3 ms·

Those interceptors are almost useless, especially against high altitude EMP attacks. There are 44 interceptors total and it takes 4 interceptors per incoming mi

Those interceptors are almost useless, especially against high altitude EMP attacks. There are 44 interceptors total and it takes 4 interceptors per incoming missile. NK could easily end up with dozens and then hundreds of ICBMs. Plus those interceptors probably don't really work very well. The entire NK stand off may be a trap laid by Putin/Xi Jinping to take over the world. Once Trump attacks, they launch EMPs on the US and make it looks like NK did it. They could possibly knock out the US nuclear triad. The ICBMs are the main component and they're vulnerable to trickery due to the super short launch window. All it would take is Trump refusing to launch for 8 minutes and then eliminating 18 x Ohio subs. Russia/China might take some return fire but it wouldn't threaten Putin/Xi personally at any point. The US should be scrambling to get every nuclear weapon onto a launch platform, like nuclear Tomahawks on every naval vessel, and just shred the START treaty. Major US allies should have 500+ independently developed weapons. We're currently living in a dangerous time where MAD may not actually be in effect and it could lead to WW3.

superbrama 9y ago
It’s fun to speculate and worthwhile to perform thought experiments. However, is there any basis for your theories regarding Russia/China and NK? Also, why is it a only triad? Where’s space in all of this? Wouldn’t paranoid sociopathic policy makers with their inflated USA military budgets have already considered the scenarios you’ve described and put multiple contingency plans into place? Just asking. To offer an alternative, I’d speculate that between USA, Russia and China, all three have privately advanced their own technology to maintain deterrence for the foreseeable future. Just pure speculation of course, I’m not a government employee nor do I have any clearance or special info. Just seems improbable that the USA hadn’t planned for a superpower or alliance trying to disarm all of their nuclear arsenal at once. Thanks.
- staunch 9y ago
  Basically, the US military declared itself the victor of the cold war and stopped worrying about China/Russia. After 9/11, it reoriented its resources around anti-terrorism and and smaller "rogue states" like NK and Iran. At the same time, China and Russia have gone on massive military spending sprees that are entirely aimed at global war. World peace relies on a single point of failure: the US nuclear forces, which rely primarily on obsolete ICBMs. Failing that, Russia and China could easily take over the world using conventional forces and their own nuclear power. The US nuclear triad is highly vulnerable, relying on 3 incredibly obsolete and vulnerable delivery mechanisms. 1. US ICBMs were supposed to be replaced and were not due to government bureaucratic bungling. The contracts to replace it are being awarded in 2017. There are 400 ancient ICBMs, in fixed silos, that can't be called back after launch and so may not be launched in time. 2. The 18 Ohio SLBM subs are old and easily found by major enemy navies, and are just one nuclear torpedo each away from being gone. Some may survive but not enough. They should've been replaced long ago. 3. The few dozen ancient B-52s have to fly for many hours to be able to launch their cruise missiles, which means they'll be shot down. Their their run ways may get destroyed before most even take off.
  - superbrama 9y ago
    How does world peace/deterrence rely solely on the obviously aging USA triad? What info do you have on adversarial capabilities beyond speculation and belief about their recent military expenditures? Do you believe that the USA hasn’t considered your scenario already and put plans into place? Do you believe civilians would know the full extent of our nuclear capabilities? Why do you believe China and Russia are possibly planning to disarm USA’s triad, and why do you believe they’d have the intelligence to do so? Something about leaks, the nsa, whistleblowers.. is there a connection here? Just speculating based on your notion that USA may be getting ganged up on by China and Russia. Frankly your line of thought is valuable and worth exploring, and I’d like to see what info can be put on the table to explore your ideas further.
    - staunch 9y ago
      1. The US told its allies that it would handle MAD. The US system relies primarily on aging land-based ICBMs. None of the US' trusted allies have significant nuclear forces of their own. 2. The US has every reason to publicize and brag about nuclear capabilities. The entire point of nuclear deterrence is to make your enemy aware of how dangerous an attack would be. The US has done a ton of press on our nuclear programs. There are probably some contingency plans to arm airplanes with gravity bombs but probably nothing effective. The US recently tested a Minuteman III by shipping a random missile across the country and reassembling it for launch. Why did it have to be disassembled, shipped, and then launched? Why couldn't someone tell a random silo to remove its warhead and launch? Why can't they show how accurately it hit its target? It's supposed to be 100% reliable, what's the risk? 3. Putin and Xi Jinping have a lot of incentive personally, even if their countries take millions in casualties. There's an opportunity gap right now while the US works on its next-generation military systems that will make attacks on the US impossible and preemptive attacks by the US possible. 4. The Chinese and Russian militaries are at incredibly high levels of readiness. Large-scale drills and snap drills can get everything in place without leaking any plan whatsoever. The only two people that have to know the plan are Putin and Xi Jinping themselves.
  - madengr 9y ago
    I wouldn't say the ICBMs are obsolete, any more than an AR-15 is obsolete. They both function as intended. The Minuteman uses a solid booster; can't get more reliable than that. Subs aren't going to get any stealthier. Maybe orbital weapons would give the fastest launch; just drop it. Though they would not be stealthy either. Though I always thought the proposed tunnel network carrying rail based ICBM was kind of cool. In the event of a nuclear apocalypse, it would be a good place for the mole people to live.
nickthemagicman 9y ago
All it would take is eliminating 18 Ohio subs....that seems possibly more difficult than your statement portrays. Interesting comment. You're probably right about the interceptors. It's interesting to hear the perspective of someone who is hawkish on nuclear arms.
nickthemagicman 9y ago
An interesting article that claims that the US is unmatched in the undersea theatre. http://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/nuclear-submarines-americas-new-aircraft-carriers-12560 http://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/nuclear-submarines...

superbrama 9y ago

It’s fun to speculate and worthwhile to perform thought experiments. However, is there any basis for your theories regarding Russia/China and NK? Also, why is it a only triad? Where’s space in all of this? Wouldn’t paranoid sociopathic policy makers with their inflated USA military budgets have already considered the scenarios you’ve described and put multiple contingency plans into place? Just asking. To offer an alternative, I’d speculate that between USA, Russia and China, all three have privately advanced their own technology to maintain deterrence for the foreseeable future. Just pure speculation of course, I’m not a government employee nor do I have any clearance or special info. Just seems improbable that the USA hadn’t planned for a superpower or alliance trying to disarm all of their nuclear arsenal at once. Thanks.

staunch 9y ago
Basically, the US military declared itself the victor of the cold war and stopped worrying about China/Russia. After 9/11, it reoriented its resources around anti-terrorism and and smaller "rogue states" like NK and Iran. At the same time, China and Russia have gone on massive military spending sprees that are entirely aimed at global war. World peace relies on a single point of failure: the US nuclear forces, which rely primarily on obsolete ICBMs. Failing that, Russia and China could easily take over the world using conventional forces and their own nuclear power. The US nuclear triad is highly vulnerable, relying on 3 incredibly obsolete and vulnerable delivery mechanisms. 1. US ICBMs were supposed to be replaced and were not due to government bureaucratic bungling. The contracts to replace it are being awarded in 2017. There are 400 ancient ICBMs, in fixed silos, that can't be called back after launch and so may not be launched in time. 2. The 18 Ohio SLBM subs are old and easily found by major enemy navies, and are just one nuclear torpedo each away from being gone. Some may survive but not enough. They should've been replaced long ago. 3. The few dozen ancient B-52s have to fly for many hours to be able to launch their cruise missiles, which means they'll be shot down. Their their run ways may get destroyed before most even take off.
- superbrama 9y ago
  How does world peace/deterrence rely solely on the obviously aging USA triad? What info do you have on adversarial capabilities beyond speculation and belief about their recent military expenditures? Do you believe that the USA hasn’t considered your scenario already and put plans into place? Do you believe civilians would know the full extent of our nuclear capabilities? Why do you believe China and Russia are possibly planning to disarm USA’s triad, and why do you believe they’d have the intelligence to do so? Something about leaks, the nsa, whistleblowers.. is there a connection here? Just speculating based on your notion that USA may be getting ganged up on by China and Russia. Frankly your line of thought is valuable and worth exploring, and I’d like to see what info can be put on the table to explore your ideas further.
  - staunch 9y ago
    1. The US told its allies that it would handle MAD. The US system relies primarily on aging land-based ICBMs. None of the US' trusted allies have significant nuclear forces of their own. 2. The US has every reason to publicize and brag about nuclear capabilities. The entire point of nuclear deterrence is to make your enemy aware of how dangerous an attack would be. The US has done a ton of press on our nuclear programs. There are probably some contingency plans to arm airplanes with gravity bombs but probably nothing effective. The US recently tested a Minuteman III by shipping a random missile across the country and reassembling it for launch. Why did it have to be disassembled, shipped, and then launched? Why couldn't someone tell a random silo to remove its warhead and launch? Why can't they show how accurately it hit its target? It's supposed to be 100% reliable, what's the risk? 3. Putin and Xi Jinping have a lot of incentive personally, even if their countries take millions in casualties. There's an opportunity gap right now while the US works on its next-generation military systems that will make attacks on the US impossible and preemptive attacks by the US possible. 4. The Chinese and Russian militaries are at incredibly high levels of readiness. Large-scale drills and snap drills can get everything in place without leaking any plan whatsoever. The only two people that have to know the plan are Putin and Xi Jinping themselves.
- madengr 9y ago
  I wouldn't say the ICBMs are obsolete, any more than an AR-15 is obsolete. They both function as intended. The Minuteman uses a solid booster; can't get more reliable than that. Subs aren't going to get any stealthier. Maybe orbital weapons would give the fastest launch; just drop it. Though they would not be stealthy either. Though I always thought the proposed tunnel network carrying rail based ICBM was kind of cool. In the event of a nuclear apocalypse, it would be a good place for the mole people to live.

nickthemagicman 9y ago

All it would take is eliminating 18 Ohio subs....that seems possibly more difficult than your statement portrays. Interesting comment. You're probably right about the interceptors. It's interesting to hear the perspective of someone who is hawkish on nuclear arms.

nickthemagicman 9y ago

An interesting article that claims that the US is unmatched in the undersea theatre. http://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/nuclear-submarines-americas-new-aircraft-carriers-12560 http://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/nuclear-submarines...