Obama to unilaterally disarm the United States

Taking notes professor but I have a request. "Right-style" seems identical to YOUR style. Could you highlight the differences please?

 

Yes, professor, please do explain

 

The idea is to start with the best of intentions, but when these are met with smug arrogance, well, then, when in Rome...

And we're in "Rome."

The smug arrogance of most of the offenders of ET's Right is usually accompanied by a modicum of stupidity. Genuine ignorance. On the plus side, I only return the arrogance. Therein, along with initial intentions, lies the difference.

Thanks for asking.

 

Have you considered going back to Canada? LOL

Ah j/k...well...not really. But seriously, I see no difference between your style and the "right" style. Apparently because there is no difference. Because you're in "Rome", right?

Now that we've established, according to you, we're all "in Rome" does this mean you'll STFU with your arrogant condescending hypocrisy about different posting styles?

 

How about yours for even being on this thread, let alone mindlessly agreeing with baseless suggestions that are out of your depth and none of your business?

 

I wouldn't put anything past him. I'm surprised we only had ~1600.

I'm all for the triad. I don't see it as something that should even be touched.

 

You guys do realize that there are weapons out there which can do orders of magnitude more harm in a much shorter time than any nuke, right?

You guys do also realize that we have the capability to recognize the plume from any atmospheric missile and almost immediately (milliseconds) take action, right?

This discussion about keeping nukes maintained and ready is silly as the technology is the equivalent of a dinosaur. It is basically money wasted.

The only benefit I see is that technologically inferior countries (read illiterate no-science nations) do *know* what a nuke is and what it can do... hence this knowledge may act as a deterrent to some idiot leader who doesn't know any better. Most countries know better and wouldn't do a thing... they probably have a better grasp of our weapons technology than some of the posters on this forum.

Trader666, your argument is based on a flawed premise. Take it from someone who did research for DARPA and the MDA years ago...

 

+1

Obama is a fool. He doesn't understand that some of the crazy world leaders might decide they could take out all of our nukes pointed at him and destroy the U.S. We need the triad nuclear deturent of subs, missles and planes to safeguard us against the unknown or underestimated aggressor. 300 nukes won't cut it. How he can be so foolish and the military let him without a loud cry is incredible. He is already decimating out conventional forces.

If Obama gets his way, expect WWIII to start within 15 years. We probably won't be participants because we will have been blown back to the stoneage.

 

How Many Nukes Does China Have?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576639502894496030.html

Mr. Karber, who has worked for administrations and senior congressional leaders of both parties and now heads the Asian Arms Control Project at Georgetown University, tells the story as a preface to describing his most recent work.

In 2008, he was commissioned by the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency—which deals with everything from arms-control verification to nuclear detection and forensics—to look into a mysterious Chinese project known as the "Underground Great Wall."

Tunneling has been a part of Chinese military culture for nearly 2,000 years.

Beijing had deployed thousands of radiation specialists belonging to the Second Artillery Corps, the branch of the People's Liberation Army responsible for the country's strategic missile forces, including most of its nuclear weapons.

It was a particular obsession of Mao Zedong, who dug a vast underground city in Beijing and in the late 1960s ordered the building of the so-called Third-Line Defense in central China to withstand a feared Russian nuclear attack.

In December 2009, as part of the celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic, the PLA announced to great fanfare that the Second Artillery Corps has built a cumulative total of 3,000 miles of tunnels—half of them during the last 15 years.

Why would the Second Artillery be intent on so much tunneling?

The extent of the tunneling was also hard to square with the supposedly small size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal, which is commonly believed to be in the range of 240-400 warheads.

"So they've built 10 miles of tunnel for every warhead?" Mr. Karber recalls asking himself. "That doesn't make sense; it's kind of overkill."

That thought prompted Mr. Karber to take a closer look at Western estimates of China's arsenal. In the late 1960s, the U.S. military projected that China would be able to field 435 warheads by 1973.

A straight-line extrapolation based on that assumption would suggest that China would have somewhere in the order of 3,000 warheads today.

It fields an estimated force of nearly 1,300 tactical and theater missile systems that can be tipped with either a nuclear or a conventional warhead—the ambiguity itself giving China immense strategic leverage in the event of war.

More recent reports in the Chinese media put the figure somewhere between 2,350 and 3,500, with an average annual warhead production of 200 over the last decade.

Yet it's unclear why the U.S. arms-control community seems happy to accept Beijing's claims about its nuclear doctrine at face value while dismissing the giant network of tunnels as the equivalent of a Chinese Potemkin village.

Within the U.S. government, "the Pentagon and the intelligence community have been criticized over the years for 'worst case projections,' so now everyone avoids them like the plague."

Outside of government, "arms-control experts have tried hard to downplay the PLA strategic effort in order to head off 'unnecessary' U.S. reaction."

China, after all, is supposed to be the role model for the kind of arsenal a "responsible" nuclear power should have, and a China with an arsenal much larger than commonly believed would be the ultimate inconvenient truth for those pushing for steeper nuclear cuts.

Yet for all of the uncertainties, there is little doubt about the tunnels themselves, which the Pentagon acknowledged for the first time this year in its annual report on the Chinese military.

That assumption needs urgent reconsideration. The alternative is for China, steeped in a 2,500 year military tradition of concealment, deception and surprise, to announce—at a time and in a manner of its choosing—its supremacy in a field that we have foolishly abandoned to our dreams.

 

Your brain is flawed if you "think" nuclear weapons technology is "the equivalent of a dinosaur." ONE Ohio Class submarine can be armed with up to 24 Trident II SLBMs that can travel in excess of 13,000 MPH, each of which can carry up to 12 MIRV warheads, each of which is far more powerful than what we dropped on Japan in WWII. Tell us exactly what "can do orders of magnitude more harm in a much shorter time" you phony. You're also an idiot if you "think" we can take immediate action on incoming missiles; we couldn't even stop a hijacked plane from slamming into the Pentagon. You've been listening to too much George Noory.