Holy shit, please tell me this is not true.

Let's see- bunker busting nukes + preemptive strikes.

I'd say this was all about this guy-
fishtails.jpg


Could be part of coercive diplomacy to get Kim a bit more attentive. Or it could be about formalizing a policy so generals out in the field might not question orders from above.

For Kim, it could be either- and because he's not sure, he has to take this seriously.
 
so it sounds...

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
Click to expand...

Sounds like North Korea would fit the bill. Now I'm curious though, if this policy was instituted earlier... would we have invaded Iraq or just nuked them as this all seems to imply?
 
It is not true. There. Feel better now?

The real question is: Do you need the same evidence as was needed for the iraq war (read none), or stone hard evidence that clearly shows that this some nation is going to use this weapon against the US in a very short amount of time, to ask for a bomb?
 
Loxley said:
The real question is: Do you need the same evidence as was needed for the iraq war (read none), or stone hard evidence that clearly shows that this some nation is going to use this weapon against the US in a very short amount of time, to ask for a bomb?
Click to expand...
That's kinda what i was thinking. But for some reason didn't write out.
Is it enough that someone shouts "O NOES! WMD!" to let the nukes fly? :(

Loxley said:
It is not true. There. Feel better now?
Click to expand...
Thanks. Feel all warm and tingly now.
:lalala:
 
It is true though. But we'd never preemptively, or preventatively (there is a huge difference between the two terms) nuke North Korea. We still don't know what their nuclear second strike capability is. And even if we did nuke them, they have 10,000 mortars pointed at Seoul. As soon as we launched, Seoul would become a rubble pit. Also, if we nuked North Korea, then China and Russia would get ridiculously pissed at us.
 
Well, logically, we have no reason to care at all. The US has the capacity to anihilate both states if they ever decided to wage war. But we want to keep at least some semblance of good relations with people.
 
Yes, King, but you forget that they have the capacity to knock us back into the stone age as well.

Also, would the US do a preventative or pre-emptive strike. That threshold was passed when the US invaded Iraq. With nukes?

I would guess that the US would probably give a heads up to the Russians and the Chinese before doing so. The Russians did that in the 1960s when they asked Nixon whether the US would mind of Russia used nukes against the Chinese. Then again, with W, you never know.
 
King of Creation said:
China and Russia would get ridiculously pissed at us.
Click to expand...

By "ridiculously", do you mean their pissed-off-ness is disproportionate to the fact that you just nuked their neighbour and thus irradiated their country or what?

KoC said:
The US has the capacity to anihilate both states if they ever decided to wage war. But we want to keep at least some semblance of good relations with people.
Click to expand...

Ahahahaha. Apply a little bit of realism, will you? Despite American comics and series now depicting the Russian military as "falling apart" and their nuclear bombs as "crumbling into dust", this regression, which does exist, is not to be confused with weakness. An enormous army in regression is not a weak army. It's getting weaker, but it is not weak.

MAD still applies, sadly. You kill them, they kill you. General Turgidson assesment that you could kill the Ruskies before they could kill you is no more true today than it was then.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/numbers/default.cfm

Strategic
Delivery Systems (1)
USA: 1,039
Russia: 855

Strategic nuclear warheads (2)
USA: 5,886
Russia: 3,814

Total Nuclear Weapons
USA: ~10,300
Russia: ~16,000

1. For the purposes of this table "strategic delivery systems" refers to ballistic missiles or bombers with a range greater than 5,500 km. "Warheads," refers to the total number of actual deployed nuclear warheads on these delivery systems. "Total Weapons" includes deployed strategic warheads, plus tactical weapons and weapons held in reserve.

Russia has the ability to nuke the USA into tiny bits, easily, (China has only 32 SDSs to add), plus Russia is still the "biggest" nuclear power in the world. Given time to mobilize, they could do even more damage than the US could, though what the point of that would be is beyond me
 
Nah...MAD went out with the Cold War. Russia's nuclear delivery systems, the silos, the systems which operate them, etc. are all pretty much falling apart.

Yet, the huge arsenal of rockets, planes and submarines that onceterrified the world is falling apart and there is no money to maintainit or build large numbers of replacements.
Click to expand...
"By the year 2010, the number of Russia's nuclear warheads will fall10-fold to 600 to 800," predicted Alexander Pikayev, a top expert inarms control with Moscow's branch of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.
Click to expand...
Analysts paint a gloomy picture of Russia's crumbling nuclear triad:

-- The navy's nuclear missile submarines are in the worst state. Duringthe Soviet-era, dozens of submarines were on patrol, lurking under thewaves with batteries of nuclear missiles ready for instant firing.Scores of submarines have been decommissioned and no more than three arethought to be on patrol at any one time now. Even the working boatsrarely leave harbor.

And if a nuclear war starts, the submarines wouldn't be able to sail outimmediately because they don't have food supplies on board.

-- The air force's mainstay Bear bombers are more than 40 years old.Pilots only get a few hours flying time each year, far below the levelat which they can operate effectively, analysts said. Lebed said the airforce has only 20 modern nuclear bombers.

-- The land-based rocket forces, always the strongest part of the Sovietnuclear triad, are in better shape. But many of the most powerfulmissiles are well past their operational lifetime, officials admit.

Nuclear weapons have a limited lifespan because of their atomic warheadsand corrosive fuel. Beyond that lifespan they often are incapable ofworking or function defectively.

"The strategic nuclear forces' command systems are also expiring, andthat may result in loss of control over them," Lebed wrote in a Jan. 21article in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper.

It would cost $3 billion a year to maintain existing missiles, accordingto Roman Popkovich, head of the defense committee of the Duma, the lowerchamber of parliament. Russia's full budget for 1999 is $25 billion, andofficials concede much of the money exists only on paper.

With the economy in a nose dive and conventional forces collapsing,Russia's military has become increasingly dependent on its still massiveSoviet-era nuclear forces.

Whatever money the government can scrape together for the military isbeing funneled into nuclear forces, but analysts say it's too little,too late.
Click to expand...
Associated Press
http://www.ransac.org/Projects and Publications/News/Nuclear News/1999/02_12_99.html

And even if Russia launched a strike against the US, our second strike capability would ensure the complete anihilation of Russia. And if the Nuclear Defense shield was put in place, most of Russia's nukes wouldn't be able to do any damage, especially if the space-based missile defense system was put in place.

And you think that a military who can barely rescue it's own downed submarines will be able to launch an all out war against the Unipol?
 
King, I think you are putting a lot of faith in the notion of a space based defense system which currently doesn't exist.

Reagan played that card against Gorby back during the 1980s and it was fiction then. I don't think we've made much progress.

And even if I may agree with you- many of the Russian nukes might not get off the ground, many are in disrepair, most of the submarines could be destroyed in harbor, most of the bombers would get shot down, etc- you still have two problems.

(1) the best way to neutralize those threats would be to hit them first before they hit us. Is the US prepared to launch a first strike against Russia, over North Korea? And if we did that, would the Russians still be able to respond (lets leave the massive devestation that a successful first strike would cause).

(2) How many nukes would it take to bring the US to its knees? If the Russians were to launch just at our cities, and delivered only 100 warheads, you're talking about some pretty small cities turned to dust.
http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uscities_100.html
Is it worth the cost?

Add to the prediction of Carl Sagan- that it wouldn't take that much to start nuclear winter-
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html

So what about the second strike? If the Russians could even launch a limited strike- let's say three typhoon classed submarines ( http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Navy/Submarine/941_Typhoon_PLARB.htm )

are able to launch their payload of 20 SS-20-N missiles, each missile carrying 10 MIRVs ( http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/slbm/r39.htm )

You are talking between 60 and 600 warheads hitting the US. And this is winning?
The goal of war is to create a peace better than the one prior to war.

You are forgetting the calculus of nuclear war- it's about deterrence. The probability of beginning war is calculated by meausring the possible gains of winning against the the probability of the war being fought multiplied by the amount of damage you will probably sustain.

The role of nuclear weapons is less about turning your enemies cities into radiated dust, but to escalate the costs of war to a height that initiating war becomes an act of madness.

The reason why the notion of the second-strike exists is so that the other side is assured their destruction even in the event of a successful first strike.

Even if the US could launch a first strike, only three russian SLBM could devestate the US at a level higher than any gains from a war in Korea.

So perhaps the Russians might be deterred from launching because of the certainty of the US counter-strike.

But that's a huge gamble with the lives of millions of Americans at stake. In that circumstance, the US might decide to hit Russia first and thereby neutralize the Russian threat before it gets off the ground.

And if so, there is the danger of three Typhoons creating a catastrophe in the US unlike we've ever seen.

Ok, so maybe the Russians don't go nuclear but go conventional. This creates problems with the division between what is strategic and what is tactical. And chances are even if the war was conventional it would tumble out of control, for war is like a fire that consumes everything until there is nothing left to burn.

So yeah, this is bad stuff.
 
Even if the US survives a nuclear war with China or Russia the rest of the world would embargo their ass back to stone age, contrary to the popular belief the US, especially after a war, can't survive on it's own, and you don't get to use planet busters without the rest of the factions uniting against you ;)
 
King of Creation said:
Nah...MAD went out with the Cold War. Russia's nuclear delivery systems, the silos, the systems which operate them, etc. are all pretty much falling apart.
Click to expand...

Now you're making exactly the kind of logical thinking error I warned you about

It is falling apart, it hasn't fallen apart yet. There is a vital difference. Do you think that in its current level of decay Russia is incapable of levelling the US? If so, you're a fool. It might have to skip on a lot of desert area, yeah, but the rest? Dead.

King of Creation said:
And even if Russia launched a strike against the US, our second strike capability would ensure the complete anihilation of Russia.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the whole point?

King of Creation said:
And if the Nuclear Defense shield was put in place, most of Russia's nukes wouldn't be able to do any damage, especially if the space-based missile defense system was put in place.
Click to expand...

And if pigs could fly, you could use them as kamikaze-artists to dive in front of the bombs

Try to keep it a bit realistic, yeah?

King of Creation said:
And you think that a military who can barely rescue it's own downed submarines will be able to launch an all out war against the Unipol?
Click to expand...

Another example of bad logic. This is like the whole "They can't even beat Chechya, how could they damage a major nation"?

Rescuing downed submarines is not actually inherent of the warmaking effort

Beating Chechnya is beating terrorists, something the USA also seems incapable of doing

Underestimating them for such weak reasons is potentially dangerous
 
Kharn wrote:
Beating Chechnya is beating terrorists,
Click to expand...

Damn Kharn, that is the funniest thing I have seen you write in a long time. Love the spin-doctoring. Stating that killing Chechnyen civilians as killing terrorists. Gotta love your humor and ability to spin doctor.
You should become a spin doctor for the Russians, wait you already are. :roll:

As for the Russian armed forces, I have nothing but the greatest respect for them. Even in regression they are formidable.

As for nuke strikes you would not even have to hit the cities. Just hit the infrastructure of the target nation and watch the cities tear themselves apart when no more food, water or medicine is available with the breakdown of the infrastructure. THAT includes any nation that cannot feed or provide clean water through indigenous food and water supplies and relies on the targeted nation for said supplies.


Thorgrimm
 
Thorgrimm said:
Kharn wrote:
Beating Chechnya is beating terrorists,
Click to expand...

Damn Kharn, that is the funniest thing I have seen you write in a long time. Love the spin-doctoring. Stating that killing Chechnyen civilians as killing terrorists. Gotta love your humor and ability to spin doctor.
You should become a spin doctor for the Russians, wait you already are.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is commenting on the politics of the conflict, but the actual fighting itself. Call the Chechen fighters, reactionaries, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, terrorists or whatever you want, they still are using basic terror (or if you prefer, guerilla) tactics. Road side bombs, drive bys against civilian, military and police targets, derailing trains, home made explosives all over the place, taking hostages. Most regular military forces have an extremely difficult time with this style of fighting. Its entirely different from engaging and destroying a regular military in battle and in the case of Chechnya, its almost entirely impossible to cut off the flow of resources to those fighters.

Its a kind of fighting that has been defeating occupying forces for hundreds of years, and where the real cost of a lot of wars ends up being paid.
 
Thorgrimm said:
Damn Kharn, that is the funniest thing I have seen you write in a long time. Love the spin-doctoring. Stating that killing Chechnyen civilians as killing terrorists. Gotta love your humor and ability to spin doctor.
You should become a spin doctor for the Russians, wait you already are. :roll:
Click to expand...

Apologies for misstating, but try to read things in context rather than putting words in my mouth, as I did not mention civilians a single time. I was referring to the Chechnya war and the fact that the Russians can not defeat those that fight against them, who are mostly international and Chechnyan terrorists all grouping on a little patch of land. Killing of Chechnyan (and other Russian) civilians is a part of this, but not relevant for the issue I was adressing.

Edit; As Commissar stated as I was posting, apparently

Thorgrimm said:
As for nuke strikes you would not even have to hit the cities. Just hit the infrastructure of the target nation and watch the cities tear themselves apart when no more food, water or medicine is available with the breakdown of the infrastructure. THAT includes any nation that cannot feed or provide clean water through indigenous food and water supplies and relies on the targeted nation for said supplies.
Click to expand...

How exactly is hitting infrastructure with nukes "better" than hitting cities? Considering that infastructure tends to span over a larger area than a city, it is significantly more easy to drop a nuke in the center of a town than it is to disable all the points of infastructure leading up to it.

Hell, hitting all major cities in the US will in fact disable the country's infastructure, I guarantee you.
 
King of Creation said:
And even if Russia launched a strike against the US, our second strike capability would ensure the complete anihilation of Russia. And if the Nuclear Defense shield was put in place, most of Russia's nukes wouldn't be able to do any damage, especially if the space-based missile defense system was put in place.
Click to expand...

You are aware that so far you are talking about a noneksisting space based defence system, that is designed to defend against terrorist and rogue nations with maximum one or two bombs in their arsenal?
This will MAYBE stop one missile, (last i heard they had a 60% chance of stopping a testmissile that they knew the course an trajectory on)
An all out attack from russia would level the US before the amercan missiles hit.
 
Kharn wrote
How exactly is hitting infrastructure with nukes "better" than hitting cities? Considering that infastructure tends to span over a larger area than a city, it is significantly more easy to drop a nuke in the center of a town than it is to disable all the points of infastructure leading up to it.
Click to expand...

Kharn I never said hitting the infrastructure was any better. If I did please point it out. What I was driving at, and I guess I should have been more specific, is that you don't have to nuke the cities to get a civilization in todays modern world to collapse. Just prevent the delivery of basic foodstuffs and other items to maintain life.
As an example, could the Netherlands support it's current population on native farming? Probably not.

Breakdown the infrastructure and you will get starvation and disease. Without modern medicines the diseases would grow like wildfire. then as the death toll rises from starvation and other diseases, the bodies begin to rot. More disease that can't be checked. The people would then flee the cities in search of food and water. All these people have to shit and piss somewhere, if they could find any food or water. you then get Cholera outbreaks which will further decimate the populace.

So in summation you do not need to hit the cities, just the transportation nets and set back and watch starvation and disease do your work for you. Is this more humane? Absolutely not, never said it was. So please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Anybody reading this post, could YOUR nation support your nation with native grown foods and clean water? If not then you just might have a problem if for any reason the infrastructure breaks down.


Thorgrimm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top