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.”
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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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
[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
600700 delivery vehicles is just under30%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
1718 percent they gain by1817 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
.
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.
/
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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.
| 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
| 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?
/
| 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.
| 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.
| 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. 3I 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 |
| 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 NavajoThey 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 |
| 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 |
| 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.
| 173 |
webevintage Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:47:58pm |
| 174 |
Varek Raith Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:48:37pm |
| 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 |
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 |
| 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-
The Good Liars at the Schnecksville Trump Rally [VIDEO] New theories, great tunes and SHOCKING breaking news. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!WASHINGTON D.C. MAY 23RD: https://www.unionstage.com/shows/good-liars-fix-america/NASHVILLE, TN JUNE 6TH: https://www.etix.com/ticket/p/42992972/the-good-liars-nashville-the-lab-at-zaniesSAN FRANCISCO, CA JUNE 25TH: https://www.livenation.com/event/G5vYZbavGvggG/the-good-liars SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-good-liars-tell-the-truth/id1731178442Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7mgfiwzr32907N4y68eFOCJoin this channel ...
teleskiguy
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
