Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Last Peacekeeper Deactivated

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the no-more-big-stick-just-speak-softly dept.

Inthewire writes "The United States Air Force deactivated the last of 50 Peacekeeper missiles yesterday. The Peacekeeper was an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of accurately placing a 300 Kt W-87 warhead on ten individual targets."

64 comments

  1. Hmm, what to do with 50 deactivated missles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ebay dutch auction?

  2. In other news... by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Funny

    In other news, officals proudly announced a new line of "war causer" missles, capable of spreading fear, hate and missinformation to everyone on the planet in seconds.

    They claimed that the new system, though quantitatively more expensive than the peacekeepers, was scrumulously cheaper. And that price didn't matter, since it could be paid for with an agressive series of tax cuts. And if it did turn out to be expensive, the blaim lay with state and local officials for not asking for the system sooner.

    When asked how the news system differed from the existing network of communications satilites, a spokesperson wailed "Won't somebody think of the children?" while the reporter was dragged from the room by Homeland Security.

    There were no further questions.

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:In other news... by XFilesFMDS1013 · · Score: 1

      Although sort of funny, it does make me wonder what new weapons the military has. Obviously these missiles served some purpose, according ot the article, they "won" the Cold War, so I have no doubt that there's something worse waiting in the wings.

    2. Re:In other news... by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MAD (Mutually assured destruction) doesn't win wars against terrorist groups. Our new weapons are percise GPS guided small tactical missles. You can be sure we are keeping some warheads in waiting incase a new superpower emerges. But for now these weapons are pointless.

    3. Re:In other news... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0, Troll

      One sided destruction could win wars against terrorist groups- you have very few terrorists left if you kill everybody they ever knew.

      I morn the loss of our ability to destroy a city on the other side of the planet without sending troops- because in the end, that will be the only thing that stops terrorism.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:In other news... by maraist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Our new weapons are percise GPS guided small tactical missles.

      The problem is two fold:

      1) A weapon used is a useless weapon. If you have to use a weapon, it obvously is not a strong enough deterrent to a war.

      2) Targeted weapon systems rely on continuous communication back to home base. Yes there are backup systems (such as geographical pattern matching), but this is only on a subset of arsonal, and these systems are less reliable and easier to fool.

      While a terrorist group isn't a major strategic threat outside of their home environment, there are still rogue nations, most of which are within grasp of the power to knock out our GPS satellites one way or another.

      Once you knock out our eyes, then conventional warfare makes us no better suited than the 1950s (simple jammable radio-based communication).

      The key to being a super-power is a credible threat. A death-star, or a ready-to-string special forces that can take out any town over night.

      The more we bumble about w/ these wimpy targeted missiles that demonstrate what we are likely to use against rogue nations, they are better able to assess our weaknesses and weigh in the liklihood of successful resistance against us.

      --
      -Michael
    5. Re:In other news... by rsax · · Score: 1
      When asked how the news system differed from the existing network of communications satilites, a spokesperson wailed "Won't somebody think of the children?" while the reporter was dragged from the room by Homeland Security.

      You forgot to include: "if you feel the need to ask that question then the terrorists have already won".

    6. Re:In other news... by uncqual · · Score: 1
      1) A weapon used is a useless weapon. If you have to use a weapon, it obvously is not a strong enough deterrent to a war.

      If your enemy is eliminated by the weapon, the enemy is no longer a threat -- a weapon that accomplishes that in the small or the large is certainly not "useless".

      While a terrorist group isn't a major strategic threat outside of their home environment, there are still rogue nations, most of which are within grasp of the power to knock out our GPS satellites one way or another.

      Once you knock out our eyes, then conventional warfare makes us no better suited than the 1950s (simple jammable radio-based communication).

      The key to being a super-power is a credible threat. A death-star, or a ready-to-string special forces that can take out any town over night.

      We still have nukes (if nothing else, delivered by subs and planes) that can pretty much eliminate any adversary if we're willing to cause a lot of "collateral" damage. This seems pretty much like a death star.

      I think even rouge nations understand that it would be stupid to eliminate our ability to use our precisely guided weapons as it would likely force us to use our bigger hammers.

      Also, I HOPE that the military has a plan for insuring that the loss of GPS does not drive us to the big guns. Remember, the first gulf war seemed to use mostly laser guided stuff rather than GPS and it worked pretty well - sure, it required visual acquisition and the crew had to individually target each weapon rather than just drop them in the general area with a "Deliver to" address on them - but I'd guess that the hard part in a real all-out war is identifying targets to be targeted - not actually hitting them.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  3. without comment by asjk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Date of Berlin Wall falling November 9, 1989

    Date and cost of final deployment (from TFA second source)

    Despite years of work, by July 1987 Northrop Electronics Division had succeeded in delivering only a small number of usable INS units. Up to one-third of the silo-emplaced force had no guidance system. In January 1988 20 missiles were finally operations, and by December 1988 all 50 MX missiles (with guidance systems) had been deployed.

    The cost of procuring a Peacekeeper missile (the "flyaway" cost) was only about $20 million (FY 82). The total cost of the program was approximately $20 billion however, at a pro-rated cost of $400 million per operational missile, or $40 million per deployed warhead. A total of 114 Peacekeepr missiles were produced (due to the need for test missiles and spares).

    1. Re:without comment by TomSawyer · · Score: 2, Informative
      Date of Berlin Wall falling November 9, 1989

      Date and cost of final deployment

      What's your point? The CCCP trying to keep up with those kinds of numbers was a contributing factor to the fall of the wall.

      --
      If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
    2. Re:without comment by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's your point? The CCCP trying to keep up with those kinds of numbers was a contributing factor to the fall of the wall.

      I think that's it. Some analysts feel they essentially went bankrupt. Between the MX, the Space Shuttle, the B2, etc. etc. etc. the capitalist society could just out-produce and the Kremlin felt a need to keep parity. Reagan certainly egged them on and Gorbechev may have allowed it to happen.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:without comment by coaxial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, the point is, the MX couldn't have contributed to the collapse, since the numbers they had to "keep up with" was 5, when the Soviet Union already had hundreds of missles stockpiled. There was no threat to counter.

      The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it. The belief that he won the Cold War basically hinges on Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!", and then Gorby saying, "Holy shit! Better do what the Gipper says, or he'll sick Bonzo on us!"

      The real cause of the collapse has more to do with the intrinsic inefficiencies in command economies. Especially command economies where the commands are enforced under penalty of death. The Kremlin tells you to make 50 widgets for 10 rubles each, you'll make 50 widgets and say they cost 10 rubles each. The may have cost 12, but you're sure as hell aren't going to say that, since you'll be sent off the gulag for failure. So produce them for a loss. Repeat across pretty much all sectors of the economy, and repeat for 70 years, and of course the economy is going to fail. Why do you think China is now effectively a capitalist economy?

      Did Reagan's SDI (aka "Star Wars") plan have anything to do with Soviet collapse? Not according to the Gorbechev and the KGB. When SDI was announced, Gorby asked if it was a threat, and the KGB said no. They (rightfully) said that any antiballistic missle system has intrinsic engineering challenges that the US couldn't overcome with the technology currently available, or even available in the near term. And effective countermeasures to the proposed systems were already available. But most damning of all, the cheapest countermeasure would be to simply overwhelm the defenses by launching more missles in the first wave.

      I remember the fall of the Iron Curtain. Yeltsin on the tank out side the Russian White House. The tanks rolling in. The crowds surrounding the tanks, and talking to the tank crews. Then watching the tanks turn around and defend Yeltsin. I remember the second wave of tanks, also being stopped by the crowds, and the previous tank crews. It was remarkable that no one died in '91, ala Tiananmen in '89.

      It was confusing. It was scary. No one. No one knew what was going on in Russia. The Baltics broke away in less than a week. Then Ukraine, and then everyone else. The press didn't know what was happening. The public didn't know. The US government sure as hell didn't know.

      A couple of years ago I was friends with the guy from Moscow who was my age, and I asked him about the collapse. I asked him what happened. I told him I watched it on live television, and no one knew what was actually happening. We knew the events, but no the larger picture. I told him that to this day, I am still mystified to why it collapsed when it did, and how it did. What did he tell me? "I have no idea either."

      If you absolutely have to say who one the Cold War for the West, there's really only one choice. Mikhail Gorbachev. His Glastnost and Perestroika effected the internal dynamic of the Soviet Union, more than nukes in Wyoming ever did. In all honesty, the west should have realized how perilous the situation in the Soviet Union was when it was revealed that Gorbachev's wife, Raisa, had an American Express card.

    4. Re:without comment by maraist · · Score: 1

      I completely agree w/ the economic synopsis you give. I'll just add my small bit of extra info.

      My wife is Armenian, and her countrymen claim [at least partial] responsibility for the fall of the CCCP. Basically the satelite states were in financial distress, and receiving less and less prioritized resources from the Kremlin. Armenia and a few other Soviet blocks were land-locked. The CCCP made use of distributated manufacturing. When building a widget, each member state was responsible for making some part of the widget; thereby forcing inter-reliance. But when some member states had feuds (like the Chrisitian Armenia v.s. the Muslim Azerbaijan), the central government didn't have the time nor the resources to reconcile the differences.

      There was a massive Earth Quake in Armenia in the late 80's, and Gorbachev made a token visit (much like Bush to La). But no money or resources accompanied the visit.

      Poor states, just like poor people, tend to fight more. So many of the states became more nationalistic and less supportive of the CCCP. As if California said f*u to Bush's Federal Gov and succeeded.

      West Germany went through some very bizzar political changes. A governor accidently made a public statement providing extra freedoms to the locals, and there was fear amongst the local and central commands as to what would happen if those freedoms were revoked. Gorbachev later made a public statement supporting the East German changes, thereby facilitating the fall of the Berlin wall.

      Poland had been slowly having their own set of political changes in the late 80's, also as a result of Gorbachev's reluctant approval.

      The common denominator of these 3 states was an absent-handed Gorbachev. He could very well have come down like a Stalin or even Breshnev. I'm not quite sure of the reasonings, but it seemed to be Russian policy to be Russia-first, and screw the member states. Most likely the cost-over-runs were too much to manage by the 80s, and the "buffer states" were of decreasing value; they certainly didn't have any natural resources. It was only a matter of time before that policy collapsed the CCCP.

      --
      -Michael
    5. Re:without comment by gilroy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      The real cause of the collapse has more to do with the intrinsic inefficiencies in command economies.

      Exactly. That's why the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed in short order by the collapse of Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of whom also transformed themselves into fledgling if flawed democracies.

      Oh, wait...

      Reagan didn't cause the collapse. But to say that the economic and military policies had no effect is just nonsense.
      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    6. Re:without comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four very different economies.

      North Korea's autarky has failed, many of its people are starving, and the nation may just be kept in order by a well-fed, one-million strong army. Cuba's economy is centrally commanded to a degree, but also actively seeks foreign, private joint ventures. It is likely to become increasingly liberalised. Both economies are considerably smaller than the USSR's.

      China is perhaps comparable in size to the USSR, but has a mostly capitalist, privately-owned economy, with the old 'command' sectors prone to massive corruption and inefficiency. It is demonstrably becoming more liberalised.

    7. Re:without comment by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Did Reagan's SDI (aka "Star Wars") plan have anything to do with Soviet collapse? Not according to the Gorbechev and the KGB. When SDI was announced, Gorby asked if it was a threat, and the KGB said no. They (rightfully) said that any antiballistic missle system has intrinsic engineering challenges that the US couldn't overcome with the technology currently available, or even available in the near term. And effective countermeasures to the proposed systems were already available. But most damning of all, the cheapest countermeasure would be to simply overwhelm the defenses by launching more missles in the first wave.

      The USSR spent about 40% of it's budget on the military.

      How much more "butter" could the USSR have created if it didn't have to spend so much on "guns"?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    8. Re:without comment by coaxial · · Score: 1

      The USSR spent about 40% of it's budget on the military.

      You're right. But it has more to do with the priorities of a communist (especially Stalinist and Maoist) states, rather than any 1980s American military policy.

    9. Re:without comment by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's why the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed in short order by the collapse of Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of whom also transformed themselves into fledgling if flawed democracies.

      Oh, wait...

      The notion that all we had to do was sell people Big Macs and then they'd become democracies is, and always was, a lie. It was a fraud perpetrated by those who wanted to take advantage of cheap labor and lax labor and enviornmental laws. There was never any evidence that wanting material goods would lead to wanting democracy. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. You had the Roman's and their "bread and circuses" policy of simply keeping the masses distracted from the government. In China, you have iPods and KFC.

      Instead of aching for democracy, they see China as strong, and want to flex that new found power. It's almost nationalistic. When it comes to democracy, they honestly don't care. They believe the party line that any change to democracy would be too disruptive, so the masses are against it. The Great Firewall of China? They don't care. Most never venture outside of it. Even those here in the US spend most of their time visiting the BBS inside the firewall, like sina.com.cn and sofu.com.

      China ceased to be a communist economy sometime in the late 80s or early 90s, no doubt ushered in by Deng Xiaoping's statement, "To be rich is glorious." A look around Bejing today shows a shining example of Maoist communism. Privately owned buisness. A rapidly growing middle class hungry for luxury goods. A wealthy investor class. Mao "Great Leap Forward" Tse-tung would be proud. But don't take my word for it, you can read about it here, or better yet hear it from the Chinese yourself. Just talk to any recent Chinese immigrant, they'll tell you all about it. They're quite proud of the rapid changes in China.

      Is China communist? Only nominally. Is it totalitarian? Oh yeah. It's that. But it's got more in common with a kleptocracy than Maoist China.

      Cuba's economy went in the tank after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath, the shadow U.S. dollar economy became so large, that Fidel had to no choice but to recognize it. It's now a major Caribbean tourist desintation for Canada and Europe. It's a country where restaurants deal only in dollars and have secret back rooms that contain of all things, extra seating, so that they can get around the legal limits on the maxium occupancy of the dollar resturants in order to make more money.

      Cuba is more communist than China, and Cuba certainly isn't as well off as China. In fact it's pretty piss poor, but then again it does have the crippling sanctions imposed on it by the United States in order to show Miami that we're tough on communism. Communism is bad and must be defeated. That's why China is a most-favored-nation trading partner.

      You're refering to the North Korea, where the people starve because Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il, in an effort to prop up his own financial status, has ordered the collective to stop growing rice and instead grow poppies for heroin production, right? Yes. Yes. Truly a vibrant economy, especially in the markets that sell "pork." That why they have pillboxes lining the Yalu river to shoot anyone crossing into China. Truly a beacon for communism the world over.

      Even Vietnam is undergoing market reforms.

    10. Re:without comment by cl_everett · · Score: 0
      Exactly. That's why the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed in short order by the collapse of Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of whom also transformed themselves into fledgling if flawed democracies.

      Who mods this ignorant crap up? Sweet Jesus H. Christ on a wheelchair, anyone who thinks Cuba, North Korea or china were ever democracies, needs to go back to school ...

      Oh, wait ...

      Reagan didn't cause the collapse. But to say that the economic and military policies had no effect is just nonsense.

      By the 1990's the Soviet Union was essentially a flock of sheep being led by a pack of wolves. Gorby was the Alpha wolf of the pack, and perestroika was the club he used to beat down the pretenders to the throne. Maybe US economic and military policy sped things up by a few years, but the collapse was inevitable. Command economy inneficiencies *are* that great.

      If Reagan had really believed in the superiority of market economies over command economies, he would've stood pat. Basically, the military buildup of the day was an all-in poker bluff, and the Kremlin bought it hook, line and sinker.

    11. Re:without comment by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Truly a beacon for communism the world over.


      Wow, did you miss the point. The grandparent post indicated that the Soviet Union fell apart solely under the weight of central planning and that the Reagan policies played no role. I was making the point -- through sarcasm, which apparently you missed -- that if central planning alone were enough to propel a nation into a law-based democracy, we'd have seen the same happen to North Korea, Cuba, and China. And of course none of those three have moved toward a free society since 1991.

      Put another way, I'm pretty sure you and I agree.
      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    12. Re:without comment by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      I think I can try to answer WHY it collapsed, having lived through it.

      The fact of the matter is, most people in the Soviet Union didn't really like Communism. Even people in government. It was a self-perpetuating political party. The status quo. You had to obey, because you knew you'd be punished. And the people who did the punishing had to do their job because that's just how it worked. It was their job.

      When the perestroika and glastnost came about in the early 80s, there were significant advancements in freedom of speech. By this point, I don't believe anyone would've been sent to prison for political speech, unless they did something stupid like advocating imprisonment or execution of the politicians. If they just criticized or mocked the system of Communism, they were left untouched. Several very popular motion picture comedies were made in the 80s that mocked and made fun of the Soviet government and how it resulted in poverty, and these films were shown without opposition in movie theaters across the country. This kind of freedom made everybody realize that they were not alone in thinking Communism isn't working. For the first time, they could publically admit they wanted Democracy and Capitalism and find a ton of people who agreed with them.

      When the Berlin Wall fell, a bunch of politicians in the Baltic states realized that they, too, can break away. I actually went to school with the son of the #1 guy who was behind this new movement. What happened was that they realized that if they announce independence, no one will REALLY try to stop them because, at this point, there were very few true believers in Communism left. They knew that if they announce independence, there will be little opposition. Although there was some risk, they realized that probability of success was high. They were right.

      Of course there were some holdouts who believed in Communism (it's hard to erase decades of propaganda), and they're still in government, and there is still a Communist Party in Russia that still wins in some local and terretorial elections. And of course there are still people who are angered by the collapse of the Soviet Union and, especially with the Baltic States, refuse to accept their complete independence (Russian government strongly opposed Latvia's entry into NATO and the EU). However, by and large, these issues are likely to be resolved in the years to come.

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    13. Re:without comment by coaxial · · Score: 1

      I am the grandparent.

      I'm saying that internal economics was the primary cause for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and communist regimes throughout eastern Europe. I don't think that's really under dispute here.

      It sounds like you're sayint that Reagan's poilicies was the little extra that was needed to shove them to emergening democracies. If this is the what you are saying, then I disagree. Reagan's policy towards the USSR was primarily an unprecedented peacetime millitary build up. That really isn't a pushing democracy.

      Ultimately a cultural change, which a change from totalitarianism to democracy is, needs to come from within. You can't impose democracy on those that aren't prepared for it, or in some cases, don't want it. (The "one man, one vote, one time" problem.) A society needs to be free to express themselves in order for democacy to take root. Gorbechev's policies of glastnost and perestroika allowed the population the see the outside world, recognize how bad off they were, and then begin to express their dissatisfaction in an orderly way. (As opposed to violent uprisings.) The years of "openness" along with freedoms of assembly, speech, and religion, the right to strike, and multicandidate elections were what sealed the fate of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin was popularly elected, that's why the populous rallied around him during the attempted coup. They tasted freedom, and they didn't want it taken away.

  4. Nice timing... by kliklik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    since today is The International Day of Peace.

    --
    guru in training
    1. Re:Nice timing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, 1/365 odds. Who would have thought?

    2. Re:Nice timing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I worry about the deactivation of all this stuff. I mean China is still out there, they have a crapload of (American) money and who the hell knows what kind of secret stuff they are up to.

    3. Re:Nice timing... by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 1

      I know this was more of a side note in your comment, but it's not a bad thing at all that China is getting American money. It means that their economy is almost completely dependant on us, so if they attack us they're practically attacking themselves.

    4. Re:Nice timing... by flarn · · Score: 1

      http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W87.ht ml The last link there said they were merely being moved into other warheads. So they are still going to be used, just not 10 at a time.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  5. Gotta love that Ministry of Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Peacekeeper". Right. War is peace indeed.

    1. Re:Gotta love that Ministry of Truth by aelbric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, nations today only practice what has been known since Roman times:

      Si vis pacem para bellum

      "If you desire peace, prepare for war"

      Don't blame it on dogma, blame it on human nature.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    2. Re:Gotta love that Ministry of Truth by qengho · · Score: 1


      Si vis pacem para bellum

      My father flew planes for the Strategic Air Command (the branch of the US Air Force that deploys bombers and missles). I grew up reading the SAC motto posted at the entrance to most of their bases: "Peace Is Our Profession".

      Probably would have sounded even better in Latin.

    3. Re:Gotta love that Ministry of Truth by aelbric · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Pacis est nostrum professio"

      Does sound better in Latin. :)

      Compliments of Latin Translator

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    4. Re:Gotta love that Ministry of Truth by Stanza · · Score: 1


      Wasn't it Einstein who said "You cannot prepare for peace and war simutaneously"?

    5. Re:Gotta love that Ministry of Truth by maraist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't blame it on dogma, blame it on human nature.

      I hate the phrase "Human nature". It's nature period. Dogs and even roaches have the same tactics that we commonly deamonize in our war-mongering leaders.

      If anything the only distinctly human elements are those that require at least 2 orders of abstraction. Namely the concepts of civil disobediance and "turning the other cheeck". This constitutes a direct passive aggressive response to an aggressive act. It's very hard to do, and the motiviations required to accomplish it are too complex for a 1'st order thinking creature like a dog. I'm defining 0'th order being directly stimulus reflexive, 1'st order being memory-based-pattern stimulus induced reaction. 2'nd order being able to apply memorized patterns to new contexts as a response. (The concept of abstraction)

      Very little in our daily lives require 2'nd order thinking. Most of it, in fact is mere directly learned association (1'st order thinking), so we're not that much higher evolved than the animal kingdom.

      --
      -Michael
    6. Re:Gotta love that Ministry of Truth by exkate72 · · Score: 1

      It takes greater force to prevent a war than it does to win one. The fact that the US had the capability to annhialate a large city anywhere in the world at a moments notice was a huge deterant to hostile nations that may have considered military action against the US.

  6. Obligatory... by mrhale · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, nuclear missile deactivates YOU!

    --
    When does a rectangle become a line?
    1. Re:Obligatory... by madaxe42 · · Score: 1, Funny

      No no, YOU deactivate Soviet Russia with nuclear missle!

    2. Re:Obligatory... by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1

      In NUCLEAR Russia, radiation is exposed to you!

      --
      News for merdes. Shit that matters.
      Ask me about my sig.
  7. more silos for sale ? by rednuhter · · Score: 1

    does this mean more more cool hidy holes to plan world domination ?
    http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20010815& mode=classic
    http://itotd.com/index.alt?ArticleID=282

    --
    ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
  8. Obsolete Before Operational by salesgeek · · Score: 1

    The MX was obsolete before it entered service due to the accuracy, survivability and range of the Trident (submarine launched ICBM). I look forward to the day when nuclear weapons are no longer required to hold the relative peace.

    --
    -- $G
    1. Re:Obsolete Before Operational by redelm · · Score: 1
      Agreed the MX was mostly a dangerous invitation for the Soviets to strike first. But it still formed an important leg of the tripod if the oceans suddenly went transparant.

      The whole idea of stability is not perfect members, but enough of them so that if one fails, the others can carry the balance. The very heavy reliance the US has/d on nukes.

    2. Re:Obsolete Before Operational by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      Why not,as long as they are never fired?

      I think the Cold War could have ended a lot worse than it did. But because of nuclear deterrents, a balance was established and then the country who went bankrupt first, lost the stand-off.

      Also, if nuclear weapons haven't been available, there would've been other weapons to replace it. For example, there would've been a very wide proliferatoin of biological and chemical weapons, as well as conventional millitary. There would have been a need to have a much larger army, so there might have been a mandatory draft all through the Cold War in US, as expensive as nuclear warheads are, the increased army size would have probably more expensive.

      Because Soviet Union was much larger than US, without nuclear weapons, they would have probably prevailed, since their manpower was much greater. (Think of China today, if we didn't have nuclear weapons and they invaded US, we might not have much of a chance. Their army can probably be bigger than our whole population).

      In other words, because the human nature is what it is - rotten - there will always be wars and death and misery on this planet. That was the case 5000 years ago and that is the case today. The 20th century is the deadliest century in all the history. I think it would have been a lot deadlier if the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War stand-off. And if the nuclear weapons wouldn't be there, USSR might have won the war.

    3. Re:Obsolete Before Operational by Zordak · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't quibble too much about a few meters of accuracy on a 300kT warhead. If you can hit a football field, it doesn't matter much which endzone you're in (of course, the other half of the vehicles fall outside the CEP, but that's by definition). The real idea was not to have the best technology everywhere. It was redundancy. Notice that with the PK deactivated, our sole land-based "strategic deterrent" is the even older Minuteman III. The SERV program is now working on retrofitting the W-87s from the deactivated PKs onto single MMIII delivery vehicles, so what we're really doing is converting 50 PKs into 500 MM-IIIs with the same warhead. And there are ongoing upgrade programs for the MM-III and plenty of speculation on the MM-IV (or some other successor). Unfortunately, I think the day that we no longer require nuclear weapons will be the day that somebody invents something even worse.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  9. Won? not likely, but it does help. by kinglink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    wow 71 foot tall, 8 diametere and 10 warheads.

    The only problem I have with the article is it didn't win the Cold War, it did help us in it. But the only way we "won" the cold war was not by our hand. When the USSR was falling apart and the end was nigh, it was by the grace of god that the leaders of the falling communist state, didn't just say "fuck it" and launch their missles.

    It was by their work, not our work that the end was peaceful as it was, at that point it wasn't a deterent because look at them now, they lost everything, but they chose the peaceful means of leaving the office.

    Granted the missles did deter them from attacking earlier, but to be honest it's a deterent, not a win in the columns. An important difference.

    1. Re:Won? not likely, but it does help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. The USSR was falling apart from within, it was not as if the US was assembling forces on their borders. Where exactly would they have aimed the missles at- their own cities and those of the communist bloc? The changeover was relatively peaceful, and no ones life was really at stake. So when your options are "live to fight another day" or "lets bring a catastrophic halt to civilization" why would you choose the latter option?

      Relations w/ the US had been warming towards the end of the cold war. Both sides had a full understanding that the other was human, and intelligence on both sides found that in the event of an attack, the other side's primary goal was protecting the homeland, not attacking the other side.

      If your reasoning was true, should we also be thankful that every time a company buys another company, the purchased companies management doesn't just burn all the servers?

    2. Re:Won? not likely, but it does help. by kinglink · · Score: 1

      In the end they would attack anywhere, and a single launch, could cause a nuclear attack.

      The problem with the change over was that it wasn't "that" peaceful (though your right relatively it was), tanks were mobilized in the street, there was attacks on goverment buildings. It's not about lifes being at stake, it's about loss of power. The people losing power knew they likely wouldn't gain power again easily, especially after the west's work to poison the name of Communism (My opinion is that it was a good idea, doesn't work, but doesn't mean all the propeganda was "ok")

      We understand that many sides of war are human, it's something I pray commanders never forget, but that doesn't mean you don't fight the war. The people in Iraq are "defending their country" but the problem is they are murdering our people to do it and we're likely going to kill theirs if we need to. We're both human but the fact is war or power both have issues that run deeper then these things.

      I'm sure if you polled everyone at the end of the Cold war "what are the communists" you'd hear more than a few people say "Dirty Evil Bastards, which we should kill them all". I'm sure they would have such nicities to say about us also.

      It's more about the hatred and fear of them that we have harvested from the era's the predated us (mccarthism and such) than anything else.

      But the fact is even if their was no chance of missles being shot at us, that makes the peacemakers useless (I'm sure we felt safer with them but it's like a twilight zone episode when we are ready to kill them and then we charge over there and we find out they starved out 20 years ago)

      But this is all opinion, perhaps we will never know what saved us from this, and that's fine, but a good debate and opinions is always appreciated by me.

    3. Re:Won? not likely, but it does help. by sfjoe · · Score: 0, Troll

      But the only way we "won" the cold war was not by our hand.

      Apparently, you don't listen to talk radio. Don't you know that Ronald Reagan was the reason we won the cold war?

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    4. Re:Won? not likely, but it does help. by cowscows · · Score: 1

      You're buying into the propaganda that communists are all automatically evil horrible people. The fact that the leaders of Russia didn't say "fuck it" and launch all their missiles has less to do with the grace of god and more to do with the fact that they were reasonable and intelligent people. Not to say that Russia didn't have some crazy rulers (Stalin was a complete nutcase), but living in communist russia did not automatically make you an insane lunatic.

      If that were the case, we never would've made it through the cuban missile crisis. Kruschev didn't want war any more than we did, and for the exact same reasons. Because he didn't want millions of people to die. If leaders from either side wanted to fight, it would've happened.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  10. Farscape??? by Zemrec · · Score: 2, Funny

    Am I the only one who first thought of Farscape instead of Cold War era nukes?

    Come on people!

  11. Keeping the peace... with nukes. by 8086ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I was in fifth grade I lived near Vandenberg Air Force Base, where they would regularly test rockets and missiles. One of the groundskeepers pointed out a Peacekeeper (informing us of the name in the process). Even then, I wondered to myself: How are missiles designed to keep the peace?

    1. Re:Keeping the peace... with nukes. by Stoopid-Guy0 · · Score: 0

      Would YOU attack a country that has nuclear missiles poised to destroy every population center in your nation?

    2. Re:Keeping the peace... with nukes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would YOU like to find out?

    3. Re:Keeping the peace... with nukes. by Stoopid-Guy0 · · Score: 0

      That's what we have history for. Reference the Cold War.

    4. Re:Keeping the peace... with nukes. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      For the same reason people learning "self-defense" learn how to fight rather than how to curl up into a ball and cry?

      The best defense is a good offence.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:Keeping the peace... with nukes. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Bah. "offense" I mean. Must wait to reply again...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    6. Re:Keeping the peace... with nukes. by Stoopid-Guy0 · · Score: 0

      Just act British and reaffirm there's nothing wrong with spelling it "offence" ;-)

  12. This... Is dead. by 8086ed · · Score: 1

    True story.

  13. Ballot Box Bunny by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    First thing I thought of when I saw the dept. this story came from.

    Bugs Bunny: I speak softly, but I carry a big stick!
    Yosemite Sam: Oh yeah? Well I speak loouuud, and I carry a biiigger stick! And I use it too!

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  14. Peace Keeper" was the most ironic name of all time by skintigh2 · · Score: 0

    Before the MX "peace keeper," if the Soviets saw a blip on their radar it could have been nothing, or maybe 10 nukes coming their way. If it was 10 nukes, that would be bad, but hardly affect their ability to respond with hundreds of misiles.

    With the introduction of the "Peace Keeper" with 10 warheads in Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs, thus 10 MIRVs = MX) that blip could mean nothing, or ten missiles with enough warhead to lay waste to every major city and military target in the USSR, Thus every blip was turned into a possible nuclear war requiring a decision for or against a full nuclear response by the Soviets in a matter of minutes, all by a missile named the "Peace Keeper."

    It is doubtful Reagan was aware of this irony, as he actually stated in a press conference that nuclear missles could be "called back" if he changed his mind about launching them. We can also thank Reagan for starting a terrorism fad when he pulled out of Beruit after one terrorist attack.

  15. Dr. Strangelove by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

    But how could you not think of this?

    Dr. S - The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost . . . if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, ay?!

    --
    The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
  16. Re:Peace Keeper" was the most ironic name of all t by demiseofman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, we wouldn't launch just one missile at a time and it's ignorance to think so. The Peacekeeper name was picked because it was to keep the peace through deterence. Nobody would dare to attack the US with these missiles in place, thus keeping the peace. As for terrorism, it's been used for hundreds of years, primarily by fundamental extermist. Today, it is used overwhemingly by Muslim extremist. We just stirred up the Iraqi hornets nest and now it's a mess that has to be dealt with.

  17. President to get preemtive nuclear strike go-ahead by Safe+Sex+Goddess · · Score: 0, Troll
    Normally, it would be nice to hear that there are a few less nukes in the world because of disarmament.

    But it sounds like we also might have a few less nukes because the president is now going to be given authority for pre-emptive nuclear attacks.

    Since we've pulled a vietnam in Iraq, we'll just use nukes on Iran. A dead citizen can't make a live terrorist.

    We'll probably use those neutron bombs so that we don't do damage to the oil. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1776 250,00.html

    --
    Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
  18. Re:Peace Keeper" was the most ironic name of all t by skintigh2 · · Score: 1

    You completely missed the point of everything, and for bonus points you didn't even read what I wrote and then called ME ignorant.

    Where did I say we would fire 1?

    How did having 10 warheads on 50 missiles make a difference in DETERENCE when we already had 2000+ missiles? Is there some tipping point in MAD that I don't know about?

    As for you comments about terrorism, terrorism was barely used before Reagan capitulated to terrorists and at least half of suicide bombers are secular, not muslim extremists.

    Talking out of your ass leads to bad breath...

  19. Bolton? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

    "Last Peacekeeper Deactivated"

    I know that Bolton isn't too fond of the UN, but who would have thought he'd be so quickly effective at shutting down so many major UN operations?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  20. Yikes! by stuffduff · · Score: 1

    Now we'll never meet the Vulcans!

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"