Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

These two follow up messages make it more likely this is Putin vs Trump nuclear chicken. Putin defines "aggressor" as "someone who can potentially attack Russia," which is distinct from saying someone who wants to attack Russia. You would expect "aggressor" to be limited to the latter category, but Putin is calling the mere ability to attack Russia an aggressive behavior. That sounds like a good foundation for an arms race.

This is the last thing we need. The report is that Trump says let's go ahead and have an arms race because the USA will win. Putin said that he learned, as a kid growing up on the streets of Leningrad, that if you realize a fight is inevitable, you should strike first. Putin also reminds people that Russia is the only country that can destroy the USA in twenty minutes.

Putin has warned about a nuclear arms race. This is a famous speech about it. I agree totally when he says people do not seem to understand the urgency.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is the last thing we need. The report is that Trump says let's go ahead and have an arms race because the USA will win. Putin said that he learned, as a kid growing up on the streets of Leningrad, that if you realize a fight is inevitable, you should strike first. Putin also reminds people that Russia is the only country that can destroy the USA in twenty minutes.

Putin has warned about a nuclear arms race. This is a famous speech about it. I agree totally when he says people do not seem to understand the urgency.

That video is disturbing. I hadn't seen it before.

You have a link for these statements? :

"Putin said that he learned, as a kid growing up on the streets of Leningrad, that if you realize a fight is inevitable, you should strike first. Putin also reminds people that Russia is the only country that can destroy the USA in twenty minutes."

 

[jim hardy]

Thanks Dave for posting that video of Putin's speech. I've hoped it would gain traction here in US .

This moment

is exactly what the Russian Ambassador said a couple years ago in a Charlie Rose interview, " Charlie, I can't see what's in those silos, " which struck me as pretty logical.

NATO is building missile bases right on Russia's border.
That's just what Russia did on our border in 1962. We didn't like it.
My memories of that are vivid. I was in high school in Miami. It's scary when the rail yard adjacent your neighborhood fills up with troop trains and flatcars loaded with tanks and the airport fills up with B52s .
Khrushchev was the adult in the room, defusing the situation when he sent this to JFK:

Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose. Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot.
http://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html

Same shoe, different foot.

old jim

 

[Vanadium 50]

NATO is building missile bases right on Russia's border.

True, but misleading. These are anti-ICBM missiles. They are intended to shoot down Russian ICBMs in flight. They fire westward, not eastward.

That's just what Russia did on our border in 1962.

That's not at all what they did. They didn't install an ABM system in Cuba to intercept US ICBMs. They were first-strike capable nuclear missiles.

But let's go back to an earlier question: if the appropriate response to Russia reducing its arsenal is for the US to do the same, what is the appropriate US reaction to Russia increasing its arsenal?

 

[russ_watters]

Recall what I was responding to:

I was trying to explain why my assessment seemed "really weird" in the sense of not meaning what it seemed to imply. And that is because it was an encapsulation of Trump's 'really weird' remarks that seem to imply something, but apparently don't. I pass the cognitive dissonance on in my encapsulation without trying to sort out what he actually thinks because I don't see a clear way to do that.

I'm not interested in playing games, zooby. In discussions, I want clarity. I want to understand what others are saying and I want others to understand what I am saying. That means I give clear answers and I expect clear answers in return. If you aren't interested in the same thing, I'm not interested in having a discussion with you. So I guess we're done here.

 

[russ_watters]

It may have been smarter to have scrapped NATO in 1991 and invented a new organization then, with a clear post-Cold War mandate. But that's not what we did, and it's what we have now.

Organizations often persist long after their original purpose is over. The March of Dimes was created in 1938 to end polio. Seventeen years later, there was a vaccine. Sixty-one years after that, The March of Dimes is still here.

...and is no longer trying to end polio.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

That video is disturbing. I hadn't seen it before.

You have a link for these statements? :

"Putin said that he learned, as a kid growing up on the streets of Leningrad, that if you realize a fight is inevitable, you should strike first. Putin also reminds people that Russia is the only country that can destroy the USA in twenty minutes."

Here is the link where he talks about striking first. The context is terrorism but it makes me wonder if he would apply this to nuclear war. I get that impression based on the other video I posted.



As far as destroying the USA in twenty minutes, this story quotes him as saying half an hour or less, so I suppose my memory was slightly faulty on the exact statement. I haven't been able to track down a video where he says this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...litary-praising-indispensable-leadership.html

 

[jim hardy]

rue, but misleading. These are anti-ICBM missiles.

No, they are missile silos that can house anything and are sold to the public as anti-nonexistent(for now) Iranian ICBMs . That's deceit.

Fortunately both sides have enough spies to know what the other is up to.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here is the link where he talks about striking first. The context is terrorism but it makes me wonder if he would apply this to nuclear war. I get that impression based on the other video I posted.



As far as destroying the USA in twenty minutes, this story quotes him as saying half an hour or less, so I suppose my memory was slightly faulty on the exact statement. I haven't been able to track down a video where he says this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...litary-praising-indispensable-leadership.html

Thanks much for the video and links.

In the first video you posted something that disturbed me a lot was that, in Putin's mind, an arms race had already begun before the time of the making of that video. Given the quote about striking first, and his tendency toward the most paranoid interpretation of any situation, things don't look good: volatile people in charge on both sides.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not interested in playing games, zooby. In discussions, I want clarity. I want to understand what others are saying and I want others to understand what I am saying. That means I give clear answers and I expect clear answers in return. If you aren't interested in the same thing, I'm not interested in having a discussion with you. So I guess we're done here.

Now you're presenting the false dilemma that an answer is either clear or it's playing games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Er...so you did intend to imply that Trump thinks we should pull out? Please be clear, Zooby: do you think Trump wants to pull out of NATO or not?

He seems conflicted. That is the simplest statement of the clearest picture I can make out. All my other remarks have been more elaborate explications of the same thing.

 

[1oldman2]

nuclear chicken

The problem with that game is until someone flinches or swerves ( https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v06/comp1 ) The entire worlds ass is on the line, I was pretty young during those days but I remember the the "Elephant" at our dinner table when my dad returned home from work on the local D.E.W. installation. (Ratheon)

a good foundation for an arms race.

Yup, foundations in place from the footers to the top of the stem wall. It appears construction season is upon us. (Pardon my crude analogies and I hope chopping up your post like that hasn't skewed the context of your post).

 

[jim hardy]

I was pretty young during those days but I remember

i

that's a good site to know about, 1oldman .

( https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v06/comp1

Those letters show what thoughtful people we had on both sides.

One should read #65 in its entirety.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v06/d65

 

[Vanadium 50]

No, they are missile silos that can house anything

Here's a drawing of one:

Essentially it's a missile cruiser on land - without the need to make it float. And move.

It fires an SM-3 missile, which has no warhead at all. It's 20 feet tall and 21 inches wide. You simply cannot fit a Minuteman - three times as tall and three times as wide - in one of these. You could put a SM-6 in one. This has a 64 kg conventional warhead and a range of about 250 miles. The only part of Russian territory that it can possibly hit from Romania is Crimea. And that's not really NATO's fault, is it?

 

[1oldman2]

One should read #65 in its entirety.

I certainly will, Thanks.

 

[jim hardy]

You simply cannot fit a Minuteman - three times as tall and three times as wide

You no longer need a minuteman and that's their point. Even a lowly Tomahawk can go 900 nautical miles.
W80 dial-a-nuke warhead, weighs about 290 pounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_(nuclear_warhead)

One possible replacement for old Tomahawks

 

[zoobyshoe]

The problem with that game is until someone flinches or swerves ( https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v06/comp1 ) The entire worlds ass is on the line...

Exactly.

And, since neither participant is remotely as diplomatic as Khrushchev and Kennedy were, it promises to be very rough going for the general public.

Yup, foundations in place from the footers to the top of the stem wall. It appears construction season is upon us. (Pardon my crude analogies...).

I get it. There's a strong temptation to deflect anxiety with dark humor. I'm certainly tempted.

 

[mheslep]

The context is terrorism but it makes me wonder if he would apply this to nuclear war.

Would be ignorant of Putin to actually think so. Throwing the first punch is a plausible strategy for a winnable fight. This Russian government can not win a nuclear war, or any kind of direct force of arms war with the US and its allies. Even given the first several strikes, with the current US posture, Putin will lose, permanently.

One plausible strategy for an expansionist minded Putin under these circumstances, is to bluster about being a PTSD street fighter contemplating a nuclear war, and, with the aid of misinformation via Putin's intelligence services, calculate that this scares the West into infighting and some kind of unilateral disarmament. Putin might, and I know this seems like a plot for cold war spy novel, spark and support a California secession movement.

 

[mheslep]

NATO is building missile bases right on Russia's border.

C'mon, the Crimean border? The anti-missile base Deveselu, Romania is a thousand miles from Moscow.

 

[Vanadium 50]

even a lowly Tomahawk can go 900 nautical miles.

For which you don't need a fixed land-based siting. You need a ship or submarine, and back when we had GLCM's, you needed a parking lot.

The situation is very different than with Cuba in 1962. In Cuba, actual nuclear missiles and bombers (which everyone seems to forget) were deployed. Aegis Ashore does not deploy nuclear missiles. There is no present US nuclear missile that even can be deployed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

C'mon, the Crimean border? The anti-missile base Deveselu, Romania is a thousand miles from Moscow.

Cue Boris Badenov accent:

"Is far from present borders, da. But not so far from future borders, eh?"

 

[mheslep]

Even a lowly Tomahawk can go 900 nautical miles.

Cruise missiles don't need a base in Romania or anywhere else on land in eastern Europe.

 

[mheslep]

You need a ship or submarine,

Or aircraft.

 

[mheslep]

Cue Boris Badenov accent:

"Is far from present borders, da. But not so far from future borders, eh?"

Moose and Squirrel beat Boris/Natasha every time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is no present US nuclear missile that even can be deployed.

Meaning, there is no way to launch a missile from US soil? Or...?

 

[mheslep]

No capability to launch a ballistic missile from Romania, where the US anti-missile base recently turned on.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No capability to launch a ballistic missile from Romania, where the US anti-missile base recently turned on.

OK. Thanks.

 

[zoobyshoe]

From today's Business Insider:

And on Friday, Trump went even further. MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski said that when she asked him if his tweet might spur other countries to increase their nuclear arsenals,he replied, "let it be an arms race."

While most experts agreed that Trump's statements about nuclear proliferation were dangerous, the Kremlin might actually be happy to rise to the challenge.

"I think Mr. Putin will be delighted," James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Business Insider on Friday.

"Putin has for a long time called for strengthening Russia's nuclear deterrent remaining within the limits of arms control. But this is fantastic from his perspective because it legitimizes a lot of the dangerous and destabilizing action he'd like to do with Russia's nuclear arsenal."

A supposed military challenge from America could play well domestically in Russia, Acton said.

"From his own perspective, that's not such a bad thing," Acton said. "The Putin regime in recent years has been founded upon anti-Americanism. A threat from America is a useful thing for him to have domestically."

At the end of the day, Trump "is clearly [Putin's] man in the White House," Acton said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-russia-relations-2016-12

 

[1oldman2]

(Regarding post # 62)
There you see ! It's quotes like Trumps statement here that make people like myself use the wrong terms titling threads.
Seriously though, while that is a thought provoking article you have cited the problem may be larger than what's on the surface here.
Aside from the obvious technological differences (not to mention the threat to mankind in general) what I see going on here isn't much different than a couple of Bipedal Hairy Critters some 500,000 years ago scrambling for the biggest club or rock. (no reference to anyone or A. Clarke novel intended) . Both Russia and the members of NATO have to realize the futility of tossing around thousands or billions of megatons of radioactive death, there can't be any true "winners" in such a conflict, it's a power play with some very bold threats unless the wrong leader gets incredibly stupid. (not out of the realm of possibility though). Whats far more likely is that while the world has their collective eyes on the big picture something like
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/middleeast/israel-pakistan-fake-news-nuclear/index.html
(CNN) - A fake news story led to threats of nuclear war between Pakistan and Israel on Christmas Eve.
In an article published by AWDNews on Tuesday December 20, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon was quoted as threatening to destroy Pakistan if it sent troops into Syria.
Is going to come along and things will get "flaky" fast, that scares the hell out of me. I love Dr. Strangelove as a movie but I don't ever want to see the real deal go down. [/QUOTE

 

[zoobyshoe]

The way I read that quote was actually more hopeful because it suggests Putin is merely using the whole situation to consolidate and maintain his power in Russia, a kind of "There is a threat you all need to know about and I am the man who can stand up to it!," sort of thing. The most important line in the quote, as I see it, is:

"A supposed military challenge from America could play well domestically in Russia, Acton said."

In other words, whatever arms race he might instigate with the US, that is not his primary goal. The primary goal is to make himself seem indispensable to his fellow Russians. To a large extent, that's how Stalin got through WWII; as the rock hard leader who would not give way to Hitler's invading armies.

I don't know if it's true, but it's entirely plausible.

 

[1oldman2]

The way I read that quote was actually more hopeful because it suggests Putin is merely using the whole situation to consolidate and maintain his power in Russia, a kind of "There is a threat you all need to know about and I am the man who can stand up to it!," sort of thing. The most important line in the quote, as I see it, is:

"A supposed military challenge from America could play well domestically in Russia, Acton said."

In other words, whatever arms race he might instigate with the US, that is not his primary goal. The primary goal is to make himself seem indispensable to his fellow Russians. To a large extent, that's how Stalin got through WWII; as the rock hard leader who would not give way to Hitler's invading armies.

I don't know if it's true, but it's entirely plausible.

We both read that article the same, it's all about obtaining and maintaining power, (pure politics in the raw, only with larger consequences on the line).
My main focus was the threat of some minor player in the nuke club getting into a pissing match with another and dragging in the rest of the gang, That "fake new's problem is getting serious.
I should add that the particular part of the quote I was referring to was the wording,
"While most experts agreed that Trump's statements about nuclear proliferation were dangerous"
I was making light of the fact that Trump was using the term "Nuclear proliferation" in regards to the current situation, I do believe "arms race" is a much more relevant phrase after considering renaming the thread.

, that's how Stalin got through WWII; as the rock hard leader who would not give way to Hitler's invading armies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_His_Hangmen

 

[zoobyshoe]

I should add that the particular part of the quote I was referring to was the wording,
"While most experts agreed that Trump's statements about nuclear proliferation were dangerous"
I was making light of the fact that Trump was using the term "Nuclear proliferation" in regards to the current situation, I do believe "arms race" is a much more relevant phrase after considering renaming the thread.

Trump doesn't seemed to have used "nuclear proliferation," though. That was the writer's paraphrase of "arms race."

We both read that article the same, it's all about obtaining and maintaining power, (pure politics in the raw, only with larger consequences on the line).
My main focus was the threat of some minor player in the nuke club getting into a pissing match with another and dragging in the rest of the gang, That "fake new's problem is getting serious.

Yes, there's always the threat of a non-superpower initiating a first strike. Saddam Hussein said, apparently in all seriousness, if he had a nuclear weapon, he would drop it on Tel Aviv. Which is why the later report he had acquired weapons of mass destruction was enough to spur us to invade. It's also why we ride Iran. Our perception is that middle eastern potentates are more volatile than most. Then there's North Korea, perhaps the craziest of all.

The Pakistan/Israel fake new tensions remind that disasters include "perfect storm" scenarios that couldn't have been predicted. Fortunately, that one got defused pretty quickly.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Don't worry. I'm sure the new S of D General Mad Dog will be able to calm things down. Also, I think the Russian missiles are not what they are cracked up to be. For example, the Russians say their new RS-28 Sarmat, the so-called "Satan 2", can destroy a whole country. People have mentioned Texas and France as examples. But let's look on the bright side. A single RS-28 can't destroy both Texas and France at the same time! Since they can only afford one aircraft carrier, they won't be able to afford many of those Satans. Maybe they really one have one. See, things are not so gloomy as they appear.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Don't worry. I'm sure the new S of D General Mad Dog will be able to calm things down. Also, I think the Russian missiles are not what they are cracked up to be. For example, the Russians say their new RS-28 Sarmat, the so-called "Satan 2", can destroy a whole country. People have mentioned Texas and France as examples. But let's look on the bright side. A single RS-28 can't destroy both Texas and France at the same time! Since they can only afford one aircraft carrier, they won't be able to afford many of those Satans. Maybe they really one have one. See, things are not so gloomy as they appear.

Sorry, I meant to write "they really only have one." Also I know that Texas is not a country, at least for now. I allowed human emotion to perturb my thinking. So much for my badge of perfect logic. I will need to meditate a few more years. I hope we can all think clearly on this topic. Now it's back to tech stuff for me. Live long and prosper and happy new year to all.

 

[mheslep]

From today's Business Insider:

At the end of the day, Trump "is clearly [Putin's] man in the White House," Acton said

Im thinking the President who passively allowed Russia to annex Crimea, invade eastern Ukraine, down an airliner, bomb Sryia; the President who mocked Romney's concerns about Russian threats, and proactively canceled the planned US anti missile deployments in Europe, would be Putin's man in the White House. But that's just me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Im thinking the President who passively allowed Russia to annex Crimea, invade eastern Ukraine, down an airliner, bomb Sryia, mock Romney's concerns about Russian threats, and proactively canceled the planned US anti missile deployments in Europe, would be Putin's man in the White House. But that's just me.

Acton is saying Trump is Putin's man in the white house when it comes to a nuclear arms race:

While most experts agreed that Trump's statements about nuclear proliferation were dangerous, the Kremlin might actually be happy to rise to the challenge.

"I think Mr. Putin will be delighted," James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Business Insider on Friday.

"Putin has for a long time called for strengthening Russia's nuclear deterrent remaining within the limits of arms control. But this is fantastic from his perspective because it legitimizes a lot of the dangerous and destabilizing action he'd like to do with Russia's nuclear arsenal."