Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 34
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,164

    Confused

    If someone tried to nuke us, the first targets would be as many of our nukes as they could target. That's why you have to have a lot of them in various configurations such as subs, T'hawks, bombs, arty shells, etc.

    Let me ask you guys this: When the indians had the cavalry trapped in a circle waiting for the indian charge, did the soldiers take a count of how many bullets and guns they had and holler it out to the injuns? Nobody, I mean NOBODY in their right mind would knowlingly tell our enemies how many of what we have. That is treasonous!

    Nukes work just like gun control but on a massive scale. We showed the world what one can do (twice) and those were first generation pop guns compared to current nukes. If the bad guys know you have big guns and a lot of them, they tend to stay clear of you and mess with people who are not so well armed. Turning in your guns (or nukes) is like running full ads enticing bad guys to come after us.

    So, what world event that affects our economy is so pressing that we need to do this right now? Who else is surrendering their guns to the town sheriff?

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    4,260
    Well, this Administration has turned over all the information to the Russians on our nuclear capabilities. Why? So we can be transparent and be freinds? The Russians gave us nothing in return and probably sold it to China and Iran. The Chinese have been making the guidance system for our Tomahawk missises for years. How smart is that? Does dead dogs and drywall come to mind?
    Last edited by Gib's Son; 02-15-2012 at 08:40 PM.
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what will never be. (Thomas Jefferson 1816)

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,551
    The bottom line is that what ever that Marxist Obama proposes for our nuclear arms would be to harm the US and never to help us. So I am totally opposed to any of his proposals for our nuclear arms.

    I would only want a true American who is proud of our country and has our interest at heart making decisions on our arms nuclear or otherwise. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  4. #17
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,287
    I heard on the news tonight that Iran wants to "talk" now.

    So what changed? The USS Abraham Lincoln (with task force) steams through the Strait of Hormuz despite Iran's "threats". The U.S. and the European Union have threatened to lock-up Iran's banking assets.

    The question becomes, who can you trust. I submit, Iran is NOT TRUSTWORTHY.
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    I heard on the news tonight that Iran wants to "talk" now.

    So what changed? The USS Abraham Lincoln (with task force) steams through the Strait of Hormuz despite Iran's "threats". The U.S. and the European Union have threatened to lock-up Iran's banking assets.

    The question becomes, who can you trust. I submit, Iran is NOT TRUSTWORTHY.
    Thats just the game they have always been playing. One minute they want to talk, the next they threaten us. All the while they are still buiding their nukes. It promises to get interesting.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,287
    Quote Originally Posted by newoldtech View Post
    Thats just the game they have always been playing. One minute they want to talk, the next they threaten us. All the while they are still buiding their nukes. It promises to get interesting.
    I agree, but I think the threat of locking up there international financial accounts is whats pushing this latest line.

    I still expect Israel to hit them hard, and I would expect that to happen in the next 30 to 60 days
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Please remember that, these days, it is more about delivery systems than warhead capability.

    Can Iran launch a payload in to orbit? Sure. A rat, two turtles and a worm. A somewhat lighter payload than should be worrisome, strategically speaking.

    China is approaching US and Russian tech but let us not lose sight of the fact that it is accomplishing now what we did in the 60s, and in many cases not even coming close to US accomplishments.

    The potential reduction to 300 is meant to be a negotiation point to the Russians and Chinese, not a unilateral move.

    Even so, cut to 300 could mean many things. ICBM? SSBN (subs)? What about bombers who can carry many times the payload of ICBMs? Only Russia has similar bomber capability that I am aware of and even so, is not equal to the US. While bombers might suffer AA, interceptors and counter measures, should they make it... kiss your butt goodbye (as well as many of your neighbors).
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,164

    Angry

    Bill Clinton arranged for our missle guidance systems technology to be made available to the Red Chinese. They've had a lot of time to learn it. He should have been hung for treason.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    10,015
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Please remember that, these days, it is more about delivery systems than warhead capability.

    Can Iran launch a payload in to orbit? Sure. A rat, two turtles and a worm. A somewhat lighter payload than should be worrisome, strategically speaking.

    China is approaching US and Russian tech but let us not lose sight of the fact that it is accomplishing now what we did in the 60s, and in many cases not even coming close to US accomplishments.

    The potential reduction to 300 is meant to be a negotiation point to the Russians and Chinese, not a unilateral move.

    Even so, cut to 300 could mean many things. ICBM? SSBN (subs)? What about bombers who can carry many times the payload of ICBMs? Only Russia has similar bomber capability that I am aware of and even so, is not equal to the US. While bombers might suffer AA, interceptors and counter measures, should they make it... kiss your butt goodbye (as well as many of your neighbors).
    These days a delivery system might be a freighter or a speed boat, we are talking about muslim radicals here,... Iran.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    These days a delivery system might be a freighter or a speed boat, we are talking about muslim radicals here,... Iran.
    True, but the number of weaponized nukes that we have will have no bearing on whether or not such an attack succeeds, right?

    300 is only meaningful in a strategic strike sense. In other words; offense.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    10,015
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    True, but the number of weaponized nukes that we have will have no bearing on whether or not such an attack succeeds, right?

    300 is only meaningful in a strategic strike sense. In other words; offense.
    Bacnet said we currently have 1500. 1500 to 300 is a fairly dramatic decrease I am uncomfortable with. Just looking at the numbers. If it was 1500 to go down to 1000, might not make me so uncomfortable. I suppose 500 may be okay, but what for? Does that mean everyone else is going to be nice to us all of a sudden? If that were the case then I would say let's go to 0 nukes. I say screw that Idea, let's have 5,000 and tell them all to like it or lump it.

    I would rather have an overpowered firepower I never expect to use, than to give up my firepower in a gesture of friendliness.


    I am talking major nukes here, city wiping nukes. Most of our nukes are 'dial a setting' nukes that can be set on a scale of 1-10 for explosive effect. I forgot the details but generally Hiroshima is a 2 and go from there. That is inaccurate, but ball-park close.

    300 nukes does not even cover our need for bunker-busting nukes. Tiny nukes, baby nukes, cute little nukes, we should have a minimum of 500 of these in our arsenal. They are to take out hardened targets, not cities. I don't know what our current status on that is, we may have none.

    We cannot stop a terrorist nuke from a crop-duster per your point, agreed. But we could retaliate in force with our nuclear arsenal as it stands. Or with 300. The problem is that say we go in retaliation after iran on such an occasion, we also may have to deter china and russia. 300 big ones ain't going to cut it. And we need more smaller ones to hit hardened targets to win strategically without such devastation as will happen with the big nukes.

    I hope we never get to that point. But if it happens, I strongly suggest we do not run out of ammo.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  12. #25
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,287
    I think many people, on this site and around the world, are underestimating the Chinese.

    The Chinese DO have a stealth bomber. The Chinese do have OUR technology (Thanx Clintoon) The Chinese DO have 10 times the military personnel we do.

    Make no mistake. The Chinese are a force to be worried about.
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Bacnet said we currently have 1500. 1500 to 300 is a fairly dramatic decrease I am uncomfortable with. Just looking at the numbers. If it was 1500 to go down to 1000, might not make me so uncomfortable. I suppose 500 may be okay, but what for? Does that mean everyone else is going to be nice to us all of a sudden? If that were the case then I would say let's go to 0 nukes. I say screw that Idea, let's have 5,000 and tell them all to like it or lump it.

    I would rather have an overpowered firepower I never expect to use, than to give up my firepower in a gesture of friendliness.


    I am talking major nukes here, city wiping nukes. Most of our nukes are 'dial a setting' nukes that can be set on a scale of 1-10 for explosive effect. I forgot the details but generally Hiroshima is a 2 and go from there. That is inaccurate, but ball-park close.

    300 nukes does not even cover our need for bunker-busting nukes. Tiny nukes, baby nukes, cute little nukes, we should have a minimum of 500 of these in our arsenal. They are to take out hardened targets, not cities. I don't know what our current status on that is, we may have none.

    We cannot stop a terrorist nuke from a crop-duster per your point, agreed. But we could retaliate in force with our nuclear arsenal as it stands. Or with 300. The problem is that say we go in retaliation after iran on such an occasion, we also may have to deter china and russia. 300 big ones ain't going to cut it. And we need more smaller ones to hit hardened targets to win strategically without such devastation as will happen with the big nukes.

    I hope we never get to that point. But if it happens, I strongly suggest we do not run out of ammo.
    Well, tactical and operational level nukes are generally not considered in your typical SAT strategic arms initiatives.

    Further, it is terribly difficult to assign the responsibility for a terrorist attack to any one government. It certainly would not have been productive to nuke targets within Afghanistan after 9/11 even if they were "terrorist" installations.

    Finally, similar to the way that the US generally leads the way in weapons technology, so it is with nuke warheads as well. We don't need as many as others do because many of their weaponized nukes are quite crude by our standards.

    Also as previously mentioned, we'd really need to get a better idea on what they actually mean by 300. Is that weaponized missiles? Probably because that can be verified by satellite imagery. But bombs just sitting around in a warehouse just waiting to be loaded on a long range bomber? Doubtful. No way to verify.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event