Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
DogOnPorch

Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Why would America focus on BMD when their biggest geopolitical opponents are close to countering it? That seems foolish, once they get the hypersonic to test against their BMD, that will speed up BMD development more than anything as well, so they shouldn't slack on the hypersonic, especially when Russia and China are so close.

The Americans are developing Hypersonics,  the Americans are simply prioritizing defense over offense.

America does not really want to launch a first strike against the Russians nor Chinese, this whole arms race is misapprehension

BMD can be a counterforce enabler, but that's not the only thing its good for.

The Americans are the ones most capable of developing Hypersonics, but King Dollar has lots of missions to fund, the Russians really only have one mission.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1960s, the USAF developed the Sprint missile...not a cruise missile...but it could do Mach 10 right out of the silo. Very impressive as an ABM missile. Nobody has anything like it even today. Even the S-400 is a slow poke next to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cheney Doctrine is not that America should prepare to attack Russia and/or China.

The Cheney Doctrine all comes from September 11

The Cheney doctrine is that shit happens, deterrence is not assurance, things go wrong, and when they do, you'd better have a back up in place.

The Americans are rejecting Mutual Vulnerability, but they're not building a sword, this is still Dutch Reagan's dream of having a shield; BMD is SDI

The Russians and Chinese simply assert that the shield is a first strike enabler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how lateral escalation works.

The Balance of Terror doesn't work if  there are ten nuclear Hegemons.

The Balance of Terror was based on a bipolar confrontation, two Hegemons agreed to seek a balance to avoid the nuclear exchange at the brink.

But the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, so it is proliferating laterally underneath the Balance of Terror, at the theater level.

Those theater threats however is what Cheney was reacting to, Cheney is basically saying that the Balance of Terror is obsolete, there's too many members of the club and more joining all the time, there's no balance, shit could happen, so America needs SDI for that contingency.

You've got utopian idealpolitik MAD on the left (McNamara Best & Brightest) v hardheaded realpolitik SDI on the right. (Cheney Reagan Democrats)

In one talon,  the olive branch, in the other, the thunderbolts grasped.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To analyze the larger motivations, you have to go above Geo-strategic level and look at it from the historical perspective.

America is a religion, Anglo-American Mahanian Eternal Seapower is a gospel, Free all the Slaves Everywhere is the central tenet of the faith,

China is the Thucydidean Challenger, seeking its Place in the Sun.

Russia is a Zombie, the undead legacy project of the Soviets simply run amok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why Russia is the most dangerous, even tho the Chinese are more powerful economically.

The Russian Zombie is not actually a Rational Actor, the Russian Zombie is behaving irrationally, the Cold War ended, the Zombie never got the memo.

The Russian Zombie also has the most powerful and dangerous nuclear deterrent, it's the biggest and the baddest, the Soviets went broke building it.

The Russian Zombie is in both theaters, North Atlantic and Pacific, so twice the chance of coming head to head.

Russia is at the gates of Article V, China is not.

This is why INF was not about the Chinese, INF is not about the missiles themselves, but rather where they were deployed, head to head over the trace of Article V

Russia is still the main event.   World War Three is still an European Theater event horizon. 

Cold War One was simply a dispute over the Potsdam Agreement, Cold War Two is simply a dispute over the Washington Treaty; NATO Article V

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great footage of Castle Romeo (11 megaton yield)...Romeo was a test of the Mk 17 device which was frickin' huge...but able to be carried by a B-36 Peacemaker all the way to the USSR from the USA. Game on...so to speak.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_17_nuclear_bomb

Keep in mind that the observers are in the 50 mile plus range away from ground zero.

 

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Mk.17 is the bomb the B-36 accidentally dropped on Albuquerque New Mexico in 1957,

Didn't have the plutonium pit in it obviously, but the bomb did detonate, like a dirty bomb, dispersing radioactive fallout from the uranium casing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivy King...proof that one could produce large yield fission devices. Yield approx 500 kt...1/2 megaton. It was an 'insurance device' in the case that Ivy Mike...the first true fusion bomb...failed. It didn't...

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

 

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The residue is going to be blown all over the place - actually, halfway across the country - as nuclear fallout. And depending on how much it is, collecting it while wearing an NBC protection suit probably isn´t all that dangerous.
And AFAIK with uranium/plutonium it isn´t impuritiees you are looking for, it is the relative quantities of the different isotopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gaboras said:

The residue is going to be blown all over the place - actually, halfway across the country - as nuclear fallout.

That would only be in the case of high yield countervalue "City Killer" bombs.    Neither the Americans nor the Russians deploy those anymore.

The reason the bombs were made so overly powerful in the past, is that they were inaccurate, you could hit a city, but you couldn't be precise.

In this day and age, with the precision guidance available now, they can pinpoint accurate,

So the countervalue "City Killer" mission is basically going away, slowly but surely, because that's a doomsday option with no posssible winners.

Instead, the Hegemons are now preparing to use small accurate nuclear weapons in a counterforce  theater thermonuclear war.

This is not deterrence like the City Killers, this next generation of pin point accurate small nukes are meant to be used, and the fallout is very limited compared to City Killer bombs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the counterforce option, there is another method for theater thermonuclear war.

It's called Nuclear Deescalation.

That is where a weaker force, let's say the Russians, is able to seize ground from a larger force, let's say NATO, but then use tactical nuclear weapons to even the odds.

So for example Russia could take Ukraine east of the Dnepr.  Novorossiya.   Crimea operation on steroids.  Using tactical air power in support of Special Purpose Troops.

Same as Russia has done in Syria.

Just like in Crimea, they move the nukes into the territory and give the battlefield commanders the authority to use them if about to be overrun.

In extremis, if NATO were to press the issue, the Russians could use just one bomb, one nuclear strike on a tangential target

To Deescalate the situation by forcing NATO to sue for peace in the face of an escalation to nuclear war.

Hence why it's called Nuclear Deescalation.    Deescalates by using so much force that the other side is forced to back down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to understand is that the trace between Russia and NATO is not overland.

The trace is at sea.   The Black Sea.

The Russians in Ukraine vs the American NATO Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense system with Tomahawk cruise missile deployed nuclear counterforce capability.

In Romania.     Ukraine is not how NATO gets attacked, the attack would come against Article V at Romania.

America also has Aegis Afloat BMD from DDG-51's in Spain.  So they can steam across the Med and reinforce the Aegis Ashore in Romania.

This is also why Russia is in Syria.

Control of the Black Sea relies on control of the Bosporus Approaches.   The Bosporus Strait through Turkey which is the only access point to the Black Sea.

Russia needs to be on both sides of that to make sure they can't be bottled up, and to defend the southern apporaches from a NATO incursion.

Hence why Ivan needs the naval base at Tartus in Syria.

This is also why Putin and the Chinese are trying to flip Erdogan to their side; control of the Bosporua.

Ukraine, Syria, same war. 

That war is between NATO BMD and the Russian counterforce, over the Black Sea. 

  With NATO moving into the Black Sea and Russia trying to box them out.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...