THAAD is on track with 2 line batteries in service at Fort Bliss.

Anyone who talks about decoys in ballistic missiles is high on crack.

Yes you can put decoys in a missile, at the cost of warhead. Remember the missile has a fixed weight so that the engine can propell it to the target. Chaff, ‘balloons’ etc. do not work in space. Period.

Our radars have the resolution to see that the enemy has deployed decoys.

Yes Russia has many missiles and does use decoys mostly because our older systems can be fooled. But then again the Russians are our ‘friends’ now.

The Russians are a midget with a big right arm. Weaken that arm and you show how weak and sick Russia is. The Kremlin also loves selling it’s missiles to oil-sucking dictators and unstable regimes (more so now that they need cash). Less US missile defense, more Russian sales.

The decoy argument has been going on since the 1970’s and 80’s. That hound don’t hunt.

The cuts on our side will happen because the stupid hippes hate nukes.

The Russians don’t want to admit that they are weak. They can’t be trusted unless our president holds them to the treaty.

Yeah right.

Peace through superior firepower. Worked for Regan and Bush.

Chockblock
–a 14E with an attitude.

I also didn’t realize our Patriots were ever decommissioned or taken out of service? Could you remedy my knowledge deficit in this matter?

Also about North Korea. If they attacked Seoul and If the US had no nukes (the basis for your premise) and the only US response would be to massively mobilize and attack with conventional forces risking hundreds and thousands of lives, would we? What if the NORKS said we have ten more bombs in US cities so if you try and defend South Korea we will set them off.

As HasBeen said quite nicely it’s a little more complicated.

Other potential scenarios are possible as well. Oh, and several years ago Iran actually conducted an exercise involving launching scuds from a freighter.

Some one please give me a single logical, realistic reason N. Korea would attempt to land one or two low yield devices in our back yard and suffer the slings and arrows of our non-nuclear forces? No one thinks like that. Well maybe a few paranoid folks on our side.

Nuclear war is obsolete. It came and went without happening. Fortunately the right people realize this.

I still think a joint ABM system is an extremely bad idea. There is more breadth and depth to the nature and types of threats than has been credited so far. I guess I don’t care to argue the point too much but I appreciate seesthrubs taking a pretty reasoned approach to his response.

As always I enjoy Byron Skinner’s posts — but don’t totally agree. I think there is too much discounting of the threat from current or incipient nuclear entities such as Iran or North Korea. Unfortunately, much of the ABM effort is going into avenues that I don’t think do well at defending against this type of threat anyway so it may not be terribly relevant to the current discussion… (I do expect some to take exception to this but I’m not going to worry about that).

On a broader scale I’d note that I do think pursuing arms control treaties is worthwhile but I think that they have to be to our advantage militarily and economically (understanding that this advantage does not necessarily imply a disadvantage to potential aggressors). Arms control for political reasons is typically dangerous and we’ve done too much of that in the past.

I would also flatly agree with those who have intimated that anything approaching an impervious ABM shield is expecting too much. In fact, I’d say that this type of protection against a modestly capable nuclear opponent isn’t even on the horizon. Even if you could design it I don’t think you could test it to the level I would require to be confident in the capability. If you are not confident in the system then you really can’t utilize it effectively so there isn’t a whole lot of point in owning it.

FWIW

What is really dangerous is that Russia has weapons production lines up and running while the US has no current production line in operation and has not built a new nuke for 20 years. We are losing key personnel on an almost monthly basis due to retirement as our infrastructure rusts away. It is a very dangerous situation.

To Jim. The term “Strategic Forces” is an old Soviet era term and under The Russian Federation many of these sub commands have been consolidated, the function of SRBM’s and Tactical nuc’s still exist. Most Russian Federation SRBM’s that are operational and in the field appear to be in the Amur River area.

I’m not sure that tactical nuc’s are even part of what is being negotiated at this time. The issue of what is or is not counted is “Classified”. It is of note that earlier in the week Putin made a proposal to the EU that the could lease nuclear fuel for The Russian Federation and return it when it was spent for recycling by The Russian Federation. The source of this fuel rods that Putin is trying to peddle is coming from Russian plutonium that has been removed from Russian nuclear weapons, by US supervised contractors and a US security contractors guarding the disassembly facilities, then the plutonium is brought to the US for reprocessing into commercial grade fuel rods and returned to The Russian Federation.

This material when returned to Russia is no longer suitable for reprocessing back into weapons grade plutonium.

To Boomer. Yes, You are right, but if you may have noticed in my postings many come up short on technical information on issues Nuclear, ASW, MINE/COUNTERMINE and on SIGNET.

The terms Blocks 1 and 2 are commonly used in open literature on the nuclear Tomahawk.

As I’m sure you are aware Boomer that two different specifications about any of these issues that are in and of themselves not classified, but when put together become “Classified” material is rather common.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I just think its unnecessary to spend considerable sums of money on new nukes or nuke technologies, particularly given the current and imminent needs of the other military branches, since its going to invite others (ie Russia) to develop counters; and as we have seen over the last decades they certainly have the innovation and ability to match or gain superiority in different systems. At the end of the day you are no safer. An ABM system would make you safer and, though I think it would be unlikely too, a joint ABM system would protect both countries not simply from each other but any potential rogue states and the potential enemy which cannot be named.

Yes the US has been involved in arms reducation but what i meant was that if you wanted to say to a nation “Dont build nukes” you are in a far weaker position politically if you are building them yourself, and good luck if you wanted to take action or impose sanctions etc. That nation will justifiably call double standard and be even more determined to acquire them.

I tend to agree with seedthrubs on this, but for different reasons. I think the current US nuclear weapons arsenal as set during the Bush (43) administration is about right. It is large enough to show that the US can be a player in any nuclear games that any country (s) may chose to engage in, but not so large as to be an intimidation factor to other countries.

The current US strategic force the “Strategic Strike Command” is one that has been designed to draw down our nuclear arsenal. The Tomahawk Blocks 1 & 2 are being retired, the manned bomber element has been reduced to less then 50 B-2’s and B-52’s and there is no intent to do a follow up to the Minuteman 3 Silo ICBM’s. The Minuteman’s replacement the MX “Peacekeeper” or “Midgetman” long ago was reduced to the status an historical relic.

The only naval vessels that are currently nuclear armed are the 14 Ohio Class SSBN’s with the Trident 5. United States ground forces exited the nuclear stage in 1985 with the removal of the Pershing Missile.

What ever the current Russian Federation’s Nuclear Force is currently a matter of speculation, but all known evidence and the actions of it’s biggest cheerleader Valdimir Putin indicates it’s nearly non existent.

After the failure of the Dec. 12 Bulava test and the cancelation of the much hyped Jan. 8 Bulava test, and the “successful” Test on March 6 of the aging “Sineve” liquid fueled SSBM, from a “Tula” Class SSBN, a 1970’s Delta IV with fresh lipstick. Rissian Federation President Dimitiry Medvedev said flat out that it wouldn’t be till 2030 that a replacement missile would be ready. The Tula SSBN Class consist of seven boats. The 2 Typhoons in storage and the two new Borie’s are being saved for the solid fueled Bulava/Topol M ICBM’s.

This indicaes at most the Russian Federation intends to have only a sea bases token nuclear force, for the next 20 years.

Other then the rogue states issue, which in my opinion is vastly over blown in order to keep the US spending large sums of money on BMD and our nuclear arsenal, is currently the only nuclear issue on the table. I say for what its worth, sign a treaty with “The Russian Federation” and move on.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner