• US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52810873]can we all collectively agree this "but hillary!!" joke wore out any charm it may have had several months ago[/QUOTE] i feel like it won't cease to be relevant as long as the man supported by people that parroted 'but hillary etc etc' bullshit unironically continues to make buttfuck retarded decisions
[QUOTE=portalcrazy;52810877]i feel like it won't cease to be relevant as long as the man supported by people that parroted 'but hillary etc etc' bullshit unironically continues to make buttfuck retarded decisions[/QUOTE] I haven't seen anyone use that line of reasoning in months, only people referencing it ironically as a fairly low-effort snipe [editline]22nd October 2017[/editline] it just feels so tired to me
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52810906]I haven't seen anyone use that line of reasoning in months, only people referencing it ironically as a fairly low-effort snipe [editline]22nd October 2017[/editline] it just feels so tired to me[/QUOTE] The point of it is that Trump campaigned as a peacemaker. He's been consistently doing the opposite for months. It's pretty much the same as when people referenced Obama's Nobel price for nothing every time he did a drone strike.
[QUOTE=Riller;52811005]The point of it is that Trump campaigned as a peacemaker. He's been consistently doing the opposite for months. It's pretty much the same as when people referenced Obama's Nobel price for nothing every time he did a drone strike.[/QUOTE] i get the point of it, it just feels like a stale recitation
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52811057]i get the point of it, it just feels like a stale recitation[/QUOTE] Not everybody has the privilege of your excellent, yet distinguished, taste in humour. I, for example, quite like the joke; its a still politically relevant satire of a group of people I have little respect for. Not a big fan of "punch down" humour but in this case they sorta bring it on themselves. I think also its appropriate in these cases. People voted for a bloated loon partially based on the belief that he wouldn't take them to war (or at least thats their excuse) so reminding people of that is important to this discussion. You may dislike the "joke" but I put it to you that censoring this and risking those people controlling the narrative is worse.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52811205]Not everybody has the privilege of your excellent, yet distinguished, taste in humour. I, for example, quite like the joke; its a still politically relevant satire of a group of people I have little respect for. Not a big fan of "punch down" humour but in this case they sorta bring it on themselves. I think also its appropriate in these cases. People voted for a bloated loon partially based on the belief that he wouldn't take them to war (or at least thats their excuse) so reminding people of that is important to this discussion. You may dislike the "joke" but I put it to you that censoring this and risking those people controlling the narrative is worse.[/QUOTE] the joke has done its job at shutting down that line of reasoning, at least here on facepunch. commenting on trump's duplicity regarding his election statements and his current adoption of a warmonger attitude is great and absolutely relevant, satirizing people who use their belief that hillary would lead the US into another world war as a defense of their support for trump or of trump's actions is firing a volley at an army who has already left: that particular battle had been won a while ago and now lacks a purpose beyond self gratification, self gratification i personally find wanes with each successive use. [editline]23rd October 2017[/editline] more on-topic, this news on its own wouldn't make me worry much, but in combination with Mattis' missive to the DoD a while ago and the recent executive order regarding being able to pull retired military personnel back into active service has me quite nervous. it feels like something bad is on the horizon.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52810577]yeah, but remember, Hillary would've caused World War III![/QUOTE] [thumb]https://i.imgur.com/bQuvBsp.png[/thumb]
haha nuclear war it'll never happ-
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52810038]What a waste of time and money. As others have pointed out, missiles - both ICBMs and SLBMs - are far better delivery platforms.[/QUOTE] The idea of using bombers like this isn't for first strike. This is for when you're getting attacked. The idea is, once you detect the first incoming strike, you get your bombers the hell off the ground, from there you have yet another line of strike in the air (supported by aerial refuelling) ready to bring hell to whoever dared break MAD. It's there to have yet another option when retaliation is necessary.
Plus, if your enemy knows you have reliable bombers carrying world-enders which are ready at a moment's notice, they may re-think potential invasion/missile strike plans.
[QUOTE=wingless;52812035]The idea of using bombers like this isn't for first strike. This is for when you're getting attacked. The idea is, once you detect the first incoming strike, you get your bombers the hell off the ground, from there you have yet another line of strike in the air (supported by aerial refuelling) ready to bring hell to whoever dared break MAD. It's there to have yet another option when retaliation is necessary.[/QUOTE] Keeping bombers at that level of alertness [I]is[/I] expensive. From launch detection to impact, you've got about thirty minutes - and a lot of time gets spent on communications and verification, because you don't want to put bombers in the air for every false alert. And subtract more time because bombers aren't safe the second the wheels leave the ground, it takes time to get away from the airfield that's presumably been targeted. Rough numbers, call it fifteen minutes from when the order comes in to when you need to be airborne. You cannot do a full startup in that time - you don't quite have to have the engines idling, as was done in some points in the Cold War to get a two-minute reaction time, but you're basically holding the preflight just a few stages before that. Look at the RAF's Quick Reaction Alert stations - they, too, are held to a fifteen-minute response time, and it's quite an undertaking. They have service crews working on their planes hourly. That shit isn't cheap. In comparison, ICBMs can launch on five minute's notice, and they're cheaper to maintain at that level. And they're much harder to shoot down (let's be honest, a B-52 or B-1 would almost certainly get shot down before getting within striking range of Russia or China). And they can better survive a complete surprise attack. Overall, it's a waste of money.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;52810866]It's a survivability option. No matter what you destroy on the ground, no matter how many subs you sink, one member of the nuclear triad can and will strike you. This is some pretty serious shit to be going back to.[/QUOTE] Don't we have counter-missiles for nuclear rockets?
[QUOTE=VGDCMario;52812632]Don't we have counter-missiles for nuclear rockets?[/QUOTE]you can never even hope to shoot down enough of them to make a difference, and final stage MIRVs couldn't be intercepted anyway.
[QUOTE=VGDCMario;52812632]Don't we have counter-missiles for nuclear rockets?[/QUOTE] Sort of. They don't work well. There are experimental anti-missile systems that can intercept them shortly after launch, but this requires the anti-missile system be pretty close to the enemy missile silos. This makes them pretty useless for inter-continental missiles, they can really only stop short-range stuff. There's an anti-missile system, GMD, that tries to kill during the ballistic phase. It does not have a great track record. It's basically 50/50 in tests where they knew where it was launching from, where it was aimed, and when. It has [B]never[/B] been tested in realistic conditions, and too few are deployed to stop a wide-scale attack, such as Russia or China would use. If the Norks launch a pair of missiles at us, it might knock one down, but that's about the most it can handle. There are terminal-phase systems, such as THAAD or Aegis, trying to shoot them down as they're re-entering the atmosphere. These are limited to short-range missiles as well, because they're too slow. Longer-range ballistic missiles move faster. We've deployed them to countries near potential missile threats - South Korea, to defend against North Korea, and UAE and Turkey, to defend against Iran. An Aegis ship is usually part of each aircraft carrier group, as well. But there's no point in deploying either of them stateside, because they're just not fast enough.
This might be an interesting update; a few people have pointed out these tweets from a few days back (I *think* before the Bomber news was announced) [media]https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/921554906510712837[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/WonkVJ/status/921859016883552256[/media]
Yeah, I saw those tweets the other day. We're dangerously close to the brink. Leave it to a guy named Mad Dog to be the only reasonable person in that administration.
I'm supremely grateful that nihilist Bannon is gone from the Trump administration now, even if he was (surprisingly) advocating against a preemptive strike on NK at the time.
is it a bit much if I've been kind of mentally preparing myself for the very real possibility that I could be, with or without warning, within the next year, vaporized? Because I've been feeling a bit helpless about all of this lately. I sure do hate Trump and the nightmare scenario he's brought with him.
If Trump goes for the button or order, I have confidence Mattis will knock him the fuck out and stop him.
This is edging towards scary
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52814018]This is edging towards scary[/QUOTE] It's been scary for a few weeks now. It's just getting [I]scarier.[/I]
[QUOTE=Quark:;52814040]It's been scary for a few weeks now. It's just getting [I]scarier.[/I][/QUOTE] exactly
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52812215]Keeping bombers at that level of alertness [I]is[/I] expensive. From launch detection to impact, you've got about thirty minutes - and a lot of time gets spent on communications and verification, because you don't want to put bombers in the air for every false alert. And subtract more time because bombers aren't safe the second the wheels leave the ground, it takes time to get away from the airfield that's presumably been targeted. Rough numbers, call it fifteen minutes from when the order comes in to when you need to be airborne. You cannot do a full startup in that time - you don't quite have to have the engines idling, as was done in some points in the Cold War to get a two-minute reaction time, but you're basically holding the preflight just a few stages before that. Look at the RAF's Quick Reaction Alert stations - they, too, are held to a fifteen-minute response time, and it's quite an undertaking. They have service crews working on their planes hourly. That shit isn't cheap. In comparison, ICBMs can launch on five minute's notice, and they're cheaper to maintain at that level. And they're much harder to shoot down (let's be honest, a B-52 or B-1 would almost certainly get shot down before getting within striking range of Russia or China). And they can better survive a complete surprise attack. Overall, it's a waste of money.[/QUOTE] Try five minutes. Bomber bases are nice big soft targets making them perfect for destruction with SLBMs. Bombers also carry cruise missiles for a reason, their survivability is actually thought to be quite good. The B-1s stopped being nuclear capable in the 1990s.
The anxiety from this is making me sick.
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;52813859]is it a bit much if I've been kind of mentally preparing myself for the very real possibility that I could be, with or without warning, within the next year, vaporized? Because I've been feeling a bit helpless about all of this lately. I sure do hate Trump and the nightmare scenario he's brought with him.[/QUOTE] is it bad that i've been expecting the same and feel nothing at all
I wonder if B-2 bombers are less useful in a deterrence role because nobody knows if they have launched. The flip side though is that it has to be scary that you could get nuked with zero warning. An ICBM is pretty visible and you have a while to respond. If nothing else l, I guess they are probably ridiculously expensive to keep prepped.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52812802]Sort of. They don't work well..[/QUOTE] How have we not been raising up our nuclear defense system so that a nuclear attack only ends up with at most 25% of the destruction anticipated? We've had since World War II we should have something to block nuclear missiles. This should be common fucking sense.
Has Trump said anything on the subject of MAD?
[QUOTE=VGDCMario;52814699]How have we not been raising up our nuclear defense system so that a nuclear attack only ends up with at most 25% of the destruction anticipated? We've had since World War II we should have something to block nuclear missiles. This should be common fucking sense.[/QUOTE] We can shoot down ballistic missiles pretty easily during the boost phase. A giant tower of fire is pretty simple to shoot down. The problem is that you have to launch from nearby. During the ballistic/midcourse portion, you are generally going to have issues because the missile is traveling extremely fast and borders on an orbital trajectory. This is the most viable section for interception, but it relies on delivering an interception missile to orbit. It might work on simple missiles, but you are rapidly going to have issues as soon as someone develops countermeasures. The terminal phase is the worst though. The warhead is small and no longer has propulsion. It generates essentially no signature. It is a small object, falling from space, at 4.5 miles per second. (7.2km) Worse, most missiles will have multiple warheads in the terminal phase with some of those "Warheads" being worthless decoys. Basically it is boost or bust.
[QUOTE=VGDCMario;52814699]How have we not been raising up our nuclear defense system so that a nuclear attack only ends up with at most 25% of the destruction anticipated? We've had since World War II we should have something to block nuclear missiles. This should be common fucking sense.[/QUOTE] During the Cold War, nuclear defenses were considered threatening. MAD ceases to be mutually-assured when one side can shoot down the other's missiles. There was a legitimate fear that deploying a missile defense system would force the other to attack now, or forever lose their ability to attack. A treaty (the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972) limited each country to a single protected site - the USSR chose Moscow, while the US chose its Dakota missile fields (and then shut down the missile defenses after a year anyways, because we realized they weren't worth the cost). We've been slowly developing better ABMs, after withdrawing from the treaty in '02. Problem is, we're too hesitant to really test them because having an "unproven, 50% successful" system is a stronger deterrent than a "proven, 10% successful" system would be. It's kind of just a big payout for the military contractors, anyways - I think every last one of them has a piece of this pie, they chopped it up into so many pieces, and they're making bank on it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.