Talk of WW3 over Russia is foolish

[Sunni Man]

Baloney! There's no escape and they know it.

Sure there is. ..
The bunkers have CBRN air filtration systems, kitchens, living quarters, generators for electrical power, and fully stocked with enough food and water to survive for years.

 

[Donald H]

Sure there is. ..
The bunkers have air CBRN filtration systems, generators for power, and fully stocked with enough food and water to survive for years.

That sounds like fun!

 

[Sunni Man]

That sounds like fun!

For the globalist elites, yes.
For everyone else, not so much.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is your subconscious reaching out for a feeling of safeness and security. You're ignoring the obvious if any one of the world's nuclear powers attempts a nuclear strike against another.

But on the issue of feeling safe and secure: If Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon against the Ukraine, would America respond with a tactical nuclear weapon on Russia?

The question shouldn't be ignored, no matter how much loss of sleep it represents!

We must never sweep the fact under the carpet that Russia is the world's leading nuclear superpower, with the most effective means of delivery.

We have no tactical nuclear weapons anymore.

 

[Donald H]

We have no tactical nuclear weapons anymore.

That's not true.

 

[whitehall]

Just when you thought sanity prevailed, along came a brain injured democrat with his trembling thumb on the nuclear button.

 

[Mushroom]

My only concern is that with NATO/US pulling out all the stops and basically saying no negotiations until Putin and Russia are totally humiliated and removed, even from their base in Crimea

You mean the land they illegally seized in 2014?

That is actually the demand of Ukraine, and I agree with it 100%. They should be forced to return to pre-2014 borders before any further negotiations, because the current conflict is just an extension of that one 9 years ago. Otherwise, it would be like negotiating with NSDAP Germany about ending WWII, and letting them keep Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe, so long as they give back France and the rest of Western Europe.

 

[Mushroom]

That's not true.

Actually, for all practical purposes it is.

The last tactical weapons the US fielded were all withdrawn and destroyed in 1991. That was the Pershing II and the GLCM, both of which were withdrawn after the ratification of the INF Treaty.

The US does still have around 200 tactical gravity bombs in inventory, but they are all believed to be in deep storage in the US and have not been deployed in decades. Even by the early 1990s, the idea of using tactical nukes on a battlefield became an obsolete concept.

 

[Donald H]

Actually, for all practical purposes it is.

The last tactical weapons the US fielded were all withdrawn and destroyed in 1991. That was the Pershing II and the GLCM, both of which were withdrawn after the ratification of the INF Treaty.

The US does still have around 200 tactical gravity bombs in inventory, but they are all believed to be in deep storage in the US and have not been deployed in decades. Even by the early 1990s, the idea of using tactical nukes on a battlefield became an obsolete concept.

Is that the official statement for the public?

 

[Mushroom]

Is that the official statement for the public?

We destroyed all the systems in 1991. And as we did so the Soviets had inspectors right there watching us as we did it. And we had inspectors watching as the Soviets destroyed theirs.

We still have some of the warheads, converted into gravity bombs. But the systems themselves have been gone for over 3 decades.

And other than a single test of a ground based TOMAHAWK missile, there have been no attempts to bring either one of them back. No PERSHING II being pulled out of storage, no attempts to dust off the PERSHING III system and return it to service. Nothing.

So tell me, instead of just giving snarky comments, can you give any actual reference to any such system being developed by the US? Any, anywhere?

Watch the Pentagon test its first land-based cruise missile in a post-INF Treaty world

The test is the first time such a weapon has been launched by the U.S. since the INF Treaty went into effect.

www.defensenews.com

And here is the thing I find most interesting. I honestly do not think the test above is even linked to the US leaving the INF treaty. I think it has nothing to do with it, especially as the test took place less than a month after the US ended the treaty. And if anybody knows the Pentagon, they can rarely even make the decision to tie their shoes or not in that amount of time. Let alone decide to test a new missile, get Raytheon to build the thing, then get it out to the Pacific to be tested.

However, if one reads the missile was fired from the testbed they use for doing tests for the AEGIS Ashore system. Which is essentially land based Navy VLS missile systems intended for ground defense. And by integrating TOMAHAWK missiles into that, it then not only gives them defensive capabilities, but offensive ones as well. And even though even under the INF treaty we could not use them, we have already sold the systems to Poland and Romania (and have been shopping it to Japan, Israel, Philippines, and several other countries). And there was never a treaty to prevent them from using ground based cruise missiles.

And yes, I still talk to my friends that are still active in this area. And absolutely nobody is talking about returning the GLCM or any variant of the PERSHING system into service. Hell, nobody in the military even knows how to operate the things anymore.

 

[Donald H]

We destroyed all the systems in 1991. And as we did so the Soviets had inspectors right there watching us as we did it. And we had inspectors watching as the Soviets destroyed theirs.

We still have some of the warheads, converted into gravity bombs. But the systems themselves have been gone for over 3 decades.

And other than a single test of a ground based TOMAHAWK missile, there have been no attempts to bring either one of them back. No PERSHING II being pulled out of storage, no attempts to dust off the PERSHING III system and return it to service. Nothing.

So tell me, instead of just giving snarky comments, can you give any actual reference to any such system being developed by the US? Any, anywhere?

No, I can't and you can't say otherwise for the same reason. Your information is no more reliable than saying that America isn't stockpiling chem/bio weapons.

All you've told me is that you have faith in the honesty of war criminals.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/062005016

The first paragraph is my evidence for now. Yours?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, I can't and you can't say otherwise for the same reason. Your information is no more reliable than saying that America isn't stockpiling chem/bio weapons.

All you've told me is that you have faith in the honesty of war criminals.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/062005016

The first paragraph is my evidence for now. Yours?

September 2006? Pathetic!

 

[Donald H]

September 2006? Pathetic!

Meeting the challenge!
Would you like to get involved too Admiral?

 

[Donald H]

Actually, for all practical purposes it is.

The last tactical weapons the US fielded were all withdrawn and destroyed in 1991. That was the Pershing II and the GLCM, both of which were withdrawn after the ratification of the INF Treaty.

The US does still have around 200 tactical gravity bombs in inventory, but they are all believed to be in deep storage in the US and have not been deployed in decades. Even by the early 1990s, the idea of using tactical nukes on a battlefield became an obsolete concept.

What are Tactical Nuclear Weapons?

Also called nonstrategic nuclear weapons, they're designed for battlefield use and have a shorter range than other nuclear weapons.

www.ucsusa.org

They're tactical nuclear weapons!

 

[Mushroom]

They're tactical nuclear weapons!

And said exactly what I did, 200 tactical gravity bombs. Did I not already say that quite a while ago? So thank you for confirming exactly what I have said.

 

[Mushroom]

September 2006? Pathetic!

Not only that, it never discussed at all any potential of the US possessing chemical weapons.

He is simply another paranoid one that is spinning in circles.

 

[Donald H]

And said exactly what I did, 200 tactical gravity bombs. Did I not already say that quite a while ago? So thank you for confirming exactly what I have said.

You just left out the nuclear, but now we have agreement!

Did you try to lie about America not having any tactical nuclear weapons?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You just left out the nuclear, but now we have agreement!

Did you try to lie about America not having any tactical nuclear weapons?

god you are stupid he told you those were all that was left you dumb ass.

 

[Mushroom]

Did you try to lie about America not having any tactical nuclear weapons?

God, it is like arguing with a two year old.

I said we only have 200 gravity bombs left. The systems that we once had by the thousands were destroyed decades ago.

We no longer field tactical nuclear weapons.

Pay very close attention to the word I highlighted in red. Because that is the most critical and important part of this entire pointless debate.

Yes, we have them. No, we no longer field them. We no longer have launching systems for sending them at our enemies. We have not had such for over 3 decades.

And in the same way, I am sure we still have the plans and warheads so if we wanted to we could return to making nuclear sea mines once again. But we do not have any, so any such claim would be entirely moot.

You are so obsessed with attacking me for some reason, that you are apparently completely missing what I have been saying. And yes, I was in the military back in the era where we fielded almost a thousand of the damned things. You seem obsessed with 200 bombs, I am from an era where we had over 200 nuclear missile launchers in West Germany alone. So to others of my generation, they can probably see how little having such in bunkers in Nevada means to me. Especially when we used to have far more than that, and ready to launch at the press of a button.

And without a delivery system, any weapon is largely useless.

 

[Donald H]

God, it is like arguing with a two year old.

I said we only have 200 gravity bombs left. The systems that we once had by the thousands were destroyed decades ago.

We no longer field tactical nuclear weapons.

There's no need for the personal attack. America has tactical nuclear weapons. Period!
If you wish to take it to another level by introducing the word 'field', then you will have to tell me what that means to you.
I will then take the opportunity to either agree or disagree.

But don't try to pretend that the point on America having tactical nuclear weapons isn't already proven. Maybe they're kept in airplanes or somewhere else and not allowed to be in the field??

Pay very close attention to the word I highlighted in red. Because that is the most critical and important part of this entire pointless debate.

I did!

Yes, we have them. No, we no longer field them. We no longer have launching systems for sending them at our enemies. We have not had such for over 3 decades.

I don't believe America has tactical nuclear weapons, with no means of delivery. Isn't that a little bit off the wall to believe?

And in the same way, I am sure we still have the plans and warheads so if we wanted to we could return to making nuclear sea mines once again. But we do not have any, so any such claim would be entirely moot.

You're expecting me to take your word for quite a lot. Fwiw, i'll let it go and give you the benefit of the doubt. Mainly because the original point I made has been accepted by you, albeit grudgingly.

You are so obsessed with attacking me for some reason, that you are apparently completely missing what I have been saying.

Isn't it you who has attacked me?

And yes, I was in the military back in the era where we fielded almost a thousand of the damned things. You seem obsessed with 200 bombs,

Had you admitted just one, you would have been found out too!

I am from an era where we had over 200 nuclear missile launchers in West Germany alone. So to others of my generation, they can probably see how little having such in bunkers in Nevada means to me. Especially when we used to have far more than that, and ready to launch at the press of a button.

I accept with caution you maintaining that America's tactical nuclear weapons have been reduced in number. I"m still waiting for your reply on the field question.

And without a delivery system, any weapon is largely useless.

It's more than useless, it becomes a liability in that it could be bargained away with the other sides, in exchange for 200 of theirs that aren't useless.

In any case, we can safely move on from the fact that America has tactical nuclear weapons!