Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Some one was trying to sound presidential.
“Read the transcript.”
“Read the transcript.”
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Yeah, not a big fan of spending gobs of money on more nukes.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Here's the rub, so it's not necessarily an unjustified response to some Russian wheels already in motion. Do I like it no? Is it necessary, maybe - but just exactly how many times do we need to blow ourselves up?
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [spot]
[ In reply to ]
Ha Ha! This shit show is just getting started! It's going to be awesome to watch! It's like we have elected Zhapod Beeblebrox. I'm just going to grab a pan galactic gargle blaster and watch the show!
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
The only way to stop the nukes is more nukes.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [xtremrun]
[ In reply to ]
xtremrun wrote:
Ha Ha! This shit show is just getting started! It's going to be awesome to watch! It's like we have elected Zhapod Beeblebrox. I'm just going to grab a pan galactic gargle blaster and watch the show!Ok that's the first Hitchhikers Guide reference I've seen. Lets hope we don't have endure any Vogon poetry or we could all be doomed
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Most of what Trump says makes him sound foolish. But this make sense.
The Minuteman ICBM is 40 years old. The Ohio SSBN's are 20-40 years old and their Trident missiles are 25 years old. The USAF's B-2 bombers are more than 20 years old, and their B-52's are more than 50 years old. The nuclear warheads and bombs are equally old and we haven't done any testing of them since 1992.
Most of this stuff will probably still work, but someday it will need to be replaced. We could get by with fewer than our current 4500+ warheads and with fewer ICBM's/SLBM's/bombers, and hopefully he's looking at those numbers.
If Trump is successful at deploying a smaller but more modern (and more reliable and safer) nuclear force, that would be great.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
The Minuteman ICBM is 40 years old. The Ohio SSBN's are 20-40 years old and their Trident missiles are 25 years old. The USAF's B-2 bombers are more than 20 years old, and their B-52's are more than 50 years old. The nuclear warheads and bombs are equally old and we haven't done any testing of them since 1992.
Most of this stuff will probably still work, but someday it will need to be replaced. We could get by with fewer than our current 4500+ warheads and with fewer ICBM's/SLBM's/bombers, and hopefully he's looking at those numbers.
If Trump is successful at deploying a smaller but more modern (and more reliable and safer) nuclear force, that would be great.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
50+ wrote:
You guy's already have enough nukes on Submarines to annihilate the earth 10 times over, never mind air delivery, so what's the point?Well, Putin started the smack talk, didn't he?
Frankly I don't think Russia can afford a lot more nukes unless oil prices rebound. Even then, a kleptocracy is unlikely to invest heavily in their military beyond the amount necessary to prop up their friends.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [BLeP]
[ In reply to ]
BLeP wrote:
The only way to stop the nukes is more nukes.How does that saying go, the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter
"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [BLeP]
[ In reply to ]
Nuke yourselves and leave me out of it.
I'll be sad to see some of my favourite triathletes go.
'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
I'll be sad to see some of my favourite triathletes go.
'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [georged]
[ In reply to ]
georged wrote:
Nuke yourselves and leave me out of it. I'll be sad to see some of my favourite triathletes go.
You're assuming you won't be a victim. Nice.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [racin_rusty]
[ In reply to ]
Australia is unlikely to suffer a direct hit.
If it does, it will be because US nuclear capable ships are in port somewhere, most likely Sydney. I live about 1000km from Sydney, so she'll be right.
'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
If it does, it will be because US nuclear capable ships are in port somewhere, most likely Sydney. I live about 1000km from Sydney, so she'll be right.
'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Does trump think being nutty and unpredictable make america great again?
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Bring back the 1950's. That will make America great again.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [georged]
[ In reply to ]
georged wrote:
Australia is unlikely to suffer a direct hit. If it does, it will be because US nuclear capable ships are in port somewhere, most likely Sydney. I live about 1000km from Sydney, so she'll be right.
I think you're assuming things that you shouldn't.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [racin_rusty]
[ In reply to ]
racin_rusty wrote:
georged wrote:
Australia is unlikely to suffer a direct hit. If it does, it will be because US nuclear capable ships are in port somewhere, most likely Sydney. I live about 1000km from Sydney, so she'll be right.
I think you're assuming things that you shouldn't.
Yeah, we'd hate for the vast majority of Aus to turn into an uninhabitable desert wasteland, with only some isolated pockets of populations. Oh, wait...
Back to the OP, if the aresenals aging, wouldn't it be a good idea to test and possibly replace, when other, hostile or potentially hostile, states have a nuclear aresenal?
Swim. Overbike. Walk.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization
This was started quietly under Obama, but he tired to keep it on the down low. Trump will use it to rattle sabers.
This was started quietly under Obama, but he tired to keep it on the down low. Trump will use it to rattle sabers.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
Alvin Tostig wrote:
Most of what Trump says makes him sound foolish. But this make sense. The Minuteman ICBM is 40 years old. The Ohio SSBN's are 20-40 years old and their Trident missiles are 25 years old. The USAF's B-2 bombers are more than 20 years old, and their B-52's are more than 50 years old. The nuclear warheads and bombs are equally old and we haven't done any testing of them since 1992.
Most of this stuff will probably still work, but someday it will need to be replaced. We could get by with fewer than our current 4500+ warheads and with fewer ICBM's/SLBM's/bombers, and hopefully he's looking at those numbers.
If Trump is successful at deploying a smaller but more modern (and more reliable and safer) nuclear force, that would be great.
Do they necessarily have to be replaced if they're working? Isn't this why it's a good idea to have Noble laureate nuclear physicist as the head of the Department of Energy rather than another reality TV personality?
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
Modernization is one thing, but Trump said he wanted to expand our capability. I don't see any reason we need to have more nuke capability, and frankly, I don't see nuclear arme bombers as all that useful anymore. I know this is anathema in many conservative circles, but I think the US could get by just fine with 2 legs of the triad (ICBMs and SLBMs).
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [HandHeartCrown]
[ In reply to ]
HandHeartCrown wrote:
Alvin Tostig wrote:
Most of what Trump says makes him sound foolish. But this make sense. The Minuteman ICBM is 40 years old. The Ohio SSBN's are 20-40 years old and their Trident missiles are 25 years old. The USAF's B-2 bombers are more than 20 years old, and their B-52's are more than 50 years old. The nuclear warheads and bombs are equally old and we haven't done any testing of them since 1992.
Most of this stuff will probably still work, but someday it will need to be replaced. We could get by with fewer than our current 4500+ warheads and with fewer ICBM's/SLBM's/bombers, and hopefully he's looking at those numbers.
If Trump is successful at deploying a smaller but more modern (and more reliable and safer) nuclear force, that would be great.
Do they necessarily have to be replaced if they're working? Isn't this why it's a good idea to have Noble laureate nuclear physicist as the head of the Department of Energy rather than another reality TV personality?
The warheads will probably still work. Some testing is currently done to see if the train of events required to get the nuclear material to fission is still being done. But we haven't tested any warheads all the way to include the nuclear detonation since 1992. Who knows if some problem might be there? We had a problem with AGM-65 missiles (that contained conventional high explosives) in the 1980's. During peacetime training launches of the missile, some of them would go ballistic once they were a few hundred meters in front of the launch aircraft. We eventually determined that after a few years of sitting on the shelf, metallic "whiskers" started to form between the two metal rings for the "crush fuse" in the nose of the missile. The missile was effectively armed as soon as it was launched, but the firing train wasn't yet aligned so when it fired it destroyed the missile's guidance. The missiles were fixed or the crush fuse was disconnected, and the AGM-65 has been used successfully ever since.
Yes, it would be a good thing to have a knowledgeable person heading up the DoE. It doesn't look like that's going to happen.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [Alvin Tostig]
[ In reply to ]
Alvin Tostig wrote:
Most of what Trump says makes him sound foolish. But this make sense. The Minuteman ICBM is 40 years old. The Ohio SSBN's are 20-40 years old and their Trident missiles are 25 years old. The USAF's B-2 bombers are more than 20 years old, and their B-52's are more than 50 years old. The nuclear warheads and bombs are equally old and we haven't done any testing of them since 1992.
Most of this stuff will probably still work, but someday it will need to be replaced. We could get by with fewer than our current 4500+ warheads and with fewer ICBM's/SLBM's/bombers, and hopefully he's looking at those numbers.
If Trump is successful at deploying a smaller but more modern (and more reliable and safer) nuclear force, that would be great.
Here's the problem - what you just described is a logical, multi-sentence strategy that was thought out and put in context. Trump threw out a random comment about NUCLEAR POLICY in a 140 character tweet that can be interpreted in multiple ways, with NO context. He stated "must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes." You interpreted "Strengthen and expand" as technology advancement, but who's to say that's what Trump meant?
As of this morning, he has doubled down on his quote: http://www.reuters.com/...uclear-idUSKBN14B1ZZ
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski spoke with Trump on the phone and asked him to expand on his tweet. She said he responded: "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [spot]
[ In reply to ]
spot wrote:
Modernization is one thing, but Trump said he wanted to expand our capability. I don't see any reason we need to have more nuke capability, and frankly, I don't see nuclear arme bombers as all that useful anymore. I know this is anathema in many conservative circles, but I think the US could get by just fine with 2 legs of the triad (ICBMs and SLBMs).And yes, get ride of nukes on bombers. The scenarios where you would actually use a bomber to deliver the nuke (vs. using an ICBM/SLBM) are pretty far fetched. Not to mention, the aircrews on the bombers could concentrate on the conventional missions that they are actually being tasked to do.
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Re: Terump to expand nuclear capability [spot]
[ In reply to ]
spot wrote:
Modernization is one thing, but Trump said he wanted to expand our capability. I don't see any reason we need to have more nuke capability, and frankly, I don't see nuclear arme bombers as all that useful anymore. I know this is anathema in many conservative circles, but I think the US could get by just fine with 2 legs of the triad (ICBMs and SLBMs).Trump has clarified that's tweet. And, no, he's not talking about some sort of ational, pragmAtic upgrade of systems to maintain our nuclear capabilities. He is explicitly calling for another arms race. Unreal.
“Let it be an arms race … we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all"
http://www.politico.com/...s-race-russia-232944
The Minuteman ICBM is 40 years old. The Ohio SSBN's are 20-40 years old and their Trident missiles are 25 years old. The USAF's B-2 bombers are more than 20 years old, and their B-52's are more than 50 years old. The nuclear warheads and bombs are equally old and we haven't done any testing of them since 1992.
All true.
But that is, I've read over $1trillion in costs for those upgrades. Where is THAT money going to come from? Trump is about to give Americans a massive tax break, apparently. How big will the debt be in 2 - 3 years? I thought Republicans were about small government and fiscal responsibility!
Of course that's no excuse for the massively irresponsible and reckless comment he made on twitter. World conflicts even wars have started have started on less.
Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
All true.
But that is, I've read over $1trillion in costs for those upgrades. Where is THAT money going to come from? Trump is about to give Americans a massive tax break, apparently. How big will the debt be in 2 - 3 years? I thought Republicans were about small government and fiscal responsibility!
Of course that's no excuse for the massively irresponsible and reckless comment he made on twitter. World conflicts even wars have started have started on less.
Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog