New START Ratified

New START Ratified

The U.S.  Senate this afternoon ratified the latest START treaty by a vote of 71 to 26 following weeks of debate on the issue during which republicans tried to block the treaty on grounds that it would tie the United States’ hands with regards to missile defense and upgrading its nuclear arsenal.

The treaty, known as New START, commits the U.S. and Russia to trimming their numbers of deployed strategic nuclear warheads from more than 2,000 to 1,555 and will reopen each nations’ nuclear sites to arms inspectors from both sides; something that hasn’t happened since the last START treaty expired over on year ago.

13 Republicans joined 56 Democrats to vote for the treaty, which was signed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Demetry Medvedev in April. The treaty must now be ratified by Russia.

Over last two weeks the Obama administration has gone all out to push the treaty in the Senate. Vice President Joe Biden personally oversaw today’s vote in his role as President of the Senate and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was on the Senate floor for the vote. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. James Cartwright, repeatedly said the treaty will not hurt the U.S.’ position with regard to missile defense or nuclear modernization.

“I think that there were some genuine concerns on the Hill, particularly on the republican side, but not exclusively on the republican side about the modernization of our nuclear enterprise and a reluctance to go forward on START without the assurances that the resources would be made available to” modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, said Gates during a White House press conference last week.

“I think that there were some misunderstandings, frankly, on missile defense, I hope that the testimony of the Joint Chiefs and General Cartwright who’s expert in this area and, perhaps me to a lesser extent, have provided some reassurances to people that this treaty in no way limits anything we have in mind or want to do on missile defense,” he added.

Cartwright, last week said that the new treaty will actually make modernizing the nation’s nuclear arsenal easier.

“For me, all the Joint Chiefs are very much behind this treaty, because of the transparency, because of the reality that both the United States and Russia are going to have to recapitalize their nuclear arsenals, both the delivery vehicles and the weapons,” said Cartwright. “To have transparency and to put structure to [the recapitalization] process, we need START and we need it badly.”

Join the Conversation

Without modernization of our nuclear forces, which is something we seem to be desperately avoiding, this treaty does us no good. Personally I don’t think this should have been passed without a commitment for a future Minuteman III replacement and SSBN.

Personally after his failure to keep almost every promise he made during his campaigning I don’t trust this president any further than I could launch him.

With the New Start treaty ratified, we should just cut the missiles and submarines now (instead of over seven years). That will cover a lot of the $20B a year OMB just ordered the Pentagon to absorb. The idea that we need 1,555 missiles is pure madness. After any exchange of just half a dozen nuclear missiles, both sides will seek a negotiated peace. 100 missile is all we need. All the rest of the money is make work for scientist, engineers, and politicians.

This treaty would have been proposed and passed regardless of who is president, republican or democrat.

A slight error or two. 1555 limitation is on warheads rather than on missiles.

The other thing to remember is that if we immediately decreased the number of missiles to 100 that could easily be destabilizing. You have to understand that if I’ve got 1555 warheads and you’ve got only 100 missiles (and especially if those missiles are significantly detargeted) it will be extremely tempting to eliminate you as a threat: I can devote several hundred warheads to your missile silos in a surprise attack and have some hope to prevent all but a few of your missiles from launching. I might even hope to prevent a launch entirely. This actually increases the risk of nuclear war if you cannot count on both sides having a particular kind of mind-set.

There is a balance which must be achieved between the number and type of warheads, the number and type of delivery systems, the ability to gather necessary intel, the temperaments of the various governmental entities, etc. If one does not carefully balance these you can have a result which is exceedingly dangerous.

Given my extreme lack of faith in this administration I have little hope that they have struck the proper balance — but I don’t have enough information to actually know that they haven’t. It may be that this START version is brilliant, but a lack of integration of non-strategic assets into the process suggests to me that it is not.


I can devote several hundred warheads to your missile silos in a surprise attack and have some hope to prevent all but a few of your missiles from launching.

And these few will have 15 warheads each –wiping out every major city in any enemies country.
The reality is that the number of weapons needed defense is very small — the Chinese only have about 20. It’s only when you are thinking about a first strike do you need the thousands.

Meanwhile I see our resident defense industry PR flak cant seem to face saving money for the US taxpayer unless it’s balanced with even more waste somewhere else. Really send me an email if you see Bill agreeing with anything which doesn’t cost us more.

“I think that there were some genuine concerns on the Hill, particularly on the republican side, but not exclusively on the republican side about the modernization of our nuclear enterprise and a reluctance to go forward on START without the assurances that the resources would be made available to” modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, said Gates during a White House press conference last week.“
My Senator Mr Corker led the Modernisation fight. He has in hand, letters, confirmations, and a WH document garanteeing funding, action, and controls for the REPUBs Congress of 2011, for the modernization and monitoring of the Russian arsnel.
START treaties always are tricky. In this case, Reagons “Trust but Verify” rationale was met fairly well.
We need to watch the OBAMA WH for actions, not documents.
Semper Fi

Read more: http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​1​2​/​2​2​/​n​e​w​-​s​t​a​r​t​-​r​a​tif

So true William. This treaty does VERY little for the US. Funny how no one mentions that this is the least intrusive nuclear treaty to date. And what is up with all this rhetoric saying that the New START treaty had the support of all the US senior military leaders?? Of course they supported it.…they are no longer in military roles, they are in political positions and wouldn’t dare go against when their Commander in Chief believes.

We should hold on it a few weeks from now, till tension in the Korean Peninsula tame down.

To the poster “ICBMGuy”

If you’re referring to the quaLitative edge then you should read “William C.”‘s commentary again. He put NO LAME BLAME for any obsolescence of the U.S.’ nuclear arsenal on the Treaty, but on purely internal neglect. And this has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with “the Russians” !

Find me A SINGLE phrase anywhere that curbs CONSTANT MODERNIZATION of ANY side’s agreed-on nuclear stockpiles:

I, on the opposite, found this:

1) “Kagan said the Republican insistence on upgrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal was reasonable but would not be affected by the current language of the treaty.”


2) “Senators Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell have complained about a lack of funding for the Next-Generation Bomber during the treaty debate even though this platform would not be constrained by this treaty.”

Would you rather prefer that iconic enormous heap of rusting Cold War era nukes, “ICBMGuy” ? Are YOU too afraid to modernize?

To “Oblat”


Part 1 / 5

You took the words out of my mouth. Damn, should have posted four hours earlier…

To “HasBeen” : What U.S. missile ever had 15 warheads in the first place? (Just to use your own counter-argument)

If you divide all those maximally 1.500 strategic warheads equally among all your subs, silos and bombers, then that makes ~ 500 warheads per Triad leg, and a total of only 100 missiles would even increase that number of warheads per
I.C.B.M. and S.L.B.M. to… ~ 45 !!! Come on, not even a Space Shuttle or a Moon-bound Saturn V rocket can lift off the pad stuffed with 45 warheads. Meaning that you’ll ALWAYS NEED much more than 100 missiles anyway to launch your 1.500 warheads!


Part 2 / 5

In fact, the New Start Treaty even says the opposite of you:

“The total number of warheads retained, however, could exceed the 1,550 limit by a few hundred because per bomber only one warhead is counted regardless of how many it actually carries”
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​N​e​w​_​S​T​A​R​T​_​t​r​e​a​t​y​#​Ove… (Third paragraph, first phrase)

So: Make them (the bombers) BIG .

And HOW BIG is big enough for a nuclear bomber?

Don’t you really remember that August 2007 incident where a B-52 accidentally flew from Minot Air Force Base to Barksdale Air Force Base mistakenly loaded with S-I-X nuclear bombs? General culture.


Part 3 / 5

The text further says:

“It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. Also, it will limit the number of deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 700.”

As you see, that’s a maximum of 700 – 800 permitted vehicles, not of “1500” (“versus 100”).


Part 5 / 5

The only point where I DISagree with “Taxpayer”‘s proposed forces reduction is when he wants to “cut” the subs “now”… S.S.B.N.s are actually the MOST SURVIVABLE of the three Triad legs, and submarine technology is F-A-R from exhausted, too, so S.S.B.N.s should even be the best preserved – even the last remaining! – nuclear branch!

For your information: MERELY DEPLOYING A-L-L your S.S.B.N.s
at sea, even if they carry all your 1.500 warheads (or just 100 !!! ) inside only 100 S.L.B.M.s, is MUCH MORE DESTABILIZING (a sign of imminent attack!) than pointing 1.500 missiles against 100 warheads – and this Treaty doesn’t even consider it a violation!

Etc. .

What a chicken American you are!

My paranoid mind even tells me that RIGHT AFTER both Super-Powers signed this Treaty, suddenly all Russian “Bulava” missiles will fly 100 % successfully, LOL !

To your information: I answered you, but Mr. Colin Clark already deleted my post, true to his old self.

AMEN!!! You“re 100% right!!!!

Are our elected officals so stupid that they can’t see they are selling this country down the river for anyone with nukes to come in and take over. The russians can not account for all there nuke arsonal even today. Is it going to take someone buying one on the black market and detonating it in the US for these bleeding heart librials to pull there heads out and see what they have done. When something like this happens they will do what they always do, stand there with a stupid look on thier faces and try and blame someone else. Close our borders, build up our military here in the us. Stop dumping tax payers money in countrys that will turn around and stick there finger up at the United States. If washington wants to do something, spend the money on our poor and jobless. After all we are the Americans, the tax payers, and the ones who voted there sorry butts into office.

15 warheads in one of our missiles? Impressive! Also quite untrue.

Anyway, there are other problems with your thinking.


Not so good. You’re off on a number of things.

But feel free to continue.

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”

Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (488)

God Bless the United States and the Nation of Israel,

To the poster “HasBeen”


Part 1 / 3

You wrote: “15 warheads in one of our missiles? Impressive! Also quite untrue.”

1) Y-O-U said “15 warheads”, indirectly, by saying

“…if we immediately decreased the number of missiles to 100 that could easily be destabilizing. You have to understand that if I’ve got 1555 warheads and you’ve got only 100 missiles…”

– “Oblat” merely spelled it out for you. I said nothing.

2) “Quite untrue” ? Wrong again: The skyscraping ex-Soviet SS-9 “Scarp” had a payload of 8.800 kg = ten 750 kT warheads or one 25 MT warhead and covered all of the U.S.A. . Tom Clancy described this potential as the ability to “turn Cheyenne Mountain into ‘Cheyenne Lake’ ”.
It could easily have carried dozens of typical, U.S.-type, effeminate 350 kT warheads.


Part 2 / 3

And this New Start Treaty doesn’t forbid you to stuff all your 1.500 warheads into one single, kilometer-tall I.C.B.M. either, it just limits your maximum number of missiles to 700 – 800.
Or to concentrate all your nuclear firepower into ONLY ONE 1 TeraTon warhead that projects Earth’s last HasBeens out of the Milky Way.
And to build a S.S.B.N. submarine that’s capable of housing dozens of these.
The Treaty says nothing about that.


Part 3 / 3

But if I were you, given the slow coming of age of missile defense, I would rather pack

1) only 1 – 3 big warheads


2) literally HUNDREDS of realistic decoys and other effective counter-counter-measures

into each giant missile cone. Why?

Here is a rather optimistic view on how missile defense works

NATO Missile Defense Capability – How Missile Defense Works http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​2​P​D​c​W​S​r​I​FRI (1 minute and 41 seconds long video)

and a rather pessimistic view why missile defense F-A-I-L-S :

Missile Defense Countermeasures http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​6​7​K​A​s​Q​k​I​zsY (4 minutes and 3 seconds long video)


On another note: Merry Christmas to everybody – even to the zealous heathen Censor!

Part 1 / 2

Just because Russia today still has the World’s biggest arsenal of unconventional weapons (not just of mini-nukes) that doesn’t mean that their capacity is synonymous of their intentions. Sorry to remind you, but since the Cold War (and the West’s former, JUSTIFIED need for Pershings, neutron bombs, nuclear Artillery, flexible response instead of Mutually Assured Destruction, etc., etc.) it’s the U.S. that made the LEAST distinction between tactical nukes (and other non-conventional weapons) and conventional warfare, even as a form of estatal Terrorism. Think of Bush’s Anthrax letters to all U.S. politicians who doubted the “veracity” of 11/9, of his initial threats against Iraq and of the present, vague, nuclear threats against innocent Iran!


Part 2 / 2

Imagine if the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and North Koreans were COHERENT about ALL nukes being a RADICALLY different sort of weapons and warfare, WHATEVER their size…

They wouldn’t forgive you if your fired even a depleted uranium bullet over the border – and I would agree with them! Nobody will ever forget WHO dropped the first and only nukes on civilian cities.

Seems people have lost my initial point. Nuclear war, whether using strategic or tactical missiles, bombers or other means, will be a short term event. Maybe a dozen strikes at most before all sides call a truce. It really is sheer madness to allege that we should use such weapons of mass condemnation and “win.” To use such weapons on a massive scale is to declare the human race a failure ready for its own mass extinction. Given that, it only makes sense to reduce our nuclear arsenal to a “reasonable level” (a true deterrent) and to do it now, without regard to any international treaty. Which is why the budget cut may be the only way to force a more effective national policy.


Your reading skills are deficient. Go back and read the section wherein you suggest I imply 15 warheads per missile. I’d also note that if you were to follow the logic you’re using it’d actually be 15.55 warheads per missile? That should be a significant clue that you’ve not comprehended what I posted.

Anyway, you’ve got some difficulties understanding the issues but I’ve got much better things than to try to correct them. Yosemite, here I come!

This treaty accomplishes what Barry Obama and his mentor j wright desires: unilaterally limits the capabilities of the USA. We are his target.

Until people see that Obama hates america and wishes to unilaterally disarm the USA they are but useful idiots.

Read roots of obama’s rage.

Damn this country is sad now. The 2 party system has all but destroyed our country at this point. I have to agree with Taxpayer in many regards, seriously, if we launch all of our missiles, or even a few hundred, will the planet recover? Would it even matter who won after the radioactive winter? I do however agree with modernizing our force, there are questions to how many are really necessary? Any mistakes with 1500 H bombs ready and released sounds like the end to us all and a moot point. Even if we win we loose and thats a fact.

Good Evening Folks,

I don’t know what the big deal is here. Personally I think that 1550 warheads is still way to many and 800 systems 700 launchers is a goal neither side will ever meet. Since the US has no tactical nuc’s, well who cares. But so what Bush (43) showed how hard it is to tare up a treaty.

All of this is besides the fact that nuclear weapons is a total waste of money under any circumstances.

To change the subject and to something some of you younger guys may be interested in, Cold War Archaeology and there might even be a few buck in it for you.

A young guy, in his early 40’s and a General Contractor ran across something that seem interesting. He like most in the trades is scrapping and has taken some this so called stimulus work fro the Feds. He got a job to demo an old School site, it was built in the 1950’s and has been travel the use circuit since it was closed in the late 1980’s and was condemned. He starts taking out the main building and discovers a large “basement” the as builts didn’t show it, no one knew it was there. We heel discovered a Colds War Bomb shelter and supply depot, still stocked, looked like untouched since 1964.

A little research indicated these thing are all over the country. They were seldom marked on maps and many like the one this guy fond had hidden entrance even. I would think that most have been lost in time and that there are a lot under public buildings around the country.

Since it didn’t exist, the contractor was PAID to just remove all the stuff and fill in the hole. So far from collectors and through the net Rod has made about five grand for himself clear from the stash, and still has a storage area full of it. He gave me a tin of 462 survival biscuits dated April 1963 as a gift.

The stuff found included gager counters, all kinds of supplies, an emergency kitchen, rations, tools and assorted scientific looking instruments as yet to be identified. After Hazmet did a quick run through all the junk was Rods. Since the operation was the old Civil Defense of the Federal Government which doesn’t exist anymore no one wants to take responsibility for getting rid of it. The next thing Rod is looking at is to demo is an old Nike Base.

Byron Skinner

To Mr. Byron Skinner

You wrote: “The next thing Rod is looking at is to demo is an old Nike Base.”

Nike Hercules had nuclear warheads, too. If he finds some and looks for buyers, I would thank you if you put him in contact with me. I have many similar requests from Middle Eastern buyers here in the West.
Remind him not to toss around the warheads.

Before I forget it: What’s your percentage? (Cash, I suppose?)

Although you and “Taxpayer” are probably right about the effects even of very few nukes on any country (its peaceful neighbours, too?), its war-fighting capability and on this planet’s Life-bearing capability: There is something wrong about the image of two or three Super-Powers possessing less nukes each than a tiny, filthy, rogue, outlaw entity like… “Israel”.

Unless, of course, you terminate it first. For the greater good of Mankind.
(Tip: Just tell the American people the Truth about 11/9 – the rest will be simple, Newtonian Mechanics)

“Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.” — Winston Churchill, 1952 address to US Congress

Least anyone forget, Ivans missles each carry more than twice the warheads of ours, so while 1500 each may sound fair, they came out way ahead of us on it. Just another example of the Demo’s selling our country out the window. When crap hits the fan, after its over, hopefully whomever is left will line up all the bleeding heart demo’s and make sure they are not around to run thier mouths again.

So lets keep unlimited nukes for ever. Sounds economical! I’m sorry but there is reality to deal with. Its about balance not about volume. We need to play it smart like we used to back in the days. The point is with 1555 warheads, which ivan is limited to the same. Also launch systems are mostly liquid fueled, except for 30 or so. I do think we need to modernize, but really that is already done. We could just make new peace makers and call it a wrap, but that is too much common sense, and we need to reinvent the wheel. The point is, the treaty is good on making us not look so hypercritical around the world.

So we may be able to take on militarily anyone, the public and the world no longer accepts that. We can’t force everyone to do what we aren’t doing because all races and cultures know about a pot calling a kettle black. Since we can’t go around forcing countries to do things our way, and we say we stand for some things, we need to show the world even if it is a vas-ad that we are indeed at least trying to follow through, instead of bullying everyone because that never goes over well for long. Look at wwII for history on extended bullying.

We have to have a decent sized nuclear arsenal forever. It isn’t a technology that will just go away. We shouldn’t be slashing any of our military arsenal to look good for the rest of the world. The fact is they don’t care about the good we do, they just point at us when they need somebody to blame. If we do cut our nuclear arsenal we need to ensure what we do have is sufficiently effective and the cuts work to benefit us as well.

The truth is our Minuteman IIIs are largely old 1960s technology, and we make up for some of their weaknesses with numbers. If we cut further we need a new design, something that has better accuracy and range, is harder hitting, features better countermeasures, and other modern improvements.

So the soviets just deploying solid fueled rockets means they are just now catching our 1960’s technology in that regard then?

To the poster “ICBMGuy”

Part 1 / 3

You wrote: “ ‘Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.’ — Winston Churchill, 1952 address to US Congress”

Other limey Prime Ministers felt very differently about nukes: French President Francois Mitterrand (1916 – 1996) made a stunning claim that during Britain’s Falkland Islands war with Argentina in the early 1980s, Margaret Thatcher threatened to use nuclear weapons. Unless Mitterrand gave the British the “deactivate” codes used by anti-ship missiles that France had sold to Argentina.
Two French-made Argentine jets attacked the Britain’s destroyer “H.M.S. Sheffield”, which was on its way towards the Falkland Islands, on the 4.5.1982, using a French-made Exocet missile. The surface-skimming missile hit the ship, resulting in 20 fatalities and 24 injured crew.


Part 2 / 3

The British were so afraid of subsequent Exocet missles sinking more of their ships and spoiling their mission to remove Argentina from the Falkland Islands, that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher threatened to use submarine-launched nuclear missiles unless the Exocet deactiviate codes were handed over to render their warheads useless.
Mitterrand said: “What an impossible woman, that Thatcher. With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina – unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”
Mitterrand said that he had ordered the Exocet codes to be handed over to the British at Thatcher’s insistence: “She has them now, the codes. If our customers find out that the French wreck the weapons they sell, it’s not going to reflect well on our exports.”


Part 3 / 3

Mitterrand then complained: “To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”
Mitterrand claimed that he would get revenge on Thatcher by pursuing the tunnel under the English Channel, the “Chunnel”, thus further tying Britain to Europe, diminishing its penchant for isolation.

To the poster “greg”

Part 1 / 2

You wrote: “So the soviets just deploying solid fueled rockets means they are just now catching our 1960’s technology in that regard then?”


Part 2 / 2

In the 1960’s these “very backwardish” Soviets pioneered cold launches for most of their I.C.B.M.s.

This way

1) they could (still can…) reload the same silos immediately after each missile launch (because they’re still totally intact inside, not molten down like the U.S. American silos) and use them again and again and again, until (if…) the first enemy nuclear warheads arrive/d,

2) which in turn included / includes each SPENT Soviet / Russian missile silo necessarily in the target list of the enemy, too, even if that once used silo was never reloaded again = an extremely cheap and effective way of producing too many potential targets for the enemy.

Name me a single “progressive” U.S. American I.C.B.M. type that can be cold-launched, too (exactly: Since the 1960’s!!! And for your information: Solid rocket fuels are simpler and safer to use, but also less powerful than liquid fuels. Same goes for all explosives, including for Artillery propellants).

You knowledge of the strategic theory is incredible.….……not. Once again your post contain so much inaccuracy as to make refuting them a waste of time. But one point.

Peacekeeper was cold launched and Midgetman was to be as well, USAF was capable of cold launching a missile for decades.

Let us not forget that SLBM’s are cold launched and the US was doing that in the early 60’s. It was never a question of technology capability.

Afraid to modernize?? Hardly. That’s what scares me the most. The MM III life expectancy is 2020 and what does Congress do?? Mandate that we sustain that weapon system until 2030!!!! Without serious life extenstion/modernization efforts, maintaining the MM III until 2030 could be in jeopardy. But wait.…it gets better. What about AFTER 2030?? What are we going to replace the MM III with?? Hmmm.…guess somebody will have to look into that, but for goodness sakes, why do it now?? How ’bout our bomber force?? Next Generation bomber is going NO WHERE. Thank goodness the B-52 is still a “new” bomber!!! We need to start doing something about these issues NOW and not keep kicking the “can down the road”.

Someone posts a quote from Winston Churchill, a well regarded historical figure by most standards, and you start a three post rant about Thatcher and Exocet missiles?

Do you know what a non sequitur is?

You do know the minuteman III goes mach 23. How much more power do you need?

To the poster “bobbymike”

You wrote: “Peacekeeper was cold launched”

People like you should be banned from all games with more than one team.

1) The “MX” / “Peacekeeper” missile was the LAST I.C.B.M. which the U.S.A. tried to make.

2) And even the few “MX” / “Peacekeeper” missiles that were ever built were scrapped soon afterwards:

“Among the reasons cited for decommissioning of the Peacekeeper ICBM was its failure to achieve the program’s range objectives.” http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​L​G​M​-​1​1​8​_​P​e​a​c​e​k​e​e​per (Second paragraph, last phrase)

Meaning that the U.S.A. unlearned how to make I.C.B.M.s altogether.

Back to square one. In the meantime the Soviets even learned how to fire their cold-launched S.L.B.M.s submerged and through polar ice!

Part 1 / 2

Let me point you back to your original claim: If now even you admit that the ball is in your court (in the U.S.’ court) – always has been – , then why did you attack “US senior military leaders” for merely supporting the New Start Treaty? What has

1) arms REDUCTIONS ( = the quaNTity of arms)

have to do with

2) the MODERNIZATION ( = the quaLity)

of the strategic forces?

Do you maybe think that NOT scrapping any I.C.B.M.s simultaneously with the Russians will somehow make them become younger and better inside their silos?


Part 2 / 2

Why don’t the U.S.A. just lose their old complex (Sputnik, Gagarin) and simply license-build the best Russian I.C.B.M. type except for its warheads, electronics and eventually the red star markings? Are Russian nukes “too small” for U.S. American sensibilities?
My suggestion: SS-18 “Satan”, Mod 5s and Mod 6s only = still younger than the “Minutemen” IIIs, cold-launched = reloadable, very heavy throw weight, extremely large number of re-entry vehicles, greater range than the “MX” / “Peacekeeper” missiles and probably cheaper, too, clearly first-strike-capable, etc. etc. . Is something missing?

You said name a US cold launched missile, I did, end of debate. Or did I miss the “name one cold launched missile that ALSO met its range objectives”. You really have no clue how to debate.

Also what is your point about cold launched through ice? Again you just change the premise and round and round you go. Do you really think you are smart or living in your basement eating mommy prepared grilled cheese you just think you are smart.

Every analysis written by non biased sources says that during the 60’s up until the present day the US far surpassed Soviet missile technology (and that includes guidance and electronic miniaturization) and this includes McNamara basically stopping many technology developments in the 60’s, including canceling the WS120a follow on Minuteman.

The Trident D-5 has surpassed a hundred straight successful launches in a row how’s that Bulava missile doing?

Oh and the submarine breaks through the ice first before the missile is fired and guess what the trident can do that as well. You really are an idiot.

Do you know what you are talking about?? There are no Mod 6s anymore. Why bring that up?? And as for “attacking” the senior military leaders in the initial post, I was just pointing out that they were touting this treaty as being so GREAT for the US. Really?? Do we need a new treaty to reduce our weapons/warheads?? No. How ’bout the tactical nukes for the Ruskies?? Yep…they got PLENTY of them. Oops.…that’s right.….no limits in this all so important new treaty. Instead of worrying about a treaty that really does nothing for us, we need to be more concerned with maintaining what we have.

“Me and rants” ? Yeah right, because bulldog Winston never rambled himself. And in 1940, during the worst days of the “Blitz” he would indeed have heeded his own advices about “the dreadful nuclear weapons” and NOT have nuked Nazi Germany, if he had any… (Victims of Hiroshima: 90.000 – 166.000, victims of Nagasaki: 60.000 – 80.000, victims of the British Dresden raid: 400.000 – 700.000, 20.000 [ = less than terror raids on smaller cities!] according to Anglo revisionism) It’s called “coherence”.
Why do you quote that drunk fart? He was even less sober than Hitler during the whole War!

Part 1 / 8

To the poster “bobbymike”


1) I asked: “Name me a single ‘progressive’ U.S. American I.C.B.M. type that can be cold-launched”

2) You answered: “Peacekeeper was cold launched”

3) Then I wrote: “…even the few ‘MX’ / ‘Peacekeeper’ missiles that were ever built were scrapped soon afterwards”

4) Then you wrote: “You said name a US cold launched missile, I did, end of debate. Or did I miss the ‘name one cold launched missile that ALSO met its range objectives’.”


Oh, soo sorry: I didn’t know you were all about FICTION instead of into facts, reality and sciences… (Here in France we consider nonexistent weapons like the “MX” / “Peacekeeper” missile as belonging into the “Fiction” section. Not so sure about you in La La Land, though)


Part 2 / 8

However, I don’t deny that unlike the “MX” / “Peacekeeper” missile some other, amazing U.S. American weapons went extinct for the WORST possible reasons, or at least never were challenged again in their glory: If you asked me what the best U.S. carrier jet ever was, I would say the sorely missed North American A-5 “Vigilante” ( TWICE replaced by “Phantoms” and “Tomcats” that even 20 years later never really exceeded it in everything! And I don’t know what newer jet trumps the carrier-based, submarine-hunting Lockheed S-3 “Vikings” either…) If you asked me about the best U.S. American stategic bomber of all times, I inevitably dream of the Mach 3+ fast North American XB-70 “Valkyrie”. Sorry, I just can’t help it. Even B-1 “Lancers” are LESS than half as fast!!! And you U.S. Americans still “feel you need a new bomber”…!


Part 3 / 8

What was the best U.S. American light-weight fighter of all times? Obviously the Northrop F-20 “Tigershark”. Still is. (General Dynamics, eat that) And what was the best U.S. attack helicopter ever? The Boeing / Sikorsky RAH-66 “Comanche”, no doubt. The 1958-vintage “Nike-Hercules” anti-aircraft missile ( > Mach 3,65 , 140 km range) was also replaced by the 1976-vintage, Mach 5 fast “Patriot”, whose 3 versions only fly a scandalous 15 km, 70 km and eventually 160 km far. Is that still “modernization” or heresy? … (The various ex-Soviet / Russian, 1979-vintage S-300 versions: Mach 3,38 – Mach 14,7 km [I repeat: Mach 14,7 !!] and with a range of 40 km – 400 km !!! )

And so on.

But… all these spectacular former U.S. aircraft and missiles aren’t real anymore. Otherwise: If war broke out today, in which hangar are they all parked?


Part 4 / 8

All of which makes me wonder: WHAT ON EARTH are you U.S. Americans CONSTANTLY doing (perpetrating!) AGAINST your BEST military machines (see the above list), or even AGAINST the accumulated know-how that led to them?????! Even the F-22 ( = the best U.S. American fighter plane to date) seems to be less loved, less welcome than the clearly inferior, jinxed, unfinishable and yet MORE EXPENSIVE F-35 !!!


Part 7 / 8

Oh, so meanwhile the U.S. Armed Forces progressed significantly in terms of “ELECTRONICS” to defeat all their enemies…!

So that explains all those unseen Iranian drones filming life on a U.S. carrier deck from above and the Chinese, World-War-II-technology “Song”-class submarines or modern Swedish “Gotland”-class submarines that sneak unnoticed under them, still no Osama (but he broadcasts regularly), two lost wars and a “mystery missile” soaring unnoticed over your heads, literally identified by the System spinners as the rarest kind of Fata Morganas (presumably a nocturnal, intensely fluorescent Fata Morgana) !


Part 8 / 8

I’ve even heard saying that D.A.R.P.A. researches “guided assault rifle ammunition” now (no kidding) ! If this idea / research / waste of money was kicked off by imprecise ammunition, wouldn’t it be… uhh… simpler, CHEAPER and generally more useful to INCREASE THE CALIBRE FROM 5,56 MM TO 7,62 MM – nothing else?! Is it so hard to draw a straight line to connect two close dots? Do you really have to squeeze 50 kg heavy, 80.000-$-a-piece “Excalibur” or “Copperhead” shells into 5,56 mm rounds instead (presuming that that’s microscopically practicable), to obtain a bit more precision for the same range? And in auto mode, can you aim faster than your machine-gun shoots?

Yanks, your time is up, le docteur will visit your wing tomorrow again.

Patient “bobbymike”: Do you know now the difference between an existing weapon and a nonexistent weapon or can you still see them both? As clearly as 1 + 0 = 2 ? Wow, you claim they’re even “better than Russian missiles” ?! I can’t even imagine the nonsense you must have sputtered BEFORE your lobotomy…

1 Boy I have heard some embellishing on this topic. Let me start by saying I do not think BHO hates this country that would be silly as we are a large and bueatiful land with lots of natural resources, but he hates the fact that we can project our power around the world at will both militarily and economically. He would love to see us in a position where we had to rely on coalitions to achieve our goals. My biggest problems with some of these post are people irrational statements about nuclear weapons causeing the extinction of the human race with hundreds or even thousands of weapons is ludacris, yes it would cause great harm and set humanity back but the earth and even humans have seen much worst.

2 The notion of all we need is 100 or less is also ludacris ( you do realize that we made a change in the weapons we deploy in the late 60’s early 70’s to put more smaller weapons on a target sub megaton no more multimegaton city killers a 400 kiloton device is not going to wipe a city off the face of the map, but do a good job of eradicating the other sides military and industry).

3 For those that say lets get rid of all nuclear weapons I ask you what are you going to replace them with? What is worst the fear of all out nuclear war or the reality of a all out conventional war between 2 great powers all I have to do is look at a history book and see the US and the USSR would of likely gone at it sometime after WW2 had it not been for the threat of nuclear weapons. Do you realy think you can put the nuke genie back in the bottle? The know how is out there more so than ever. Do you realy think human nature has changed in the past 60 yrs if you do you are a fool and the history books are painted with the blood of people like you. Nuclear weapons have so far made Dr. Gatling’s dream a reality in the sphere where the threat is used.

Shoot; I’d buy that stuff for a dollar!


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.