Oh Your God!!!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Frankly, I'd be surprised if we didn't have nukes in Alaska. It's one of the most strategic places for the US to place them.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,155
34,475
136
Frankly, I'd be surprised if we didn't have nukes in Alaska. It's one of the most strategic places for the US to place them.
That's why we called it The Cold War. Everybody was sitting up at the pole freezing their asses off.
 

MaxPayne63

Senior member
Dec 19, 2011
682
0
0
Frankly, I'd be surprised if we didn't have nukes in Alaska. It's one of the most strategic places for the US to place them.

I bet you'd still want to fire the missiles over the north pole to hit western Russia. A base in alaska would also be far more vulnerable to SLBMs and aircraft.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
I bet you'd still want to fire the missiles over the north pole to hit western Russia. A base in alaska would also be far more vulnerable to SLBMs and aircraft.

And far away from population centers. That's why we used Alaska and the USSR used Siberia. Vulnerability is meaningless, we both had plenty to spare. The important thing was to keep people from getting killed when silos were targeted.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
I bet you'd still want to fire the missiles over the north pole to hit western Russia. A base in alaska would also be far more vulnerable to SLBMs and aircraft.

There were still other threats to the west of us, like communist governments in NK and China. What if there was a conflict and we lost Hawaii?
 

Anonemous

Diamond Member
May 19, 2003
7,361
1
71
Wj48APu.jpg
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I bet you'd still want to fire the missiles over the north pole to hit western Russia. A base in alaska would also be far more vulnerable to SLBMs and aircraft.
Uhh, duh? That's not the point. That's a reason TO have them there.

Of course the perimeter of our territory is most vulnerable. That's precisely why they want the perimeter of our territory to be as far away from the contiguous states as possible and why we operate in South Korea, Philippines, Guam, made Hawaii a state, etc. Hawaii was vulnerable to the Pearl Harbor attack but that's precisely why we had a base there instead of on the mainland. It was the first line of defense and an early warning for the contiguous US.