Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Decide On New Weapons
krou writes "Buried within the New Start treaty, which saw the decommissioning of nuclear warheads, was an interesting provision as a result of Russian demands: the US must 'decommission one nuclear missile for every one' of a new type of weapon called Prompt Global Strike 'fielded by the Pentagon.' The warhead, which is 'mounted on a long-range missile to start its journey,' would be 'capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour. ... It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special materials to avoid melting. ... But since the vehicle would remain within the atmosphere rather than going into space, it would be far more maneuverable than a ballistic missile, capable of avoiding the airspace of neutral countries, for example, or steering clear of hostile territory. Its designers note that it could fly straight up the middle of the Persian Gulf before making a sharp turn toward a target.' The new weapon is in line with Obama's plans 'to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,' and rather focus on conventional ones. The idea is not new, having been first floated under the Bush administration, but was abandoned, mainly because 'Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones.'"
Subject says it all.
He's just Bush with a tan...
Continuous and unbroken policy record in every single, meaningful area. Except where it really doesn't count - you know, the non-Constitutional stuff.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
FTFA: The idea is not new: President George W. Bush and his staff promoted the technology, imagining that this new generation of conventional weapons would replace nuclear warheads on submarines. In face-to-face meetings with President Bush, Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones. Mr. Bush and his aides concluded that the Russians were right. Partly as a result, the idea “really hadn’t gone anywhere in the Bush administration,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has served both presidents, said recently on ABC’s “This Week.” But he added that it was “embraced by the new administration.”
First time I've seen something like this, where Obama is more hawkish on a military matter than Bush ? Man that seems wierd...
I guess this means we should start building bomb shelters again, and buy lots of duct tape and plastic?
After all, if the warhead contains more than 3 ounces of fluid in any one container, or won't fit in a one liter zip-lock bag, there is no way that the TSA will allow the launch...
If the TSA's word isn't sufficiently reassuring, we could always stencil "No nukes here, we're saving them for Ivan" on all conventional ordnance...
So now the US can launch missiles that buzz the Kremlin before going on to hit targets in Iraq. Bitchin
The US does not want to build nuclear weapons that can only be used defensively (for political reasons), and therefore which act primarily as a deterrent. It wants to build weapons that can be used now.
The US does not only want other countries to be scared to attack the US; it wants other countries to be scared not to do what the US wants them to, as the US may attack tomorrow.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Russia really needs to be put at ease about nuclear attack. We simply aren't going to do it. We develop advanced weaponry, but for all intents and purposes, these weapons are just stockpiled, never to be used.
Agreeing to decommission existing missiles is an easy agreeable point. We don't need them anymore. Realistically, there isn't a country in the world that America is politically ready to bomb back to the stone ages. We just like having this stuff because it makes us feel better.
This type of concern isn't new, either. Russia was worried that Reagan's Star Wars missile defense shield would allow America to attack with impunity, but we never had good reason to bomb anyone, much less Russia.
My sincere hope is that Obama can navigate these treacherous waters. It's really his first true test of foreign policy on a global scale. If he can soothe the Russians here, he'll have made huge progress that future generations will reap the benefits of for decades.
After all, if the warhead contains more than 3 ounces of fluid in any one container, or won't fit in a one liter zip-lock bag, there is no way that the TSA will allow the launch... If the TSA's word isn't sufficiently reassuring, we could always stencil "No nukes here, we're saving them for Ivan" on all conventional ordnance...
Only problem is that the TSA will want to scan the nukes first... Then we'll have pictures of naked nuke internals getting passed around the 'net!
One variant of the "schizoid defense" (against the inherent violence of the world) involves dissociating one's self from violent sentiments or tools. One stops watching violent movies, for example, stops getting angry, and relinquishes ownership of any weapons.
The mind tells itself a story that by distancing one's self from violence in every ostensible form, one protects one's self from having a violent encounter.
Of course this story is false. The violence finds you. Criminals retain their weapons, and their violent inclinations, and further they actively hunt down and seek easy prey (like, you know, people who don't have weapons, and who are likely to surrender without a fight).
This whole "mutual disarmament" business feels like a grand schizoid defense. The civilians fear the presence of weapons of mass destruction (especially since they have no personal means of defending against them), so they pressure their governments to get rid of all such weapons and to find a way to make other governments to the same. The weaker governments fear the greater ones, and are willing to give up some of their (mostly useless against the 'big boys') weapons if it means the 'big boys' are willing to weaken themselves too. None of this actually makes war less likely or less horrible when it does happen.
In fact, the case can be made that it makes violence MORE likely, since specific targets have just made themselves more vulnerable, and specific types of response are less likely. As anyone with military experience can tell you...the single greatest deterrent to actual violence is a credible threat of equivalent-or-greater response.
This whole mess is just a big exercise in fear, futility, and self-exposure.
Needless to say, I disapprove.
If we started spending half as much money we spend on the military industrial complex on things like energy, food issues and education our ROI would be far greater and far more long term. As a former Marine, despite the fact we often got the navies handmedowns we still performed better with less than many other branches. The roi for weapons is always death and destruction, which the worldhas too much of already.
You certainly are "mindcontrolled" aren't you? Tsk.
Sounds like someone may have brought back the old "Project Pluto" from the late 50's. A nuclear powered cruise missile the size and weight of a steam locomotive capable of carrying nuclear or conventional weapons anywhere in the world at speeds exceeding mach 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special materials to avoid melting...
Wouldn't that make it an easy target for a heat seeking ABM? Even as fast as it's moving?
Nuclear arms have formed the backbone of US deterrence strategy for six decades and although the strategy worked during the Cold War, military leaders say they need weapons in their arsenal to deter adversaries who assume that the United States would refrain from taking the extreme step of ordering a nuclear strike. Now the Washington Post reports that as the White House pushes for cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a powerful nonnuclear weapon to help fill the gap as a new form of deterrence against terrorist networks and other adversaries. Military officials say their current nonnuclear options are too limited or too slow because unlike ICBM's, which travel at several times the speed of sound, it can take up to 12 hours for cruise missiles to hit faraway targets and long-range bombers likewise can take many hours to fly into position for a strike. "Today, unless you want to go nuclear, it's measured in days, maybe weeks" until the military can launch an attack with regular forces, says Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "That's just too long in the world that we live in." The new missile system, known as Prompt Global Strike weapons, could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. However military officials are struggling to solve one major obstacle: the risk that Russia or China could mistake the launch of a conventional Prompt Global Strike missile for a nuclear one. To alleviate the risk of an accidental nuclear retaliation, defense officials have described how a land-based missile could be configured so it is incapable of carrying a nuclear payload and use a trajectory to its target that would not threaten other nuclear weapons nations.
It took us nearly a week to export Democracy to Iraq, now we could do it in less than two hours. Sounds like a good deal.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
This idea is bad on many levels.
1. It looks like a nuclear ballistic missile launch. Every time you fire one, you're risking nuclear war. Russia, China, and any other enemy will see the launch and has to make a very quick decision on what to do. Chances are, it probably wont' be misidentified as a nuclear first strike. Do you really want to take that risk though??? If you have to notify them first, the entire quick strike goes out the window and the entire point of the technology is lost.
2. It's fucking expensive. Having a 1 time use ballistic missile is going to cost 100s of millions to a billion dollars a shot. That figure doesn't even count the R&D money for the program. To allow for quick strike capability, they have to be manned at all times, and ready to fire, so the ongoing "maintenance costs" on it are very high. This is going to be an insanely expensive system.
3. Why? Who are you realistically going to strike with it. Anywhere in the middle east, North Korea, and most of Europe is currently within fighter range and can be hit in relatively short time from conventional fighter/bombers.
When you blow shit up, you get crap everywhere.
There are lots of high tech workers that read slashdot. I'm one of them. I decided, while at university, that I was not going to spend my life building weapons. Working on weapons certainly was an opportunity that presented itself when I was getting my degree in the late 80s. I do not want to create weapons because I would have no direct control over whether those weapons were limited to truly righteous causes.
Do you work on weapons? Do you share my concerns?
Me three!!!
Only capabilities matter.
If the US can nuke Russia, Russia has to plan for the possibility that the US will nuke Russia. If the US launches missiles that could be aimed at Russia, and that could have nuclear payloads, Russia has to assume that they are and they do. Because they're fucked if they assume good faith and are wrong.
Better never to launch such a missile and best not to have them at all.
Me four...?
Man, you mention "Obama" and "weapons" and all the crazies come out to play.
Abandoned under Bush because
Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones.
Considered again under Obama because...?
Five. I can name that tune in 5 notes.
capable of avoiding the airspace of neutral countries, for example, or steering clear of hostile territory.
So if it will avoid neutral countries, and steer clear of hostile territories, by process of elimination that leaves the target to be our allies?
I'll say "terrible idea" as well, and add:
Is this even possible? How much fuel would such a thing need to carry to get there at that speed?
Why would you need it? Presumably there's going to be some sort of build-up to the kind of situation where this is needed a you can have an aircraft carrier full of cruise missiles off somebody's coastline in less than a day.
Seems like just another military wet dream/waste of taxpayer money.
No sig today...
But in the broader context, what you're talking about is a continuum of engineer responsibility: engineers who design guns have no control over whether people use them to shoot people, engineers who design cars have no control over whether people use them to run over people, and engineers who design garbage bags have no control over whether people use them to asphyxiate other people. Unless your job is designing large shapeless soft foam objects, you're always going to risk someone using your creation to hurt someone else, and at each point along the continuum from plastic bag designer to nuclear weapon designer, at least a few people are going to say they're not comfortable with doing that, and at least a few people are going to say they are. I'm not sure how one would draw a line at any given point and make a decision that beyond that point, other people were Bad People for continuing to work on those designs.
With all THAT said, I've noticed that a couple of friends who work in weapons systems drink. A lot. A lot more than most people, and a lot more than they used to when they were working on launch systems for satellites or modelling asteroid impact crater formation.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Yeah, our government is planning to dig a new money hole! I mean, it seems to fit the definition.
1 - It would most likely never be used due to the possible international politics and risk of conflict issues
2 - Would be insanely costly per "shot", probably in the 200 - 500 million range, at least.
3 - Mirrors a capability which we already practically have, Is there any place on the planet we DON'T have fighter/bomber aircraft a few hours from. Maybe Antarctica, but I don't think the penguins are much of a threat at the moment.
I get the feeling that there's a darker purpose to this capability, something along the lines of what we're doing right now in Pakistan with MQ-9 Reaper (Preditor) strikes, to which the official line was "No Comment" for a long time. But even that doesn't hold a lot of water, of course neither was the "No Comment" line in regards to the Reaper strikes, everyone knew we were(are) doing it.
Still looking to take over the world, or destroy any part of it that we can't take. Glad to see we brought about some dramatic change with the new administration.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Orlando
We watched the launch of the X37B from our front yard and everyone around here knows it is going to be used by the military. This idea of not weaponizing space is long gone. China shot down an old satelite just to prove they could and US turned around and shot down one as well.
At low earth orbit the ship can get around the world in less than forty-five minutes and launch multiple projectiles. Designed properly, these solid metal objects could easily take out a city block by the resulting air burst created when they finally explode at extremely high temparature. You would not even see the objects until they entered the atmosphere and at that point it would be to late.
In addition Russia and China will no doubt be called on the red phone five or six minutes before so they know it wasn't nuclear.
Now that would be shock and awe.
Russia shoud realize by now that there is no credible threat of a U.S. nuclear first strike attack:
- There is no advantage gained by crippling Russia economically or socially. A failed Russia causes us more problems than a successful one. See references on the 'end of the Cold War' to see what a successful Russia lead to. No problem for us there. We can do it again.
- Russia's military is sufficiently constrained by economics that it is not the critical, immediate threat it once was. We should be encouraging Russian stability and economic success.
- A nuclear attack of any consequence on Russia would cause multiple environmental disasters of both more immediate and more intense concern than glbal climate change. Rendering much of Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, and potentially China and the Indian sub-continent either uninhabitable or medically dangerous would not serve any purpose. Nuclear attacks on even a regional scale must be considered 'doomsday' responses by all major nuclear powers. In light of this reality, the real threats are North Korea and potentially Iran, since they do not have the resources to make large-scale nuclear attacks, and so could calculate a scenario where an attack could be survivable for them. Mutually Assured Destruction is very near, it not already at, the end of its usefulness.
- Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, their capacity is not only constrained, but their sphere of influence is reduced. Less reason than ever to try to suppress Russian efforts at influence around the world.
But Global Climate Change has taken us down a road of questionable science, apathy by the masses, and governmental distraction from real, solvable problems. Reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles dramatically would solve a lot of problems between the U.S. and Russia, and including the major nuclear powers as the process moves forward would eventually bring us close enough to nuclear disarmament that we could engage the lesser powers and make a credible demand for their disarmament also. Then we can legitimately challenge ALL weapons-grade processing and put a stop to this dance we are in with North Korea and Iran. Sadly, we can't get there in time to address Iran's nuclear ambitions.
A significant nuclear weapons release will do more harm to our climate and planet than the worst the Global Climate Change crowd can imagine. It would render Climate Change unimportant. No one would care about failed crops from land poisoned by fallout. No one would care about UV exposure and sea level rise if they are battling cancer and indirect, long range radiation poisoning. No one would care about lost habitat and lost biodiversity in the midst of massive and fatal mutations. The jig would be up. I would be entirely aghast if both our incoming Presidents and Russian Presidents did not each get through briefings on the impact of even small releases, at least from the civilian agencies interested in this (State, FEMA, DOE, EPA, DOAgriculture, and maybe a few others) and russian counterparts. The military, despite our instincts, generally would prefer to offer an honest view of strategic ware outcomes. They also would have good reason to caution incoming Presidents against nuclear war. I would not be surprised if our secret strategy would be to back down from any threat. How we would handle an 'unexpected' massive first strike, I dunno. Again, if the schoolyard bully knows there's a bigger bully down the street that has a little brother in his school, does he go in and beat up the bigger bully's little brother? Only when he loses restraint, or the bigger bully loses credibility.
So far, we have not lost credibility on either side.
There are fewer reasons than ever to have a nuclear war.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Only and ignorant leftist libtard slashbagger can come up with some as stupid as that. Obama, if had been handed 9/11 would not only be engaged in weakening US Foreign Policy as he has done since day 1 of his clown circus administration but he would not be reaping the peace dividend of the Bush years since a)he would not have the balls to initiate what bush did 2)he would not have the vision 3)he does not and would not have the talent in his administration. Oh and fuck you and your WMDs you ninny assholes. We all fucking know Sodamn Insane Hussein played the game of hide and go seek with all of his enemies and his allies. In fact, there are plenty of dumbocrats calling for his outster during the Cliton years.
HAAALLELUJAH!
HAAALLELUJAH!
HALLELUJAH!
*BOOM*
We can have usably cheap long-range weapons with the destructive powers of nukes but without the long-term risks? The end-of-days religious people must be wetting their pants. Maybe I should call up that old Jehovas pal just to be on the safe side...
Emotions! In your brain!
Something is not the right order of magnitude here. 12,500 miles/1 hour = 12,500 mph = Mach 16. To me, 16 is more than "several".
I don't know of anything operational (SCRAM isn't) other than a rocket that can propel something that fast. And a rocket with enough thrust and low enough weight wouldn't be able to fire for an hour.
From that I suspect the entire flight profile isn't in the atmosphere. Something like: an ICBM delivers a ramjet-powered cruise missile somewhere in the vicinity of a target. The missile then flies the rest of the way.
As someone else pointed out...jeez. How expensive is that? Why not fire a missile from a B52 or a ship? Last I heard the US still had lots of both of those all over the globe. A Mach 5 ramjet could go 3840 miles in an hour so your platform wouldn't even have to be that close. Way out in the middle of the Indian Ocean is within that distance from Kabul, for example.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
How is a ballistic missile that can change direction supposed to make anybody feel safer? It doesn't take long to figure out where a plain old ICBM is headed. Now imagine that the missile heading towards Tehran had the capability to suddenly turn north.
This is supposed to make anybody feel better...how?
North Korea has the air defense to shoot down our aircraft. So does China, with a few more thousand miles of hostile territory to navigate. An unmanned non-nuclear weapon with quick strike capability would be useful there. I don't think we can afford it, but that's another story.
If you are thinking of a strike with a missile against China, well that is war, hence probable nuclear war. The more likely that becomes, the more likely it is that China will develop and accumulate more nukes and missiles to deter the US, just in case their 20 or so ICBMs are not sufficient. This would be entirely rational decision for the Chinese. But for those of us who are not Chinese or American, it would be more madness as in the cold war.
As for North Korea, it may have the ability to shoot down aircraft. Most countries do, but it does not save them from attack, and possible defeat from other countries. Are you claiming that North Korea is invulnerable to the US airforce?
"We dont know when it will be back" can be interpreted as "we dont know if its coming back"
Do any of you remember Robert Heinlein's Friday? He had a sub-ballistic transport system in that book
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
...if he'll use his Peace Prize award money to fund them?
I honestly think this is worse then leaving nuclear missiles commissioned. Nuclear missiles are a last line of defense and a deterrent. Basically when we're screwed, we screw them too. They aren't supposed to be used and wont be until the world decides it doesn't want to exist. Instead we're installing missiles we can actually use and people think are alright. It's like crossing into a gray area as phosphorous is to napalm. They're just looking for a scapegoat if other countries call foul on us when all of a sudden we annihilate an entire country with 'smaller' arms.
I don't think other countries or people will understand the power of the new devices till someone gets leveled with them. The fear of nuclear arms is well known and it's something people with very little intellectual capacity can understand. So not only do we escape into a morally gray area, but at the same time we lose the 'deterrent' value of our massive weapons. It's just a very bad idea IMHO.
Get Real!
Compare to any other politician please before spouting garbage..
Maybe if President were a dictator, 100% would even be approachable.
But when you have Republicans who again and again stall processes that should've been done 10-20 years ago, and then demolishes economic stability, you simply have to play the politics (unfortunately).
I'd say Obama is an extremely capable politician, and will go down in history as one of the great ones.
Sorry posted this as an anonymous coward. Orlando We watched the launch of the X37B from our front yard and everyone around here knows it is going to be used by the military. This idea of not weaponizing space is long gone. China shot down an old satelite just to prove they could and US turned around and shot down one as well. At low earth orbit the ship can get around the world in less than forty-five minutes and launch multiple projectiles. Designed properly, these solid metal objects could easily take out a city block by the resulting air burst created when they finally explode at extremely high temparature. You would not even see the objects until they entered the atmosphere and at that point it would be to late. In addition Russia and China will no doubt be called on the red phone five or six minutes before so they know it wasn't nuclear. Now that would be shock and awe.
It's easier to build a world empire being a black nobel-winning liberal than a white ivy league dropout.
Say we find out where bin Laden is hiding.
By the time this might actually be put into operational status, and the bugs worked out, OBL will likely have died of old age ;-)
You know what I fail to understand?
The whole argument, even nowadays, for having nuclear tipped ICBMs hinges on the fact (discussed often here on slashdot) that our missiles aren't accurate enough for conventional warheads to be effective against point targets.
So... what's changed? Aha.... I wonder if the Pentagon has just advertised to the whole world that our modern suborbital rockets now have pinpoint strike capability?
In any case, the idea that missiles can be designed so that nuclear warheads can't be loaded on them is pure horseshit. If the missile can carry a conventional warhead large enough to matter even if our worldwide accuracy is 10 meters or so, then we could certainly place a nuclear warhead on the missile, probably with only an hour's notice.
Honestly; if we can design a racecar so that it's entire engine can be changed out in less than an hour...
I know, I know, can't stop the weapons race. Really doesn't mean anything to try and debate it in civilian forums anymore. Not that it ever really has. Sigh.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Furthermore, the proposed example mission scenario (taking out Bin Laden) seems unrealistic. Bin Laden's location is known to a few 100 km or so. If the Pentagon learns that Bin Laden hides in cave XY in northern Pakistan, why would they start a cruise missile at Vandenberg AFB rather than from an aircraft carrier in the Persian gulf or some army base in Afghanistan?
It's been a long while since I studied that period, but I was pretty sure I knew the answer, and that it was an answer that most academics agreed with:
Once the expansion period (and loot providing a money flow) was over, the cost of maintaining such vast territories gradually weakened Rome to the point of collapse.
However, after looking at the wiki page, I can see I obviously forgot about a ton of other theories:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Theories_of_a_fall.2C_decline.2C_transition_and_continuity
The whole argument, even nowadays, for having nuclear tipped ICBMs hinges on the fact (discussed often here on slashdot) that our missiles aren't accurate enough for conventional warheads to be effective against point targets.
No. If that statement were really true, it'd be a justification for having maybe a couple dozen warheads. There are plenty of hardened targets in a place like Russia, but there aren't that many that could withstand a concerted conventional precision bombing for long. The thing that nuclear weapons provide for the US is near instant destruction of an foe's military capabilities, no matter how large that foe is.
If everyone knows what your resources are, and can keep an eye on what you're doing with them, then you cannot possibly rebuild nukes before you could be stopped.
I don't particularly think it's a great idea to completely eliminate nuclear weapons, if for no other reason than that they may have peaceful uses. Like this. Obviously nuclear power is invaluable as well.
I do think more than one or two per country is rather excessive, though. That number can be easily monitored and isn't an instant win on successful first strike.
No. If that statement were really true, it'd be a justification for having maybe a couple dozen warheads. There are plenty of hardened targets in a place like Russia, but there aren't that many that could withstand a concerted conventional precision bombing for long.
Yeah. That's why, during the cold war, we built all those warheads, and had all those missiles aimed at those targets. Sure.
The thing that nuclear weapons provide for the US is near instant destruction of an foe's military capabilities, no matter how large that foe is.
Let me guess; you're too young to remember the cold war?
I'm not.
Overkill is overkill, in that I'll agree. But unless you provide a citation that says our global ICBM accuracy is good enough for conventional munitions to smash bunkers - with 20m accuracy - and that it'll be cheaper to develop that than to improve our already existing cruise missile and aircraft delivery abilities, no matter how much longer they take, I can't take you seriously.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
"No nukes here, we're saving them for Iran" on all conventional ordnance...
there, fixed that for you.
Overkill is overkill, in that I'll agree. But unless you provide a citation that says our global ICBM accuracy is good enough for conventional munitions to smash bunkers - with 20m accuracy - and that it'll be cheaper to develop that than to improve our already existing cruise missile and aircraft delivery abilities, no matter how much longer they take, I can't take you seriously.
Big words for a guy that claims nukes are around only because we can't get 20m accuracy on our ICBMs.
...and just threaten an overflight of your annoying neighbors by the thing...
Your reading comprehension sucks.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
> Asking someone for their ID isn't a violation of a human rights, unless you think society in general violates a man's sovereignty.
Somehow, all I can think of is the phrase, "Papers, please?" It's now a state crime not to be carrying your visa (or similar paperwork) if you're doing so "willfully."
The other fun part is where looking Mexican in the wrong place can now get you stopped by cops and forced to ID yourself, even if you're a natural born US citizen. God help you if you live anywhere near a place where day laborers have been known to gather, or you'll be doing that a lot, even though you're a US citizen and your white friends (somehow) are immune to this suspicion. So unless you think it's no big deal to get picked up by cops regularly because you look Mexican and are too near the wrong kind of area, you might want to reconsider your position.
How would you feel if there was a law that the police had to pull you over once a week on the way to work and let you go, after spending about 15 minutes of your time? How long before you run out of nice cops (and, for the record, I have been fortunate to meet only nice police officers so far) and draw the guy who has had a bad day? How would you feel if your friends of a different skin color did not get stopped?
Your reading comprehension sucks.
You should have written something else down, if you didn't want it read that way. But going back to what you wrote, you claim in your earlier post that we have nukes only because we can't position ICBMs accurately enough for convention weapons to work. Then you follow up with red herrings. It doesn't matter if I'm too young to remember the Cold War or not (I was born in 1969, so I remember it). The point is that the US didn't have thousands of ready nuclear weapons merely because it couldn't place them accurately. It had that many weapons to insure that a foe, such as the USSR, would cease to exist, should the foe attempt a nuclear attack on the US. You can chose, as you claim to have in your writing, to disagree with that assertion. But that just makes you wrong. It doesn't matter, if you remember the Cold War or not. It doesn't matter if conventional ICBMs can smash bunkers with 20m accuracy or not.
Moving on, if ICBM accuracy was the most important criteria for having nuclear weapons, then why did the US negotiate away its most accurate missile, the Peacekeeper missile? Wikipedia claims the missile had a 50% chance of landing within 120 meters (but I don't see the citation backing that number up).
The thing you gloss over here is that nuclear weapons can deliver, pound for pound, at least a million times more explosive power to the target than conventional weapons can. Perfect intelligence and great placement of a convention warheads is not going to compensate for that. You still can't take out the USSR nuclear capability before it launches. You still can't take out the USSR's military might without deploying a single soldier. And this also ignores that key parts of the USSR military are buried deep enough to thwart any conventional attack, no matter how accurately placed the attack is, (just as is the case with the US, for example, Cheyenne Mountain).
I am an Arizonan, and I am in favor of the new law. That stated, I agree with many of your points. I generally agree with a VERY strict illegal immigration (note the word "illegal") policy, even though some of our leaders are pushing for it for the wrong reasons (racism and xenophobia). I still feel that these laws are a better alternative to what we have now, i.e. nothing.
I am open to better solutions. Better feasible solutions, that is. Hell, if we actually enforced our employer sanction law this new law probably wouldn't be necessary.
Another problem I have with the criticism of this law form people not from the Southwest, is that they really have no clue what it is like here. Phoenix is almost like a Balkan state, with large enclaves of Mexican immigrants (legal and not) who exist autonomously from the rest of the city. Large parts of my city are like Mexican annexes, with no common language, culture, or, increasingly, currency with the rest of the country. Mexico, currently, is a VERY bad place, and by not having any border protection we're importing all of their social, and legal, problems. Arizona is the kidnap capitol of the U.S., because of our wanton importation of Mexican crime. Our hospital and public health systems are being financially crushed due to the burden of non-citizens using their services for free.
Also, for years businesses used illegal immigration to cut down on costs, break unions, and generally force Americans (with their expectations of a higher standard of living) out of the work-force. Our economy has suffered. It is almost impossible to make a living wage as a blue collar laborer now, because you can't complete with the horde of illegal, under-paid, labor.
In the Southwest illegal immigration is a major social problem. Doing nothing isn't really an option.
Watching the pro-illegal-immigration rallies on television is enlightening. Most of the protesters who had flags, carried not the American Flag, but the Mexican flag. There is something fundamentally bizarre about this. Most of our Mexican immigrants would classify themselves as Mexican, and not aspiring Americans. This is somewhat distasteful to me.
I have nothing against most Mexicans, as a matter of fact I grew up in a predominately hispanic neighborhood. Around 60% of my friends have ancestors from Mexico. I am not racist, and I have nothing against Mexicans. But to ignore the fact that the massive tide of illegal immigration causes huge problems is a bit niave.
Yes, this law can open profiling, though the text of it isn't about Mexicans, it is about all illegals. Here, though, the problem is mainly (99%) Mexican, and not Canadian or European.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Properly designed an ABM wouldn't be able to divert the projectile. I believe the forces involved would outweigh the attempt unless it was intercepted pretty early during entry into the atmosphere and part of the beauty of this system is it is already to late by the time it is detected. Also just for good measure. FTA Obama was quoted as saying, "Can't I get a friggin' shark with a laser on it's head? Is that too much to ask?"
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
Which is why it's better for all if we maintain less than doomsday quantities of nukes.
And yes, that man is a saint.
If the TSA's word isn't sufficiently reassuring, we could always stencil "No nukes here, we're saving them for Ivan" on all conventional ordnance...
Who is this Ivan? Is he a terrorist? Why does he need so many nukes?
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
We own the world. Sincerely, USA
That's right, I know WHO YOU ARE asshole. I also had one of your websites taken down recently you stupid prick, on paperlined.org. How's them apples, douchebag? You're a fool, and best part is, now I KNOW who YOU are. When things start f'ing up in your life, don't wonder where it came from.