Trump wants more nukes

[pauldun170]

Trump is having an energy drink spasm and is reminiscing about his favorite Reagan myths that he read on some website a friend forwarded to him

Russia is not capable of winning any arms race.
Russia is a has been.

 

[dainthomas]

I'm sorry, I just found what you said to be wonderfully insane. You aren't really answering the question though, if we don't know what this secret technology is that the Russians have somehow developed which renders all nuclear weapons impotent how are we supposed to use research to overcome it?

Maybe the Russians have developed a death star laser and we just don't know about it. Should we spend trillions to research anti death star technologies? Can you see how the logic of 'we need to spend tons of money to combat a threat we have no evidence exists' is problematic?

I find your lack of faith......disturbing.

 

[xthetenth]

We have no idea of the technology out there. What if Russia is coming up with tech that could make our nukes useless? We really have zero idea of what they are scheming. If nothing else we should be at minimum saying we are upgrading our nukes even if we aren't.

Nuclear strategy isn't a matter of literal magic. We have a pretty good idea of the technology out there because we're playing the same game as them with the same possible tools. Nukes remain nukes no matter what technology the other side gets unless the other side can actually get really seriously good interceptors, and even then the attack is pretty consistently in the lead. Them improving their offensive nukes does nothing to change the capability of ours unless they somehow make huge strides that let them potentially mount an effective counterforce strike, and that's not on the table without big obvious changes.

Russia is spinning pie in the sky wish fulfillment stuff that only really would benefit them by getting us to freak out and overspend. Meanwhile their actual current changes are consolidating their nuclear forces down from the huge variety they have as ex-Soviet hand me downs to a more modern force, and if we really wanted to do something useful we'd be seeing if there's a good way to counter hypersonic cruise missiles to keep their SSNs from being viable ersatz boomers rather than some ill-specified offensive enlargement that really seems to do more with Trump getting off on having deals pitched to him than reality.

Sufficient to whom? Clearly Russia thinks they can improve theirs. And last I remember they set off the biggest man made nuclear explosion ever.

In what was frankly a profligate waste of useful nuclear materials using well understood techniques. Much better to tighten up the CEP rather than fight the square-cube scaling of blast effects. Modern offensive advances revolve around getting them in the right place.

 

[HomerJS]

I'd it find it easier to adopt this view if he didn't specifically say "expand".

Trump wants to expand the number of nukes and expand the number of countries who have them. What could possibly go wrong.

He probably doesn't know the US and Russia are operating under a treaty that does not allow expansion. Not surprised coming from someone who doesn't do his homework. But Trump lickers are ok with a lazy POTUS elect.

 

[sandorski]

Agreed. And we can thank Putin's and Trump's drooling half-wit supporters for cheering them on.

Assuming Putin worked to get Trump into Office, it really makes me wonder what his endgame is.

 

[fskimospy]

Assuming Putin worked to get Trump into Office, it really makes me wonder what his endgame is.

Does he really need an end game? I mean he now has an easily manipulated fool in charge of the US. That's kind of a win already as he doesn't have to worry about competent leadership in his primary adversary for at least 4 years.

 

[biostud]

Assuming Putin worked to get Trump into Office, it really makes me wonder what his endgame is.

The last of American presidents?

 

[Commodus]

Here's the more pressing question: why should we do anything that would take us a step closer to ending human civilization?

The only correct answer is "we shouldn't."

It's getting increasingly hard to justify supporting Trump, even if you were a diehard who went to his rallies with a "MAGA" cap on. How do you justify someone who's hell-bent on recreating the Cold War nuclear arms race? Especially when he and his staff are contradicting each other (as they have in the past) -- how do you know whether or not the only sane policy, where we continue to reduce the nuke stockpile, will prevail?

I'm honestly starting to wonder if Trump will even make it to 2018 at this rate. It feels like he's either going to be caught in a conflict of interest so serious that even his own party can't ignore it, or that he's going to make decisions so egregiously wrong that key members of the government purposefully disobey him. I wouldn't be surprised if his administration flat-out refuses to support the nuclear arms race.

 

[sandorski]

Does he really need an end game? I mean he now has an easily manipulated fool in charge of the US. That's kind of a win already as he doesn't have to worry about competent leadership in his primary adversary for at least 4 years.

True, but it could be more than that. Might be trying the Al Queda strategy of trying to bankrupt the economy.

 

[momeNt]

Let's back up a second.

How SHOULD the USA respond to Russia wanting to modernize their nuclear arms to pierce missile defense systems?

 

[fskimospy]

Here's the more pressing question: why should we do anything that would take us a step closer to ending human civilization?

The only correct answer is "we shouldn't."

It's getting increasingly hard to justify supporting Trump, even if you were a diehard who went to his rallies with a "MAGA" cap on. How do you justify someone who's hell-bent on recreating the Cold War nuclear arms race? Especially when he and his staff are contradicting each other (as they have in the past) -- how do you know whether or not the only sane policy, where we continue to reduce the nuke stockpile, will prevail?

I'm honestly starting to wonder if Trump will even make it to 2018 at this rate. It feels like he's either going to be caught in a conflict of interest so serious that even his own party can't ignore it, or that he's going to make decisions so egregiously wrong that key members of the government purposefully disobey him. I wouldn't be surprised if his administration flat-out refuses to support the nuclear arms race.

I think this will be an interesting test of the power of the bureaucracy to resist presidential power. If his steps so far are any indication we are about to see a blizzard of irrational and incompetent leadership the likes of which the US has never seen. I wonder how hard they will try to gum up the works and slow down the damage.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's back up a second.

How SHOULD the USA respond to Russia wanting to modernize their nuclear arms to pierce missile defense systems?

Stop development on BMD systems entirely as they are costly, likely to be ineffective in a serious conflict, and inherently destabilizing. It was a waste when Reagan tried it, a waste when Bush tried it, and a waste when Obama tried it.

 

[brycejones]

We have no idea of the technology out there. What if Russia is coming up with tech that could make our nukes useless? We really have zero idea of what they are scheming. If nothing else we should be at minimum saying we are upgrading our nukes even if we aren't.

Magic anti nuke ray guns? Nukes are nukes. They use guidance systems that are not dependent on GPS so that route of attack is out. The bolded is just insane and assumes the Russians have no intelligence capabilities at all which is just stupid.

Sufficient to whom? Clearly Russia thinks they can improve theirs. And last I remember they set off the biggest man made nuclear explosion ever.

50MT bombs are pretty useless. The Tsar bomb was a publicity stunt but useless as an actual weapon given its size and limited ability to deliver it. A 150KT weapon with a 100M CEP is a much more effective weapon than a 1.5MT weapon with a 5K CEP.

BTW the CEP of US missiles is second to none. Even our SLBMs are effective as counter force weapons.

 

[pauldun170]

Russia plays the Nuclear card because its conventional forces are completely inadequate.
Russia is regional nuisance at best.

It is beyond stupid to see Russia as a competitor. Russia lacks talent, capacity and infrastructure to do jack shit of anything. Its has major internal issues that are going to prevent it from becoming anymore than another country to slap sanctions on when they screw up.

 

[brycejones]

nm

 

[momeNt]

Stop development on BMD systems entirely as they are costly, likely to be ineffective in a serious conflict, and inherently destabilizing. It was a waste when Reagan tried it, a waste when Bush tried it, and a waste when Obama tried it.

So press conference reads:

In light of Russia's efforts to modernize their nuclear arms to defeat our missile defense systems, the USA and UN countries will stop development of our missile defense systems, they likely never worked in the first place.

 

[xthetenth]

Stop development on BMD systems entirely as they are costly, likely to be ineffective in a serious conflict, and inherently destabilizing. It was a waste when Reagan tried it, a waste when Bush tried it, and a waste when Obama tried it.

I think there's an argument to be made for them to increase the barrier for entry into being a nuclear power a bit beyond being able to slam together some uranium, but not as a serious attempt to be able to stop an entire attack by a major power.

 

[pauldun170]

Magic anti nuke ray guns? Nukes are nukes. They use guidance systems that are not dependent on GPS so that route of attack is out. The bolded is just insane and assumes the Russians have no intelligence capabilities at all which is just stupid.



50MT bombs are pretty useless. The Tsar bomb was a publicity stunt but useless as an actual weapon given its size and limited ability to deliver it. A 150KT weapon with a 100M CEP is a much more effective weapon than a 1.5MT weapon with a 5K CEP.

BTW the CEP of US missiles is second to none. Even our SLBMs are effective as counter force weapons.

Consider modern conventional weapons, the current landscape of potential adversaries as well as regional interconnects between allies, not so much allies but friends of a friend have major assets in the area, friends but we screwed their sister, not friends but not enemies, enemy enemy.

What scenario do we currently have where the usage of any of our Nuclear weapons would be of practical value?
Excluding MAD (meaning accepting that we all lose and we all die if the event occurred), what real world scenario would require nuclear assets in the 21st century? Even low yield.

 

[crashtech]

What scenario do we currently have where the usage of any of our Nuclear weapons would be of practical value?
Excluding MAD (meaning accepting that we all lose and we all die if the event occurred), what real world scenario would require nuclear assets in the 21st century? Even low yield.

The only thing that comes to my mind is as a deterrent to rogue states using their nukes, a job that doesn't require many nukes at all.

 

[brycejones]

Consider modern conventional weapons, the current landscape of potential adversaries as well as regional interconnects between allies, not so much allies but friends of a friend have major assets in the area, friends but we screwed their sister, not friends but not enemies, enemy enemy.

What scenario do we currently have where the usage of any of our Nuclear weapons would be of practical value?
Excluding MAD (meaning accepting that we all lose and we all die if the event occurred), what real world scenario would require nuclear assets in the 21st century? Even low yield.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[momeNt]

The only thing that comes to my mind is as a deterrent to rogue states using their nukes, a job that doesn't require many nukes at all.

Stop, you sound like Ron Paul. This country cannot be defended by a couple of nukes, and a couple of submarines. It's the one thing that basically everybody in this country has already agreed upon.

 

[crashtech]

Stop, you sound like Ron Paul. This country cannot be defended by a couple of nukes, and a couple of submarines. It's the one thing that basically everybody in this country has already agreed upon.

You are mischaracterizing my remark. The question was for uses other than MAD. Please don't do that.

 

[kage69]

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

 

[RichUK]

Woohoo, more nukes FTW.

 

[glenn1]

Stop development on BMD systems entirely as they are costly, likely to be ineffective in a serious conflict, and inherently destabilizing. It was a waste when Reagan tried it, a waste when Bush tried it, and a waste when Obama tried it.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say a reasonably perfect BMD technology existed today. Would you spend the money to build the system or would you not do so because you feel it's "destabilizing"?