Jump to bottom

190 comments
1 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:41:18am

Oh Mitt, what happened to you man, you used to be cool, well you used to be sane!

2 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:42:02am

re: #1 jamesfirecat

I think he used to pander to the cool and the sane.

3 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:45:50am

So much for Romney's continued attempt at foreign policy cred.

4 jaunte  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:48:29am

I wonder if Romney even read what his people submitted to the Washington Post.
ICBM's mounted on bombers? How about sharks with frickin' laser beams mounted on their heads?

5 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:49:31am

re: #4 jaunte

I always preferring mounting the bombers to the ICBMs, personally. Hell of a ride.

6 webevintage  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:50:14am

And this man would be President...

7 Kragar  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:51:15am

re: #5 Obdicut

I always preferring mounting the bombers to the ICBMs, personally. Hell of a ride.

I'm still in favor of the mass production of Slim Pickens clone guided missiles.

8 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:52:13am

I can see the SALT treaty from my house

9 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:53:29am

re: #5 Obdicut

I always preferring mounting the bombers to the ICBMs, personally. Hell of a ride.

Hi Obdi.. Saw your question in the open thread..
What part of the country are you looking for a sys admin?

10 AK-47%  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:54:09am

If Obama hates America and wants to wreck the economy, it only follow that he wants to compromise its ability to defend itself, right?

230 years of racial oppression demands one heck of a payback.

/

11 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:54:48am

Wow.

After reading the article, the amount of shit he got just completely and utterly fucking wrong is astounding. It's not like small errors. It's nearly completely erroneous.

What the hell is Romney thinking? Does he honestly not know a damn thing about the treaty or is he willfully misrepresenting things to attack Obama?

12 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:56:44am

re: #11 Obdicut

Wow.

After reading the article, the amount of shit he got just completely and utterly fucking wrong is astounding. It's not like small errors. It's nearly completely erroneous.

What the hell is Romney thinking? Does he honestly not know a damn thing about the treaty or is he willfully misrepresenting things to attack Obama?

This is the path the GOP has chosen.

13 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 11:56:50am

re: #9 HoosierHoops

Hi Obdi.. Saw your question in the open thread..
What part of the country are you looking for a sys admin?

San Francisco/Bay Area. The guy looking for the Sysadmin is an ex-Xerox PARC, ex-Apple dude who's supersmart and savvy.

14 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:00:09pm

re: #13 Obdicut

San Francisco/Bay Area. The guy looking for the Sysadmin is an ex-Xerox PARC, ex-Apple dude who's supersmart and savvy.

I'll ask some of my friends/co-workers in Silicone Valley if they know anybody good in the area.

15 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:01:03pm

re: #11 Obdicut

Wow.

After reading the article, the amount of shit he got just completely and utterly fucking wrong is astounding. It's not like small errors. It's nearly completely erroneous.

What the hell is Romney thinking? Does he honestly not know a damn thing about the treaty or is he willfully misrepresenting things to attack Obama?

That's a rhetorical question I presume.

16 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:01:14pm

Here's an example of probably the most egregious mistakes in Romney's critique:

Romney says:

The treaty also gives far more to the Russians than to the United States. As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads."


Reality:

Again, there might have been some static on the phone line. The treaty does let Russia get by without cutting any of its strategic "delivery vehicles" (missiles and bombers). Each side is limited to 700, but Russia right now has only 600; the United States has 850, so it will have to cut back a little. However, both sides will have to reduce their warheads—the actual nuclear weapons—to 1,550. And, for what it's worth, Russia, which now has 2,787 warheads, will have to cut back more than the United States, which now has 2,252.

17 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:01:41pm

re: #14 HoosierHoops

Thanks!

18 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:05:38pm

re: #16 Obdicut

This stuff pisses me off.. We used to have enough Nukes to blow up the world 11 times over.. Now we are down to about 7 or 8 times over..
BTW..After you blow up the world the first time around..Who launches the next wave of bombs?

19 Kragar  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:06:00pm

Meanwhile, the Russian tech's who have been mounting ICBMs under the wings of refitted TU-95s are busy getting drunk off instrument fluid and cursing Romney for catching on to their cunning ruse.

20 captdiggs  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:06:11pm

From Mr Kaplan's article:

"There is nothing in the treaty that places any limits on the U.S. missile-defense program. "


Yet there seems to be a difference in how the Russians see that.

The treaty, “may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America. Consequently, the extraordinary events referred to in Article XIV of the Treaty also include a build-up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of
America such that it would give rise to a threat to the strategic nuclear force potential of the Russian Federation.”
[Link: docs.google.com...]

21 webevintage  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:07:04pm

re: #11 Obdicut

What the hell is Romney thinking? Does he honestly not know a damn thing about the treaty or is he willfully misrepresenting things to attack Obama?

You would hope he is just stupid, but I have stopped making that assumption when it comes to the things that spew out of the mouths of members of the GOP anymore.
Facts don't matter just what will hurt Obama and the country so that the GOP can win in Nov and 2012.
Win at all costs.

(and maybe I'm just feeling cynical today)

22 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:07:37pm

With their 180 on Afghanistan and this complete cock-up from Romney, the claims that the GOP are the better 'war party' are looking pretty fucking ridiculous.

23 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:08:07pm

And the Russian announcement of their doomsday device has been postponed until the Chinese tunnel system under all the major US cities has been completed...

/

24 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:08:59pm

re: #20 captdiggs


You realize that you haven't actually shown that, right?

The Russians are saying they'll back out of the treaty if we build up missile defense. The treaty doesn't limit our build-up, the Russians are saying that's a problem with the treaty.

25 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:09:22pm

re: #22 Obdicut

With their 180 on Afghanistan and this complete cock-up from Romney, the claims that the GOP are the better 'war party' are looking pretty fucking ridiculous.

The GOP has come full circle, Paulian Isolationism baby!

Everything old is new again!

26 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:10:57pm
The treaty does let Russia get by without cutting any of its strategic "delivery vehicles" (missiles and bombers). Each side is limited to 700, but Russia right now has only 600; the United States has 850, so it will have to cut back a little.
- Slate

A cutback by the US from 850 to 600 delivery vehicles is just under 30%, which is hardly "a little".
An increase by Russia from 600 to 700 is just under 17% which is very substantial.
In fact this represents a massive swing in the balance of delivery vehicles in Russia's favour, to the tune of 46%+.

27 MandyManners  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:11:13pm
28 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:12:12pm

re: #11 Obdicut

Wow.

After reading the article, the amount of shit he got just completely and utterly fucking wrong is astounding. It's not like small errors. It's nearly completely erroneous.

What the hell is Romney thinking? Does he honestly not know a damn thing about the treaty or is he willfully misrepresenting things to attack Obama?

My guess is he is thinking most will no dive any deeper than the headline and they sure as hell won't dig into the facts. America seems to be in "drive by headline" mode for the most part.

29 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:12:36pm

re: #27 MandyManners

We still have Major Kong.

[Video]

///Who wants to bet that Obama is allowing Russia to create a mineshaft gap right now even as we speak?

30 captdiggs  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:13:44pm

re: #24 Obdicut

The treaty doesn't limit our build-up

Per the Russians, it certainly does. The Russians reserve the right to pull out of the treaty if US missile defense actually renders their offensive capabilities ineffective. That, of course, has always been the primary strategic value to such a system, to prevent ICBMs from reaching our shores.
I don't think you can really say this does not limit the US ability to build missile defense under the agreement.

31 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:13:45pm

re: #28 brownbagj

My guess is he is thinking most will no dive any deeper than the headline and they sure as hell won't dig into the facts. America seems to be in "drive by headline" mode for the most part.

Statements like that make me hate the Media (with the exception of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and possibly Rachel Madow come to think of it) with a burning rage...

32 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:14:30pm

re: #26 Spare O'Lake

Gee, wouldn't it have been great, then, if Romney had written that instead of completely bogus, erroneous claims?

33 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:14:35pm

re: #30 captdiggs

Per the Russians, it certainly does. The Russians reserve the right to pull out of the treaty if US missile defense actually renders their offensive capabilities ineffective. That, of course, has always been the primary strategic value to such a system, to prevent ICBMs from reaching our shores.
I don't think you can really say this does not limit the US ability to build missile defense under the agreement.

What would you want out of the agreement then?

For it to say Russia has to stick with it even if we have 1,000 nuke interceptors for every nuke they have?

34 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:15:31pm

re: #32 Obdicut

Gee, wouldn't it have been great, then, if Romney had written that instead of completely bogus, erroneous claims?

*blushes*

35 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:16:02pm

Hoops you here?

Hilarious tweet from Chuck Todd:

LeBron James Special Spoiler: At end he'll say "For the name of the team I'm choosing, log on to my website for $29.95

36 captdiggs  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:16:26pm

re: #33 jamesfirecat

What would you want out of the agreement then?

Well, the original idea of Reagan's was to render nuclear ICBMs ineffective and obsolete.
I don't think that was a bad idea.

37 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:16:32pm

re: #30 captdiggs

Per the Russians, it certainly does. The Russians reserve the right to pull out of the treaty if US missile defense actually renders their offensive capabilities ineffective.

So according to you, because the treaty doesn't limit our buildup, the treaty limits our buildup, because if we did build up-- which the treaty allows us to do-- Russia might back out of the treaty.

Mind-fucking-boggling.

I don't think you can really say this does not limit the US ability to build missile defense under the agreement.

Again, the Russian's complaint is that this does not limit the US ability to build missile defense under the agreement.

38 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:17:12pm

re: #36 captdiggs

Well, the original idea of Reagan's was to render nuclear ICBMs ineffective and obsolete.
I don't think that was a bad idea.

Okay, how do we do that then?

What kind of treaties should we be signing?

39 MandyManners  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:18:20pm

Kaplan is a former adviser to Les Aspin, the SecDef who wouldn't let our forces have armored vehicles in Somalia. Anyone else remember our dead soldiers?

40 captdiggs  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:18:57pm

re: #37 Obdicut

The treaty is only a treaty. It doesn't really prevent anyone from doing anything...provided they merely state the treaty null and void.

41 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:21:00pm

re: #35 Stanley Sea

Hoops you here?

Hilarious tweet from Chuck Todd:

LOL
I'm thinking King James goes to Miami now that Bosh is signing there...There are some numbers issues with signing 3 max contracts... A team of 3 superstars and a bunch of mid-level exceptions..And a Hall of Fame coach...

42 captdiggs  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:21:31pm

re: #38 jamesfirecat

Without writing such a treaty here, which I am not going to say I am qualified to do...I really can't see a reason that unlimited defensive systems can't be part of any agreement.

43 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:21:40pm

re: #39 MandyManners

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. How does it apply to the mistakes that Romney made in this article?

44 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:22:08pm

re: #26 Spare O'Lake

A cutback by the US from 850 to 600 700 delivery vehicles is just under 30% 18%, which is hardly "a little".
An increase by Russia from 600 to 700 is just under 17% which is very substantial.
In fact this represents a massive swing in the balance of delivery vehicles in Russia's favour, to the tune of 46%+.

FTFY

Both sides are limited to 700 delivery vehicles. There is no swing in any favor for Russia. We reduce by under 17 percent they gain by 18 percent. Russia = 700 and the USA = 700. 700 - 700 = 0.

45 wrenchwench  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:22:39pm

re: #39 MandyManners

Kaplan is a former adviser to Les Aspin, the SecDef who wouldn't let our forces have armored vehicles in Somalia. Anyone else remember our dead soldiers?

Is that meant to discredit Kaplan?

46 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:23:05pm

re: #44 Gus 802

FTFY

Both sides are limited to 700 delivery vehicles. There is no swing in any favor for Russia. We reduce by under 17 18 percent they gain by 18 17 percent. Russia = 700 and the USA = 700. 700 - 700 = 0.

Fixed.

47 lawhawk  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:23:50pm

Might actually be nice to read what the heck Kaplan and Romney are claiming to talk about. Your text to link.

The key grafs - namely what limitations on force deployment:
(a) 700, for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed
heavy bombers;
(b) 1550, for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on
deployed SLBMs, and nuclear warheads counted for deployed
heavy bombers;
(c) 800, for deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers,
deployed and non-deployed SLBM launchers, and deployed and
non-deployed heavy bombers.

From this, the discussion goes into deployed versus nondeployed and how those count towards the totals.

48 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:24:24pm

re: #44 Gus 802

Savage in a bout of manhood, read the thread where Ice was insulted and wrote a pathetic screed calling her every evil name in the book and hoping she was anally violated in prison.

Savage hates her for being vastly smarter and better educated than him. He particularly can't forgive such traits in a woman. But that is how it shakes. He isn't so bright and women of worth want nothing to do with him. No self respecting woman would want the sort of maggot who can write such things.

One other thing, only the lowest, most sniveling, most repugnant of unmasculine men insult women like that.

49 kingkenrod  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:25:58pm

If I were Russia, and the goal was to increase my sphere of power in Europe and Asia, this treaty looks pretty good to me. The US has to use ICBM's, bomber, and submarine nukes to counter the Russian tactical nuclear threat in the eastern hemisphere - that's exactly what this treaty does.

Shouldn't the tactical nukes come first? Probably a non-starter with the Russians.

50 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:26:02pm

re: #42 captdiggs

Without writing such a treaty here, which I am not going to say I am qualified to do...I really can't see a reason that unlimited defensive systems can't be part of any agreement.

Fair enough, but here's the problem....

By giving Russia a back door out (if they feel our defense is too strong they can build more) we're more likely to get them to sign the treaty then if we didn't give them such a back door, and most likely if they felt threatened by us having too strong a defense they'd just break the treaty and start building more anyway.


This isn't like D&D or Harry Potter where we can place a curse on nations that break treaties without the treaty saying they could break it in such a manner....

51 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:26:36pm

re: #48 ludwigvanquixote

Who is Savage? Someone here or the radio guy?

52 blueraven  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:26:56pm

re: #26 Spare O'Lake

A cutback by the US from 850 to 600 delivery vehicles is just under 30%, which is hardly "a little".
An increase by Russia from 600 to 700 is just under 17% which is very substantial.
In fact this represents a massive swing in the balance of delivery vehicles in Russia's favour, to the tune of 46%+.

Huh? I am not getting it, why are you saying the US has to cut back from 850 to 600. The limit is 700.

53 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:27:08pm

re: #48 ludwigvanquixote

He has a criminal mind. In fact most of them over there have criminal minds.

54 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:27:20pm

re: #47 lawhawk

Do you have any problems with any claims Kaplan made?

What about the claims Romney made, that Kaplan says are in error?

From a reading of that text, and what I knew about the treaty already, Kaplan seems completely on target.

55 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:27:21pm

re: #51 brownbagj

Who is Savage? Someone here or the radio guy?

Check out my guide to stalkers and other nasty folks in the personal threads. It is under general.

56 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:27:31pm

Halftime...0-0 so far...
I wish I knew soccer better.. I picked Spain..But my limited amount of knowledge can only judge a few things..
1) Accuracy of kicking
2) defense
3) Speed
I think the Germans are winning on all 3 fronts so far...
It's hard to judge Speed on TV.. You almost have to be there in person..
I'm not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling about Spain.

57 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:27:50pm

Does anyone happen to know how many of Russia's existing 2,787 warheads are actually functional and serviceable? I ask this because I assume that all of America's 2,252 warheads are in working order, so I question whether Russia has really agreed to give up anywhere close to 1,237 warheads (in terms of reducing warheads to 1,550), whereas the US is giving up 700.

58 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:28:35pm

Ah. Ok, I will. Thank you.

Weird how these stalkers act. I can't imagine living with no purpose other than to stalk/attack others. I mean...I have kids, a job, hobbies you know?

59 shiplord kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:29:06pm

I agree with the gist of this critique but this paragraph is misleading at best:

ICBMs are not "mounted on," or loaded inside, bombers. The only nuclear weapons carried by bombers are bombs; that's why they're called bombers. (Many years ago, some B-52s and B-1s were equipped with air-launched cruise missiles, which flew through the atmosphere, as opposed to intercontinental ballistic missiles, which arc outside the atmosphere. These ALCMs are almost completely phased out, in any case.) Certainly bombers are incapable of carrying MIRVs (which, by the way, are "multiple warheads" loaded onto the tips of missiles).

This is not a matter of definition but of technology. There are currently no ICBMs that can be launched from aircraft but it is by no means an impossibility and the concept has been thoroughly explored in the past.

MX background at Global Security:

One approach to mobility was an air-mobile system, and during a 24 October 1974 test of the concept, SAMSO successfully launched a Minuteman I from a C-5A cargo aircraft
.

GAM-87 Skybolt

The Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt was an air-launched ballistic missile that would have been carried on the B-52H. Armed with a W59 nuclear warhead in a Mk. 7 re-entry vehicle, development was initiated in the late 1950s. The decision to proceed with the Skybolt was made in February 1960, with initial deployment projected for 1964. In June of 1960, the British government ordered 100 Skybolts to be carried by the Avro Vulcan. However, in December of 1962, President Kennedy cancelled the Skybolt missile for political and economical reasons.

Technically, the Skybolt was an MRBM (medium range ballistic missile) with a range of 1150 miles rather than an ICBM, and the technology was very challenging at the time. Even so, many experts, citing the final and successful test launch, contend to this day that it could have been made workable and that the cancellation was based largely on politics. That a system designed 50 years ago worked as well as it did is a good indication that the concept would be wholly practical today, and on a much larger scale.

60 webevintage  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:29:11pm

re: #51 brownbagj

Who is Savage? Someone here or the radio guy?

Or Terry Savage?
She got all worked up over kids giving lemonade away....
[Link: wonkette.com...]

61 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:29:15pm

re: #56 HoosierHoops

I agree, Hoops. The Germans seem to be working together a lot more, too, and looking to create their own opportunities. The Spainards look as though they're waiting for Germany to make a big mistake.

I think they may have a long, long wait.

Like until 2011.

62 captdiggs  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:30:14pm

re: #50 jamesfirecat

Personally, I don't see Russia as much of a nuclear threat. That's just my opinion.

The trouble with the Russian "back door" regarding missile defense is that there are other threats coming on line, such as Iran and the increasing ICBM capabilities of N. Korea.

Got to go, you all have a nice afternoon.

63 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:30:14pm

re: #44 Gus 802

FTFY

Both sides are limited to 700 delivery vehicles. There is no swing in any favor for Russia. We reduce by under 17 percent they gain by 18 percent. Russia = 700 and the USA = 700. 700 - 700 = 0.

Thanks for the arithmetic correction. But it still leaves us with a swing in Russia's favour to the tune of 35% compared to the status quo ante, does it not?

64 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:30:41pm

re: #58 brownbagj

Ah. Ok, I will. Thank you.

Weird how these stalkers act. I can't imagine living with no purpose other than to stalk/attack others. I mean...I have kids, a job, hobbies you know?

Yes me too. Well the job and hobbies and wonderful girl part at least.

Savage is the sort who thinks that calling a woman every hurtful name one can call a woman is classy. It is little more than a grade school mentality where an adolescent boy tries to be as hurtful as possible "just because."

We used to beat those boys up back in my day.

65 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:30:49pm

re: #59 shiplord kirel

Well son of a gun.

You'd know better than I-- are satellite launched BMs considered viable options-- aside from the diplomatic problems, that is?

66 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:31:48pm

re: #65 Obdicut

Well son of a gun.

You'd know better than I-- are satellite launched BMs considered viable options-- aside from the diplomatic problems, that is?

No nukes in space that is a very early treaty.

67 lawhawk  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:31:48pm

re: #44 Gus 802

That shift allows what is tactically an advantage to the US to disappear. Currently, the US has warheads spread among those 800 delivery vehicles. That would be further concentrated to 700 vehicles. The Russian warheads are spread among fewer delivery systems (600) and by enabling them to grow their delivery system to 700, actually makes US targeting even more difficult. That can be perceived as a tactical advantage to the Russians, even with the numbers being the same at the end of the day.

However, from a 3d party view, it would make the situation more stable since the two countries deployed weapons systems would be symmetrical (or more so than at present).

68 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:32:05pm

re: #52 blueraven
My bad, corrected by Gus 802. The swing is 35%. See my #63.

69 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:32:18pm

re: #63 Spare O'Lake

Thanks for the arithmetic correction. But it still leaves us with a swing in Russia's favour to the tune of 35% compared to the status quo ante, does it not?

I don't see how given that in the end it will be equal:

(a) 700, for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed
heavy bombers

70 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:32:35pm

re: #60 webevintage

Or Terry Savage?
She got all worked up over kids giving lemonade away...
[Link: wonkette.com...]

Oh. My. God. What are people like this thinking?

She starts in like that with my kids and she would have been taught not anything about generosity, but about "protectionism."

71 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:32:49pm

re: #67 lawhawk

That shift allows what is tactically an advantage to the US to disappear. Currently, the US has warheads spread among those 800 delivery vehicles. That would be further concentrated to 700 vehicles. The Russian warheads are spread among fewer delivery systems (600) and by enabling them to grow their delivery system to 700, actually makes US targeting even more difficult. That can be perceived as a tactical advantage to the Russians, even with the numbers being the same at the end of the day.

However, from a 3d party view, it would make the situation more stable since the two countries deployed weapons systems would be symmetrical (or more so than at present).

That's what I mean.

72 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:33:10pm

re: #64 ludwigvanquixote

Yes me too. Well the job and hobbies and wonderful girl part at least.

Savage is the sort who thinks that calling a woman every hurtful name one can call a woman is classy. It is little more than a grade school mentality where an adolescent boy tries to be as hurtful as possible "just because."

We used to beat those boys up back in my day.

Savage lives in his Glory of being banned here for the last 2 years...
He is a bitter little man that simply can't get over it...

73 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:34:27pm

re: #62 captdiggs

Personally, I don't see Russia as much of a nuclear threat. That's just my opinion.

The trouble with the Russian "back door" regarding missile defense is that there are other threats coming on line, such as Iran and the increasing ICBM capabilities of N. Korea.

Got to go, you all have a nice afternoon.

I don't see the Russians as much of a nuke threat either, they've got too much to loose MAD held them back then, it probably will now.

I see anything that lets us trim the amount of money we're spending keeping nukes above the one that will let us destroy the world twice over as a good thing given our current budget difficulties...

74 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:34:43pm

re: #66 ludwigvanquixote

No nukes in space that is a very early treaty.

I know, but I was wondering if they are technically viable, or even preferable, to land-based ones. I know-- and support-- a treaty banning their presence in space.

75 shiplord kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:35:09pm

re: #65 Obdicut

Well son of a gun.

You'd know better than I-- are satellite launched BMs considered viable options-- aside from the diplomatic problems, that is?

It would be easy technically, but there are some serious command and control and vulnerability issues. Schemes for this in the nuke-mad fifties generally proposed basing them on a manned station for that reason. They are categorically forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1963, and several other subsequent agreements.

76 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:35:21pm

re: #73 jamesfirecat

I don't see the Russians as much of a nuke threat either, they've got too much to loose MAD held them back then, it probably will now.

I see anything that lets us trim the amount of money we're spending keeping nukes above the one that will let us destroy the world twice over as a good thing given our current budget difficulties...

No, we need to at least be able to destroy the world over 4 times. 2 times is just too small.

/

77 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:36:09pm

re: #69 Gus 802

*blink*

78 lawhawk  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:36:46pm

re: #54 Obdicut

Generally, Kaplan is on target, but he did get some of his facts wrong too. Romney is right to claim that the treaty doesn't reflect rail-based launchers. Kaplan argues that neither side has those systems, but if we're talking about a treaty regime that deals with real and potential deployments, rail-based systems should have been included - particularly since the US had previously considered just that when the MX system was first proposed. It was judged to be costly at the time and the MX was fielded in silos as the earlier systems were. It's an oversight that should be fixed, but not fatal to the treaty.

79 blueraven  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:36:53pm

re: #68 Spare O'Lake

My bad, corrected by Gus 802. The swing is 35%. See my #63.


I think Gus just corrected you again

re: #69 Gus 802

80 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:38:15pm

re: #75 shiplord kirel

Thanks. I figured that it'd be easier, but wanted to check my assumptions. I think I understand what you mean about vulnerability; that they could fire while orbiting, allowing a shorter trajectory and not to have to escape atmosphere and re-enter, but only re-enter, is their same vulnerability-- that something destroying them would only have to exit atmosphere, not re-enter.

Is there more vulnerability as well, aside from that?

Sorry if I'm bugging you with this.

81 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:38:43pm

Dow +244 on expected corporate earnings. Hooray for socialism!
/

82 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:38:56pm

re: #77 Spare O'Lake

*blink*

Well. The USA won't have an advantage as Lawhawk indicated. Neither will Russia. If either side were to retain an advantage neither side would have signed START. So the argument then wouldn't be regarding the numbers in START but opposing START completely.

83 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:39:15pm

re: #79 blueraven

I think Gus just corrected you again

re: #69 Gus 802

Nope. The swing is 35%, and Gus, for some reason, is in denial that this represents an American concession.

84 lawhawk  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:39:47pm

re: #76 brownbagj

The argument is that when warhead and systems levels reach a certain level - it becomes possible for the aggressor nation to fire first and eliminate the other country's systems on the ground - undermining the deterrence that has been in place since nuclear weapons were fielded by the US and then Soviet Union. It's a technological question as to what that level is - the more accurate your systems are and response times, you can strike at the enemy without incurring catastrophic damage to your own country.

The closer we move towards limited numbers of warheads and delivery systems, the closer we move to a point where deterrence is no longer functional. That's the key concern.

85 webevintage  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:40:00pm

re: #81 Killgore Trout

Dow +244 on expected corporate earnings. Hooray for socialism!
/

I was told just the other day that the market was tanking and it was all Obama's fault.

86 kingkenrod  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:40:18pm

re: #67 lawhawk

That shift allows what is tactically an advantage to the US to disappear. Currently, the US has warheads spread among those 800 delivery vehicles. That would be further concentrated to 700 vehicles. The Russian warheads are spread among fewer delivery systems (600) and by enabling them to grow their delivery system to 700, actually makes US targeting even more difficult. That can be perceived as a tactical advantage to the Russians, even with the numbers being the same at the end of the day.

However, from a 3d party view, it would make the situation more stable since the two countries deployed weapons systems would be symmetrical (or more so than at present).

Doesn't this increase Russian regional dominance (by cutting US global deterrence)?

87 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:40:19pm

re: #80 Obdicut

Thanks. I figured that it'd be easier, but wanted to check my assumptions. I think I understand what you mean about vulnerability; that they could fire while orbiting, allowing a shorter trajectory and not to have to escape atmosphere and re-enter, but only re-enter, is their same vulnerability-- that something destroying them would only have to exit atmosphere, not re-enter.

Is there more vulnerability as well, aside from that?

Sorry if I'm bugging you with this.

Monitoring and maintenance would certainly be more complex and expensive.

Not to mention that a control jet malfunction could leave you with the wonderful crisis of having to deal with a orbital weapons platform that wants to come down on its own and unscheduled.

88 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:40:31pm

re: #83 Spare O'Lake

Nope. The swing is 35%, and Gus, for some reason, is in denial that this represents an American concession.

But what about the fact that Russia has to actually give up more actual warheads than us?

We give up more launch vectors they give up more nukes, we both give up more of something than the other...

Not to mention if Russia wants those 100 launchers it will have to shell out the rubbles to buy them.... its not like we're giving them our hundred....

89 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:41:41pm

re: #86 kingkenrod

Doesn't this increase Russian regional dominance (by cutting US global deterrence)?

Depends on how many nukes/nuke launchers we need and the line between "effective deterrent" and "just plain overkill".

90 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:42:50pm

re: #82 Gus 802

Well. The USA won't have an advantage as Lawhawk indicated. Neither will Russia. If either side were to retain an advantage neither side would have signed START. So the argument then wouldn't be regarding the numbers in START but opposing START completely.

That's fair, but the US is giving up a net 35% advantage in delivery systems. For Kaplan to poo-poo that as being an insignificant matter is just plain disingenuous.

91 shiplord kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:43:01pm

re: #80 Obdicut

Thanks. I figured that it'd be easier, but wanted to check my assumptions. I think I understand what you mean about vulnerability; that they could fire while orbiting, allowing a shorter trajectory and not to have to escape atmosphere and re-enter, but only re-enter, is their same vulnerability-- that something destroying them would only have to exit atmosphere, not re-enter.

Is there more vulnerability as well, aside from that?

Sorry if I'm bugging you with this.

You're not bugging me at all. That's about right for the vulnerability issue. A weapon launched from the ground against an orbiting nuke might reach it with very little warning, since orbital paths necessarily pass over many different areas of the world and the range could be very short. A satellite is a tough target in many respects but an easy one in others since it has very limited maneuverability and is highly visible to sensors once located.

92 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:43:47pm

re: #78 lawhawk

Generally, Kaplan is on target, but he did get some of his facts wrong too. Romney is right to claim that the treaty doesn't reflect rail-based launchers.

Really?

1. Each Party shall base:
(a) deployed launchers of ICBMs only at ICBM bases;


...

4 . Non-deployed ICBMs and non-deployed SLBMs as well as nondeployed mobile launchers of ICBMs may be in transit. Each
Party shall limit the duration of each transit between
facilities to no more than 30 days.

Wouldn't you say both those causes reflect on rail-based launchers, limiting their deployment to ICBM bases and limiting non-deployed launchers to 30 days transit between bases?

93 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:43:58pm

re: #90 Spare O'Lake

That's fair, but the US is giving up a net 35% advantage in delivery systems. For Kaplan to poo-poo that as being an insignificant matter is just plain disingenuous.

It's insignificant if you have no concerns about parity or equaling out the fire power.

94 blueraven  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:44:02pm

re: #83 Spare O'Lake

Nope. The swing is 35%, and Gus, for some reason, is in denial that this represents an American concession.

Both sides made concessions, that is usually what a treaty is all about. What counts is the end numbers.

95 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:44:11pm

re: #84 lawhawk

The argument is that when warhead and systems levels reach a certain level - it becomes possible for the aggressor nation to fire first and eliminate the other country's systems on the ground - undermining the deterrence that has been in place since nuclear weapons were fielded by the US and then Soviet Union. It's a technological question as to what that level is - the more accurate your systems are and response times, you can strike at the enemy without incurring catastrophic damage to your own country.

The closer we move towards limited numbers of warheads and delivery systems, the closer we move to a point where deterrence is no longer functional. That's the key concern.

At what number would you consider deterrence not feasible. The number available still seem staggering to me. I do understand the concern, it just appears to me that we are not near that number.

These numbers still show me that we can blow each other up at a moment's notice - making deterrence still the operative word. I don't think nuclear war is what we have to fear at this point. I think wars are going to be continued like they are now - by proxy, or by small terrorist organizations or economically. There is too much to lose for the nuclear nations to ever use them. Even at this new level. All my personal opinion of course.

96 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:45:28pm

re: #87 oaktree

Monitoring and maintenance would certainly be more complex and expensive.

What a goof I am, I didn't even consider that. Thank you.

re: #91 shiplord kirel

Thanks again. My grandpa did some work on deployment systems way, way, way back in the day (late 40's) and it's always been of interest to me.

97 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:48:46pm

Testing 1,2,3...

98 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:48:57pm

Huzzah!

99 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:49:28pm

re: #88 jamesfirecat

But what about the fact that Russia has to actually give up more actual warheads than us?

We give up more launch vectors they give up more nukes, we both give up more of something than the other...

Not to mention if Russia wants those 100 launchers it will have to shell out the rubbles to buy them... its not like we're giving them our hundred...

Your points are good ones.
I asked previously (#57) if anyone knew how many of those 2,787 Russian warheads are actually in good working order - I personally wouldn't be surprised if only 1,550 of them were serviceable, in which case they might not be giving any real warheads up at all. Call me a cynic.

100 lawhawk  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:49:33pm

re: #86 kingkenrod

Doesn't this increase Russian regional dominance (by cutting US global deterrence)?


Intermediate range nukes were eliminated under the INF treaty so regional influence would be basically be the same - we would still counter a regional threat with nukes as before.

101 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:49:57pm

re: #97 Varek Raith

Testing 1,2,3...

How appropriate for a nuke thread! Of course, the numbers should be reversed....

/

102 lawhawk  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:50:36pm

re: #92 Obdicut

Because you can say you've got a base A and base B - and then transit your ICBMs between both within the letter of that law - 30 days and all that, but still have a mobile rail launch system in operation.

103 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:50:43pm

re: #101 brownbagj

How appropriate for a nuke thread! Of course, the numbers should be reversed...

/

Nope, it keeps my gunners on their toes.
;)

104 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:50:49pm

re: #98 Varek Raith

You are such an anachronistic Sith.

You made me imagine a hooded Sith lord surrounded by shit-stained peasants, hurrahing him for having force-choked a dragon.

105 shiplord kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:51:54pm

re: #78 lawhawk

Generally, Kaplan is on target, but he did get some of his facts wrong too. Romney is right to claim that the treaty doesn't reflect rail-based launchers. Kaplan argues that neither side has those systems, but if we're talking about a treaty regime that deals with real and potential deployments, rail-based systems should have been included - particularly since the US had previously considered just that when the MX system was first proposed. It was judged to be costly at the time and the MX was fielded in silos as the earlier systems were. It's an oversight that should be fixed, but not fatal to the treaty.

There is little information on the basing of Israel's Jericho ballistic missiles, except that the operating units are apparently located at Sdot Micha south of Tel Aviv. Satellite photos show ground transporters but no silos. Most analysts believe that the TELs (transporter-erector-launchers) are sheltered in nearby caves among the area's limestone hills. I think it is possible that they are deployed on disguised road vehicles or railcars scattered around the country. I can't help but think of the Piggly-Wiggly truck and similar vehicles used by the mysterious "authorities" in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

106 blueraven  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:52:06pm

re: #99 Spare O'Lake

Your points are good ones.
I asked previously (#57) if anyone knew how many of those 2,787 Russian warheads are actually in good working order - I personally wouldn't be surprised if only 1,550 of them were serviceable, in which case they might not be giving any real warheads up at all. Call me a cynic.

Well if we follow that theory to the logical conclusion, who is to say they even have 1,550 working warheads. We WIN!! //

107 Nimed  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:52:42pm

re: #4 jaunte

I wonder if Romney even read what his people submitted to the Washington Post.
ICBM's mounted on bombers? How about sharks with frickin' laser beams mounted on their heads?

Couldn't believe my eyes on that one. Doesn't anybody on Romney's team or the Washinton Post know what the initials "ICBM" stand for? I was embarrassed for them.

108 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:53:25pm

re: #104 Obdicut

You are such an anachronistic Sith.

You made me imagine a hooded Sith lord surrounded by shit-stained peasants, hurrahing him for having force-choked a dragon.

Hehehe, seems about right.

109 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:56:16pm

re: #102 lawhawk

Because you can say you've got a base A and base B - and then transit your ICBMs between both within the letter of that law - 30 days and all that, but still have a mobile rail launch system in operation.

You can play with mobile rail systems within an ICBM base. Just do the "shell game" with 10-15 hardened sites for the launch system connected by rail and shuttle a few "live" and some "dummy" launchers between the sites on a random basis.

Instant multiplier since all/most of the sites have to be taken out in order to "get" a much smaller number of actual launchers.

110 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:56:18pm

re: #98 Varek Raith

That guy's name is Huzzah?

111 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:56:51pm

re: #102 lawhawk

Because you can say you've got a base A and base B - and then transit your ICBMs between both within the letter of that law - 30 days and all that, but still have a mobile rail launch system in operation.

I'm sorry, but are you just ignoring that only applies to non-deployed ICBM launchers, OR non-deployed ICBMs? A mobile launcher with an ICBM would be a deployed ICBM.

112 shiplord kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:57:54pm

re: #107 Nimed

Couldn't believe my eyes on that one. Doesn't anybody on Romney's team or the Washinton Post know what the initials "ICBM" stand for? I was embarrassed for them.

"ICBM" does not exclude air launch, since this category is defined by range ("intercontinental) . This is in contrast to "SLBM" where the "S" designates the launch platform (submarine). See my #59

113 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:59:16pm

SPAIN SCORES!

114 darthstar  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:59:25pm

GOOOAAALLL! Spain off a corner kick get a perfect header.
Spain 1, Germany 0

115 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:59:28pm
Slate international relations columnist Fred Kaplan goes line by line through Mitt Romney’s attack on President Obama’s new START treaty, and concludes that it’s “shabby, misleading, and thoroughly ignorant.”

Yeah, yeah, but he didn't even use the phrase "Evil Empire" once, obviously he was trying hard to hold back those inner Reaganesque demons! Surely he should receive some kind of credit for that?

/

116 Nimed  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:59:28pm

WOW! Goal for Spain!

117 Nimed  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:00:55pm

re: #114 darthstar

GOOOAAALLL! Spain off a corner kick get a perfect header.
Spain 1, Germany 0

Nobody expected Puyol!

118 brownbagj  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:01:00pm

Well, Germany will actually have to attack now instead of waiting to counter.

119 Ericus58  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:05:37pm

re: #118 brownbagj

Well, Germany will actually have to attack now instead of waiting to counter.

BLITZKRIEG!!

120 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:05:57pm

re: #112 shiplord kirel

"ICBM" does not exclude air launch, since this category is defined by range ("intercontinental) . This is in contrast to "SLBM" where the "S" designates the launch platform (submarine). See my #59

Yes but are there any cruise missiles that can reach a 3500 mile range? Tomahawk range is only 1500 miles.

121 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:10:19pm

re: #74 Obdicut

I know, but I was wondering if they are technically viable, or even preferable, to land-based ones. I know-- and support-- a treaty banning their presence in space.

Nukes have a shelf-life, and require periodic surveillance and maintenance. Long-term space basing would be tricky.

122 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:12:45pm

re: #121 Decatur Deb

It'd be probably infuriating to any third-party inspectors, too.

"Can you get up there yourself?"

123 avanti  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:12:51pm

re: #89 jamesfirecat

Depends on how many nukes/nuke launchers we need and the line between "effective deterrent" and "just plain overkill".

Yep, now it's like one Russian, and one American in a phone both, and we've both agreed to only bring 5 hand grenades to use if needed.

124 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:13:48pm

re: #123 avanti

Yep, now it's like one Russian, and one American in a phone both, and we've both agreed to only bring 5 hand grenades to use if needed.

Never heard it put that way...
Lol.
:)

125 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:14:08pm

re: #112 shiplord kirel

"ICBM" does not exclude air launch, since this category is defined by range ("intercontinental) . This is in contrast to "SLBM" where the "S" designates the launch platform (submarine). See my #59

Making a true ICBM air-launched doesn't add much to its capabilities, except the ability to be involved in a crash. The 'air-launched' statement is probably a mistake.

126 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:19:25pm

re: #83 Spare O'Lake

Nope. The swing is 35%, and Gus, for some reason, is in denial that this represents an American concession.

Before the Treaty Russia could build as many delivery vehicles as it wanted, new inbound phase maneuverable SS-27 Topol-M series, which by the way were only made possible by Bush scrapping the ABM treaty. Now they have a ceiling on the number they can build. That isn't a concession. You don't really seem to understand what a concession is.

127 darthstar  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:20:00pm

Spain

128 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:20:10pm

Reading a claim that a Tu-95MS launched a RSM-54 and went a range of 7200 miles. 3 re: #125 Decatur Deb

Making a true ICBM air-launched doesn't add much to its capabilities, except the ability to be involved in a crash. The 'air-launched' statement is probably a mistake.

I can't find a cruise missile that meets the range requirements.

129 Semper Fi  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:20:14pm

SPAIN

Good ball control game won it.

130 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:20:25pm

Spain Wins!
We will kick their butts Sunday!

131 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:20:47pm

re: #128 Gus 802

Reading a claim that a Tu-95MS launched a RSM-54 and went a range of 7200 miles. 3

I can't find a cruise missile that meets the range requirements.

Disregard that striked text.

132 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:21:06pm

re: #130 HoosierHoops

Man, I was wrong. I totally thought Germany had the whole thing.

I bet it'll fire 'em up for next year, and at least they beat the tar out of the Argentinians.

133 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:21:43pm

re: #128 Gus 802

Reading a claim that a Tu-95MS launched a RSM-54 and went a range of 7200 miles. 3

I can't find a cruise missile that meets the range requirements.

He might be trying to say "bombers with stand-off missiles"?

134 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:21:50pm

re: #126 goddamnedfrank

I guess not. I guess giving up a real, present, advantage is not a concession. Okay. Fine. Right.

135 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:22:23pm

re: #127 darthstar

Spain

TAPAS TIME

136 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:22:52pm

re: #134 Spare O'Lake

Before this treaty, what was stopping Russia from building more delivery systems?

137 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:23:10pm

re: #134 Spare O'Lake

I guess not. I guess giving up a real, present, advantage is not a concession. Okay. Fine. Right.

An advantage you cannot possibly leverage in any real world combat scenario isn't an advantage.

138 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:23:25pm

Just finished the piece.
Romney is an idiot.

139 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:23:29pm

re: #136 Obdicut

Before this treaty, what was stopping Russia from building more delivery systems?

Hideous costs, for a guess.

140 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:25:41pm

re: #139 Decatur Deb

Hideous costs, for a guess.

New wingnut meme,
ZOMG, WE'RE SUBSIDIZING COMMIE NUKES!1!!!!

141 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:25:43pm

re: #137 goddamnedfrank

An advantage you cannot possibly leverage in any real world combat scenario isn't an advantage.

Are you suggesting that the 35% superiority in delivery systems was of no value to America?

142 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:25:43pm

re: #133 Decatur Deb

He might be trying to say "bombers with stand-off missiles"?

AGM-158 JASSM. Range +230 miles.

The RSM-54 I mentioned was launched from a sub. Was in the middle of reading a few pages and had something mixed up.

143 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:27:08pm

re: #140 Varek Raith

New wingnut meme,
ZOMG, WE'RE SUBSIDIZING COMMIE NUKES!1!!!

Duck and cover!

And remember. Once the blast if over you can exit the bomb shelter and relax with a cool Benson and Hedges 100.

/

144 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:27:08pm

re: #141 Spare O'Lake

Are you suggesting that the 35% superiority in delivery systems was of no value to America?

We can blow the planet into a burning cinder many times over.
Who cares about 35% superiority?

145 boredtechindenver  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:27:25pm

re: #141 Spare O'Lake

Dude, you are trying to win a "DSW" with someone elses "D".

146 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:28:44pm

re: #139 Decatur Deb

Hideous costs, for a guess.

Most likely.

I'm kind of pointing out that by Spare's logic, Russia should have built a few hundred more before entering these negotiations, so that they could then give away that 'advantage' and look better.

My grandfather worked on early designs for torpedo-based systems for use against carrier groups.

147 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:29:54pm

re: #146 Obdicut

And for use against port cities, for that matter.

148 lostlakehiker  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:30:27pm

re: #57 Spare O'Lake

Does anyone happen to know how many of Russia's existing 2,787 warheads are actually functional and serviceable? I ask this because I assume that all of America's 2,252 warheads are in working order, so I question whether Russia has really agreed to give up anywhere close to 1,237 warheads (in terms of reducing warheads to 1,550), whereas the US is giving up 700.

The only way we'll ever know that is the hard way. Same for ours. But odds are a good fraction of ours don't work, and odds are a higher fraction of theirs don't.

We don't know how many of ours, or theirs, are bad. Let's not find out.

Romney's worst factual error is where he talks about how many ICBM's Russia can mount on bombers. Nobody has yet been able to launch an ICBM from a bomber. A rocket that can carry a bomb halfway around the earth is heavy, and at the same time delicate. Not easy to put in, or under, a bomber.

149 shiplord kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:30:35pm

re: #120 Gus 802

Yes but are there any cruise missiles that can reach a 3500 mile range? Tomahawk range is only 1500 miles.

A cruise missile is not a ballistic missile. There have been cruise missiles with intercontinental range in any case.
SM-62 Snark
SM-64 Navajo

They were not air-launched but similar missiles could be.

150 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:31:36pm

re: #139 Decatur Deb

Hideous costs, for a guess.

Yes..And in reality of this Treaty means nothing..
As long as the Russians and Americans can hide enough nukes under the Ocean in Boomers to destroy the world.. Nothing else really matters..
It's all playschool..It's all talk...The SSBN-773 Nevada Alone could lay waste to half the world with it's on-board programmable MIRVS.
The powers that be know this

151 AK-47%  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:33:34pm

I am still pulling for The Netherlands against Spain in the Final on Sunday

Oranje, BOOM!!!

152 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:33:37pm

re: #150 HoosierHoops

Yes..And in reality of this Treaty means nothing..
As long as the Russians and Americans can hide enough nukes under the Ocean in Boomers to destroy the world.. Nothing else really matters..
It's all playschool..It's all talk...The SSBN-773 Nevada Alone could lay waste to half the world with it's on-board programmable MIRVS.
The powers that be know this

Yes.
This talk of superior nuclear weapons is stupid.
As soon as the one of us launches, the world is fucked.
Superiority is meaningless when the outcome is always the same.

153 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:33:58pm

re: #150 HoosierHoops

Every sub commander I've ever had the privilege of meeting has struck me as incredibly calm, rational, and restrained.

I can't imagine that level of responsibility.

154 Nimed  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:34:20pm

re: #112 shiplord kirel

"ICBM" does not exclude air launch, since this category is defined by range ("intercontinental) . This is in contrast to "SLBM" where the "S" designates the launch platform (submarine). See my #59

Point taken. However, I have very serious doubts, to put it mildly, that Romney was referring to these "future technology", launched from bombers ICBMs (civ wink).

And even if he was, aren't we much more likely to develop them than Russia?

155 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:35:10pm

re: #146 Obdicut

Most likely.

I'm kind of pointing out that by Spare's logic, Russia should have built a few hundred more before entering these negotiations, so that they could then give away that 'advantage' and look better.

My grandfather worked on early designs for torpedo-based systems for use against carrier groups.

re: #149 shiplord kirel

A cruise missile is not a ballistic missile. There have been cruise missiles with intercontinental range in any case.
SM-62 Snark
SM-64 Navajo

They were not air-launched but similar missiles could be.

This sort of fit the description (long-range air-launched). It's way forgotten.
Hound Dog
[Link: www.fas.org...]

156 shiplord kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:35:17pm

re: #148 lostlakehiker

The only way we'll ever know that is the hard way. Same for ours. But odds are a good fraction of ours don't work, and odds are a higher fraction of theirs don't.

We don't know how many of ours, or theirs, are bad. Let's not find out.

Romney's worst factual error is where he talks about how many ICBM's Russia can mount on bombers. Nobody has yet been able to launch an ICBM from a bomber. A rocket that can carry a bomb halfway around the earth is heavy, and at the same time delicate. Not easy to put in, or under, a bomber.

Let's not play word games. Ballistic missiles, including a Minuteman ICBM, have been launched from aircraft. The Minuteman was launched from a transport, a C-5A, but I think it's fair to say that any aircraft becomes a bomber when you start releasing nuclear weapons from it.

157 Ericus58  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:35:27pm

4 guns missing in NY from luggage belonging to Israeli prime minister's security team
Associated Press Newswires 07/07/2010
Copyright 2010. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.


Officials at New York's JFK Airport are investigating how four handguns disappeared from luggage belonging to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu's security team.

The guns were in two suitcases that went missing when the Israeli security officials flew from New York to Washington on American Airlines on Sunday.

The bags eventually turned up in Los Angeles but the guns were gone.

Port Authority spokeswoman Jennifer Friedberg said the agency is investigating the matter.

An American Airlines spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama in the White House on Tuesday.

158 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:37:08pm

re: #157 Ericus58

Shit, that makes us look terrible.

Airport security is a fucking joke.

159 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:37:22pm

re: #157 Ericus58

4 guns missing in NY from luggage belonging to Israeli prime minister's security team
Associated Press Newswires 07/07/2010
Copyright 2010. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Officials at New York's JFK Airport are investigating how four handguns disappeared from luggage belonging to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu's security team.

The guns were in two suitcases that went missing when the Israeli security officials flew from New York to Washington on American Airlines on Sunday.

The bags eventually turned up in Los Angeles but the guns were gone.

Port Authority spokeswoman Jennifer Friedberg said the agency is investigating the matter.

An American Airlines spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama in the White House on Tuesday.

TSA FAIL~!

160 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:37:45pm

re: #156 shiplord kirel

Let's not play word games. Ballistic missiles, including a Minuteman ICBM, have been launched from aircraft. The Minuteman was launched from a transport, a C-5A, but I think it's fair to say that any aircraft becomes a bomber when you start releasing nuclear weapons from it.

I once saw a 2000 lb cluster bomb (deliberately) dropped from a Huey. Didn't really make it a bomber.

161 lostlakehiker  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:38:18pm

re: #152 Varek Raith

Yes.
This talk of superior nuclear weapons is stupid.
As soon as the one of us launches, the world is fucked.
Superiority is meaningless when the outcome is always the same.

No kidding. It's not just we get incinerated and they get incinerated. Then, everybody starves.

H-Bombed cities would burn fiercely. Immense quantities of soot would be lofted far into the stratosphere by the fireballs. For years, maybe even a decade or two, we'd have drastically reduced surface sunlight. Blizzards at the equator. Icecaps merging, North with South. Famine doesn't begin to capture the situation.

Our species is built to take almost anything. There would be reserves of food tucked away out of reach of the desperate masses, and hundreds or thousands of humans would survive to re-people the world. But it really would be the end of civilization.

162 lostlakehiker  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:40:38pm

re: #156 shiplord kirel

Let's not play word games. Ballistic missiles, including a Minuteman ICBM, have been launched from aircraft. The Minuteman was launched from a transport, a C-5A, but I think it's fair to say that any aircraft becomes a bomber when you start releasing nuclear weapons from it.

Well, that is news to me. I stand corrected. I was only correct if we do play word games.

Does that mean Romney isn't as ignorant as Slate argues?

163 albusteve  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:40:44pm

re: #158 Obdicut

Shit, that makes us look terrible.

Airport security is a fucking joke.

yes...and it's taken us nine years to get to this point...
maybe we should just sub out the whole thing to the Israelis

164 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:40:55pm

re: #152 Varek Raith

Yes.
This talk of superior nuclear weapons is stupid.
As soon as the one of us launches, the world is fucked.
Superiority is meaningless when the outcome is always the same.

WOPR: How about a nice game of chess?

165 Digital Display  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:43:22pm

re: #152 Varek Raith

Yes.
This talk of superior nuclear weapons is stupid.
As soon as the one of us launches, the world is fucked.
Superiority is meaningless when the outcome is always the same.

How about a nice game of Chess?

Back in the day a friend of mine while we were working at MINSY told me they were testing a new fire control system on a Boomer and I should come by at lunch to check it out. So I did...Just an awesome system.. Like the coolest Video game you have ever seen...So we are goofing off at lunch and he goes you want to Nuke somebody? Hell yes! So you have a joystick and you can put the curser on a map and blow it up..
So..I'm thinking.. What should I Nuke in between bites of lunch...
So I picked Las Vegas.. What the Heck...The Hoopster is taking out sin city on lunch break...
Did you know that no computer will allow a boomer to launch on any territories of the United States? A big no no
What a jip! So I spun up all the Nukes and blew up Vietnam...
It was cool!

166 blueraven  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:43:45pm

re: #164 oaktree

WOPR: How about a nice game of chess?

How about tic tac toe instead? :)

167 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:44:33pm

re: #163 albusteve

Maybe we should stop pissing our pants and face the threat like adults, without compromising with stupid systems that wouldn't stop any terrorist bright enough to acquire a weapon in the first place.

The Israeli system is great; for very limited flights. Won't work for us.

168 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:44:33pm

re: #162 lostlakehiker

Well, that is news to me. I stand corrected. I was only correct if we do play word games.

Does that mean Romney isn't as ignorant as Slate argues?

Not really. As Slate points out, the basing limitation in the treaty excludes air launched ICBMs anyway.

169 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:44:59pm

re: #165 HoosierHoops

[Link: www.carloslabs.com...]

170 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:46:03pm

re: #160 Decatur Deb

I once saw a 2000 lb cluster bomb (deliberately) dropped from a Huey. Didn't really make it a bomber.

If that were an operational nuclear weapon, the Huey would be a bomber for the purposes of an arms limitation treaty.

171 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:46:17pm

re: #165 HoosierHoops

How about a nice game of Chess?

Back in the day a friend of mine while we were working at MINSY told me they were testing a new fire control system on a Boomer and I should come by at lunch to check it out. So I did...Just an awesome system.. Like the coolest Video game you have ever seen...So we are goofing off at lunch and he goes you want to Nuke somebody? Hell yes! So you have a joystick and you can put the curser on a map and blow it up..
So..I'm thinking.. What should I Nuke in between bites of lunch...
So I picked Las Vegas.. What the Heck...The Hoopster is taking out sin city on lunch break...
Did you know that no computer will allow a boomer to launch on any territories of the United States? A big no no
What a jip! So I spun up all the Nukes and blew up Vietnam...
It was cool!

Some very thick blue-ribbon reports start out much like that.

172 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:47:13pm

re: #156 shiplord kirel

Let's not play word games. Ballistic missiles, including a Minuteman ICBM, have been launched from aircraft. The Minuteman was launched from a transport, a C-5A, but I think it's fair to say that any aircraft becomes a bomber when you start releasing nuclear weapons from it.

ICBM away!

173 webevintage  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:47:58pm

re: #139 Decatur Deb

Hideous costs, for a guess.

I read that as "Hideous coats"....

174 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:48:37pm

re: #169 Varek Raith

[Link: www.carloslabs.com...]

Be sure to check the Asteroid Impact option...

175 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:51:18pm

re: #158 Obdicut

Shit, that makes us look terrible.

Airport security is a fucking joke.

The Israeli Secret Service won't look so good either if they were unarmed for any relevant period of time as a result of the SNAFU.
How embarrassing!

176 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:51:48pm

Back in a little bit.

Later on, I'm going to dig up some proposals for basing nuclear missiles on the Moon. I know there were some, with more visionary lunatics planners looking beyond to the asteroid belt or (appropriately enough) Mars.

177 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:51:49pm

C-17 inert rocket drop test.

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Test crews load, a 65-foot mock-up booster rocket onto a C-17 Globemaster III. The rocket will be used to test aerial launch capabilities for rockets. (U.S. Air Force photo by Brad White)

178 Varek Raith  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:52:42pm

re: #177 Gus 802

C-17 inert rocket drop test.

This smacks of the "hold mah beer and watch what we can do" thing...

179 Gus  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:55:02pm

re: #178 Varek Raith

This smacks of the "hold mah beer and watch what we can do" thing...

Probably conceptualized over a beer and napkin.

180 darthstar  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:59:24pm

All these missile images and ICBM references...is this a penis-substitute thread or what?

181 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:03:16pm

re: #180 darthstar

All these missile images and ICBM references...is this a penis-substitute thread or what?

We can always discuss a certain hate-monger's boobs if you prefer.

182 darthstar  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:05:36pm

re: #181 Shiplord Kirel

We can always discuss a certain hate-monger's boobs if you prefer.

Idiot Commentator's Bogus Mammaries?

183 Obdicut  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:05:54pm

re: #181 Shiplord Kirel

We can always discuss a certain hate-monger's boobs if you prefer.

Enough about Limbaugh already.

/

184 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:09:18pm

re: #170 Shiplord Kirel

If that were an operational nuclear weapon, the Huey would be a bomber for the purposes of an arms limitation treaty.

Scary enough--it was 50 miles from the DMZ.

185 Cineaste  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:35:23pm

re: #26 Spare O'Lake

A cutback by the US from 850 to 600 delivery vehicles is just under 30%, which is hardly "a little".
An increase by Russia from 600 to 700 is just under 17% which is very substantial.
In fact this represents a massive swing in the balance of delivery vehicles in Russia's favour, to the tune of 46%+.

I suppose my question would be is the reason that Russia only has 600 due to a treaty or a lack of desire? I don't think so. I think it's because they don't have any money to build 100 long range bombers. I don't think some assembly line in the steppes is about to churn out those puppies the minute the treaty is ratified by congress... I think the idea that the worst the balance could ever be is exactly equal is pretty good for us.

186 ryannon  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:52:09pm

re: #174 Varek Raith

Link: [Link: www.carloslabs.com...]...]

Be sure to check the Asteroid Impact option...

And have a nice day!

187 Pawn of the Oppressor  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 4:55:01pm

re: #152 Varek Raith

Yes.
This talk of superior nuclear weapons is stupid.
As soon as the one of us launches, the world is fucked.
Superiority is meaningless when the outcome is always the same.

Indeed.

Get the total warhead numbers down to low double digits on each side, and then we're talking about meaningful cuts. We've had enough heaters to effectively wipe out civilization since the late 50's, and the means to accomplish that wiping-out in mere hours since the 60's. Listening to this Col. Nukem tin-pot Lemay-gets-drunk-and-blows-it-all-up bullshit about somehow being at a disadvantage because the Russians might have to reduce their nukes less than we do, is idiocy in the real world. We're not talking about standing armies, we're talking about weapons that turn the world to ruin by the square mile.

It's a frigging miracle the Russians will sign anything at all, being Russians, with all their attendant psychological baggage. It's a bit like the old joke about what you call a hundred lawyers at the bottom of the ocean: "A good start".

188 Dr. Shalit  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 4:57:20pm

As Luck Would Have It - for the US and the "West" - whatever "that" means now, I suspect that Russian Nuclear Science is Now, as it was, the equivalent OF A 1968 Skoda GT. If it is not - WE have problems, THEY have opportunities.

-S-

189 [deleted]  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 6:02:54pm
190 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jul 7, 2010 7:54:07pm

Bye now!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
AFI - Dulcería (Official Music Video) "Dulcería" comes from AFI’s new album, Bodies, out June 11. Available for preorder everywhere now: riserecords.lnk.to ​ Directed by Adam Mason, produced by Elizabeth Mason LYRICSI saw sugar there, dancing in the sweet air. When my eyes began to ...
Thanos
15 hours, 30 minutes ago
Views: 155 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
The Shaolin Afronauts - Winds Across Gayanamede (Live at Adelaide Festival Centre) Recorded 21 January 2012 at Adelaide Festival Centre, Adelaide, Australia. Winds Across Gayanamede is taken from the second album from The Shaolin Afronauts; Quest Under Capricorn. The album drops 16 July on vinyl, CD and digital download via Freestyle ...
Thanos
16 hours, 48 minutes ago
Views: 115 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210404Did you spend all week thinking about solar power and pumps? We didn't either.A week of flawless electrics and hydraulics.The first few days we went out to check on it like hourly.Now we don't even think about itThe proof of ...
Dangerman
5 days, 19 hours ago
Views: 441 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 7
Tweets: 0 •
Springsteen - “Prove It All Night” Live at Cleveland Agora, 1978This is so perfect.
Secret ANTIFA Operative
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 623 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 3 •
Foster the People - Lamb’s Wool (Official Music Video) Official animated music video for Foster The People's single 'Lamb's Wool' off of their most recent EP 'In The Darkest Of Nights, Let The Birds Sing'. Listen to 'Lamb's Wool' here: stem.ffm.to Listen to 'Lamb's Wool (with Poolside)' here: ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 554 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
Talk Talk - It’s My Life (Live at Montreux 1986) Live at Montreux 1986 is a concert video release by the British synth pop band Talk Talk of a concert at 1986 Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland. The show was part of a tour that started in April 1986 ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 619 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
KALEO - Skinny [OFFICIAL LYRIC VIDEO] Music and Lyrics by JJ Julius SonNew song “Skinny" available now: kaleo.lnk.toFrom the upcoming album Surface Sounds out 4/23: kaleo.lnk.to What makes you feel good?What makes you angry inside? Why don’t you love me?You want to fuck me or ...
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 702 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •
Hania Rani - Live From Studio S2 Listen to 'Live from Studio S2': hania-rani.lnk.to The full live set video was premiered on the evening before the annual Piano Day worldwide celebrations (March 29th). The motivation to make the recording of the live performances which became the ...
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 676 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Billy F Gibbons - West Coast Junkie “West Coast Junkie” the new music video by Billy F Gibbons from his forthcoming album ‘Hardware’, available on June 4th on Concord Records. Pre-order ‘Hardware’: found.eeGet signed and exclusive bundles: found.ee Directed by: Harry ReeseProduced by: Matt Sorum Listen ...
Thanos
1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 1,572 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
Morcheeba - the Moon (Official Music Video) Listen to 'The Moon' streaming now: morcheeba.lnk.toWritten by I. Žilić/S. Edwards - Directed by Martin J. Pickering for Big Head MediaPre-order 'Blackest Blue', released May 14th: morcheeba.lnk.to Connect with Morcheeba: morcheeba.ukFacebook: facebook.comInstagram: instagram.comTwitter: @morcheebaband ---------- Credits Production Company: Big ...
Thanos
1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 1,190 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •