Russia can destroy U.S. in under a hour. - Page 6

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Russia can destroy U.S. in under a hour. (Page 6 of 7)

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:10:02 PM EDT

[#1]

LowBeta, that is a theory.

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:12:38 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In the back of my head, I'm thinking one ground burst on the Pantex storage facility would be bad juju as far as distribution of fallout.

Don't think so.
All the nuclear material at Pantex is so far underground that a bunkerbuster wouldn't release enough energy to run an LED flashlight

What about nukes near nuclear power facilities. Not sure if it would take out the reactor shell, but what if it screwed up opperation and access to used fuel rod pools a la the Japanese situation?

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:12:44 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:26:13 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

He can't. He's not "authorized" to because he works in a mountain. Total bullshit. I'm good enough to pay for this shit, but I'm not good enough to know about it.

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:34:30 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

He can't. He's not "authorized" to because he works in a mountain. Total bullshit. I'm good enough to pay for this shit, but I'm not good enough to know about it.

Anything you really need to know is out there open source.
What little is classified is classified for good reasons.

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:34:34 PM EDT

[#6]

JAMES77257

That is a common thought process.

But something to keep in mind, very often the "source" of the information on
threat is what makes it classified, not always the information itself.

but yeah, stuff like our Nuclear capability, nuclear command and control, and Missile Defense capabilities does not need to be public knowledge.

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:43:03 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

He can't. He's not "authorized" to because he works in a mountain. Total bullshit. I'm good enough to pay for this shit, but I'm not good enough to know about it.

Anything you really need to know is out there open source.
What little is classified is classified for good reasons.

Bingo!

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:46:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have.

Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much.

When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has.

That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission.

Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often?

From all the data I have, Russia tests their missiles more often than the US does. Not significantly more, but they test fire around half a dozen of their ICBMs a year.

Their RT-2PM would be a rather decent second strike system, although not nearly as good as our tridents.

The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle.

Have you read the posts above? The trident alone is apparently tested that many times each year.

I believe an ICBM attack is not the issue from the Russian perspective. Too much retaliatory threat for any sane nuclear-capable nation to accept.

Our greatest threat is from an attack upon our poorly protected national grid from a cyber attack. Predominantly, the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans have been probing our weaknesses for years.

Oh! But you guys where thinking in terms of a nuclear attack. As you wish...carry-on....

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:47:08 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
LowBeta, that is a theory.

I might be able to get more out of open source than some people.

Posted: 11/16/2011 12:58:50 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
JAMES77257

That is a common thought process.

But something to keep in mind, very often the "source" of the information on
threat is what makes it classified, not always the information itself.

but yeah, stuff like our Nuclear capability, nuclear command and control, and Missile Defense capabilities does not need to be public knowledge.

Bullshit. The whole point of our missile defence program is deterrence. If it's a secret, it's no deterrent.

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:05:31 PM EDT

[#11]

The fact that we have a system is not a secret, the fact the system works is not a secret. What else do you want to know to have it be a deterrent?

There is plently on the system, that the bad guys don't need to know about.

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:05:40 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
.Our greatest threat is from an attack upon our poorly protected national grid from a cyber attack. Predominantly, the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans have been probing our weaknesses for years.
.

I agree completely, and even more scary is it doesn't take much money or infrastructure to launch cyber attacks.

But that is the subject for a different thread.

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:06:29 PM EDT

[#13]

FIFY

Quoted:
Sounds like we need to weaponize get back into space so we can shoot down ICBM's.

Then we would def have the upper hand on em.

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:08:34 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
JAMES77257

That is a common thought process.

But something to keep in mind, very often the "source" of the information on
threat is what makes it classified, not always the information itself.

but yeah, stuff like our Nuclear capability, nuclear command and control, and Missile Defense capabilities does not need to be public knowledge.

Bullshit. The whole point of our missile defence program is deterrence. If it's a secret, it's no deterrent.

The Russians are given certain test information (as required by treaty) and can inspect factilites, just as we do for theirs.

However we don't have to give them everythign and as such that information is tightly controlled. Of course there are other countries out there we'd prefer not have the data as well.

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:08:56 PM EDT

[#15]

Nothing to worry about, we can do it faster than that.

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:10:56 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
JAMES77257

That is a common thought process.

But something to keep in mind, very often the "source" of the information on
threat is what makes it classified, not always the information itself.

but yeah, stuff like our Nuclear capability, nuclear command and control, and Missile Defense capabilities does not need to be public knowledge.

Bullshit. The whole point of our missile defence program is deterrence. If it's a secret, it's no deterrent.

The Russians are given certain test information (as required by treaty) and can inspect factilites, just as we do for theirs.

However we don't have to give them everythign and as such that information is tightly controlled. Of course there are other countries out there we'd prefer not have the data as well.

I thought we had a treaty with the USSR that GWB nullified?

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:15:45 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
The fact that we have a system is not a secret, the fact the system works is not a secret. What else do you want to know to have it be a deterrent?

There is plently on the system, that the bad guys don't need to know about.

What part of the US is unprotected?

If the missile defense operation fails, do we have time to launch a counter attack before enemy warheads are detonated? If we don't have time, will an EMP render our arsenal useless?

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:44:12 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Since most of their SSBNs are rotting in port and their country and military is in the shitter. Id say its more like Russia can get fucked because our boats are still ready to put the hurt on thoose assholes at the drop of a hat.

Our tech is 2020 their's is 1990

And the ones that hit the Japanese where 1940's technology....

A nuke is a nuke, it will still ruin your day if it's high tech or low tech, it still goes boom.

Yeah maybe most of their SSBN's are rotting in port, but what about the ones they still have the cash to keep running? Just one would make a mess of the east coast.

But yes, they would probably never live to see the results, or at least not for long to gloat about it.

Russia has about 3200 nukes ready to go bang....

"Differing sources have different totals mostly because Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has never revealed the exact number.
.....
It is however speculated that Russia has some 5,200 in its arsenal, more than enough to destroy everything on this planet. Of these 3281 are strategic nuclear warheads.

It is also speculated that of this total, land based Strategic Rockets account for 489 missiles carrying up to 1,788 warheads. Sea based weapons are carried by 12 submarines which carry up to 609 warheads. And although not carried at all time their strategic aviation defences have at their disposal 79 bombers, carrying up to 884 cruise missiles. (This is 1788+ 609+884=3281).

In contrast, the United States has some 9,960 of which 5,735 are considered active or operational. This is totalled as, 3179 on the ground mostly in bunkers, and another 2016 at sea or available to 12 operational Ohio-class submarines, and 540 on their B-52 and 20 B-2 strategic bombers.

SD
Source(s):
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/"

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:50:12 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that we have a system is not a secret, the fact the system works is not a secret. What else do you want to know to have it be a deterrent?

There is plently on the system, that the bad guys don't need to know about.

What part of the US is unprotected?

If the missile defense operation fails, do we have time to launch a counter attack before enemy warheads are detonated? If we don't have time, will an EMP render our arsenal useless?

Yeah, that would be great examples of the kind of information you DON"T want public. Thanks for providing some great examples.

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:51:37 PM EDT

[#20]

Most ICBM warheads (especially small yield (read, US)) are inherently hi-tech.
the ability to maintain them constantly is critical to their functionality

Posted: 11/16/2011 1:53:14 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that we have a system is not a secret, the fact the system works is not a secret. What else do you want to know to have it be a deterrent?

There is plently on the system, that the bad guys don't need to know about.

What part of the US is unprotected?

If the missile defense operation fails, do we have time to launch a counter attack before enemy warheads are detonated? If we don't have time, will an EMP render our arsenal useless?

Yeah, that would be great examples of the kind of information you DON"T want public. Thanks for providing some great examples.

Yeah.
Thats pretty much text book of what is classified. Every system has vulnerabilities. we work hard to ensure those vulnerabilities are not known. I will say, the vulnerabilities of our systems are not as great as many would lead you to believe.

Posted: 11/16/2011 2:01:00 PM EDT

[#22]

I'm sure they still have a stock pile. As do we.

Posted: 11/16/2011 2:04:51 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Russia seems to have had a working orbital EMP weapon active since the 1960s. IIRC it is now non-nuclear, so they could use it to knock out or electric grid and military C3 without crossing the nuclear threshold.

The fuck?

I'll just go ahead and call bullfuckingshit, right now.

I really hope that is just a joke I'm not getting.

Posted: 11/16/2011 2:10:34 PM EDT

[#24]

I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

Posted: 11/16/2011 2:25:01 PM EDT

[#25]

Mostly likely an EMP bomb exploded about 300 miles above Kansas would certainly wipeout the major infrastures in the Continental U.S. since it fries the transistor junctions in every integrated circuit including microprocessors.

So much for cyberwarfare if your computer is fried. We would instantly be living like we did 100 years ago.

Our distribution network for food, water, gasoline, electricity, etc. is destroyed.

Posted: 11/16/2011 2:33:28 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

the doctrine of mobile ICBMs is inherently flawed. You know this.

I don't know, it works pretty good for the Navy

Individual words combine to make sentences. Sometimes when words are left out, the meaning of those sentences changes.

Quoted:

The
Peacekeeper 'rail garrisons' were only not deployed due to the end of
the cold war and cost, not because the doctrine of mobile ICBMs is
inherently flawed. You know this.

Posted: 11/16/2011 2:37:59 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Mostly likely an EMP bomb exploded about 300 miles above Kansas would certainly wipeout the major infrastures in the Continental U.S. since it fries the transistor junctions in every integrated circuit including microprocessors.

So much for cyberwarfare if your computer is fried. We would instantly be living like we did 100 years ago.

Our distribution network for food, water, gasoline, electricity, etc. is destroyed.

Your forecast of electronic Armagedon from a bomb has far better foundation in survival fiction than it does in the real-world.

Posted: 11/16/2011 2:47:19 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
FIFY

Quoted:
Sounds like we need to weaponize get back into space so we can shoot down ICBM's.

Then we would def have the upper hand on em.

No shit, right!

What a dumb move, quiting space like that.

/ facepalm /

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:07:07 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

He can't. He's not "authorized" to because he works in a mountain. Total bullshit. I'm good enough to pay for this shit, but I'm not good enough to know about it.

Anything you really need to know is out there open source.
What little is classified is classified for good reasons.

And some things that shouldn't be repeated are also open source, unfortunately.

Some pieces of information are STILL classified, regardless of whether or not they can be found on Google. Weapons design, capability, yield, location, and employment strategies & tactics are things you should consider not repeating, whether you find them on the Internet or not. What you're reposting from Wikipedia may or may not be accurate....but you don't know that. If it isn't, you're spreading bullshit. If it is, you're retransmitting classified information on an unsecure network.

There's a reason there are some things I respond to, and others I ignore.

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:18:56 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

He can't. He's not "authorized" to because he works in a mountain. Total bullshit. I'm good enough to pay for this shit, but I'm not good enough to know about it.

Anything you really need to know is out there open source.

What little is classified is classified for good reasons.

And some things that shouldn't be repeated are also open source, unfortunately.

Some pieces of information are STILL classified, regardless of whether or not they can be found on Google. Weapons design, capability, yield, location, and employment strategies & tactics are things you should consider not repeating, whether you find them on the Internet or not. What you're reposting from Wikipedia may or may not be accurate....but you don't know that. If it isn't, you're spreading bullshit. If it is, you're retransmitting classified information on an unsecure network.

There's a reason there are some things I respond to, and others I ignore.

Well your posts are still quite informative

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:21:00 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

We do NOT cheat on our treaty obligations.

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:26:05 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

We do NOT cheat on our treaty obligations.

That's for sure, been involved in the inspections, painful.

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:30:18 PM EDT

[#33]

http://socal.umwblogs.org/files/2010/10/Dr-Strangelove1.jpg

Deterrence is the art of of placing in your enemy the FEAR of attack.

Honestly Look up ICBM MIRV. Now realize one is pointed a location near you, and has been since the mid 70's

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:32:22 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

That's for sure, been involved in the inspections, painful.

Can you tell us more about them?

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:37:34 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
M.A.D.

This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways.

Wellllll with our current administration dismantling such things, and the Russians going in the completely opposite direction, I'm going to stock up on Vodka.

Posted: 11/16/2011 3:44:56 PM EDT

[#36]

I have a hunch that if you're talking about a nuclear destruction, there is no way in hell that would happen. They would destroy themselves and the rest of the planet first since most of thier shit would be blowing up closer to thier place than it would ours. Missiles and jets and drones and only God knows what else would see to that. Then they'd have to deal with not only defending themselves from thier own stuff, but ours also if it were even necessary.

Posted: 11/16/2011 5:02:25 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

He can't. He's not "authorized" to because he works in a mountain. Total bullshit. I'm good enough to pay for this shit, but I'm not good enough to know about it.

Anything you really need to know is out there open source.
What little is classified is classified for good reasons.

And some things that shouldn't be repeated are also open source, unfortunately.

Some pieces of information are STILL classified, regardless of whether or not they can be found on Google. Weapons design, capability, yield, location, and employment strategies & tactics are things you should consider not repeating, whether you find them on the Internet or not. What you're reposting from Wikipedia may or may not be accurate....but you don't know that. If it isn't, you're spreading bullshit. If it is, you're retransmitting classified information on an unsecure network.

There's a reason there are some things I respond to, and others I ignore.

Fair enough. I do try to avoid those aspects and stick with known Dod press release info.

Posted: 11/16/2011 5:37:40 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

JAMES77257

That is a common thought process.

But something to keep in mind, very often the "source" of the information on

threat is what makes it classified, not always the information itself.

but yeah, stuff like our Nuclear capability, nuclear command and control, and Missile Defense capabilities does not need to be public knowledge.

Bullshit. The whole point of our missile defence program is deterrence. If it's a secret, it's no deterrent.

Absolutely not. Our missile defence program is so small that it is not about deterence but rather abatement. It is only meant to stop a few missiles from a rogue state.

Deterence is provided by the ability and will to state to the world that we will annhilate anyone who launches an attack and that some forces will survive to ensure the personal destruction of the enemy high command and political class.

Posted: 11/16/2011 7:11:02 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
. I am amazed I actually posted in GD. I feel kinda dirty now honestly.

You get over it in time. Stick around and inject some sanity.

He can't. He's not "authorized" to because he works in a mountain. Total bullshit. I'm good enough to pay for this shit, but I'm not good enough to know about it.

Anything you really need to know is out there open source.
What little is classified is classified for good reasons.

And some things that shouldn't be repeated are also open source, unfortunately.

Some pieces of information are STILL classified, regardless of whether or not they can be found on Google. Weapons design, capability, yield, location, and employment strategies & tactics are things you should consider not repeating, whether you find them on the Internet or not. What you're reposting from Wikipedia may or may not be accurate....but you don't know that. If it isn't, you're spreading bullshit. If it is, you're retransmitting classified information on an unsecure network.

There's a reason there are some things I respond to, and others I ignore.

Fair enough. I do try to avoid those aspects and stick with known Dod press release info.

Not directed at you––your post was just a good segue to make the point.

Posted: 11/16/2011 7:29:53 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
http://socal.umwblogs.org/files/2010/10/Dr-Strangelove1.jpg

Deterrence is the art of of placing in your enemy the FEAR of attack.

Honestly Look up ICBM MIRV. Now realize one is pointed a location near you, and has been since the mid 70's

That is not entirely accurate.

Deterrence is the art of convincing your enemy that the benefits of going to war with you are not worth the costs. It's a fine balancing act between presenting enough capability and will to make your adversary think twice about attacking/going against your will, and presenting SO much capability and will that it convinces your adversary that the ONLY choice they have is to go on the attack or risk annihilation.

It's a tradeoff between giving your enemy pause, and forcing them into a corner. May not seem like much of a difference, but the nuances are important.

Posted: 11/17/2011 5:56:15 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

We do NOT cheat on our treaty obligations.

I've given up talking to the tin-foil types. They want to live in their fantasy world where we cheat on weapons treaties, employ anti-gravity drives, and maintain orbtial weapons platforms. I think it's their psychological equivalent of a fuzzy blanket to deal with the scary real world.

Posted: 11/17/2011 7:19:31 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

We do NOT cheat on our treaty obligations.

I've given up talking to the tin-foil types. They want to live in their fantasy world where we cheat on weapons treaties, employ anti-gravity drives, and maintain orbtial weapons platforms. I think it's their psychological equivalent of a fuzzy blanket to deal with the scary real world.

Excellent points.

After three decades toiling in the vineyards of ocean engineering and high energy physics I've developed

Low Beta's Laws :
1. That which is not forbidden by the laws of physics is only a matter of money.
2. Nation states have a lot of money.

There are things you can do with physics, which do not require fission or fusion, that can yield astonishing results.

I can think of at least two, maybe three ways to generate a EMP-type effect. Neither is terribly complicated in concept, and all would definitely be treaty compliant. I know of a method to take out satellites that nobody else here (unless it's a program and they're in it) knows.

Now the difficult parts of applying LB's Law is that a state like the US or Russian can do basically anything. But not everything. So what do they do? Which paths to they choose? that's the hard part.

Another difficulty lies within the mind of the analyst –– understanding what's possible, understanding how expensive the project really is.

Oh, since nobody mentioned it yet... Russia shanked the launch of their Phobos-Grunt probe, a sample return mission to the Martian moon of Phobos. Given the quality of their works, I wouldn't be surprised that they actually fucked up, but ... who knows? Anybody seen the elements for the failure orbit? (e.g. where is it now?) How sure are you that it's actually a science package. (just havin' a little fun here)

Posted: 11/17/2011 7:28:29 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

We do NOT cheat on our treaty obligations.

Which treaty?

Posted: 11/17/2011 7:37:06 AM EDT

[#44]

Uhm, New START for one.

Posted: 11/17/2011 7:51:48 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Uhm, New START for one.

What does that have to do with the missile shield program?

Posted: 11/17/2011 8:30:25 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

We do NOT cheat on our treaty obligations.

I've given up talking to the tin-foil types. They want to live in their fantasy world where we cheat on weapons treaties, employ anti-gravity drives, and maintain orbtial weapons platforms. I think it's their psychological equivalent of a fuzzy blanket to deal with the scary real world.

In fairness there have been situations where people screwed up in violation of treaties

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-05/us/loose.nukes_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-warheads-missiles?_s=PM:US

So I could see how some people might want to stretch that into, "we must purposely cheat on some treaty obligations."

Posted: 11/17/2011 9:00:50 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Uhm, New START for one.

What does that have to do with the missile shield program?

It does have some impact, I will leave it at that.

I thought you were referencing the converstation above that was discussing treaty inspections, cheating/not cheating etc.

Posted: 11/17/2011 9:19:05 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm sure that both sides are "cheating" as far as Nuke treaties go.

So we break a promise on a nuke treaty, and get caught. What ya' going to do about it. Pretty safe bet that we have things that are unknown to just about everyone. Top secret is called top secret for a reason.

Maybe part of our 15 trillion dept, are some majik boom toys.

We do NOT cheat on our treaty obligations.

Which treaty?

Any of them.

It's not like smuggling popcorn into the movie theater. Nukes take a lot of care and feeding. Up or downloading a platform is a major muscle movement.

Posted: 11/17/2011 9:05:47 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In the back of my head, I'm thinking one ground burst on the Pantex storage facility would be bad juju as far as distribution of fallout.

Don't think so.
All the nuclear material at Pantex is so far underground that a bunkerbuster wouldn't release enough energy to run an LED flashlight

Who said anything about a bunkerbuster?

I'm thinking more along the lines of a 550kt or 750kt ground burst. Hopefully the pits are buried deeper than the 400 meter crater they would create.

Posted: 11/17/2011 9:10:35 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that we have a system is not a secret, the fact the system works is not a secret. What else do you want to know to have it be a deterrent?

There is plently on the system, that the bad guys don't need to know about.

What part of the US is unprotected?

If the missile defense operation fails, do we have time to launch a counter attack before enemy warheads are detonated? If we don't have time, will an EMP render our arsenal useless?

Yeah, that would be great examples of the kind of information you DON"T want public. Thanks for providing some great examples.

Eh, no. None of that information is particularly sensitive or classified.

>do we have time to launch a counter attack before enemy warheads are detonated

Only if we launch on warning. Which isn't our normal strategy. We have enough missiles on SSBNs to ride out an attack and still be able to put Russia back to the stone age.

>will an EMP render our arsenal useless?

No.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Russia can destroy U.S. in under a hour. (Page 6 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us