Obama Seizing Sole Authority for US Defense

[GoneBezerk]

The Minuteman III ICBMs have been slowly getting new parts and upgrades the last 10-15 years but a modern ICBM will be required to maintain the safety and reliabilty of our ICBM force.

The B-52 is older than most people on this board and is nearing its end in 10-15 years, so the Air Force is looking at the next generation bomber to work with the B-2s that also carry nukes.

The SLBM force is outside my expertise, but I'm sure the Navy will need to upgrade their assets in the next 10-20 years to maintain the lethal edge.

The new Air Force bomber can just replace the B-1 and B-52 force doing both nuke and conventional strike missions. The new bomber can have lower numbers overall using stealth technology and standoff weapons, which will save money for the DoD.

But....the DoD needs to maintain its nuclear warheads inventory and also upgrade them too since it has been decades since we tested nukes. We need to make sure they go "boom" when required otherwise they invite an attack from Russia, China, Iran or North Korea.

 

[emptystep]

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

Shithead....what is the number we need???

Should we have less than Russia??? what about China? North Korea? Iran?

Obamination wants to lower our current numbers which is counter to what CINCSTRAT thinks is safe for this country. I'm going to side with the 4-star General that I know over Obamination's 0 minutes in the US military.

Bomb----Yield -----------------------Notes
------------kt TNT
Hiroshima's "Little Boy" gravity bomb--------13–18-------Gun type uranium-235 fission bomb (the first of the two nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare).
Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb-------20–22 ------------------Implosion type plutonium-239 fission bomb (the second of the two nuclear weapons used in warfare).
W88 warhead----------475------------Twelve of these may be in a Trident II missile (treaty limited to eight).

Eight That means that one Trident II can have 475x8=3800 kt of TNT yield. 'Fat man' had 22.

(Having managed to need a summer course in English to graduate high school I did a paper on nuclear capability, including effect of detonation. It is something like trying to comprehend the vastness of space.)

"tens of times more powerful"? See numbers above. Where exactly in the world would you like to drop one of these things? NYcarbineer was only half joking about detonating a couple of these in the backyard.
(I wish I would have kept that HS paper now. BTW what did you learn in HS?)

Show me any lunatic who says we can't go lower and I will show you a lunatic.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An estimate of the size of the damage caused by the 16kt and 22kt Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A modern 'hydrogen bomb' would be tens[5][not in citation given] of times more powerful and cause similar levels of damage at 2-5 times the distance.

 

[Sallow]

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

Bomb----Yield -----------------------Notes
------------kt TNT
Hiroshima's "Little Boy" gravity bomb--------13–18-------Gun type uranium-235 fission bomb (the first of the two nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare).
Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb-------20–22 ------------------Implosion type plutonium-239 fission bomb (the second of the two nuclear weapons used in warfare).
W88 warhead----------475------------Twelve of these may be in a Trident II missile (treaty limited to eight).

Eight That means that one Trident II can have 475x8=3800 kt of TNT yield. 'Fat man' had 22.

(Having managed to need a summer course in English to graduate high school I did a paper on nuclear capability, including effect of detonation. It is something like trying to comprehend the vastness of space.)

"tens of times more powerful"? See numbers above. Where exactly in the world would you like to drop one of these things? NYcarbineer was only half joking about detonating a couple of these in the backyard.
(I wish I would have kept that HS paper now. BTW what did you learn in HS?)

So me any lunatic who says we can't go lower and I will show you a lunatic.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An estimate of the size of the damage caused by the 16kt and 22kt Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A modern 'hydrogen bomb' would be tens[5][not in citation given] of times more powerful and cause similar levels of damage at 2-5 times the distance.

That was me..and I wasn't joking.

It would take 3 of those bad boys in your backyard to destroy the world.

 

[GoneBezerk]

It's clear you're too fucking stupid to debate this issue.

It doesn't matter if a nuke today is 100x deadlier than a WWII nuke.

What matters is that we have enough nukes to scare Russia from using their nukes to take out cities and nukes in some first strike. Also, it is important to have remaining nukes to fight again or if China joins in the fight.

You see dumbfuck.....1 bullet can kill you, but the police have a lot of bullets because they need to make sure at least 1 bullet does the trick against each target.

So dumbfuck....the US military needs more or equal nukes to our enemies to maintain the peace since WWII. Tell me about the other world wars that happened once a nuclear weapon was used.....

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

Bomb----Yield -----------------------Notes
------------kt TNT
Hiroshima's "Little Boy" gravity bomb--------13–18-------Gun type uranium-235 fission bomb (the first of the two nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare).
Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb-------20–22 ------------------Implosion type plutonium-239 fission bomb (the second of the two nuclear weapons used in warfare).
W88 warhead----------475------------Twelve of these may be in a Trident II missile (treaty limited to eight).

Eight That means that one Trident II can have 475x8=3800 kt of TNT yield. 'Fat man' had 22.

(Having managed to need a summer course in English to graduate high school I did a paper on nuclear capability, including effect of detonation. It is something like trying to comprehend the vastness of space.)

"tens of times more powerful"? See numbers above. Where exactly in the world would you like to drop one of these things? NYcarbineer was only half joking about detonating a couple of these in the backyard.
(I wish I would have kept that HS paper now. BTW what did you learn in HS?)

Show me any lunatic who says we can't go lower and I will show you a lunatic.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An estimate of the size of the damage caused by the 16kt and 22kt Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A modern 'hydrogen bomb' would be tens[5][not in citation given] of times more powerful and cause similar levels of damage at 2-5 times the distance.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Dear Willfully Ignorant Liberals:

The Breitbart article referenced an op ed written in the Wall Street Journal.

If you're gonna' bash a source rather than the facts, (which you do all the time with FoxNews) could you at least get the source right?

You beat me to it.

Hey, they're liberals, not a particularly bright lot.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Moron....are you saying blowing up 3 nukes within the USA is our deterence against Russia and China???? They approve of this stupid option since they are crazy enough to believe they can survive the nuclear winter with a USA on the planet.

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

"tens of times more powerful"? See numbers above. Where exactly in the world would you like to drop one of these things? NYcarbineer was only half joking about detonating a couple of these in the backyard.
(I wish I would have kept that HS paper now. BTW what did you learn in HS?)

So me any lunatic who says we can't go lower and I will show you a lunatic.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An estimate of the size of the damage caused by the 16kt and 22kt Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A modern 'hydrogen bomb' would be tens[5][not in citation given] of times more powerful and cause similar levels of damage at 2-5 times the distance.

That was me..and I wasn't joking.

It would take 3 of those bad boys in your backyard to destroy the world.

 

[emptystep]

It's clear you're too fucking stupid to debate this issue.

It doesn't matter if a nuke today is 100x deadlier than a WWII nuke.

What matters is that we have enough nukes to scare Russia from using their nukes to take our cities and nukes in some first strike. Also, it is important to have remaining nukes to fight again or if China joins in the fight.

You see dumbfuck.....1 bullet can kill you, but the police have a lot of bullets because they need to make sure at least 1 bullet does the trick against each target.

So dumbfuck....the US military needs more or equal nukes to our enemies to maintain the peace since WWII. Tell me about the other world wars that happened once a nuclear weapon was used.....

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

"tens of times more powerful"? See numbers above. Where exactly in the world would you like to drop one of these things? NYcarbineer was only half joking about detonating a couple of these in the backyard.
(I wish I would have kept that HS paper now. BTW what did you learn in HS?)

Show me any lunatic who says we can't go lower and I will show you a lunatic.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An estimate of the size of the damage caused by the 16kt and 22kt Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A modern 'hydrogen bomb' would be tens[5][not in citation given] of times more powerful and cause similar levels of damage at 2-5 times the distance.

Someone help me out here. How does a twenty year old post suddenly get in the middle of a thread?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

Quick question. After the world is destroyed from the first volley of nukes, what will we do with the rest?

 

[emptystep]

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

Quick question. After the world is destroyed from the first volley of nukes, what will we do with the rest?

Upon the first launch of ICBMs we should launch all remaining missiles at Mars. We are not going down alone!!!

 

[Sallow]

Moron....are you saying blowing up 3 nukes within the USA is our deterence against Russia and China???? They approve of this stupid option since they are crazy enough to believe they can survive the nuclear winter with a USA on the planet.

"tens of times more powerful"? See numbers above. Where exactly in the world would you like to drop one of these things? NYcarbineer was only half joking about detonating a couple of these in the backyard.
(I wish I would have kept that HS paper now. BTW what did you learn in HS?)

So me any lunatic who says we can't go lower and I will show you a lunatic.

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An estimate of the size of the damage caused by the 16kt and 22kt Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A modern 'hydrogen bomb' would be tens[5][not in citation given] of times more powerful and cause similar levels of damage at 2-5 times the distance.

That was me..and I wasn't joking.

It would take 3 of those bad boys in your backyard to destroy the world.

Um no.

I am basically reiterating the science.

That action would put into place something that would take 5 to 10 years to complete.

The total destruction of the biosphere on Planet earth.

Today's nukes are so powerful, you can't even test them anymore. In fact..those who have tested any..have to bury them way down into the earth.

North Korea's test probably wiped out a good part of their nuclear scientist team. And that's after it blew off a mountain top.

 

[Katzndogz]

Rule by Russia won't be so bad. Putin is already a better president than obama.

If you hate America you could always move to Russia.

I help OTHER people move to Russia, or China, or Honduras, or Costa Rica. There are a lot of countries that welcome American business people. I don't hate America, New America maybe, but not America. The left in America certainly.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Idiot....who says their first strike takes out the entire USA?

What if they only lob 5-10 ICBMs that take out some ICBM sites, DC, LA, SF, NYC, Chicago, and Detroit....do we surrender because you didn't want to have nukes in reserve to shoot back???

Russia is the only country that can wipe the USA off the map "right now" but China is working on it. But of course, idiots like you are focusing our numbers against Russia while ignoring the Chinese standing behind the door with their nukes.

emptyhead....how many do we need to protect the USA today???

Come on you stupid pile of shit....answer the question.

Most Generals and Admirals with more experience in this area than you believe we can't go lower to remain safe.

You see idiot, you don't want to have less weapons than your enemies....because they will sometimes try to fight you if they think they can win a fight.

FYI...you're trying to debate someone that worked with nukes, you dumbfuck.

Quick question. After the world is destroyed from the first volley of nukes, what will we do with the rest?

 

[007]

Rule by Russia won't be so bad. Putin is already a better president than obama.

If you hate America you could always move to Russia.

Have a nice trip.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yep....you are an idiot.

Our deterence is to hold a gun (3 nukes blown up over the USA) to our own head to scare Russia from doing something?

go find some subway train to jump in front of....

Moron....are you saying blowing up 3 nukes within the USA is our deterence against Russia and China???? They approve of this stupid option since they are crazy enough to believe they can survive the nuclear winter with a USA on the planet.

That was me..and I wasn't joking.

It would take 3 of those bad boys in your backyard to destroy the world.

Um no.

I am basically reiterating the science.

That action would put into place something that would take 5 to 10 years to complete.

The total destruction of the biosphere on Planet earth.

Today's nukes are so powerful, you can't even test them anymore. In fact..those who have tested any..have to bury them way down into the earth.

North Korea's test probably wiped out a good part of their nuclear scientist team. And that's after it blew off a mountain top.

 

[longknife]

So, what's the big deal?

He's already found dozens of ways to get around the constitution using regulations issued by his minions in the federal bureaucracy. Why should this surprise anybody?

You voted for it!!!

 

[Wehrwolfen]

M. A. D
Mutually Assured Destruction​

That's what the nuke build up has been all about. If we solely look upon Russia as our adversary, we have lost sight of the world in general. Our prime concerns should also include China, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
In case of attack this won't be a two front war. WWIII will not be fought like WWII.

 

[emptystep]

I'm looking for GoneBezerk's logic.

 

[emptystep]

This is once again a topic where a few people get very rich and the rest of us pay the price. Republicans have a hard time finding a compromise on the budget? Anything to do with self interest?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yes, these people are idiots.

They only want to count our nukes against Russia, ignoring the nukes in China, North Korea, Pakistan and soon Iran.....all those countries are really our enemy, so it's not a stretch to believe they would use them against us if they have the upper hand someday.

North Korea is working on delivery of a nuke to hit the western US. China and Russia already can target us with nukes. Iran is working on their ICBM force and Pakistan isn't far behind.

Meanwhile Democraps want to slash the DoD budget which harms our nuke force and BMD systems to defend the US from some random attack. They figure Obamacare is more important than protecting LA from a NK nuke attack.

M. A. D
Mutually Assured Destruction​

That's what the nuke build up has been all about. If we solely look upon Russia as our adversary, we have lost sight of the world in general. Our prime concerns should also include China, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
In case of attack this won't be a two front war. WWIII will not be fought like WWII.

 

[bripat9643]

Rule by Russia won't be so bad. Putin is already a better president than obama.

If you hate America you could always move to Russia.

So what's keeping you here?