Now the rest of the world will like us more and drop their weapons.
That isn’t happening? What do you mean?
I might be wrong, but my memory (from years ago) of the SALT and START talks was that the Soviets were going to end up with considerably more warheads (especially after MIRVs came along) than we were and that we were not particularly concerned about it.
I figured the Soviets (and later the Russians) would cheat, anyway. We just had to keep them within the margin of fraud, as the professor likes to say of the Dems.
I think the main reason we weren’t worried was that ours were more accurate. It also seems to me that each individual re-entry vehicle ought to be considered a separate warhead (with each missile carrying a single payload of multiple warheads), so our reliance on MIRVs wouldn’t necessarily mean we’d have fewer.
But I’m not a nuclear war strategist.
What the Russians lost in accuracy, they made up for in yield.
But, as they said back in the day, you only really need enough to make the rubble bounce.
Everything going according to plan.
Nuclear weapon’s policy and theory is largely driven by initial assumptions.
It is far from clear if increasing or decreasing warheads, or delivery systems will have the desired effects on the Russians, the Chinese or the latest crazy group of religious fanatics.
Creating an arms race (note that this terminology assumes two opposing gov’ts participating in the race) *MAY* have caused the Soviets to bankrupt their empire. Again, it is far from clear that this wasn’t happening for other reasons anyway.
So should we be upset that Putin has more nukes (by warhead count) than we do? Probably not. We *SHOULD* make policy to produce an effective number of weapons to menace our enemies and deter our foes. Effective economic/energy policies might hurt Putin more than strategic weapon policy
I personally am upset that we don’t have our BMD systems set up in Poland and the Czech republic. Along with some ground troops and anti aircraft weapons. Nukes are just a tool … we ought to be using our sharp spears more effectively.
“We *SHOULD* make policy to produce an effective number of weapons to menace our enemies and deter our foes. Effective economic/energy policies might hurt Putin more than strategic weapon policy”
We don’t have leaders capable of creating or implementing a plan to pressure Russia using multiple asymmetric fronts.
The current administration doesn’t even want to, even if it was competent to do so.
Is The Daily Signal article some sort of joke?
Warheads on Deployed ICBMs, on Deployed SLBMs, and Nuclear Warheads Counted for Deployed Heavy Bombers
US: 1642
Russia: 1643
The key is survivability. If the adversary thinks they could launch a first strike, and knock out our capability to respond, then that is destabilizing. Powerful people with safe places to hide also might not worry about losing a few cities. So, we must have a guaranteed survivable fraction which would devastate their entire country, and leave those powerful people with nothing to govern once they emerged from their shelters.
Then, you might start to worry about a limited strike, in which they took out major cities, but held enough in reserve to threaten annihilation if we respond in kind.
I’m no nuclear strategist. But, there are obviously many permutations and scenarios to game. When you get into it, I am sure you would find that nuclear war is not as unthinkable or unwinnable as commonly assumed. General Lee was willing to sacrifice a substantial part of his army to take Cemetery Ridge. Attrition has been a major battlefield strategy from the earliest days. We ignore the potential for a rational player to take a major risk in pursuit of victory at our peril.
Talking about strategy when it’s about people means disappointment because no strategy will restrain all people. Even if you get an enemy to go along, they eventually get replaced with a new enemy. We absolutely need human intelligence. Russia, even as an ally, had moles throughout our government to the highest levels. Now they don’t need them… they are the government and we’ve entered the end game.
At this point, elections are just for show to placate anyone that might be effective in countering them. Note the crickets when for decades we’ve had voting machines recording the opponents vote and the public is not concerned. 10% or so of illegal votes? Kill the messenger!
I feel your pain. I waver between believing everything is going to hell in a handbasket, and resigning myself to accepting that it was ever thus. The last couple of decades, and the last six years in particular, have definitely shaken my youthful unquestioning faith in the “Land of the Free”.
But, how much is change, and how much is accumulated understanding? FDR got away with all kinds of nefarious activities, many of which continue to weigh us down even today. The rich have always taken advantage of their power. The unions have always been run by thugs. Elections have always been tainted by some measure of fraud and abuse. The bad guys have always gotten away with murder in some measure.
They say everything is fresh and exciting before age 35, and after, is evidence that things are falling apart. That about tracks with my experience. I suppose we will muddle through, as we always have. If there is a better place on Earth, there aren’t many. Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness in vain, and all that.
In my opinion the main problem is the Minuteman missile. It is utterly obsolete. The electronics are ancient and the guidance is crap. The bases are too vulnerable. They should have never canceled the Midgetman missile. Trident is still a viable deterrent though.
I would not be surprised if actual Russian land based ICBMs are more maneuverable and resistant to air defenses than the US ones.
I wonder how many of the Russian warheads would actually reach their target and go high-order vs their dud rate/booster failure rate.
Now the rest of the world will like us more and drop their weapons.
That isn’t happening? What do you mean?
I might be wrong, but my memory (from years ago) of the SALT and START talks was that the Soviets were going to end up with considerably more warheads (especially after MIRVs came along) than we were and that we were not particularly concerned about it.
I figured the Soviets (and later the Russians) would cheat, anyway. We just had to keep them within the margin of fraud, as the professor likes to say of the Dems.
I think the main reason we weren’t worried was that ours were more accurate. It also seems to me that each individual re-entry vehicle ought to be considered a separate warhead (with each missile carrying a single payload of multiple warheads), so our reliance on MIRVs wouldn’t necessarily mean we’d have fewer.
But I’m not a nuclear war strategist.
What the Russians lost in accuracy, they made up for in yield.
But, as they said back in the day, you only really need enough to make the rubble bounce.
Everything going according to plan.
Nuclear weapon’s policy and theory is largely driven by initial assumptions.
It is far from clear if increasing or decreasing warheads, or delivery systems will have the desired effects on the Russians, the Chinese or the latest crazy group of religious fanatics.
Creating an arms race (note that this terminology assumes two opposing gov’ts participating in the race) *MAY* have caused the Soviets to bankrupt their empire. Again, it is far from clear that this wasn’t happening for other reasons anyway.
So should we be upset that Putin has more nukes (by warhead count) than we do? Probably not. We *SHOULD* make policy to produce an effective number of weapons to menace our enemies and deter our foes. Effective economic/energy policies might hurt Putin more than strategic weapon policy
I personally am upset that we don’t have our BMD systems set up in Poland and the Czech republic. Along with some ground troops and anti aircraft weapons. Nukes are just a tool … we ought to be using our sharp spears more effectively.
“We *SHOULD* make policy to produce an effective number of weapons to menace our enemies and deter our foes. Effective economic/energy policies might hurt Putin more than strategic weapon policy”
We don’t have leaders capable of creating or implementing a plan to pressure Russia using multiple asymmetric fronts.
The current administration doesn’t even want to, even if it was competent to do so.
Is The Daily Signal article some sort of joke?
Warheads on Deployed ICBMs, on Deployed SLBMs, and Nuclear Warheads Counted for Deployed Heavy Bombers
US: 1642
Russia: 1643
The key is survivability. If the adversary thinks they could launch a first strike, and knock out our capability to respond, then that is destabilizing. Powerful people with safe places to hide also might not worry about losing a few cities. So, we must have a guaranteed survivable fraction which would devastate their entire country, and leave those powerful people with nothing to govern once they emerged from their shelters.
Then, you might start to worry about a limited strike, in which they took out major cities, but held enough in reserve to threaten annihilation if we respond in kind.
I’m no nuclear strategist. But, there are obviously many permutations and scenarios to game. When you get into it, I am sure you would find that nuclear war is not as unthinkable or unwinnable as commonly assumed. General Lee was willing to sacrifice a substantial part of his army to take Cemetery Ridge. Attrition has been a major battlefield strategy from the earliest days. We ignore the potential for a rational player to take a major risk in pursuit of victory at our peril.
Talking about strategy when it’s about people means disappointment because no strategy will restrain all people. Even if you get an enemy to go along, they eventually get replaced with a new enemy. We absolutely need human intelligence. Russia, even as an ally, had moles throughout our government to the highest levels. Now they don’t need them… they are the government and we’ve entered the end game.
At this point, elections are just for show to placate anyone that might be effective in countering them. Note the crickets when for decades we’ve had voting machines recording the opponents vote and the public is not concerned. 10% or so of illegal votes? Kill the messenger!
I feel your pain. I waver between believing everything is going to hell in a handbasket, and resigning myself to accepting that it was ever thus. The last couple of decades, and the last six years in particular, have definitely shaken my youthful unquestioning faith in the “Land of the Free”.
But, how much is change, and how much is accumulated understanding? FDR got away with all kinds of nefarious activities, many of which continue to weigh us down even today. The rich have always taken advantage of their power. The unions have always been run by thugs. Elections have always been tainted by some measure of fraud and abuse. The bad guys have always gotten away with murder in some measure.
They say everything is fresh and exciting before age 35, and after, is evidence that things are falling apart. That about tracks with my experience. I suppose we will muddle through, as we always have. If there is a better place on Earth, there aren’t many. Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness in vain, and all that.
In my opinion the main problem is the Minuteman missile. It is utterly obsolete. The electronics are ancient and the guidance is crap. The bases are too vulnerable. They should have never canceled the Midgetman missile. Trident is still a viable deterrent though.
I would not be surprised if actual Russian land based ICBMs are more maneuverable and resistant to air defenses than the US ones.
I wonder how many of the Russian warheads would actually reach their target and go high-order vs their dud rate/booster failure rate.