Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?

[mheslep]

In the era of a disgraced press, shouldn't the phrase "most [unamed] experts agree... [ambiguous, absent context blah blah blah] is dangerous" be on the editor's shall-not-use list?

 

[Robertphysics]

A few thoughts ,David Reeves I think the reason why they bought only one French aircraft carrier if I'm correct but can afford multiple last generation ICBM's like Satan2 is because western military production is largely privatized and hence comes with a larger price tag while Soviet/Russian arms factories and design bureaus are state owned /controlled and so the costs are lower because the very party to set the price is also the one buying the end product.
It's a long known fact that Russian military craft is on average almost twice as cheap as western counterparts. I'm sure China has very similar policy and implementation of their military manufacturing.As to what mheslep said about Russia losing in the end of an all out war between the west and east , well this depends on what one counts as losing. Sure Russia by any current statistical analysis has less power than the US and it's NATO allies , also in a war situation more targets would be destroyed in Russia than in the US for example but does being hit with MIRV's of thermonuclear weapons and some of the largest cities and infrastructure objects obliterated also in the US count as a victory ? You might say that Russia couldn't recover from such a war if it happened now but so I believe couldn't the US , not even taking into account things like national debt , such extensive damage as would occur in a nuclear WW3 scenario would almost entirely render most of the global markets and industry gone as would be the industry and infrastructure in the nations directly participating in such a war.

After all if a entity or a country has nuclear weapons nobody wants to engage in a war with them , much less if that country is among the 5 world's strongest military powers simply because of the consequences for the other side, heck we are scared of N Korea simply because of this because otherwise if they would simply have a conventional army no one would even raise and eyebrow.

As coming from a foreign perspective I have to agree here with mheslep that Obama administration has indeed been weak if not the weakest in US history in terms of foreign policy which has given direct bonuses to US rivals also Russia.So from such a perspective we might as well say Obama as been Putin's man. Or maybe without any conspiracy theories we could just agree that whether you like him or not Putin is a very smart and capable personality with a experienced team behind him and they simply used Obama's stance on issues to advance their own agenda as did others.
Since none of us here have any "KGB" CIA inside info on things I assume , then all we can say about inside or outside people will come with time. Time will show who Trump is and then we will judge accordingly.
As for Obama time has went by and his real intentions have become somewhat more clear , the Israel resolution in the UN recently probably showing his feelings towards Israelis and Muslims which are no wonder given his own roots and uprising.

zoobyshoe , very good observation , indeed most if not all of the peace threatening conflicts apart from WW1 and WW2 have come not from Russia or US or Europe but instead from Middle East , I too believe that there is a very high chance that the birthplace of civilization could also ironically become it's death bed.

 

[1oldman2]

Then there's North Korea, perhaps the craziest of all.

This just in... http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear/index.html(CNN)Political
uncertainty in the United States and in South Korea could give North Korean leader Kim Jong-un "an apt time" to develop nuclear weapons "at all costs by the end of 2017," a high-profile North Korean diplomat who recently defected to South Korea said Tuesday.

Then of there are the "other players in the game"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/asia/china-aircraft-carrier-pacific/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/asia/india-icbm-test/index.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

This just in... http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear/index.html(CNN)Political
uncertainty in the United States and in South Korea could give North Korean leader Kim Jong-un "an apt time" to develop nuclear weapons "at all costs by the end of 2017," a high-profile North Korean diplomat who recently defected to South Korea said Tuesday.

Then of there are the "other players in the game"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/asia/china-aircraft-carrier-pacific/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/asia/india-icbm-test/index.html

North Korea has recently stipulated a dual nuclear-economic development policy to be part of the ruling party's official platform, but in reality, the decision puts nuclear development at the top priority, he said.
"Following the ruling party congress in May, Kim Jong-un made it a party policy to finish nuclear development within the earliest time possible," he told the news agency.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in October that it's a "lost cause" to try to get North Korea to surrender its nuclear weapons.
"They are under siege and they are very paranoid. So the notion of giving up their nuclear capability, whatever it is, is a nonstarter with them," Clapper said in remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "The best we could probably hope for is some sort of a cap."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear/
"...very paranoid..." = worst possible state of mind to try to deal with.

India has somewhere between 100 to 120 nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists -- more than North Korea, but less than China and a similar amount as Pakistan.
Specifically, the development is likely most worrying for China -- with a range of more than 5,000 kilometers (more than 3,100 miles) the Agni-V is India's longest-range and puts Beijing within striking distance.
Pakistan, India's historical adversary, was already in range before the Agni-V, according to IHS Jane's, a military analysis company.
Before the Agni-V and its predecessor, India's longest-range missile could barely reach mainland China, says Ajai Shukla, a former Indian army colonel and a columnist at India's Business Standard.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/asia/india-icbm-test/index.html
Puts Beijing within striking distance whereas before they could barely reach mainland China. So, 1oldman2, you're right. The consequences are getting worse If any of these lesser players become completely loose canons.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In the era of a disgraced press, shouldn't the phrase "most [unamed] experts agree... [ambiguous, absent context blah blah blah] is dangerous" be on the editor's shall-not-use list?

You're right. I reread the whole piece and there's no indication of what experts they're referring to or how they were polled.

That shabby lapse aside, I like the piece for the picture it paints of Putin using this situation to manipulate the people around him as opposed to actually believing the US is installing anti-nuclear defences in the region so we can go into Russia and do anything we want with no fear of nuclear retaliation. It implies there's a sane core inside all the deviousness that wouldn't launch a first strike. To maintain power without a lot of coup attempts and conspiracies against him, a dictator has to convince people he's indispensable and needs total control in order to protect them.

I don't know if it's true, I don't know how paranoid he actually is, but it struck me as plausible he's not as paranoid as he pretends to be. That it's a ploy to make those around him paranoid so they'll support his nuclear "enhancements."

 

[Robertphysics]

Are you really that worried zoobyshoe about the whole situation?

Here's what I think. Putin is an ex/active? high ranking KGB/FSB agent, he may be called many names but mentally unstable is simply not one of them.That's out of the picture. The folks who got his kind of job went through some extreme psychological tests, in other words they are mentally rugged as hell and cold blooded.

As long as no one presses the "red button" it doesn't really matter whether there is a psychopath or an extremely cold blooded manipulator at the controls because his talk and moves make the desired effect yet leave people scared and wondering ... think about it. Also the reason why we have this discussion here.

I'd say in case of Putin it's hardcore manipulation taking place maybe with some genuine hate towards the west, and it seems it works just great.
If I were you I would worry more about the likes of Kim and countries like Pakistan, Iran. I don't want to come off as racist but the mentality and history of countries largely Muslim and some Asian shows that nuclear weapons may be the last thing they need.The most dangerous folks are always those who have nothing to lose or who believe they have nothing to lose from death but only to gain from it... (insert specific religion here)

 

[Prideful]

I find it sad that Russia as a whole still thinks they need to worry about their country's continued existence enough to resort to the same ancient practices of threaten and expand. When's the last time a major country has just up and disappeared? Their stance only makes them disliked and potentially a target to be disseminated.

 

[Vanadium 50]

When's the last time a major country has just up and disappeared?

That would be the USSR in 1991.

 

[Prideful]

That would be the USSR in 1991.

They didn't disappear though, they just became something else. I mean didn't they? Am I even referring to it as a "they" correctly? I forget what the USSR actually was.

 

[Vanadium 50]

They didn't disappear though, they just became something else.

When countries disappear, they always become 'something else'. If you are requiring that they disappear and don't become anything else, I guess the best edxample is Brigadoon. Maybe Atlantis.

 

[Prideful]

When countries disappear, they always become 'something else'. If you are requiring that they disappear and don't become anything else, I guess the best edxample is Brigadoon. Maybe Atlantis.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I really don't consider the USSR disappearing as a country disappearing. The USSR is a bad example anyway, it was only a country for 69 years and was it ever really a country anyway?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Article today on Kim Jong Un:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/asia/north-korea-kim-jong-un-year-end-lookahead/?sr=google_news

Analysts agree that Kim is far from the unstable madman many present him to be. In fact, Ko, the former South Korean Foreign Ministry official, called the North Korean leader "cautious and calculating."
For instance, Ko said, Kim knows he can use the annual string of US-South Korean military exercises, involving thousands of troops and the latest US weaponry, to his advantage.
"He demands from his people and subordinates complete obedience to his leadership, because the country is on the verge of imminent invasion from the US and South Korea," Ko said. "He creates cohesion and unity among his people in facing the invasion."
While he keeps his people in line with talks of an impending invasion, he keeps his adversaries off balance by talking peace.
"Kim continues to pursue a peace treaty with United States," explained Bennett, the RAND expert. "And if he succeeds in getting such a treaty, it is entirely possible that US forces would be withdrawn from South Korea within a few years, likely to never return."
In other words, Kim wins if US troops get off his doorstep.

Same thing I was saying about Putin: Kim Jong Un is painting himself as the indispensable leader; the only bulwark against the vicious enemy: 'The invasion is immanent: obey me and we will prevail.'

 

[1oldman2]

the indispensable leader

This seems to be the common thread throughout history, amazingly the general public hasn't gotten around to questioning that rhetoric.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

When countries disappear, they always become 'something else'. If you are requiring that they disappear and don't become anything else, I guess the best edxample is Brigadoon. Maybe Atlantis.

Don't forget the lost continent of Mu. But in all seriousness, history is not a good guide on this question. It's only recently in world history that a major country could be wiped out in 30 minutes and rendered uninhabitable for a very long time. Look at what happened to Chernobyl and Pripyat and that was just an accident in which radiation was released. Pripyat is a ghost town even though the buildings are still there. There is an interview with Gorbachev in which he points out they were very concerned about a second explosion which would have destroyed Kiev, poisoned the water supply for a huge area, and perhaps made Europe uninhabitable.

No wonder Putin is so worried. Not only does he know what happened at Chernobyl, but as far as a country disappearing, that almost happened to the USSR. Putin's parents lived through that. Read about their experiences. Are the Russians paranoid? Look at how things changed here in the USA due to one terrorist attack that brought down a few buildings in New York. So are we paranoid? No, we have just realized we need to protect ourselves better than in the past. 9/11 was trivial compared to the destruction Russians and Europeans saw in WW2. We should not be so ready to call others paranoid until we have stood in their shoes.

At least after WW2 and 9/11 people could rebuild. But next time with nukes involved there will be no rebuilding. It will not be like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were very weak bombs compared to what we have today.

Right now the most credible defense against nuclear attack is to build up your own forces so much that any attacker would know that it could be destroyed completely by your counter-attack. Even with that Mutually Assured Destruction we have been very close to nuclear war on several occasions. Quite sensibly both sides are working on defensive systems. But no one is claiming they can work 100% and unfortunately it only takes one H-bomb to destroy a city.

Sorry to sound like Cassandra but let's get real please. We all face a constant existential threat until this problem is sorted out.

 

[1oldman2]

Sadly nobody seems to care here about my remarks.

This isn't the case at all, your perspective is most important for this thread to be more than a lot of "us against them" flag waving. Your points and thoughts are a refreshing break from the news feed crap we all get sold on the average.

 

[1oldman2]

This isn't going to do much for world peace either. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/politics/russia-sanctions-announced-by-white-house/index.html
I expect the usual "spirited banter" between the concerned parties to commence shortly.

Yup, right on schedule.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38464612
A spokesman for President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin's reaction would cause the US "significant discomfort".

However, he hinted that Russia may wait until Donald Trump, who has played down the hacking claims, becomes president.

 

[1oldman2]

This may be somewhat dated however page 2 is relevant and I would imagine that line of thinking hasn't improved since it was published. (This mindset just may explain the acceptability by some leaders regarding "The bomb")
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0509205.pdf

 

[Prideful]

P.S. I don't think the Russians are paranoid because of the dissolution of the USSR , some of them actually wanted it ,some didn't, The satellite countries probably wanted it more for a number of advanced reasons. My parents and grandparents went through both world wars and the rise of the USSR and the fall of it , the fall of thew USSR was nothing compared with the death smell and terror of war and for those who got unlucky or did wrong stuff the purges of Stalin.

I think it is a misconception to assume Putin works out of paranoia of loosing something , i think he rather works with the idea of gaining as much as he can and using the situation , the ordinary folks , well we just live along and mind our own business as always as has been since the beginning of time.

Just to clear something up, I never used the word "sad" in relation to Russia I said I was sad they thought they had to continue ancient practices to continue being a country. Nor did I ever even use the word "paranoid", but I wouldn't consider that wrong.

Russia has always historically been a nation of "paranoia". If you've ever read any Russian history you would understand. It wasn't necessarily a bad thing in the past. Hell, it was probably a good thing back then, but it translates badly to modern times where the only way a real country will "disappear" is either by some imaginary major accident, in turn simply morphing the country into a different country or some such or the country itself choosing to include itself in a United nations of sorts.

There is no more major takeovers anymore, this is not medieval times where one nation conquers another unless perhaps we are talking very small scale nations in third world conditions. We all need to understand this and evolve for the greater good.

 

[Dembadon]

Ok he may be manipulating and using situations but then again isn't the US doing exactly the same? The NSA spying on US enemies and even allies , collecting of phone records and net search history , building billions of servers houses to store all this data , why isn't anyone calling that paranoid ?

I don't agree with "...exactly the same." Collecting phone records and internet search history is not equivalent to furthering nuclear offensive capabilities.

If you ask me it may be over the top but I see the logic behind it.

I understand "over the top" to mean "more than what is necessary". I'm not sure how something can simultaneously be "over the top" and "logical".

 

[Wminus]

Guys, there's been 5 pages of pointless arguing here. You need to understand two things:

(1) Trump expanding the offensive capabilities of the US Nuclear arsenal will not lead to a response from the Russian side, because that will not threaten the strategic balance and MAD. The US already has the capability to destroy Russia, or any other country, and expanding this capability will not change that and it won't threaten the other countries' arsenals either (due to modern sensing technology + the fact that modern nuclear launch platforms are mobile and hidden) => The media's hype is just typical BS fearmongering aimed to get more views (how anyone can trust the mainstream media anymore is beyond me btw).

(2) The only way the US can threaten the strategic balance and MAD is by trying to negate other nations' nuclear arsenals by building defensive weaponry, ie expanding the missile shields. This WOULD force Russia to respond by building better weapons and hence trigger an arms race. While this would be the wet dream of every defense contractor, hawk general and hawk politician (and the underemployed physicists in the US caught in post-doc purgatory), this is (thankfully for the world) not what Trump was proposing.

So, in conclusion, Trump was just telling everyone he likes Nukes and will protect America, ie typical Trump-talk that means nothing.

PS: It'd be nice if we could refrain from trashtalking Russia/Russian engineering/Putin etc. because clearly the level of knowledge of said topics isn't very high here. Just try to keep an open mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Article from back in Sept.:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...lly-think-about-using-nuclear-weapons-n655536

Interesting take from a couple days ago:

...Putin is fully justified in his complacency. Contra Barro, there is no reason to think that a new arms race would replicate the Cold War, with the U.S. using its economic superiority to force the Russians into a competition they are bound to lose. By Trump’s own account, the main global problem isn’t Russia but http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/26/trump_media_wont_say_radical_islamic_terrorism_because_they_dont_want_to_offend_president_obama.html Iran, and China.

More broadly, going back to at least 1987, Trump has believed that it is in America’s best interest to join forces with the Soviet Union to fight emerging powers. In a recently resurfaced interview from 1987 with Ron Rosenbaum, Trump laid out the case for the world’s two major superpowers to work as a team. “Most of those [pre-nuclear] countries are in one form or another dominated by the U.S. and the Soviet Union,” Trump told Rosenbaum. “Between those two nations you have the power to dominate any of those countries.” Trump then suggested that Pakistan, which at that point didn’t have nuclear weapons, could be prevented from doing so by the U.S. and Soviet Union’s “powers of retaliation.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/139...r-arms-race-isnt-warning-putin-its-invitation

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

The only way the US can threaten the strategic balance and MAD is by trying to negate other nations' nuclear arsenals by building defensive weaponry, ie expanding the missile shields. This WOULD force Russia to respond by building better weapons and hence trigger an arms race.

This has been happening for years. See the video I posted in which Putin explains this. The Russian response to NATO missile defense is not to duplicate it, but to overwhelm it with more and better offensive missiles. Putin warned years ago this is how he would respond. He said Russia would not tolerate a defensive system that would neutralize the Russian nuclear threat. NATO went ahead and Putin responded. I think any sane leader would do the same.

Now Trump is saying he wants to greatly expand the American nuclear arsenal. The other party does not seem to be promoting peaceful relations with Russia. None of this makes me feel safer.

The only way to guarantee we won't be vaporized by nukes is to eliminate the nukes. This is what we should be suggesting to our leaders. Returning to Prof. Winterberg's statement, I do find one flaw. He says it may take an all-out thermonuclear war for people to realize a world government is necessary. This assumes there will be people left after such a war. But if the nuclear winter scenario is correct, there won't be for long. To paraphrase Monty Python, we will be bereft of life, pushing up the daisies, and resting in peace. We will have ceased to be.

Therefore, our best survival strategy is to get rid of the nukes before we use them in war. But this would require an agreement between every country that has nukes. No one is going to get rid of their nukes if even one other country keeps theirs. As Prof. Winterberg said, it seems Utopian.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/nato-missile-defense-romania-poland/

https://www.rt.com/news/346076-turkey-cavusoglu-missile-defense/

 

[mheslep]

When's the last time a major country has just up and disappeared?

That would be the USSR in 1991.

I'd have to go with Crimea, 2014, on that one Alex.

 

[Prideful]

I'd have to go with Crimea, 2014, on that one Alex.

That's fair, although considering it was taken by the country I'm referring to throughout this conversation I think that just bolsters my original point. Whole countries don't just get taken over left and right in the modern day. Especially during this age of information.

 

[mheslep]

That's fair, although considering it was taken by the country I'm referring to throughout this conversation I think that just bolsters my original point.

The specific case of Russia has a long history that is supposed to inform us that they have a built-in, generational fear of foreign conquest. The Nazi invasion cost the Soviets 20 to 40 million lives and in the prior centuries the great power games threatened the lagging development in Russia While I don't doubt that history plays some part, there is no real threat of a massive foreign invasion. The only real threat to the Russian federation is a further self-dismantling.

Whole countries don't just get taken over left and right in the modern day. Especially during this age of information.

What is it about Twitter or Facebook that could stop Putin from sending some divisions into, say, Finland (again)? Expulsion of 32 Russians? No, the main deterrence is that the Fins destroyed a Soviet division the last time it was tried. The stage props of the New World Order (the UN, the EU) are now seen for what they are.

 

[Prideful]

The specific case of Russia has a long history that is supposed to inform us that they have a built-in, generational fear of foreign conquest. The Nazi invasion cost the Soviets 20 to 40 million lives and in the prior centuries the great power games threatened the lagging development in Russia While I don't doubt that history plays some part, there is no real threat of a massive foreign invasion. The only real threat to the Russian federation is a further self-dismantling.What is it about Twitter or Facebook that could stop Putin from sending some divisions into, say, Finland (again)? Expulsion of 32 Russians? No, the main deterrence is that the Fins destroyed a Soviet division the last time it was tried. The stage props of the New World Order (the UN, the EU) are now seen for what they are.

I'm getting very confused about where this discussion is going. I realize that historical information about Russian fear of foreign conquest. That's what I'm saying they need to move away from. I only brought up the age of information because I meant that society is evolving. Becoming more and more connected and less hostile towards different ideas. Which leads to fewer conflicts and therefore wars.

When did we get into discussing NWO? In my personal opinion I welcome a world order of some sort, in fact I believe it is the only future governmental system possible. There will always be flaws, corruption in any governmental system -cough- USA -cough-. However, at least by having a world government this corruption can be localized to a point and perhaps sterilized better. The benefits of a world government far out way the downfalls to me.

 

[mheslep]

... I only brought up the age of information because I meant that society is evolving. Becoming more and more connected and less hostile towards different ideas. Which leads to fewer conflicts and therefore wars...

The internet exists is a fact; fewer wars is a fact when compared to the first half of the 20th century. The 'therefore' is not a fact but an assertion. Societal evolution (for the better) is an assertion. That Internet traffic is mostly porn and used by ISIS to radicalize and recruit is partial evidence contradicting the idea that society is evolving for the better via the Internet. More likely, the general improvement in living conditions enabled by trade and technology, the expansion of democracy, and especially the military hegemony of the western democracies are all responsible for the decline of war.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The article I linked to earlier asserts that Trump has a wrong, 'business model' of nuclear proliferation that leads him to conceive of it as inevitable and normal in a free market:

In May, Trump even suggested he could support South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia, who are not currently nuclear powers, arming themselves with nuclear weapons for their own defense.

CNN's Anderson Cooper asked the Republican presidential nominee, "So if you said, Japan, yes, it's fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?"

Trump agreed.

"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen, anyway. It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time," Trump insisted, despite a 25-year trend in which numerous nations — Libya, South Africa, Iraq, and former Soviet republics — have been denuclearized.

"They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely," Trump said. "But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...lly-think-about-using-nuclear-weapons-n655536

Seen in light of that, his recent, “Let there be an arms race, because we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.", has the warped ring of, "Bring on the competition, because our product will always be superior!"

System Accidents

"Normal" accidents, or system accidents, are so-called by Perrow because such accidents are inevitable in extremely complex systems. Given the characteristic of the system involved, multiple failures which interact with each other will occur, despite efforts to avoid them. Perrow said that operator error is a very common problem, many failures relate to organizations rather than technology, and big accidents almost always have very small beginnings.[2] Such events appear trivial to begin with before unpredictably cascading through the system to create a large event with severe consequences.[1]

Normal Accidents contributed key concepts to a set of intellectual developments in the 1980s that revolutionized the conception of safety and risk. It made the case for examining technological failures as the product of highly interacting systems, and highlighted organizational and management factors as the main causes of failures. Technological disasters could no longer be ascribed to isolated equipment malfunction, operator error or acts of God.[3]

Perrow identifies three conditions that make a system likely to be susceptible to Normal Accidents. These are:

The system is complex

The system is tightly coupled

The system has catastrophic potential

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

I note this sentence: "It made the case for examining technological failures as the product of highly interacting systems, and highlighted organizational and management factors as the main causes of failures." [italics mine]

 

[Wminus]

This has been happening for years. See the video I posted in which Putin explains this. The Russian response to NATO missile defense is not to duplicate it, but to overwhelm it with more and better offensive missiles. Putin warned years ago this is how he would respond. He said Russia would not tolerate a defensive system that would neutralize the Russian nuclear threat. NATO went ahead and Putin responded. I think any sane leader would do the same.

Now Trump is saying he wants to greatly expand the American nuclear arsenal. The other party does not seem to be promoting peaceful relations with Russia. None of this makes me feel safer.

The only way to guarantee we won't be vaporized by nukes is to eliminate the nukes. This is what we should be suggesting to our leaders. Returning to Prof. Winterberg's statement, I do find one flaw. He says it may take an all-out thermonuclear war for people to realize a world government is necessary. This assumes there will be people left after such a war. But if the nuclear winter scenario is correct, there won't be for long. To paraphrase Monty Python, we will be bereft of life, pushing up the daisies, and resting in peace. We will have ceased to be.

Therefore, our best survival strategy is to get rid of the nukes before we use them in war. But this would require an agreement between every country that has nukes. No one is going to get rid of their nukes if even one other country keeps theirs. As Prof. Winterberg said, it seems Utopian.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/nato-missile-defense-romania-poland/

https://www.rt.com/news/346076-turkey-cavusoglu-missile-defense/

Yes indeed Putin says the US has been doing it (eg construction of new missile shields and expanding the missile shield to all NATO frigates), but I'm not sure about how much they're investing in the technology. I don't exactly have top security clearance so I don't know, but my impression is that right now they invest way less than they could - what if they suddenly wanted to build something like the Star Wars shield, for example ?

As for Trump's talk.. Really it's meaningless, I doubt there will be much of a response to the US expanding its nuclear arsenal. You shouldn't be afraid.

 

[1oldman2]

Maybe this...

Is better than this...

Just a thought.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1oldman2, I think the first image is supposed to depict the reentry trajectories of multiple nuclear bombs from a MIRV. In other words, image one is actually 8x image two.

 

[Wminus]

Maybe this...
View attachment 110966
Is better than this...
View attachment 110967
Just a thought.

..OK. Is the first image supposed to represent the "missile shield"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Testing of the Peacekeeper reentry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of an individual warhead.

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

 

[1oldman2]

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

Interesting links, thanks zoob. I was only referring to "Star wars" in general, or more broadly, defense against the incoming nukes. Since the USSR went bankrupt and our government has had to deal with "disclosure" there has been a wealth of interesting reading on nuclear warfare planning, defense as well as targeting. What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved). It still seems most likely the real threat is going to be a "wildcard" attack that sets the whole thing in motion. Strange how defense and offense are so closely linked in this situation, they seem to be one and the same.

This isn't the only "wildcard" in the deck, there are plenty of Nuclear threats out there in addition to U.S.-Russian nukes. The ones I worry about most are the ones with the least to lose when **it hits the proverbial fan.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/01/asia/north-korea-kim-jong-un-speech/index.html
Seoul (CNN)"North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said that his country is close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile."

"Kim referred to North Korea as a "nuclear and military power in the east that formidable enemy dare encroach on" and said "unless the US and its vassal forces stop nuclear threat and blackmail and unless they stop the war exercises which they stage right at our noses under the pretext of annual exercises, the DPRK would keep increasing the military capabilities for self-defense and preemptive striking capacity with a main emphasis on nuclear force," according to state news agency KCNA."http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/asia/north-korea-kim-jong-un-year-end-lookahead/index.html
(CNN)"North Korean leader Kim Jong Un heads into 2017 with two things that loom ominous for the rest of the world -- he's tested a nuclear weapon, and no one really knows how willing he'd be to use one in anger."

"Combining nuclear warheads with ballistic missile technology in the hands of a volatile leader like Kim Jong Un is a recipe for disaster," Adm. Harry Harris, the head of the US military's Pacific Command, said in a December speech.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved)

I'd like to see a source on this. Given that in the US at least that nuclear weapons are under civilian control, for the military to have any impact (no pun intended) they would have to launch a first strike on their own, a la Dr. Strangelove. Is the claim that they were planning this?