouse.gov]
This was signed with the explanation that it is solely intended to do so in order to get the air force pilot rosters back to their mandated minimums by activating retired air force pilots. It is still cause for concern when viewed in conjunction with these other activities..
Reading from an article from: https://www.salon.com/2017/10/... [salon.com]
"But the broad wording of the executive order seemed to imply that the executive branch would have the power to call up retired military officers and force them back into service for any reason, as the “emergency” Trump used to justify the executive order was extremely vague: “the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.”"
B-52 Reengine (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not who most of us are worried about.
Re: What threat? (Score:5, Insightful)
The crazy guy in NK is also somewhat of a figurehead. There are always tons of older generals standing around him in the official photos. He only has the power his military grants him. It's an actual whole country with people in it, and not democratic, but there is a political party running things, not a kingdom.
There are English language North Korean books, from the DPRK point of view, that you can buy right in the Kindle eBook store. It is obviously totally the biased 'official' propaganda, but it's important for people to realize the NK leadership are not Marvel Comics villians. There is an 'official' Kim Jong Il (the previous leader and current leader's father) biography published by the Foreign Language Publishing House, and since they are, (uh..) kinda a non-profit, it's very inexpensive. Checking stuff out and not treating our enemies like comic book villians is the way to resolve things.
Re: (Score:3)
I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, the constant tone of movies and tv and news from that era is depressing, a lot about the cold war and nuclear mutually assured destruction.
I really hoped my children would get to grow up without these threats hanging over their heads.
In my opinion, the only acceptable outcome between any two states with brandishing weapons, is a diplomatic one. No amount of chest thumping or insults are worth killing 10s of millions of people. It's immoral and unconscionable.
The late 70’s and 80’s. Oh please. Try the late 50’s and 60’s. Now those were some scary cold war times to have grown up. They were still showing us educational films in grade school teaching us how to recognize the signs of nukes falling and how we needed to take shelter. The “duck and cover” jingle was a real thing. They were still testing the air raid sirens in my home town on a weekly basis back then.
Unfortunately I suspect it is a matter of when, not if, we hav
Re: (Score:3)
To settle an international dispute? Great idea.
I'd pay to see Putin wipe the floor with Trump.
Then again... I probably already am.
Re: (Score:3)