PDA

View Full Version : US nukes just got a lot deadlier ......



LongTermGuy
03-10-2017, 10:31 PM
https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/8mWNlGoLPGvfVP0yjvI8rA--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9NjQwO3E9NzU7c209MQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/US_nukes_just_got_a-43bb7a2f4e1a6ce2b98cc8e8d8f85cdc
(A Trident II, or D-5 missile, is launched from an Ohio-class submarine in this undated file photo.Reuters)

`A recent report from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578) details how the US massively upgraded the lethality of its submarine-based nuclear missiles —`

Essentially, the US's latest update to its Trident missiles aboard US Navy submarines ensures that each and every single missile will explode at precisely the right moment to devastate any target.


This is important because US military planners previously only relied on submarine-launched missiles to strike soft targets like military bases. Now these missiles could be used to wipe out Russia's / Irans nukes buried deep underground. `


"Because of improvements in the killing power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles, those submarines now patrol with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos," wrote Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore A. Postol, the authors of the report.`



But the US has even bigger nukes which sit in missile silos underground as ICBMs. Historically, these missiles would have been used for destroying Russia's ICBMs, but since submarines can handle that now, the US can focus its big nukes on obliterating underground hardened nuclear shelters — the kind Kremlin officials would hide out in during an attack.
From a US perspective, submarine-launched nuclear missile capability has surged, but don't expect Russia / Iran to share the enthusiasm.


Unlike the US, which can spot missile launches from space, Russia would have virtually no warning of an incoming missile besides its ground-based radars, which have limited range.
"Russian military and political leaders would have no 'situational awareness' to help them assess whether an early-warning radar indication of a surprise attack is real or the result of a technical error," the scientists write.`

https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/hwuhHlqB45UrJ0H5S4WF4A--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9NjQwO3E9NzU7c209MQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/US_nukes_just_got_a-b2b05683aae4fa286e3147d4944dc6b2

(Without eyes in space, Russia would have to answer a very difficult question very quickly if they detected an incoming missile.NASA)

So Russian defense officials would have less than 15 minutes to decide if an incoming object was legitimate, where it was coming from, and how they should respond. This places a whole lot of responsibility on the shoulders of Russian military officials.`

US nukes just got a lot deadlier — and experts say it could cause Russia to attack (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-nukes-just-got-lot-212818509.html)

gabosaurus
03-10-2017, 11:09 PM
My question is -- why do U.S. nukes need to be "deadlier?" Our country can already destroy the world many times over. And any type of nukes launched by the U.S. will automatically trigger a similar response by the Russians, which would be Game Over.
Once again, there is no such thing as "winning" a nuclear exchange. Everyone loses.

Gunny
03-10-2017, 11:28 PM
My question is -- why do U.S. nukes need to be "deadlier?" Our country can already destroy the world many times over. And any type of nukes launched by the U.S. will automatically trigger a similar response by the Russians, which would be Game Over.
Once again, there is no such thing as "winning" a nuclear exchange. Everyone loses.It's a more efficient weapon that increases tactical capability. It basically moves submarines from tactical weapons to strategic ones.

I will agree that nobody's going to win. Not the Russians anyone needs to worry about. They want to live. It's those will die to kill you that are the real threat. They don't care if they destroy the world if they don't get their way.

LongTermGuy
03-11-2017, 08:59 AM
Not the Russians anyone needs to worry about. They want to live. It's those will die to kill you that are the real threat. They don't care if they destroy the world if they don't get their way.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/20140131/4967510/allahu-akbar-o.gif
https://andelino.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/jihadi-john-and-liberals-06.gif?w=450&h=309

LongTermGuy
03-11-2017, 09:00 AM
My question is -- why do U.S. nukes need to be "deadlier?" Our country can already destroy the world many times over. And any type of nukes launched by the U.S. will automatically trigger a similar response by the Russians, which would be Game Over.
Once again, there is no such thing as "winning" a nuclear exchange. Everyone loses.
http://letswakeupamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/george_clooney12.gif

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
03-11-2017, 10:01 AM
It's a more efficient weapon that increases tactical capability. It basically moves submarines from tactical weapons to strategic ones.

I will agree that nobody's going to win. Not the Russians anyone needs to worry about. They want to live. It's those will die to kill you that are the real threat. They don't care if they destroy the world if they don't get their way.


Who fits that bill? Die to destroy their enemy and advance Allah..
Yet the Dem party allies with those same enemies of this nation... A fact..-Tyr

Gunny
03-11-2017, 10:34 AM
Who fits that bill? Die to destroy their enemy and advance Allah..
Yet the Dem party allies with those same enemies of this nation... A fact..-Tyr

Ain't no secret who I'm talking about, Tyr. Got a whole lot of sea time and I'm too young to have been in Nam.