In 2005, he gave a talk and said that he was convinced that a handful - as in a single-didigt number, like six - of nukes was a very secure deterrent.
He also said in his view the reduction and, IIRC, the slimination of nuclear weapons in the world was the top priority for the planet.
I wonder how many of our armchair citizen generals who express opinions on this can be bothered to listen to the talk and get more informed in their view.
I'll make it as easy as a click:
Link[/quote]
Small problem though... to provide a credible mobile/stealth 2nd strike deterrent each sub we have has to have several nukes. Simple math 5 x 6 or so... carry the one... that more than 10 just on missile subs.
Then we got nucs that are deliverable via plane and then surface to surface long range ballastic missiles (now i cna see where we can draw down the number of these sitting duck weapons a lot. But then what do we do with the fissile materials? That is a lot of trouble.
Specifically.. I'm interested in McNamara's opinion as to how to disarm countries like North Korea, or to convince them to disarm, and what to do with emerging nuclear powers who may or may not be stable.
It is easy to say we should get rid of nucs, or stop anthropogenic contributions to climate change, or 'deal' with the world human population problem... hell I can flap my gums with the best of them!! But actually forming and expressing a coherent plan that will work and the world will buy into... ah, there is the rub.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
No... we need enough to obliterate EVERYONE and the will to use them.
The spread of tech and progress is inevietable. The thought that smaller, less advanced, countries wouldn't eventually be able to pick up how to build a nuke off Google was a pipe dream.
The only thing that saves us at this point is if we go total 'black woman' crazy and threaten to glass our attackers and anyone allied with them, formally or not. (Yes, that means we keep one or twelve pointed at Mecca)
Our only hope is that MAD still has value in a world of nuts expecting to see 23 virgins when they die.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Ummm... no. Thankfully we haven't had to use them. Nukes should always be a deterrant. (WWII excluded... don't want to start that argument here)
The question is... will this generation of enemy see them as a deterrant or as a ticket to heaven? Such is the psycho, frightening nature of the muslim religion.
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
Problem is, if we only have 12, and they have 1000, our 12 no longer serves as much of a deterrent. Not to mention, any country having missile intercept capabilities could potentially nullify a good percentage of our 12.
...I'm going to go with: 1000 MIRV delivery vehicles sounds good to me.
A lot smaller. I don't know if a dozen is enough of a deterrent but it's probably close.
To the (at the moment) 34% of people voting for 'Bigger' please use your own tax dollars to pay for them. Odds are most of you are neocons who are currently bitching about government spending. :roll:
To the (at the moment) 34% of people voting for 'Bigger' please use your own tax dollars to pay for them. Odds are most of you are neocons who are currently bitching about government spending. :roll:
It was kids who had other delusions who fought a war that killed a million Vietnamese, wearing the uniform of our country. Check the mirror for your over-zealous killers.
That's really not good enough. I don't care if they're billionares willing to pay for them - it's wrong to make them at all whoever pays for them.
I don't tell someone who somes out in favor of invading any nation any time for greed 'YOU pay for it', I say no, you can not.
Why wouldn't 12 - or 6 - be enough, if they can reliably be delivered?
What nation is going to choose any war plan based on whether they get hit by 6 or 600?
surfsatwerk
Lifer
- Mar 6, 2008
- 10,110
- 5
- 81
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2004
- 9,306
- 4
- 81
Answer depends on how good our enemies best defense system is. If you can't get them past defenses then you need more to overwhelm the defenses.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 32
- 91
So do you want us to get rid of our aresenal, reduce our arsenal, keep it at the same level, increase it, ?????? Opinions please.
I'm fine with what we have. If we want to make some reductions I'm okay with that as well. However, simply dismantling our arsenal while others retain their own is asinine at best.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 51,352
- 43,724
- 136
The Russians don't mount the high yield singles to their missiles anymore. They're probably carrying 500kt MIRVs + decoys.
As to how many weapons need to be retained to be an effective deterrent I'd say several hundred across multiple launch platforms to ensure survivability.
I'm against our being vulnerable to a foreign powers nuclear attack without a deterrent; I'm against 'loose nukes' so that a smaller group can get one (or more) and use it.
McNamara said in his opinion as I recall, our conventional deterrence - we spend almost the rest of the world combined on the military - is more than enough deterrence against war if there are no nukes. But that if we want a nuclear deterrent, a handful is enough to deter any nation which is going to be deterred. Those two seem like the defensible options.
On the one hand, yes, we should plan for global reduction/elimination. One nice thing is that the world is pretty cooperative about that, as they look at our absurd arsenal.
But his point is that even without that, it's still fine for the US. As Russia or China look at the US contemplating a nuclear attack, the US sending several nuclear missiles to their top several targets is unacceptable losses for them, regardless of how much they destroy the US. That's all we need to do.
As long as there are thousands of nuclear missiles sitting in arsenals, there is a risk, from either some national conflict, or from accident or theft.
He called on the audience to fight for eliminating the world's nuclear arsenal. He made a lot of sense.
He was our top military official during the most challenging cold war years. He understood the strategy.
In fact, he was the first civilian to see our nation's nuclear war plans; before him, the air force considered them their private documents and none of the Secretary's business.
A lot of posters here say they want thousands of missiles. What we don't see is any justification for their position.
Can you imagine the possibility that the reason for our continuing to have the thousands has little reason but the political issues - how would it look to the public to get rid of all or nearly all of them, Republicans not wanting to because they're the 'strong military' image and Democrats not wanting to because they'd be attacked as weak on defense - along with the influence of the military industry and some ideologues?
Could our nation really spend the billions and have the risks of the destruction of those weapons for such little reasons? I don't see any reason why not.
Why not pursue a nuclear free world, before they are used again? We can lead the world that direction, if we are willing to give up our arsenal making it hypocritical.
Between the systems that could be created for monitoring, the measures available to destroy any weapons program under the auspices of the UN, it's feasible.
Indeed, people forget that some of our past presidents have expressed a commitment to abolosihing our nuclear arsenal; if i recall, we are supposed to be working on that now, under the terms of a treaty we approved. It's hardly going to go on indefinitely where we have our cake and eat it too, nukes are ok for us, and tolerable for the powers we can't prevent having them, but not for anyone else. There's a slow ongoing proliferation under the current situation. Our policy is based on selfish hypocrisy, not principle or fairness.
It's easy to say 'give us unlimited military power', and dangerous. Thomas Jefferson said that any standing army was incompatible with democracy; he'd be horrified by nukes.
But any change to this will likely come from the grass roots. And you can see from the posts in this thread what an uphill battle changing views on this is.
But, like the Germans who supported the re-armament of their nation in the 1930's, we can ask, 'why not. what can go wrong?'
We've gotten used to nukes now. They're no longer the monstrosity they once were. We can't safely take terrorist leaders into our Supermax prisons, but we are fine with nukes.
in all honesty I think we should seriously look into kinetic bombardment, can do alot of what we need nukes for atm, and also can be used without risk of radiation, would also replace cruise missils and prolly reduce the need for a strategic long range bombers. I mean if you stuck the money we spent on the B2s into a program like this I think an array of sats like this would be far more useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Only issue is that as long as we have nuclear weapons, it gives justification to any other country to pursue them. Take Iran for example. With America's history in that region, why would they not want nuclear weapons? Once they get them, any kind of military action against them is off the table, and destabalizing their regime would probably be considered too risky as well. They are the ultimate insurance policy against foreign agression of any kind. It just smacks of hypocricy that we consider our right to them unquestionable, while preaching to the rest of the developing world that there will be serious consequences if they pursue them. And we wonder why so many people hate the west??
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,867
- 3,826
- 136
Exactly. Would you attack a country that had even a dozen highly accurate ICBMs? One of our standard 1MT warheads would turn a several mile radius into a glass bowl and give a fatal radiation bath out to ~90 miles (depending on wind).
No country would want to basically sacrifice a dozen major cities. The thousands of warheads we have now are fairly superfluous, and launching all of them would probably kill a good chunk of our own population anyway.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 51,352
- 43,724
- 136
We don't mount megaton range warheads anymore. Our Minuteman IIIs have been fitted with single W87s (300kt nominal yield upgradable to 475kt by adding extra oralloy) left over from the Peacekeepers.
The problem with investing solely in one deterrent system is it's vulnerability, which is why nuclear nations maintain more than one delivery method.
How many do we need? One more than the rest of the world combined. The only reason the world listens to us talk is because we carry a bigger stick than them.
Without the bite to back up the bark, talking is just noise.
Without the bite to back up the bark, talking is just noise.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter