Obama proposes to further slash nuclear warheads

[rightwinger]

That ignores the possibilty of a first strike that is aimed at our nuclear assets and quick enough to happen prior to launch response.

By logic, wouldnt it be easier to try this if the other side only had 500 warheads as opposed to 1000?

We have been through first strike contingencies for over 50 years.

There are no surprises when nukes are launched. We have nukes at the ready in silos, subs and in the air

To be perfectly honest with ourselves. If the US has 10 nuclear warheads that the world knows we can target without fail........Nobody is going to attack us

A country like Russia or China could absorb 10 nukes with disruption, but not collapse. China especially.

With dense population centers, China is most vulnerable. Hundreds of million killed

Their economy would collapse

 

[rightwinger]

“It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.”

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”

One of the finest objectives of any president

 

[konradv]

For MAD to work you need overwhelming numbers, because once one side thinks it can pull off a first strike due to either being able to disable enough of the other sides warheads or ride out any retaliation the overall concept of MAD falls to dust.

Nuclear weapons are safer when you have too many of them on both sides.

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

You know that how?

Mathematics. At over 2,000 active warheads, I'm sure 1,000 would be more than enough to destroy most of the world.

 

[oldfart]

We have been through first strike contingencies for over 50 years.

There are no surprises when nukes are launched. We have nukes at the ready in silos, subs and in the air

To be perfectly honest with ourselves. If the US has 10 nuclear warheads that the world knows we can target without fail........Nobody is going to attack us

A country like Russia or China could absorb 10 nukes with disruption, but not collapse. China especially.

With dense population centers, China is most vulnerable. Hundreds of million killed

Their economy would collapse

Back in the 70's I knew some folks that worked on determining minimal capacity to achieve MAD. (At the time I was working on Soviet population figures which they were using). The reasoning goes something like this. First you determine what level of damage an opponent would be willing to sustain. You don't need to kill everyone, you just need to exceed the level that they believe the leadership could survive and and have some sort of country to run. This translated to an eventual casualty figure of about 50% of population (today it would be lower due to better targeting, etc). A case could be made for much lower figures if leaders felt that certain systems such as power generation or transportation were crucial and were both vulnerable and very centralized.

In the mid-70's this level of response gave a figure of about 50 surviving warheads delivered for the Soviet Union. Working backward, they then tried to compute how many warheads and delivery systems were necessary to "assure" the 50 strikes. It worked out to about 250--350 warheads. Finally, you had to factor this up by 20% or so to account for the fact that not every warhead is on line at all times (subs and planes can be in the process of maintenance and ICBM's are not continuously fully fueled). So you end up with 275--420.

Now, I would imagine that other factors are of more concern than determining this force level to achieve MAD, like the problems of identifying the origin of an anomalous single strike. We are far more likely to need to respond to a radiological weapon used by a non-state entity than a full-blown nuclear strike. This makes accounting for all the weapons-grade nuclear material sloshing around the world a very high priority which receives very little press coverage.

IMHO the doctrine of MAD is outdated in a world where the biggest risks are from players who believe they will not be identified or who believe that they have no society to protect from nuclear retaliation (i.e. they are embedded in a larger society which we could not effectively separate from the bad players). To the extent that it is still useful, we probably could be just as safe with 500 warheads as with any larger number. That number could be slashed much further if we have made advances insuring a larger survival rate of warheads, which I speculate is the case.

The argument for reduced stockpiles is that in a variety of ways maintaining them is incredibly expensive. The fissile material needs to guarded for centuries after decommissioning, far outweighing the considerable costs of producing and operating the weapons systems during their lifetimes. We know how to destroy biological and most chemical weapons, but not radiological risks.

I'm not trying to argue numbers here, I just want to lay out the reasoning behind getting to a number, especially the crucial role of determining the survival rate of delivery systems. I assume that the other major nuclear powers do the same calculations on the USA. If you think a higher number is warranted, at what stage of the process do you think the calculations above are off?

 

[konradv]

For MAD to work you need overwhelming numbers, because once one side thinks it can pull off a first strike due to either being able to disable enough of the other sides warheads or ride out any retaliation the overall concept of MAD falls to dust.

Nuclear weapons are safer when you have too many of them on both sides.

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

That ignores the possibilty of a first strike that is aimed at our nuclear assets and quick enough to happen prior to launch response.

By logic, wouldnt it be easier to try this if the other side only had 500 warheads as opposed to 1000?

Many of our warheads are on submarines, i.e. not first strike vulnerable.

 

[Stephanie]

He also proposed to cut our deficit in half in his first term..he proposed to close gitmo, etc etc
he proposes to run the whole damn world I guess

 

[konradv]

He also proposed to cut our deficit in half in his first term..he proposed to close gitmo, etc etc
he proposes to run the whole damn world I guess

"Some people" say he'll be the next head of the U.N. The FEMA camps are for those who object.

 

[Katzndogz]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

What are the chances that they even work anymore?

They are constantly maintained and yes, we do replace them.

obama is an utter fool. Russia knows he's a fool. It would not surprise me at all if obama gave an order to destroy our weapons and it just wasn't followed. Wiser heads would prevail and just give him a report that they've been destroyed.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not only Russia, but Iran is determined to get their own nuclear weapons. obama would like that very much. He will have a good excuse for surrendering.

 

[konradv]

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

What are the chances that they even work anymore?

They are constantly maintained and yes, we do replace them.

obama is an utter fool. Russia knows he's a fool. It would not surprise me at all if obama gave an order to destroy our weapons and it just wasn't followed. Wiser heads would prevail and just give him a report that they've been destroyed.

Then you're the fool, but most of realized that the other day when you started cheering for Russia and China. If that's what "patriot" means, I say re-double the efforts of the IRS and and the NSA.

 

[rightwinger]

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

What are the chances that they even work anymore?

They are constantly maintained and yes, we do replace them.

obama is an utter fool. Russia knows he's a fool. It would not surprise me at all if obama gave an order to destroy our weapons and it just wasn't followed. Wiser heads would prevail and just give him a report that they've been destroyed.

A provision of all these treaties is the joint witnessing of the destruction of not just the warheads but the platforms that carry them

 

[krych3k]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

There is no benefit to America. There is only a less secure America both materially and in terms of perceived power. It is an invitation for further aggression against America from her enemies. The benefit is political: the expansion of appeal from Obama and the Democratic party to the so-called "anti-war/pro-peace" crowd (typically communists, socialists, and certain libertarians).

 

[krych3k]

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

So you still believe the hyperbole from the 60s about America being able to "destroy the world" several times over?

 

[Katzndogz]

To the left it is more acceptable if the United States can be destroyed 60 times over. After all, to obama and the left, don't we deserve it?

 

[rightwinger]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

There is no benefit to America. There is only a less secure America both materially and in terms of perceived power. It is an invitation for further aggression against America from her enemies. The benefit is political: the expansion of appeal from Obama and the Democratic party to the so-called "anti-war/pro-peace" crowd (typically communists, socialists, and certain libertarians).

Makes the world safer and the US taxpayer does not have to pay to support tens of thousands of warheads, missiles, subs, aircraft and their support personnel

We have not used a single one of the suckers in 65 years.....why do we need thousands of them?

 

[krych3k]

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

Is that your expert opinion? I guess dismantling weapons somehow "saves money" according to your new calculus, as well. I suppose you think America's entire nuclear arsenal is primed and ready to go at a moment's notice, requiring serious upkeep?

 

[Stephanie]

rightwhiner is a perfect ObamaBot..

he still believes something this man says...and get tingles up his leg

 

[krych3k]

Makes the world safer...

How?

...and the US taxpayer does not have to pay to support tens of thousands of warheads, missiles, subs, aircraft and their support personnel

How much support personnel do you think is required for maintaining stored warheads? How much "support" is needed for these missiles and warheads? I want numbers. What is the cost of a dismantling program that you are sympathetic towards? If you're making an economic argument, good luck substantiating it.

We have not used a single one of the suckers in 65 years.....why do we need thousands of them?

Can I share your crystal ball to see into the future? Or does it only work in your hands?

 

[konradv]

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

So you still believe the hyperbole from the 60s about America being able to "destroy the world" several times over?

What's changed? Don't you think 2000+ nukes could do the trick? I don't see how you could call it hyperbole. Massive overkill has been our basic strategy since missles became dominant.

 

[krych3k]

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

So you still believe the hyperbole from the 60s about America being able to "destroy the world" several times over?

What's changed? Don't you think 2000+ nukes could do the trick? I don't see how you could call it hyperbole. Massive overkill has been our basic strategy since missles became dominant.

Is it your expert opinion that 2000 nuclear warheads could "destroy the world" several times over?