US defensive use of nuclear weapons - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - US defensive use of nuclear weapons (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:13:29 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So what kind of lube do we load into our ICBMs? Its got to have a stable shelf life, travel over long distances without degrading, and lubricate at high pressures, temperatures, and speeds. I may need some.

A suck for SAC is a blow for freedom!

At least give me the recipe? I my regular lube wears off before I can finish to the thought of total world destruction.

In the SAC of old Curtis Lemay would dry hump people, in my day we used KY to help, I'm dated so I don't know what the new kids in STRATCOM use.

Well, it would seem that its come to this....

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:18:49 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why would one tactical missile with 6 warheads be a "cold war" thing anyway

our subs now only have 1 warhead per missile ....

so that's no big deal ... right?

Penetration aids? Advances in accuracy?

There's not enough public info to decide whether it was a net loss in capability, even if it might seem so.

They don't really tell us a hell of a lot about them.

well the thing is man

and this is a big one

what if the man that needs to push the button>>>>>>

says no

He better hope the next guy agrees or he will have a bullet in him more than likley.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:22:17 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why would one tactical missile with 6 warheads be a "cold war" thing anyway

our subs now only have 1 warhead per missile ....

so that's no big deal ... right?

Penetration aids? Advances in accuracy?

There's not enough public info to decide whether it was a net loss in capability, even if it might seem so.

They don't really tell us a hell of a lot about them.

well the thing is man

and this is a big one

what if the man that needs to push the button>>>>>>

says no

He better hope the next guy agrees or he will have a bullet in him more than likley.

You NEVER shoot your crew partner at execution reference time, he's meat on the hoof and you'll need him later when the emergency rations run out.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:23:46 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Does the president have to authorize use of nuclear weapons in a defensive situation?

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:24:00 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why would one tactical missile with 6 warheads be a "cold war" thing anyway

our subs now only have 1 warhead per missile ....

so that's no big deal ... right?

Penetration aids? Advances in accuracy?

There's not enough public info to decide whether it was a net loss in capability, even if it might seem so.

They don't really tell us a hell of a lot about them.

well the thing is man

and this is a big one

what if the man that needs to push the button>>>>>>

says no

He better hope the next guy agrees or he will have a bullet in him more than likley.

You NEVER shoot your crew partner at execution reference time, he's meat on the hoof and you'll need him later when the emergency rations run out.

He's suggesting something much

ier.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:25:17 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why would one tactical missile with 6 warheads be a "cold war" thing anyway

our subs now only have 1 warhead per missile ....

so that's no big deal ... right?

Penetration aids? Advances in accuracy?

There's not enough public info to decide whether it was a net loss in capability, even if it might seem so.

They don't really tell us a hell of a lot about them.

well the thing is man

and this is a big one

what if the man that needs to push the button>>>>>>

says no

We lose.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:26:26 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
He only has to authorize use of lasers.

quik strike on washington while ... well maybe pres is on his way back from hawaii and unaccounted for....

take out the right court justices....

untouched bounty in America without a "leader"...

There are continuity of government plans that are VERY well worked out to avoid pitfalls like that. Google up the Russian Dead Hand system, and the British Letters of Last Resort. We have our own implementations.

There is no fucking way they can decapitate our government in a way that would prevent a nuclear counterattack.

for a sub strike on washington on the talks of the cliff?

can we not assume DC could be gone at any minute?

I wish we could.

10,000,000 disciplined chinese regulars could kick some ass

I thought there a billion Chinese?

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:30:17 PM EDT

[#8]

But to get back to the technical meaning of the OPs question;
No, not a defensive strike. Those are conditional authorizations, and an extremely narrow definition meets "defensive".

Your post really is about retaliatory strikes. That's different.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:37:45 PM EDT

[#9]

to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:40:59 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

Finish the moonshine, and black out. You won't have to worry about it then.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:45:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:47:56 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

But you have to admit its fun to watch.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:50:34 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

But you have to admit its fun to watch.

Yeah, and it is tempting to post something TS sometime, mostly because the vast majority wouldn't even realize it.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:50:56 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

You're worried that the president wouldn't push the button, and then you're worried about what happens if they take out the president.

Dude's right. Polish off the shine and hit the tiles.

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:57:23 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
But to get back to the technical meaning of the OPs question;
No, not a defensive strike. Those are conditional authorizations, and an extremely narrow definition meets "defensive".

Your post really is about retaliatory strikes. That's different.

well no

let us assume the pentagon and the congress is gone with a 1-3 weapon tactical strike

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:59:48 PM EDT

[#16]

nuke41, check your IMs

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:00:21 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

ok lol

tell us how our small conventional forces are gonna kick ass without "central"

without support how can you stop 10 Mil chicoms?

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:00:45 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But to get back to the technical meaning of the OPs question;
No, not a defensive strike. Those are conditional authorizations, and an extremely narrow definition meets "defensive".

Your post really is about retaliatory strikes. That's different.

well no

let us assume the pentagon and the congress is gone with a 1-3 weapon tactical strike

Lets assume the sun just exploded and water just became toxic. It's more likely.

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:08:25 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
nuke41, check your IMs

You are the Man!

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:11:43 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
nuke41, check your IMs

You are the Man!

I'm nothing, and never will be. You're welcome.

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:11:51 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

Serious question>>>

Is the president the commander in chief?

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:12:06 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

But you have to admit its fun to watch.

Yeah, and it is tempting to post something TS sometime, mostly because the vast majority wouldn't even realize it.

True that; funny thing is, through the majority of the Cold War, DC wasn't even a target. They wanted to have someone left to agree to surrender terms.

And to the yob concerned about the "10,000,000 disciplined Chinese" they do not have amphibious resupply capability, or a blue water Navy for a reason. That reason being they KNOW that at first shot fired, their nice, pretty PLA/Navy would grow holes and become decorations on the bottom of the South China Sea. Ask a bubblehead (submariner) about their favorite game with a Chicom Surface Action Group.

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:12:56 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

You do know RR is dead? right?

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:16:32 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

You do know RR is dead? right?

You know you're in so far over your head you're taking a relaxing stroll along the bottom of the Marianas trench, right?

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:24:53 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

True that; funny thing is, through the majority of the Cold War, DC wasn't even a target. They wanted to have someone left to agree to surrender terms.

This is why no one has targeted the Head of State in any war since they rode out in front of the troop on horseback.
Well, there was that Libya thing in '84; but I am not convinced we really tried to hit Moammar.

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:30:08 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to beat the US military u just have to knock out DC

and in that way i mean the pres

the military has no power without command

that is the way it is.

take out the top we are fucked

nuclearly and then

conventional forces are too small and fooked

I always enjoy the postings here about nuclear forces and warfare. The few members who actually know anything of course aren't going to post it, so we're left with the nonsense of people that know nothing.

You do know RR is dead? right?

RR was the boss
he controlled

Barry hates nukes....

he wants them gone

oh but your sayin he is on board with strategic defense??????????????????????

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:42:17 PM EDT

[#27]

Interesting, TAG!

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:46:18 PM EDT

[#28]

The president of the United States of America has total control over the nuclear arsenal. No general or plan overrides that.

Less you believe in conspiracies or muslim presidents

Posted: 12/26/2012 10:48:29 PM EDT

[#29]

Dude, you have 24 posts in 11 years and you come out with this shit tonight? WTF?

Posted: 12/26/2012 11:19:10 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Dude, you have 24 posts in 11 years and you come out with this shit tonight? WTF?

wtf

they are gonna try to buy back my guns

if not us>>>

give up now and our kids are defenseless

Posted: 12/26/2012 11:23:58 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The president of the United States of America has total control over the nuclear arsenal. No general or plan overrides that.

Less you believe in conspiracies or muslim presidents

Keep considering the vulnerabilitys of such a command structure, and the potential for unintended consequences.

Making Sausage is never rated G.

Posted: 12/26/2012 11:27:39 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The president of the United States of America has total control over the nuclear arsenal. No general or plan overrides that.

Less you believe in conspiracies or muslim presidents

Keep considering the vulnerabilitys of such a command structure, and the potential for unintended consequences.

Making Sausage is never rated G.

touche

and is the soviet

the answer?

Posted: 12/26/2012 11:38:22 PM EDT

[#33]

Someone forgot to take his med's...

Posted: 12/26/2012 11:41:42 PM EDT

[#34]

Going off on a bit of a tangent - can one of you recommend a great book/documentary/essay/etc on nuclear war history and information in general? Just read up on the dead hand system and am fascinated. I'd love to read more about that type of stuff.

Posted: 12/26/2012 11:46:31 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Going off on a bit of a tangent - can one of you recommend a great book/documentary/essay/etc on nuclear war history and information in general? Just read up on the dead hand system and am fascinated. I'd love to read more about that type of stuff.

the shit is check mate if the other don't respond.....

Posted: 12/26/2012 11:51:45 PM EDT

[#36]

/My example?

9/11

I would've turned Minuteman key without thinking.

Posted: 12/27/2012 2:12:44 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
/My example?

9/11

I would've turned Minuteman key without thinking.

maybe we should have.

Posted: 12/27/2012 6:39:20 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why would one tactical missile with 6 warheads be a "cold war" thing anyway

our subs now only have 1 warhead per missile ....

so that's no big deal ... right?

Penetration aids? Advances in accuracy?

There's not enough public info to decide whether it was a net loss in capability, even if it might seem so.

They don't really tell us a hell of a lot about them.

well the thing is man

and this is a big one

what if the man that needs to push the button>>>>>>

says no

I can't confirm you're TS-SIOP clearance, so I can't tell you the cool stuff. So far you are full of fail on nuclear war theory and command and control.

so, the president doesn't maintain launch authority?

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:15:59 AM EDT

[#39]

Oh what the hell. I'm in for the fun.

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:17:19 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why would one tactical missile with 6 warheads be a "cold war" thing anyway

our subs now only have 1 warhead per missile ....

so that's no big deal ... right?

Penetration aids? Advances in accuracy?

There's not enough public info to decide whether it was a net loss in capability, even if it might seem so.

They don't really tell us a hell of a lot about them.

well the thing is man

and this is a big one

what if the man that needs to push the button>>>>>>

says no

I can't confirm you're TS-SIOP clearance, so I can't tell you the cool stuff. So far you are full of fail on nuclear war theory and command and control.

so, the president doesn't maintain launch authority?

Does a S-3 Air have Launch authority?

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:20:33 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Wing Attack Plan R

Shit just got real.

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:23:59 AM EDT

[#42]

Best. Sleeper-troll. Ever.

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:29:12 AM EDT

[#43]

The more I read, the more confused I get. What is he even talking about at this point? We've jumped from Obama not wanting to push the button, to Obama getting killed in a decapitation strike, to the Chicoms somehow invading the US with 10 million soldiers.

Can't wait to see what comes next.

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:32:47 AM EDT

[#44]

Hey, did someone mention a nuke thread?

[pauses to read thread]

I've, uh, got an appointment to, uh, go somewhere....I gotta go.

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:34:06 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Hey, did someone mention a nuke thread?

[pauses to read thread]

I've, uh, got an appointment to, uh, go somewhere....gotta go.

Damn. I was hoping for some recipes.

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:40:29 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Hey, did someone mention a nuke thread?

[pauses to read thread]

I've, uh, got an appointment to, uh, go somewhere....I gotta go.

You're going to launch a secret Muslim nuke strike on someone, aren't you!?

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:41:06 AM EDT

[#47]

Why do you need to know?

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:41:40 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Hey, did someone mention a nuke thread?

[pauses to read thread]

I've, uh, got an appointment to, uh, go somewhere....gotta go.

Damn. I was hoping for some recipes.

This thread is enough of a train wreck that the only recipes I can recommend the OP are "what drinks go good with cyanide."

(I understand it hides well in martinis and highballs.)