Pentagon doesn't know what else to do with their nukes

[A_M]

Well King, what you say is right, BUT (as always there is a but :]) you dont see a few things:
1. The USA even with it's economy, not to mention the man power, can't fight the whole world.
2. Even if the nukes would go, many military units would still be intact (other countries also have high tec. shelters you know). In China there are even underground cities made for such an ocasion.
3. The nukes wouldn't fly as long as there are US troops in many regions of the world (and if they would leave in a hurry to their homeland, wouldn't it be strange?)
4. If there would be a fuck up during a nuclear missle lunch... well it's obvious.

There are more problems, yet i can't think right now

[johnnygothisgun]

For Fuck's Sake, King of Creation, could you be any more a Fox News mouthpiece?

Sweet Jesus man. Give the standard issue party line a rest. You sound like those idiots on CNN and/or FOX:

"America will triumph over all!"

--"Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim, sir?"

"What are you? A Terrorist Sympathizer!?"

You know how the rest goes.



-Inin

Are you goddamned retarded? Christ, only a handful of the many, many boomer subs the US has got all around the world would have enough munitions to turn the planet into a big, molten ball. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the United States would, in an all out, knock down drop out war, kick the shit out of nearly every comer, even without the use of ICBMs. And, as an added bonus, it would kickstart our shitty, outsourced economy into a nice little rise. As for the enemy hiding in shitty underground shelters, woohoo for them! When they come out, they can swim over.

EDIT: And to counter the "omg ur american of course you think youd win lawl!" argument I see coming, history has proven, as KoC has pointed out, that when Uncle Sam devotes his full attention to something, it dies. My aim here isn't to bullshit about patriotism, I disagree with much of what my government does, but it doesn't change the facts (although, disagreeing with a government that shits all over your nation's principles is patriotic in itself, one might say). Who are our likely enemies? China? Iran? Unless Iran goes through a revolution with the result that a progressive democratic government is in charge, their army will more than likely rely on the "Kill Americans for God!" angle, and fanatics, in an all out fight, always, always lose. China hasn't even got the resources to cross the Pacific, much less mount an effective invasion of Taiwan.

[Redeye]

Good excuse for nuclear winter. And oil. And human rights.

Nuclear winter isn't something that happens anymore. Not with "clean" hydrogen bombs.

A clean bomb would still kick up a lot of debris. If it went high enough, it would stay up a while.

Of course, the old theories of nuclear winter have been called into question. Apparently there were a lot of guesstimates plugged into the formulas, and the formulas themselves may have been flawed.

But still, a "clean" mushroom cloud is still a mushroom cloud.
Taking the radiation out of it has no effect on nuclear winter.

[MadBill]

Coupled with the revived Shield program it looks like US figureheads want to nuke the world even more.

Adopting nuclear arsenal for preemptive strikes totally rapes the concept of MAD as a defensive strategy. No longer we hold our reserve for defensive purposes?!?

GAH

I hope everyone gets to die in the absolute purity of nuclear fire. All hail The Bomb and Its Glory.

-Cheers.

[Redeye]

For Fuck's Sake, King of Creation, could you be any more a Fox News mouthpiece?

Sweet Jesus man. Give the standard issue party line a rest. You sound like those idiots on CNN and/or FOX:

"America will triumph over all!"

--"Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim, sir?"

"What are you? A Terrorist Sympathizer!?"

You know how the rest goes.



-Inin

Are you goddamned retarded? Christ, only a handful of the many, many boomer subs the US has got all around the world would have enough munitions to turn the planet into a big, molten ball. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the United States would, in an all out, knock down drop out war, kick the shit out of nearly every comer, even without the use of ICBMs. And, as an added bonus, it would kickstart our shitty, outsourced economy into a nice little rise. As for the enemy hiding in shitty underground shelters, woohoo for them! When they come out, they can swim over.

EDIT: And to counter the "omg ur american of course you think youd win lawl!" argument I see coming, history has proven, as KoC has pointed out, that when Uncle Sam devotes his full attention to something, it dies. My aim here isn't to bullshit about patriotism, I disagree with much of what my government does, but it doesn't change the facts (although, disagreeing with a government that shits all over your nation's principles is patriotic in itself, one might say). Who are our likely enemies? China? Iran? Unless Iran goes through a revolution with the result that a progressive democratic government is in charge, their army will more than likely rely on the "Kill Americans for God!" angle, and fanatics, in an all out fight, always, always lose. China hasn't even got the resources to cross the Pacific, much less mount an effective invasion of Taiwan.

Hee hee!

This would make a great computer game.
Global Clusterfuck.

Really, though, I thought the US had just 12-14 Ohio Class subs.
20 or 24 missiles each= 240-344 missiles. 8-14 warheads/missile=
1920-4816 warheads. Of couse the MIRVS/MARVS have to stay in the footprint of their missile, but still a nice blanket of death.
I don't know if any of the old Lafayette/etc. class SSBNs are still in service as SSBNs. I thought they had their tubes plugged with concrete and a few were converted to SF/etc. use.
This is just SLBMs, the nuclear-capable cruise missiles have a lot more launchers - like 60 LA subs plus others, plus ones on board surface ships.
I wonder if the conventional tips can be swapped for nukes in the field. Something in a sealed canister on a sub, in a tube, doesn't seem like it could be switched while underway.
How many LAs are still in service?
And so on.

The only damper here is that the US has crap for civdef. Just a few good hits in the right spots, plus a scattering of EMP strikes... and we're done.
For a while, anyway.
I guess the idea is to cause enough destruction so as to be unmolested during our 30-100 year reconstruction.

[Redeye]

Coupled with the revived Shield program it looks like US figureheads want to nuke the world even more.

Adopting nuclear arsenal for preemptive strikes totally rapes the concept of MAD as a defensive strategy. No longer we hold our reserve for defensive purposes?!?

MAD was vs. USSR. I don't want MAD vs. terrorists, that would mean arming them for parity and then making treaties and shit.. Just silly. Silly Willy. For Them The Fire!

GAH

GAH!

I hope everyone gets to die in the absolute purity of nuclear fire. All hail The Bomb and Its Glory.

-Cheers.

NRC! NRC! NRC! NRC! NRC! NRC!

[Ranger]

First of all let me say that I am an American. I served in the U.S. Army, I have family and friends serving in the Armed Services, and I was raised in a military family. That being said (even though I know no one cares) the US could NOT win a war against the world. We have the worlds most advanced Army? True. But we don't have the numbers, and we no longer have the capacity to replace what would be lost in an all out full scale conflict. We could not win a conventional war, and in a nuclear war, all we could hope to do is make the other guys hurt more than they hurt us. In a conventional war, what would happen? Sure we'd be able to sink a lot of ships and shoot down the planes trying to land troops in our country, but what happens when we use up all our missles? Make more? Not likley. We've outsourced the majority of our manufacturing jobs to china and india, and the factories that we have left simply would not be up to the task of replacing what is lost. The unused factories? Most of them have fallen into dissrepair. I'm patriotic, and I love my country, but that does not mean that I am dilusional. What happens when we nuke Iran? China gets pissed, or N.Korea gets spooked and they launch on us. When more than one country has nukes it becomes much less likely to be able to use them in a tactical sense. God, get your heads out of your asses. To the few intelligent posts I've seen on this topic, I appologise for this rant. This is not directed at you. This is for the Fucking Morons out there who say "BRING EM ON!!!!! NO ONE CAN STAND TO THE MIGHT THAT IS THE CASTRATED AMERICA!!!!!!!"

[King of Creation]

Well King, what you say is right, BUT (as always there is a but :]) you dont see a few things:
1. The USA even with it's economy, not to mention the man power, can't fight the whole world.
2. Even if the nukes would go, many military units would still be intact (other countries also have high tec. shelters you know). In China there are even underground cities made for such an ocasion.
3. The nukes wouldn't fly as long as there are US troops in many regions of the world (and if they would leave in a hurry to their homeland, wouldn't it be strange?)
4. If there would be a fuck up during a nuclear missle lunch... well it's obvious.

The US economy is the strongest in the world, but like I've said before, we could not win a war against the world. We could only not lose it, if that makes sense.

The CIA know about pretty much everything in countries like China. The resourse the CIA has in terms of state espionage is astounding. The problem the CIA encountered with terrorism is that it wasn't a state they were trying to gather intelligence on. It was much harder to spy on such a group before 9/11. Now, the CIA has been revamped to include much more in terms of terrorist espionage.

Yeah...we wouldn't want to go nuking our own soldiers. But in a full on assault from the world, we'd obviously strategically launch them.

If there was a fuck up during a US missile launch, it wouldn't really matter all that much. The nukes in the missiles don't arm themselves until very soon before detonation. And even if the launch was messed up and somehow the nuke went off, pretty much all of the silos that would be doing the launching are in the midwest. Nothing much really lost there in terms of strategic importance.

That being said (even though I know no one cares) the US could NOT win a war against the world.

Exactly. I've already gone over this. Of course we could never win such a war. But we could never lose one.

but what happens when we use up all our missles?

If we use up all of our missiles, then the world would probably have ceased to exist. We have enough nuclear missiles to completely destroy the world, I believe, something like 33 times over.

What happens when we nuke Iran? China gets pissed, or N.Korea gets spooked and they launch on us.

If we ever nuked Iran (which I keep on stressing is highly unlikely), I'd like to know what the other states in the world would do about it. North Korea doesn't have any missiles that can reach us. They'd just nuke Japan or something, if they even have nukes. China gets pissed? Who cares. They're a logical actor. They would never retaliate against the US using nuclear weapons, because they know that we would completely destroy them.

When more than one country has nukes it becomes much less likely to be able to use them in a tactical sense.

Right. But the world is a unipolar system, and like it or not, the US is the unipol. During the cold war, it was a bi-polar system, the USSR and the US being the bipols. Pre-WWI we lived in a multipolar system. The unipolar system is the most stable one. Why? Because the superpower dictates the way the system operates. It doesn't matter if other states have nuclear weapons. The US has more. And since states are logical actors, they would not put their assets in a position that would get them anihilated. The problem with North Korea, of course, is that Kim Jong Il, is insane, and you can't predict what he'll do based on logic.

God, get your heads out of your asses. To the few intelligent posts I've seen on this topic, I appologise for this rant. This is not directed at you. This is for the Fucking Morons out there who say "BRING EM ON!!!!! NO ONE CAN STAND TO THE MIGHT THAT IS THE CASTRATED AMERICA!!!!!!!"

I'm sorry if you think that I'm a fucking moron, but the fact is that everything I've said has come from accepted political science. Maybe if I gave you a little background about me, you'd understand more of where I'm coming from and hopefully accept what I've said. First, let me tell you that I am in no way a conservative by the US definition of the word. I am not of the same political affiliations as George Bush. If I can be classified as anything, it's probably a Neocon. Now, don't get all upity that you heard "con" and thought conservative. Because it's not. Neocon is an IR label. It's quite possibly the most perfect IR theory in the history of mankind, and if you'd like to talk about that, I will talk your ear off forever. I've studied this stuff time and time again, researched everything. I am basically a font of political science. This is why I'm pursuing a doctorate in political science, focusing on IR. I'm not coming from the point of view of something like a crazy redneck patriot. Please, ask any questions you'd like, and I'd be happy to answer them. but don't call me a fucking moron, because I will shoot you down.

[[HpA]SniperPotato]

When/if the nukes start flying, we're all going to lose. None of you are going to care who will win because you'll be dead.

[ApTyp]

Sounds like a prime recipee for a grudging compromise.

[Redeye]

but what happens when we use up all our missles?

If we use up all of our missiles, then the world would probably have ceased to exist. We have enough nuclear missiles to completely destroy the world, I believe, something like 33 times over.

I think Ranger was referring to AA and antiship missiles.

[King of Creation]

Oh...that reminds me, after reading that part about the missiles again. Is Ranger actually trying to say that US missiles are made in India and China?

[Redeye]

Oh...that reminds me, after reading that part about the missiles again. Is Ranger actually trying to say that US missiles are made in India and China?

Um...
Not sure. Maybe an intimation of subcomponent sourcing.
I think there are Nat'l Sec. clauses in the Buy American Act that kinda deal with this. Not that I have actually read any of that documentation.

Fuck it. Just pull a Plissken. 100x10MT bombs in the ionosphere all around the planet. Shut it down.
But you have to find the Apocalypse base first.

[Burnov]

Well, I doubt we'd use full scale nuclear weapons in the Middle East. There really isn't all that much reason to. The nuclear grenades and things are very plausible and effective and Should be used. There's not really much the rest of the Middle East can do. I mean really. Is Sudan going to fire some ICBMs at us? The US military is to strong. It's why we're the Unipol. If every single state in the world joined in a coalition against the US, the US would not lose.

You're off your rocker. I'm really hoping there are individuals who have their finger on the button so to speak, who have a lot more common sense and restraint than you.

[Koki]

Inins were these lowest-level monsters in (now dead) post-catastrophic MMORPG Mimesis Online.

Just thought you'd like to know.

[A_M]

[...]

And even if the launch was messed up and somehow the nuke went off, pretty much all of the silos that would be doing the launching are in the midwest. Nothing much really lost there in terms of strategic importance.

Except for the missle silos and all/most of the missles, yes.

And for the US economy - much of the $ comes from import/export buisness and factories in othe countries. You see the point, aye?

[Blargh]

but don't call me a fucking moron, because I will shoot you down.

MY DAD'S CAR IS FASTER THAN YOUR DAD'S CAR.

MY BACK YARD IS BIGGER THAN YOUR BACK YARD.

I CAN HIT YOU HARDER BECAUSE I HAVE A BIGGER STICK THAN YOU.

. . .

I really cannot be bothered with this. Have fun and good luck, all.

[RGE]

First, let me tell you that I am in no way a conservative by the US definition of the word. I am not of the same political affiliations as George Bush. If I can be classified as anything, it's probably a Neocon. Now, don't get all upity that you heard "con" and thought conservative. Because it's not.

I thought George Bush was a neocon. Or that his government is. Every conservative but you keeps mentioning how "they're fiscally conservative, but don't agree with Bush because he's a neocon". Or something like that.

Neocon is an IR label. It's quite possibly the most perfect IR theory in the history of mankind, and if you'd like to talk about that, I will talk your ear off forever. I've studied this stuff time and time again, researched everything. I am basically a font of political science. This is why I'm pursuing a doctorate in political science, focusing on IR.

What is IR in this context? I've only seen it as 'InfraRed', but that doesn't see to fit here.

I'm not coming from the point of view of something like a crazy redneck patriot.

You don't have to be a redneck to be crazy, you know.

For what it's worth, I believe you when you say that USA wouldn't lose an all out war, but what do I know?

[King of Creation]

George Bush is definitely NOT a neocon. Neocons HATE Bush. The neocon theory involves going into every state throughout the world and setting up free, democratic societies, regardless of US interests in that state. George Bush goes into states purely on the basis of US interest. Neocons would have been in places like Sudan (Darfur) a long time ago, and fixed that situation.

IR is Internation Relations. It's the branch of political science that deals with international politics and political theory.

[...]

And even if the launch was messed up and somehow the nuke went off, pretty much all of the silos that would be doing the launching are in the midwest. Nothing much really lost there in terms of strategic importance.

Except for the missle silos and all/most of the missles, yes.

And for the US economy - much of the $ comes from import/export buisness and factories in othe countries. You see the point, aye?

The beauty of that though is that the US is not integrated in foreign economies the way foreign economies have themselves integrated into the US economy. The US is in a position of what is called Interdependence. This means that while the US takes advantage of the resources of foreign economies, it is not fully integrated into them. If we stopped trading with the rest of the world, the world would hurt millions of times worse than the US. The US would actually do quite well. Sure our gas prices would raise to astronomical heights, but who cares?

Also...about the silos. There are quite a lot of them, and they're spread out pretty far so that it wouldn't really matter. The US does have around 6000 nuclear weapons (that it publically reveals). And plus, if such a ridiculous war ever started, the US would just dig up the nukes it buried as a result of the START treaties and things of that nature.

You're off your rocker. I'm really hoping there are individuals who have their finger on the button so to speak, who have a lot more common sense and restraint than you.

Off my rocker? I'm giving you the most plausible and internationally accepted theory as to what would happen. I, personally, don't ever want to see nuclear weapons used.

[A_M]

I, personally, don't ever want to see nuclear weapons used.

You and probably many more of your citisen's share that opinion. So if a nuke based weapon would come to use, do you think that the US people wouldn't oppose ? It could get so far, that there could be even a civil war.

It's a black vision of the near-future, but if Bush "and co." will still go that way in politic's this could be a fact.

...