I'm Kinda Confused about Bush's Latest Strategy...

what a hypocrite

from JoeUser Forums
I saw on the news that President Bush was trying to get a bill passed to start building nuclear weapons. Wouldn't this make us look bad since we are trying to rid other places of weapons of mass destruction?

But then again...what do I know, I'm just a dumb college student.....
politics
11,155 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
It's still a dangerous world as far as nuclear threats go. The Russians still have several thousand (pointed at us) and the Communist Chinese arsenal gets bigger everyday as well. As far as looking 'bad' because of our anti-proliferation efforts, lets not forget we invented the 'Bomb'. So consider it a patent pending kind of thing. But seriously, the real reason we need to continue building nuclear weapons is because these things do have shelve lives and get old or obsolete. You might be refering in particular to the development of the 'bunker-busting' nuke. This is to dissude any the crazy leaders of countries like North Korea or Iran from attacking us or our allies and then hiding in some underground bunker. If they know we can reach them personally it is a far greater deterrent than the current one which is the wholesale destruction of the respective countries' populations. These leaders have shown complete disregard to their people's welfare. Only by knowing that an attack on us is equivalent to personal suicide will we have a real deterrent.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is setting a bad example. First St. George is all about ridding these places of weapons of mass destruction, but now he wants to create them.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
The difference is that we are responsible custodians of these weapons and would never use them unless we absolutely had to. We are trying to stop PROLIFERATION of nuclear weapons not their wholesale elimination. Big difference. Do you really think that if we got rid of our nuclear arsenal that the rest of the world would do otherwise? If we do that all we would do is insure that rogue nations could have a trump card to threaten and extort us. And what do you mean by create them? Nuclear weapons exist. You can't un-invent something.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
We are trying to stop PROLIFERATION of nuclear weapons not their wholesale elimination


Proliferate: To increase in number or spread rapidly

I'm not sure, my math might be a little rusty, but doesn't building more nuclear weapons increase the number of nuclear weapons?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

St. George


I didn't even know he was Catholic...


 


But seriously, it is really surprising that there's a double standard? Stuff like this happens all of the time. 


Somebody is liable to profit by producing nuclear weapons, and then inject that money into the ploitical system.  That's the way it goes.

Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Proliferaton in this sense means an increase in the number of nations that have the ability to develop and the means to deliver nuclear weapons. C'mon, you said you're in college, so don't play like you're that ignorant. It's obvious you're not. I'm not really understanding what your huge concern about this is. Should we unilaterally disarm? It's quite obvious that you don't want us to have any nuclear weapons which would leave us vulnerable to destruction at the hands of our enemies. Thats a very hopeful goal to have but this is the world we live in right now. Remember that the only reason we keep so many is to deter somone from using one against us. It was only through mutually assured destruction that a nuclear war never happened between the USA and the USSR.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Remember that the only reason we keep so many is to deter somone from using one against us. It was only through mutually assured destruction that a nuclear war never happened between the USA and the USSR.


How many do you need to prevent someone from using one on you? Enought to destroy the whole world? Even a couple of nuclear submarines and some bombers can render a country uninhabitable. The cold war is over, and the USSR broke up. They are not going to fire everything they have at us. Multilateral treaties with the Russians (which they do not oppose and will carry out) can limit the number of nuclear weapons on both sides. In fact, the Russians proposed to limit weapons on both sides to 1500, but were rejected. What can you possibly need more than 1500 nuclear weapons for?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #7 By: latour999 - 11/25/2004 8:11:54 PM
Remember that the only reason we keep so many is to deter somone from using one against us. It was only through mutually assured destruction that a nuclear war never happened between the USA and the USSR.


How many do you need to prevent someone from using one on you? Enought to destroy the whole world? Even a couple of nuclear submarines and some bombers can render a country uninhabitable. The cold war is over, and the USSR broke up. They are not going to fire everything they have at us. Multilateral treaties with the Russians (which they do not oppose and will carry out) can limit the number of nuclear weapons on both sides. In fact, the Russians proposed to limit weapons on both sides to 1500, but were rejected. What can you possibly need more than 1500 nuclear weapons for?


Have you any idea at all as to how many nuclears subs we have? How about bombers that are nuclear capabable? As to why we might need more than 1500, are you now or have you ever been a Sec of Def or other significant strategic arms expert?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I did a little research, and found this on a reliable internet encyclopedia:

Sea-based ICBMs
The US Navy currently has 15 Ohio-class submarines deployed. Each submarine is equipped with a complement of 24 Trident missiles, eight with Trident I missiles, and ten with Trident II missiles. Approximately 12 U.S. attack submarines are equipped to launch, but do not currently carry, nuclear Tomahawk missiles. Sea-launch weapons make up the majority of weapons declared under START II rules.

Heavy bomber group
The US Air Force also operates a strategic nuclear bomber fleet. The bomber force consists of 93 B-1s, 94 B-52s, and 21 B-2s. The majority of these heavy bombers either are being or have been retrofitted to operate in a solely conventional mode. The Strategic Air Command which for decades had kept nuclear weapons aloft 24 hours a day was disbanded in 1992 and merged into the US Strategic Command.

In addition to this the US armed forces can also deploy tactical smaller nuclear weapons either through cruise missiles or with conventional fighter-bombers. The U.S. maintains about 850 nuclear gravity bombs capable of use by F-15, F-16, JSF and Panavia Tornado fighter aircraft. Some 150 of these bombs are deployed at nine airbases in six European NATO countries. The U.S. keeps its 320 Tomahawk missiles at Bangor, Washington, and King’s Bay, Georgia.

Even the 15 Ohio-class subs alone have 360 when put together, more than enough to render a country uninhabitable.

And why you need over 1500: common sense. the blast from 1500 nuclear weapons can cause a nuclear winter, destroying all life on the planet. Even one can flatten a city. And this still isn't enough? In terms of nuclear weapons, the United States is the right-wing nut-job with hundreds of useless AK-47s in the basement.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

within weeks of 911, the bush administration was pushing hard to consider preemptive nuculur strikes and designing nuculur bunkerbuster weapons (described as limited yield nukes--something i never thought id ever hear mentioned again after the end of the cold war). 


alison it seems nonsensical because it is a totally senseless waste of money that will at best result in more nuculur waste needing to be destroyed 10 years from now.  going downhill from there, it is sure to provide non-nuke nations with motivation and justificationto aquire their own nuculur weapons programs, invalidates our credibility and weakens our ability to deal with rogue nuke states like north korean (and very soon iran) and most outrageous of all does nothing to make us safer but certainly makes us a more likely target.


your instincts are workin great.  too bad that cant be said for the adminstration.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #9 By: latour999 - 11/26/2004 11:24:07 AM
Well, I did a little research, and found this on a reliable internet encyclopedia:

Sea-based ICBMs
The US Navy currently has 15 Ohio-class submarines deployed. Each submarine is equipped with a complement of 24 Trident missiles, eight with Trident I missiles, and ten with Trident II missiles. Approximately 12 U.S. attack submarines are equipped to launch, but do not currently carry, nuclear Tomahawk missiles. Sea-launch weapons make up the majority of weapons declared under START II rules.

Heavy bomber group
The US Air Force also operates a strategic nuclear bomber fleet. The bomber force consists of 93 B-1s, 94 B-52s, and 21 B-2s. The majority of these heavy bombers either are being or have been retrofitted to operate in a solely conventional mode. The Strategic Air Command which for decades had kept nuclear weapons aloft 24 hours a day was disbanded in 1992 and merged into the US Strategic Command.

In addition to this the US armed forces can also deploy tactical smaller nuclear weapons either through cruise missiles or with conventional fighter-bombers. The U.S. maintains about 850 nuclear gravity bombs capable of use by F-15, F-16, JSF and Panavia Tornado fighter aircraft. Some 150 of these bombs are deployed at nine airbases in six European NATO countries. The U.S. keeps its 320 Tomahawk missiles at Bangor, Washington, and King’s Bay, Georgia.

Even the 15 Ohio-class subs alone have 360 when put together, more than enough to render a country uninhabitable.

And why you need over 1500: common sense. the blast from 1500 nuclear weapons can cause a nuclear winter, destroying all life on the planet. Even one can flatten a city. And this still isn't enough? In terms of nuclear weapons, the United States is the right-wing nut-job with hundreds of useless AK-47s in the basement


Lets start off with lay-off the AK's. Unless you have very specific and very expensive permits no one has an AK-47 (automatic weapon, machine gun.)
And no one in the right frame of mind is going to set off all 1500 at one time.The reason they have so many right now is called redundancy. Of those 15 subs or the bomber force are going to be stopped short of target?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The difference is that we are responsible custodians of these weapons and would never use them unless we absolutely had to.


If you have someone who says that YOU cannot have guns, but also says 'but I can be trusted with a gun since I never use it unless I have to'. Will you feel reassured? I most certainly will not.

I don't support creating more nuclear weapons and trying too suppress other countries nuclear weapons numbers.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
.The reason they have so many right now is called redundancy.


So if the first 1499 miss, the 1500th is going to hit?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #13 By: latour999 - 11/26/2004 3:28:54 PM
.The reason they have so many right now is called redundancy.


So if the first 1499 miss, the 1500th is going to hit?


Your still missing it, aren't you. I didn't say 1499 would miss. My question is how *many* of the *delivery vehicles* will make it through to target? If of the sub force 14 subs are destroyed *before* they reach target for weapons delivery, then of what use where the nukes on board those destroyed subs?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you have someone who says that YOU cannot have guns, but also says 'but I can be trusted with a gun since I never use it unless I have to'. Will you feel reassured? I most certainly will not.


I agree. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

Your still missing it, aren't you. I didn't say 1499 would miss. My question is how *many* of the *delivery vehicles* will make it through to target? If of the sub force 14 subs are destroyed *before* they reach target for weapons delivery, then of what use where the nukes on board those destroyed subs?


But how many nukes do you need? In all practicality, since no other countries have an operational missile shield, and these nuclear subs are practically undetectable, and invincible when compared to the military of most other nations, at least 95% (and that's probably a conservative estimate) of these nukes will reach their target, leaving 1425 nukes to rain down death upon...who? Who exactly are you trying to wipe off the face of the planet? The Soviets? The cold war is over. The Terrorists? To kill them, you would need to wipe out the whole Middle East, and the fallout and nuclear winter would kill everyone on the planet. Or have leaders who fight the war on terror intelligently, and actually question why the terrorists want to attack America (no, it's not they hate our freedom).
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #15 By: latour999 - 11/27/2004 12:26:14 AM
But how many nukes do you need? In all practicality, since no other countries have an operational missile shield


And you *know* this to be a fact, how?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
And you *know* this to be a fact, how?


No other countries who might attack us even have the technological capability to create a missile shield. Look at Iraq. They couldn't even get a plane in the air during the invasion, never mind shoot down 1500 incoming nuclear missiles. Just look at the difference in technology that caused the troops to prevail in Iraq. The Iraqi army (and most countries in the world that would ever wish harm on America) were using old Soviet hand-me-downs, while the American and British armies were using by far the most advanced military technology in the world. Besides, an all out nuclear attack could destroy the world with fallout and nuclear winter.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #17 By: latour999 - 11/27/2004 1:27:10 PM
And you *know* this to be a fact, how?


No other countries who might attack us even have the technological capability to create a missile shield. Look at Iraq. They couldn't even get a plane in the air during the invasion, never mind shoot down 1500 incoming nuclear missiles. Just look at the difference in technology that caused the troops to prevail in Iraq. The Iraqi army (and most countries in the world that would ever wish harm on America) were using old Soviet hand-me-downs, while the American and British armies were using by far the most advanced military technology in the world. Besides, an all out nuclear attack could destroy the world with fallout and nuclear winter.


The reason that they couldn't get a plane in the air is because we were there with superior air power, no other reason. And again you don't know for a *fact* that no other country possesses the knowledge to build a missle sheild. What about the "Phalynx" systems? That doesn't take a genius to figure out. Just a really good computer programmer and the last I knew we didn't have a lock on them. And just an FYI, Iraq isn't the only one we would have to worry about.
Just look at the difference in technology that caused the troops to prevail in Iraq. The Iraqi army (and most countries in the world that would ever wish harm on America) were using old Soviet hand-me-downs
This is *untrue*. Look at N. Korea, what we're worried about over there are NOT Russian hand-me downs.