China Confirms New Generation of ICBM

Taco Cowboy (5327) writes with news of the Chinese military's latest toy, an ICBM capable of delivering multiple warheads across the Pacific. From the article: The DF-41 is designed to have a range of 12,000 kilometers (7,500 miles), according to a report by Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems, putting it among the world's longest-range missiles. ... It is "possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles", the U.S. Defense Department said in a report in June, referring to a payload of several nuclear warheads. It also quoted a Chinese military analyst as saying: "As the U.S. continues to strengthen its missile defense system, developing third generation nuclear weapons capable of carrying multiple warheads is the trend." China's previous longest range missile was the DF-5A, which can carry a single warhead as far as 12,000 km, according to Jane's.

Comments

Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Missile defense shield sounds kind of useless now. China felt the need to develop a weapon that could penetrate such a shield. I wonder why.

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

I never much cared for the West Coast anyway. If they nuke Portland, I'm not even sure we should retaliate.

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be a bit pissed, because that is where I get all my psilocybin mushrooms from!

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. It also is the nation's #1 producer of mustache wax, hipster bikes, vinyl records with "warm sound," and condescending coffee shop know-it-alls.

Re:Oh boy

[AutodidactLabrat]

Parity of threat.
Next time a Republican President feels the urge to 'get tough' he will either find some other method or surrender
About freaking time
If the world learned anything from Oilwar II it is that American Presidents lie in order to start wars when things get tough at the ballot booth
And yes, I said oilwar, because Dick Cheney said War to protect Oil In Iraq back in 1996
China refuses to be another weak victim
Good for them.

Re:Oh boy

[iggymanz]

if Portland is nuked, we should retaliate by nuking Tualatin.

Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[i kan reed]

I thought you were moving out, after those last couple "incidents" with the island. No, don't get angry, it's just that you never pay your rent, and you break everything.

I know, we depended on you a lot during that whole spat we had with USSR, but come on, you never do any chores, you just sit there threatening us until one of us decides it's easier to do it than put up with your shit.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[phantomfive]

The problem is that people keep talking about nuclear arms reduction, which is good, but only discuss it between Russia and the US.

At this point, any talk about reducing nuclear proliferation that doesn't involve China is pointless and naive.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[MightyYar]

I don't think we are quite there yet... China still only has enough nukes to ward off any hawks. If the US and Russia had the same number of nukes as China, we could all pat each other on the back.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[phantomfive]

I don't think we are quite there yet... China still only has enough nukes to ward off any hawks.

Well, how many nukes does it take, exactly, to destroy a country? Realistically, all anyone has is enough nukes to ensure MAD....it's not like the US is able to bomb Russia without retribution. Estimates of China's stockpile vary, up to 3000 warheads. China is secretive and everyone is just guessing what they actually have. Any number you see is just a guess.

In any case, it's pointless to talk about arms-reduction without being aware that one important country is aiming for arms-increase.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

The US and Russia have both had MIRVs since the 70s, and we're still here to talk about it. China is just joining in on the dick-waving competition.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Archtech]

Except that recently the USA has been going to quite extreme lengths to antagonize both China AND Russia. Whereas they (although never the best of pals) have been moving closer together under the outside pressure. I wonder when Brazil, or some other South American nation) will acquire ballistic thermonuclear missiles? India, of course, already has them... what about South Africa?

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Archtech]

"China is secretive..."

Although not quite as secretive as Israel, which (rather cleverly) denies having any nuclear weapons while relying heavily on the fact that everyone knows it does. Reminds me of Raymond Smullyan's celebrated book on logic, entitled "What is the name of this book?"

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive me for being pointless and naive, but I think we should unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal because it's useless and expensive. Are we worried our biggest economic ally will invade a country with more guns than people?

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[DigiShaman]

And these poor bastards chose a real shitty time to be exposing themselves to the rest of the world. With the threat of Ebola and warfare, they were better of waiting 5 more years from now.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't build nukes to invade; you build them to deter. Why do you think nobody has dropped a US carrier since WWII, even though they make such great targets?

China is flexing its muscles in what has traditionally been international waters near its coast. They also want to resolve that whole Taiwan situation in their favor. Both of these situations are kept in check by the bluff of US Naval power in the region. The ability to successfully strike the US mainland, strategically, provides one of several pieces necessary for China to call this bluff. Neither side would realistically come to blows, but a balance of power gives China a far better standing when tensions rise.... and they're going to rise.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[MightyYar]

To do so, these countries would have to withdraw from the NPT. They are free to do this, of course, but it hardly seems like a popular thing to do.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[MightyYar]

Even that almost certainly inflated estimate is only 3/5 the number that the US has and 3/8 that of Russia.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[sysrammer]

If we don't know how many nukes they have, we will estimate high. It appears that that is the only sane way to handle the insanity.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[MachineShedFred]

South Africa dismantled their nuclear program when it was no longer "necessary" to defend apartheid. They gave up all that crap to the IAEA and signed the NPT.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Sentrion]

And hopefully they won't, ever. Because that's where I plan to head when SHTF. Illegal immigration works both ways IMHO.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Archtech]

"To do so, these countries would have to withdraw from the NPT".

You mean the way Israel had to?

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Archtech]

"South Africa dismantled their nuclear program when it was no longer "necessary" to defend apartheid".

Because nuclear missiles are the repressive nation's weapon of choice against rebellious workers.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[blackraven14250]

Israel never signed the treaty. There was no withdrawal.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[MachineShedFred]

They weren't missiles, they were 1940's style uranium gun-type bombs. And they were more worried about the rest of the world coming in and forcibly changing their political structure, which was the reason they spun up the project to begin with.

It's also why it became completely unnecessary when they finally came to their senses.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Gordo_1]

I trust Israel more than China. Israel is a modern democracy and has proven itself capable of handling these weapons. It's had a nuclear deterrent since at least the 1970s and has only ever threatened to use it once, when it had no choice but to threaten its use to protect itself from destruction (against unprovoked Syrian aggression). China is a dictatorship in an arms race with no one in particular and will likely seek to build a nuclear capability able to destroy the entire Western world which it sees as a potential threat to its way of life.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[the eric conspiracy]

Referencing the Daily Mail in an internet forum is the forum equivalent of a nuclear first strike.

Seriously, these guys lie like hell every day. Anything they publish is likely to be complete horseshit.

In this case the root reference for numbers of Chinese warheads over a couple of hundred is known to be an extremely unlikely rant by a Singaporean graduate student in a 1990's vintage Usenet message.

If you see someone citing a number like that either they are trying to foment alarm or are just asshats. In the case of the Daily Mail both are very likely.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Archtech]

So you really think never signing the treaty - but acquiring nuclear weapons anyway - is better than withdrawing?

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, how many nukes does it take, exactly, to destroy a country?

1 + redundancy per target (city, base, etc).

If your want to "destroy" a country with 5 cities and expect a 50% penetration rate of their defenses that's approximately 10 nukes.

Now to actually assure MAD, you have to have enough that after your opponent's first strike you still have that kind of power. So if you estimate your opponent can destroy 90% of your capability in a first strike you'd then need 100 nukes to ensure than you'll still have the 10 you need.

Using those same made up numbers 3000 warheads would be enough for 150 targets (2 nukes per target, after a loss of 90% of initial capacity due to enemy action) which is averaging 3 destroyed cities per US state.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[mrchaotica]

Reminds me of Raymond Smullyan's celebrated book on logic, entitled "What is the name of this book?"

I bet it was ghostwritten by Abbot and Costello.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[TangoMargarine]

Technically it doesn't violate the treaty if you never sign the treaty, so from a lawyer's perspective, yes.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[TangoMargarine]

Why do you think nobody has dropped a US carrier since WWII, even though they make such great targets?

Because nobody particularly wants to start WWIII?

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

China needs the increase military to help enforce its increasing role as world bank. Tomorrow, a country could announce it will not pay China back and China would be at the disadvantage of not being able to go get what they're owed.

I'm not saying a country would try and pull this off (the USA doing this for example would give them an F credit rating and we'd never be able to barrow from any country or bank again.) However, it would be a good enough deterrent for them to invade and secure natural resources from a smaller country and not need to worry about the USA or other large power trying to physically counter the invasion.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[The Grim Reefer]

Even that almost certainly inflated estimate is only 3/5 the number that the US has and 3/8 that of Russia.

3000 is more like 2/5 of the US total stockpile and 37.5% of Russia's total stockpile.

The US has 1920 warheads on active status. Which means they are on a delivery system and can be deployed immediately. There are a total of 7,315 warheads in functional condition/near functional condition in the US arsenal, including those that are active. The remaining 5395 are in "hedge" or "inactive reserve" status. Hedge status means they are not attached to a delivery system, though one is available if needed. And inactive means there is no designated delivery system for the warhead and it my not be in immediately function working order.

Russia has 1600 warheads on active status and 6400 in hedge and inactive.

The link the original poster provided indicates that China may have as many as 3000 warheads on active status. That's a big difference. Especially in regards to first strike capability. However, I don't take a lot of stock in the link as the author doesn't seem to understand the deference between missiles, warheads and weapons as (s)he seems to think they are interchangeable.

To put things into perspective a little. The US built over 70,000 warheads in total and had over 30,000 on active status during the height of the cold war. The Soviet Union built over 50,000

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[MightyYar]

Well, yes. I mean, I'd prefer if everyone signed the treaty but I can certainly see why they chose not to. Same with India and Pakistan.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[phantomfive]

Referencing the Daily Mail in an internet forum is the forum equivalent of a nuclear first strike.

Then go find the original source, it's cited in the article. That is something you can do.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're both (the parent and the grandparent) fucking retards.The purpose of the South African nuke was to ensure the US wouldn't let things go nuclear if Cuban influenced Angola or other Soviet proxies were to make a move on South Africa. It was an unusable insurance policy.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to successfully strike the US mainland, strategically, provides one of several pieces necessary for China to call this bluff. Neither side would realistically come to blows, but a balance of power gives China a far better standing when tensions rise.... and they're going to rise.

I'm not worried about it. The Japanese are going to have nukes within a couple of years, and you can look for Taiwan and maybe even South Korea to follow (especially if the US pulls out of the Korean peninsula some day). Any of them could develop a weapon in short order (rumor has it the Japanese could pull it off in 8-9 months). That triad of Asian democracies have the power to stand China down, especially if they become nuclear powers.

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

If not invasion, then what exactly are we trying to deter? Nobody has dropped a US carrier - not becuase they'd expect an immediate retaliatory nuke (obvious overkill), but because doing so would give us an internationally-acceptable excuse to invade. Attacking a USA with no nukes is like poking a bear with no teeth; still very dangerous!

Re:Oh, hi there, threat of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

A US carrier is a pretty hard target these days. The Aegis defense system is pretty amazing, and IIRC there are always at least two destroyers with Aegis active near a carrier. Plus the network of sonar across the Pacific, and all the hunter-killer subs we have roaming around (even though their numbers have dropped a lot recently, due to the Navy getting rid of some of them). Sure, you could drop a nuke on one, but if you use anything other than an ICBM to attack it, the nuke probably isn't getting there intact.

Known since forever

[cheesybagel]

This missile development effort has been known of since forever. Pictures of the TEL has even showed up. What has not been made public is if the missile is fully operational and deployed or not. The Chinese have also not displayed DF-41 in the National Day parade either.

This article brings nothing new as there is still no official report of it being operational.

Re:Known since forever

[LifesABeach]

Next generation? If this were the 1950's, multi headed ICBM's were regulars in the early 1960's. If China wanted Next Generation, try a Moon colony, or Mars colony. How about a working FTL? And just where the hell is my 200 inch Smart TV for $200? If the chairwoman wants fear; fear its nation's policy of rejoicing in Ignorent Sloth.

Re:Known since forever

[cheesybagel]

The newness in the DF-41 is that it would be the first solid fuel Chinese ICBM with the ability to hit the entire Continental US. Plus it would be mobile since it is supposed to be launched from a truck mounted TEL. The only system the Chinese currently which can hit the entire CONUS is the DF-5A which is a hypergolic liquid fuel missile which is so damned big it can only be launched from silos. Supposedly the Chinese dug an mountain up in order to have make these silos decades ago but they are still vulnerable to first strike. Unlike the US, UK, France, Russia, the Chinese nuclear submarine force is pathetic so they can hardly count on the submarines as a viable deterrent either.

This would basically put the Chinese up with the Russians in terms of land missile capability. Ahead of the US too since the only land based missiles are silo based like the Minuteman. The US did have a project for a road mobile ICBM called the Midgetman at one point but it was cancelled.

Re:Known since forever

[Anonymous Coward]

The US doesn't really need road-mobile ICBMs. We've got the best ballistic missile subs in the world, and a lot of them, not to mention our worldwide network of airbases, capable of launching nuclear strikes with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles if we so desire.

Re:Known since forever

[MiniMike]

This missile development effort has been known of since forever. Pictures of the TEL has even showed up.

So is it based on stolen U.S. designs, or stolen Russian designs?

Re:Known since forever

[The Grim Reefer]

The US doesn't really need road-mobile ICBMs. We've got the best ballistic missile subs in the world, and a lot of them, not to mention our worldwide network of airbases, capable of launching nuclear strikes with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles if we so desire.

I'll give you the subs. The US boomers are plentiful and scary as shit. But stealth aircraft are very slow, and do not carry high yield MIRVs. They can carry up to 16 B83 bombs These are variable yield, up to 1.2 Megaton dumb bombs. So they have to be dropped, not fired like a missile. Additionally, I don't think a B2 attack on China or Russia would be very effective. Especially if it came after they already launched a first strike, and presentably the US had already retaliated with land and sub based ICBM's

Currently the boomer fleet is the biggest deterrent there is. As far as we know, there is no reliable way of finding them, and one Ohio class sub can carry 16 Trident-2 SLBM's. With up to 8 of which can be MIRVed With Mk-4 reentry vehicles carrying up to 4 W88 warheads. The W88 is estimated to be a little under a half a megaton yield. The other 8 Trident-2 missiles are single warhead. Granted, many, if not most of the MIRVs are dummy warheads, but no one knows for sure outside of those who "need to know". So there is the potential of 40 half megaton warheads on each of the 14 SSBN Ohio class subs.

As far as I remember the W80 warhead for the Tomahawk cruise missile has been retired. So the Los Angles, Virginia, and Seawolf class subs can no longer carry nuclear warheads. If I'm mistake, then that's another 50 or so subs that can launch a nuclear strike via a Tomahawk

Re:Known since forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Their own design, most likely inspired in the Russian technology but definitively theirs. And yes, feel free to thank McCarty for exporting the brain that make it possible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_(rocket_family)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

Re:Known since forever

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as we know, there is no reliable way of finding them

You may be right but satellite tech, remote sensing and vision processing have all improved a helluva lot since the sixties and I'd be a lot less confident now. Not to mention low tech spies or ocean floor sensors or even tracking limpets.

Re:Known since forever

[Anonymous Coward]

I am curious where you get your information about the Ohio class submarine. Every source I look at says the submarine has 24 launch tubes and the U.S. version of the trident 2 is treaty restricted to 4 re-entry vehicles, but the U.K. version can carry several more. The tomahawk nuclear weapons have all been removed from service due to the S.T.A.R.T. treaty. The U.S. can bring a world of hurt to just about anyone with the trident 2 missile, and China knows that.

Re:Known since forever

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming the Russians do not have a capable, covert recon capability. Given that the U.S. has some sort of this, maybe your assumption is wrong.

Just think of a microphone which listens for years and only comes to surface (to radio home) if it hears something interesting. Only to submerge quickly again for a new listening cycle.

Before you say "battery" - that problem has been solved long ago.

Re:Known since forever

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be these Barbarians build an ICBM on their own. After all, it was America who invented Silk !

bad guys

[Cardoor]

someone remind me again... they're the bad guys, and we're the good guys, right? it's all so confusing sometimes - i don't always know when i'm meant to be properly scared into fully thinking and doing what i'm told. the news generally does a good job, but sometimes i wish Vince McMahon were put in charge of all news... life was so much simpler when it was Hulk Hogan vs. the Iron Sheikh.

Re:bad guys

[cyberchondriac]

But nobody said you were supposed to be scared. Nobody said anything about sides. This is simply factual. When the US upgrades it's military capabilities, that too makes news all over the rest of the world. Same applies to every other developed country, particularly where nukes or nuclear deployment capability is concerned.

Re:bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you one of those who think every morsel of off-color news about a country not your own is a secret propaganda attempt? Sheesh I wonder what your European Slashdot peers must think, all these /. articles about shit that goes on in the US, they must be EU propaganda meant to make Europe look like the "good guys".

Re:bad guys

[Cardoor]

on the contrary - we are told to be scared, and take positions of 'side' all the time, albeit usually very subtly (though none the weaker impact for it's implied nature). i agree, the article appears to be about facts - i was speaking to a larger theme which i think you missed.

Re:bad guys

[LifesABeach]

Not really, they're just competitors whose aging leaders still think that MH-ICBM's make a bargining chip. The current symbol for global leadership is a black credit card.

Re:bad guys

[WindBourne]

Really? You do not think that Russia and China are not spying on an equal, if not higher level? Hmmm. You obviously have not worked in a security position.

Re:bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me again how many people have been killed by US poison gas attacks like the one on Halabja or used in the Al-Anfal Campaign

we;ll just have to get

[rossdee]

next generation defenses

How about we reconfigure the main deflector dish to emit an inverse tachyon pulse...

Re:we;ll just have to get

[ArcadeMan]

Doesn't matter what you do, you're still in the holodeck.

Re:we;ll just have to get

[LifesABeach]

I think it was done already, multi headed ICBM's were in the 1960's. I guess we should go to yellow alert? (pun intended)

No worries

[MRe_nl]

All current missile defense shields are kind of useless.
China felt the need to achieve military parity.
Developing ICBM technology comes with Rocketry and is simply a prerequisite for Space Flight.

Re:No worries

[Dishevel]

Yes. All space programs need MiRVs. It has nothing to do with military power.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wanted to send a bunch of probes to a single planet/moon, would you launch a whole bunch of tiny rockets?

Re:No worries

[MRe_nl]

http://www.civfanatics.com/ima...

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Iron Dome is "useless."

Re:No worries

[cheesybagel]

Iron Dome is useless for intercepting ICBMs. The name of the Israeli system for intercepting ICBMs is the Arrow missile.

Re:No worries

[DigiShaman]

That, and the fact both the US and Russia thought it was a good idea to have multi-thousand warheads pointed at each other during the Cold War. It's the original DDOS attack. There is nothing new about this approach; and you're right, this is just a political excuse for China of something they were going to do anyways.

Re:No worries

[WindBourne]

Uh, no. MIRV, and solid rockets are very different from space flight, esp. when none of their 'civilian' rockets are solid based.
And trying to hide what you are up, combined with working to be able to take out spying and comm links at once, is NOT about achieving parity.

Re:No worries

[Dishevel]

You believe that China is only in it for space? Good for you. Do not let history or current events get in the way of your fantasy.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Space flight is a side effect of developing ICBM... do you really think it's about spaceflight and not about military?

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Developing ICBM technology comes with Rocketry and is simply a prerequisite for Space Flight.

Really? I've built everything from a suborbital, manned rocket to a fuel facility orbiting Jool to service long-term exploration missions in KSP without developing an ICBM.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrow is also borderline useless vs actual ICBM's, absolutely 100% useless against MIRVS.

Re:No worries

[arse maker]

Sure, just like america is.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. All space programs need MiRVs. It has nothing to do with military power.

This way, everybody gets to steer.. even Astro!

Re:No worries

[AnOnyxMouseCoward]

Yes because historically China has always been an imperial force seeking domination, and not the country that got shat on repeatedly in the 19th/20th century.

Hint: Almost all of China's wars were internal (or at least in the territory of current China). The Opium war and the invasion by Japan led the country to decide they need to play the game others are playing, which is what they've been doing since then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles

It totally is about military power now, but I find it hard to not understand them, due to the history.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

#fuckinlogic

Re:No worries

[Dishevel]

I am not sure who in this conversation tried to state that the US ICBM program is about space science.

Could you please elaborate on your point.

Re:No worries

[Dishevel]

History says that when a powerful country can not feed its people and is growing faster than their natural resources will allow they will take what they need to continue their growth.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

History says that when a powerful country can not feed its people and is growing faster than their natural resources will allow they will take what they need to continue their growth.

Dude you got a problem with Hispanics?
You racist fuck.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up WindBourne?
Elon taking a coffee break from ravaging your oft penetrated anus enough for you to sneak a few vapid posts in between anal violations?

Re:No worries

[AutodidactLabrat]

According to U.S. DOE physicist Theodore Postal, who exposed the lies in Star Wars, Iron Dome has a 5% success rate AT BEST.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Hint: Almost all of China's wars were internal (or at least in the territory of current China).

i.e., every time they have invaded somewhere (like Tibet) they don't just conquer them, they annex them.

You disproved your own point.

Re:No worries

[TangoMargarine]

Hint: Almost all of China's wars were internal (or at least in the territory of current China).

*cough* And whose territory were they before they were in China?

Re:No worries

[Luckyo]

Chinese. Their culture dates back more than any existing civilization. If you're going to pretend that they somehow have no right to their land because someone else arrived there first, you'll have to first go through the same claim against every single nation on European, African and Asian continent. Americas don't even need to be mentioned for obvious reasons. After you're done with those, you can start laying claims against nations that were there before the current nations. Then you'll have to do it again a and in most cases, one more time.

Once you're done with all that, then you can start looking at China. The oldest known surviving civilization on the planet, that only got shafted during colonial period because of one bad emperor making a terrible choice to burn the entire Chinese navy and stop their sailing activities.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously. Because something is internal when you claim it for yourselves, and then get ready to fight others for it. For example, the entire South China Sea.

Re:No worries

[TangoMargarine]

I never said I supported the argument, and saying "China has always been here" sounds eminently like an argument that only a native Chinese person would ever use.

Cf. invading Tibet and those other western provinces. Or "those people were Chinese, too," I expect?

Re: No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Every

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, he only has a problem with whites, so it's ok to be a racist fuck. /sarcasm

Re:No worries

[MRe_nl]

The Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations are by those standards at least a thousand years older than the Chinese. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:No worries

[AnOnyxMouseCoward]

Totally agree, it wasn't always "China", and there are many, many different tribes currently included in "Chinese". In fact, the current dominant ethic Han were not always the emperors, but I digress.

Here, let me google that for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

There's an amazing animated map on the right. The entire east/south of China has been "China" ever since, roughly, 300 BC (yep, that's 2300 years ago). The west (which, must I remind you, is nowhere as populated as the east, and certainly was even less populated before "modern China") was entirely conquered, or at least considered China, for the first time in roughly 1200 (800 years ago). Some fragments had been conquered and then lost previous to that, but whatever. In 1892, China occupied also all of current Mongolia, too, apparently.

Basically China as we know it is maybe new, but there has been mingling of population and wars over _thousands of years_. You could argue it belonged to.. different warring factions, or city-states, back in the days, but that's like saying the Italians had a bunch of city-states. As a whole though? The concept of "China" has been in the region considered China now for a long, long, long time. You can argue about Tibet, though it was conquered by Mongols in the 13th century, along with China and a lot of the Middle-East, and by the Qing in the early 18th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet#Manchurian_Qing_Dynasty). I mean... I don't know man, what do you want me to say? Those ethnic tribes considered "Chinese" have been sharing this territory for a couple hundred/thousands of years, and they've had a lot of wars, for sure, but that's no different than most old civilizations...

The point is, the current China has now joined the Western world's game of Diplomacy, and people are just unhappy at a new player. There is no historical reason to believe they would use their ICBMs more than the US or anyone else, and I can't blame them for wanting to play the game because they got screwed not playing it for the past hundred years.

Re:No worries

[TangoMargarine]

I'm not saying them making ICBMs is any more or less wrong than anyone else. Luckyo just made it sound like China should be the only country on Earth who doesn't get called out for having conquered their land from someone else.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Cf. invading Tibet and those other western provinces. Or "those people were Chinese, too," I expect?

Unfortunately you violated the cardinal rule of debating that the first hypocrite to bring in Tibet loses the argument.

As if the Europeans had any connection with the native Americans a few hundred years ago.

It would be the same as berating your opponent for having a stinking anus...your own is no less stinky I can assure you.

Re:No worries

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Did you notice the "existing" part?

Re:No worries

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"According to." I'd be careful with that argument. So far, AFAIK, he hasn't had that much material to work on in that matter.

Re:No worries

[TangoMargarine]

Where did I say that China was the only one doing it? In fact, I was showing Luckyo that China wasn't somehow unique in having never conquered anyone. I was being the exact opposite of hypocritical.

Try to actually read my argument before jerking off another random Slashdot argument like hypocrisy onto the page, please. "Hypocrisy" is not a synonym for "idiot."

Re:No worries

[TangoMargarine]

Egypt is still around. How much closer together are Traditional China and Communist China than Pharaonic Egypt and Egypt Now?

Re:No worries

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Much closer, unless you focus solely on the Coptic minority, where the culture *does* have some semi-continuity. Although the shadoofs are, of course, still there.

Re:No worries

[MRe_nl]

I think there is as little (or as much) linkage between say The Eighteen Kingdoms and modern China as there is between ancient and modern Egypt or Mesopotamia.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, I'm getting a refund for that speed reading course I borrowed for free from the library.
Hypocrisy indeed not applicable, idiocy however does.
As mentioned by others, Chinese border had ebb and flowed throughout history (as most countries).
"Tibet and those other western provinces" however had been pretty entrenched in the core China territory for much of that history (hence the claim conflict mostly internal, and hence your idiocy for not knowing the history of the region before opening your mouth).
During the Mongol era, "China" extended all the way to modern day Hungary.
The Chinese certainly has a much deeper cultural connection with "Tibet and those other western provinces", than the Europeans descendents have with North America.
But on the flip side, in another 1,000 years you too can claim America as "internal" with some legitimacy.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Ted Postol has some credentials.
Which is a lot more than can be said about ANY OTHER sources about the Iron Dome that I have seen (positive or negative).

Let's get one thing straight though, Iron Dome, yea or nay, is NOT Israeli by a long shot.
You can bet 90% of the parts of the Iron Dome is imported from the US/west, and the remaining 10% is manufactured on equipment made in the US/west.

The proof? Any time Israel tries to sell off some defense system on the open market, the Americans always have the final say whether sale is allowed or not.
Often times the sale falls through because the Americans wouldn't allow it.

Re:No worries

[Luckyo]

Current Egyptian civilization is not the same civilization that existed in times of Ancient Egypt. That one lies dead, destroyed by Ancient Persian Civilization. Which was also destroyed by Greek led by Alexander the Great. Which was supplanted by Karthagian Empire after his death. Which was destroyed by Roman Empire. The current Egypt is a part of Arab civilization that conquered North African parts of Rome. Which then split putting Egypt as a part of Byzantine empire. Which was finally conquered by Muslim Arabs, bringing to existence the current civilization of Egypt, based around Muslim Arab culture.

Hence my "you'll have to count current civilization, the civilization that existed in the region before that civilization, and then civilization that existed before that and then possible another one". I was specifically thinking of Ancient Egypt.

Re:No worries

[Luckyo]

Ignore the "The current Egypt is a part of Arab civilization that conquered North African parts of Rome". Had a bit of a brain fart there due to lack of sleep.

Re:No worries

[Luckyo]

They have one continuous civilization based on same culture.

Same cannot be said about any other civilization currently in existence.

Re:No worries

[cold fjord]

Sure, just like america is.

The Space Shuttle wasn't a nuclear warhead delivery system.

Re:No worries

[TangoMargarine]

Not like Mao was doing his best to eradicate that culture or anything...

Re:No worries

[TangoMargarine]

During the Mongol era, "China" extended all the way to modern day Hungary.

Bullshit. The Mongol Empire was not the Chinese Empire. Maybe one or more of the chunks it disintegrated into can have some lineage traced down to China, but no.

Re:No worries

[Luckyo]

He tried. But Chinese culture survived those worse than him.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither was the batmobile, what is your point?

Re:No worries

[aliquis]

IsraelÂs supposedly shot down about 90% of Hamas rockets.

Now those rockets likely aren't top of the line but in IsraelÂs case it work.

Re:No worries

[MRe_nl]

Israel shot down between 5% and 27% of Hamas rockets
depending on the (military) sources you're reading.

Those rockets are top of the line.
Their entire air-defense system is top of the line.

Re:No worries

[aliquis]

I meant Hamas rockets likely isn't top of the line :)

Do the Iron dome use Arrow?

I assume SM-3 is better?

But yeah, I don't assume Israel use crap gear.

Re:No worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Does pointing out a non-military application of MiRVs automatically imply that all MiRV use is non-military? You must feel really smart when you assume the worst in people.

Re:No worries

[lsatenstein]

You believe that China is only in it for space? Good for you. Do not let history or current events get in the way of your fantasy.

Of course China is in it only for space. The USA is its best customer, and why kill your customers. The USA 1% wealthy have closed most manufacturing industries and have moved these off-shore. The 1% no longer need to live in the USA, but will have a luxurious live in a beautiful location, with good weather, with the best of the best.

Again, what is left in the USA? Only primary industries (coal, oil, gas and cars) and not much else

WOPR

[TheDarkener]

Herro, Professor Farken. Would you rike to pray a game?

Re:WOPR

[Joe_Dragon]

What side do you want?

1. USSR
2. USA
3. North Korea
4. China
5. France
6. UK
7. India
8. Pakistan
9. Israel

Re:WOPR

[WindBourne]

Did you forget Iran? And Venezuela was said to be working with China/North Korea, as is Burma.

Re:WOPR

[Anonymous Coward]

You chose Iran.

Turn 1: Israel launches unilateral airstrike against your power plants and alleged enrichment facilities. Your nuclear ambitions are set back twenty years. France is pissed, but you lose anyway.

Game over.

Re:WOPR

[Anonymous Coward]

He is simply listing the countries with nuclear weapons, so keep both Venezuela and Burma out of the game. And add South Africa for the hard campaign.

Re:WOPR

[Anonymous Coward]

to pray a game?

Dear Battlefield Taiwan, blessed be thy loadings, blessed be thy exits; provide us with our everyday cruise missiles, provide us our everyday mirvs; let there be an entertaining war among men, let there be high achievements at the ladder. Amen.

Re:WOPR

[AbRASiON]

You fucker, I nearly spilt my coffee.

Re:WOPR

[WindBourne]

Both Venezuela and Burma are working on nukes even now. So, no, they belong in the game.

Re:WOPR

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the funniest post I've seen in awhile. =)

Chinese liars

[Anonymous Coward]

China knows full well that the US does not have MIRVs, and we agreed not to make them ever since Cold War treaties with The Soviets.

The MIRV is a first strike stragey in nuclear war. It is NOT about defense.

Re:Chinese liars

[cciechad]

I'm guessing your trolling. The trident is definitely a MIRV system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Re:Chinese liars

[Talderas]

Aside from our plethora of Trident II missiles deployed in our nuclear missile submarines that utilize MIRVs. America has never been really into land based ICBMs and we don't deploy land-based ICBM MIRVs although the Minuteman III is MIRV capable. We've always prefer air launched (bomber) and submarine launched nuclear weapons. It was the Russians that really dove into land-based ICBMs and the big thing we were always concerned with during SALT and START treaties was the Russians increasing the throw-weight of their land based ICBMs.

Re:Chinese liars

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much every intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile constructed since 1960 has been tipped with MIRV warheads.

Re:Chinese liars

[WindBourne]

MIRV is neither defensive or offensive. OTOH, the ability to take out an enemies comm and spying network IS first strike.

Re:Chinese liars

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also China's commitment to the "no first use" policy which they reaffirm over and over again.

Re:Chinese liars

[MachineShedFred]

the US does not have MIRVs,

Yeah, except for the Minuteman III, the Trident SLBMs, and the now retired Peacekeeper/MX. You know, only 100% of the US ICBM force.

Re:Chinese liars

[MachineShedFred]

MIRV has nothing to do with first strike. It has everything to do with making anti-ballistic missile systems entirely ineffective.

Re:Chinese liars

[Sarten-X]

The problem with that is the question of what's considered a "use".

Is the use of a small backpack nuke enough to justify an all-out assault? What about a dirty bomb set off by a state-sponsored terrorist? If a country starts a campaign using thousands of conventional explosive bombs against Chinese targets, is that enough for China to retaliate with a nuke?

It is a fallacy to assume that we will always fall down the slippery slope, but it is also a fallacy to assume that we can't.

Re:Chinese liars

[TangoMargarine]

Or like the fake Polish radio station assault Hitler staged to justify the invasion of Poland. "Look, look! Somebody nuked us! Don't question how a U.S. operative with a suitcase nuke managed to get into [insert disposable Chinese metropolitan area], get out the codes, you fool!!"

Re:Chinese liars

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs MIRVs when you have hypersonic ?

How it feels to be on the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, we're the good guys. All these nukes we keep pointing at you are just for peace keeping.

Re:How it feels to be on the other side

[WindBourne]

I would feel just fine if China was doing nothing but nukes. However trying to hide them, along with developing systems to take out spy and comm sats makes me a lot more nervous. The reason is that when you are hiding things and wanting to take our our ability to verify what they are up to, that indicates that they are up to a first strike planning.
With the Soviet, we and them were committed to MAD. IOW, we really did not want to go to war because we really saw it as unwinnable. Many of Chinese leaders, esp. in the military, see nuke war as winnable. The ONLY way that it is winnable is if you launch first and destroy the enemies ability to verify what you are up to.

Re:How it feels to be on the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to our world.

Re:How it feels to be on the other side

[Sentrion]

It could also solve their over-population problems as well.

Re:How it feels to be on the other side

[crimson tsunami]

WTF, what possible reason would anyone have for a first strike against the US? Knowing full well that the best

outcome would be both countries being completely destroyed. It's just simple deterrence, same as everyone else.

Re:How it feels to be on the other side

[WindBourne]

The problem with what you are saying is that if our comms and spy sats are taken out, AND somebody launches quickly from the ocean, then it is possible to destroy a nation, even America.

And China's work is headed in that direction. As I said elsewhere, back in the original cold war, American and Russian leaders did NOT want nuke war, and in fact, put limits on what our nations could do to prevent making first strike winnable.
But China refuses those changes. Worst yet, they have a massive spying going on over here which is letting them know exactly what we have, and how to take it out.

No, China is to be feared because they will in fact, cause a nuke war if they continue on this path.

Re: How it feels to be on the other side

[AgNO3]

So what you are saying is we dont have ways to take out spy and comm sats. Just the dirty chinese do. Uh huh.

Re: How it feels to be on the other side

[WindBourne]

The technology that we developed was from the 60's. And then USSR and America did treaties that forbade just that. So, no, we really do not have any. OTOH, China does not have treaties forbidding them, and refuse to enter into any that will.

Re:How it feels to be on the other side

[crimson tsunami]

Even assuming everything goes according to Chinas plan and the entire US is turned into a radioactive wasteland with absolutely zero survivors and not a thing left standing.
US subs will still completely destroy China in retaliation, just like I already mentioned.
It's pointless.

You could have all the comms and spy satellites that you like and still be vulnerable to a first strike from beneath the sea, so they aren't really gaining anything here anyway. (Well they are gaining things in other areas, but not for a nuke first strike)

Re: How it feels to be on the other side

[crimson tsunami]

20 seconds of googling

On February 21, 2008, USA destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite USA-193 using a RIM-161 Standard Missile 3.

Re: How it feels to be on the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull Crap U.S. Vought ASM-135 ASAT missile

Re: How it feels to be on the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Well more recent BS excuse to test ASAT weapons.

    United States
See also: USA 193 and Operation Burnt Frost
Launch of the SM-3 missile used to destroy USA-193.

USA-193 was an American spy satellite, which was launched on 14 December 2006 by a Delta II rocket, from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was reported about a month after launch that the satellite had failed. In January 2008, it was noted that the satellite was decaying from orbit at a rate of 1,640 feet (500 m) per day.[8] On 14 February 2008, it was reported that the U.S. Navy had been instructed to fire an SM-3 ABM weapon at it, to act as an anti-satellite weapon.[9]

According to the U.S. Government, the primary reason for destroying the satellite was the approximately 1,000 lb (450 kg) of toxic hydrazine fuel contained on board, which could pose health risks to persons in the immediate vicinity of the crash site should any significant amount survive the re-entry.[10] On February 20, 2008, it was announced that the launch was carried out successfully and an explosion was observed consistent with the destruction of the hydrazine fuel tank.[11]

Experts debated whether the hydrazine tank would have survived an uncontrolled reentry. However, if it had, any human fatality would still have been very unlikely. Although hydrazine is toxic, a small dose would not have been immediately lethal. The chance of the (assumed intact) hydrazine tank landing close enough to at least one person for that person to be killed if he or she lingered in the vicinity of the crash site was about one percent, while the cost of the intercept was about $100 million.

there is only a ban on testing not developing.

Re: How it feels to be on the other side

[WindBourne]

That was not R&D. That was taking out a sat that still had fuel and it was on the edge of the atmosphere.
There is a HUGE difference in our taking out a falling sat, vs. in active development of a massive anti-sat program.

Angry Proliferation Game

[Scot Seese]

Nuclear proliferation is becoming to sound like the plot to some absurdist classic Star Trek episode.

The leaders of all the planets' nations sit in a room, arrayed in a circle. The room is white and completely bare, except for their chairs, and in the center of the room a single gleaming, chromed post rising from the floor about 3 feet tall. Atop the shiny post is a single large, tennis-ball sized red button.

It is widely accepted among all the leaders that pressing the button activates a mechanism that destroys the planet. Yet this doesn't stop them from rising from their chairs, and arguing - yelling, taunting even - other leaders around the circle, so enraging them that at times several of them are close to snapping, rushing forward and pounding the red button.

Because at the end of the day, the leaders are all flawed human beings, driven by the psychological baggage of behavioral evolutionary holdovers, cultural and religious constructs, and overwhelmingly the inability to view the other participants in the room as peers equally deserving of resources as the tribes represented by the leaders.

Sooner or later, someone - in a moment of hubris, misplaced confidence in their own technology or military, or religious zeal - is going to dash out of their chair and smack that button.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[MRe_nl]

"The leaders of all the planets' nations sit in a room, arrayed in a circle. The men are all white and completely bald, except for the Chinese",

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[cyberchondriac]

And yet in nearly 7 decades of MAD, no one has ever done so. What's the alternative, trust that others will actually do what they say and remove all nuclear capability? Every country would see that as a golden opportunity to keep some hidden by hook, nook, or crook, so that then they're the only ones in the world with nukes.. win!
Or more likely, every country would do that, so we're right back where we're started, albeit with lower numbers of warheads.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Apostrophe use? What other planets have nuclear powered nations?

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[jgtg32a]

Little to early to say but so far it looks like removing nuclear capability isn't really working out too well for Ukraine.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Rockoon]

so we're right back where we're started, albeit with lower numbers of warheads

..and everyone thinking that they now have an advantage.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Anonymous Coward]

MAD 'worked' because it was controlled by (relatively) few people such that those few people were effective chosen for their willingness to NOT push the button (unless someone else pushed it first.)

MAD does NOT 'work' when is controlled by (relatively) many people, some of whom came into power by pushing the button. Possibly multiple times.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the stupid ones that actually thought that no one else was a clever as they were.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Archtech]

Little to early to say but so far it looks like removing nuclear capability isn't really working out too well for Ukraine.

Although it's lucky for the inhabitants of Donyetsk and Lugyansk. Because the nutjobs in Kiev would probably have used them by now.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Archtech]

Little to early to say but so far it looks like removing nuclear capability isn't really working out too well for Ukraine.

Anyway, the glove puppets in Kiev are being operated by people with plenty of WMD. Which they are hoping to line up, wheel-to-wheel, right on the Russian border. As well as filling up the Black Sea with nuclear-armed ships, especially if they can take Crimea away from Russia and deprive it of a sea port closer than the Arctic Circle.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the alternative, trust that others will actually do what they say and remove all nuclear capability?

I don't think that's really the intended goal. The whole point is that "nuclear capability" current sits in the ~17,000 warheads range with a few countries (US and Russia equally) accounting for ~93% of said warheads.

... so we're right back where we're started, albeit with lower numbers of warheads.

Right. And that's the goal. Not that countries don't have nukes. But that even if every country on Earth had 10 nuclear warheads--enough to wipe out 10 major cities--we'd only have ~2,000 warheads total. Enough still to wipe out humanity, but it'd take a lot more coordinated effort. It wouldn't just be a few angry men in a room with one red button.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Archtech]

Ironically, MAD works only when none of the participants are actually mad. Unfortunately for us.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[cyberchondriac]

I don't know about that. No matter how many people there are with a button to push, no *sane* person wants to have their own country obliterated into dust and glass.
The only problem with MAD is if one of those people with a button to push is actually mad, like insane. But then again such a person is also highly unlikely to cooperate with eliminating their nukes too, so.. duck and cover.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[AmiMoJo]

What good would nukes have done Ukraine? They could threaten to nuke Moscow, but only if they themselves were willing to be utterly obliterated. Moscow has a fairly advanced missile shield too, so it might not even work.

I really doubt they would have pushed that button over Crimea, or over the current low level conflict. Considering how fractured the country is and that the government was recently overthrown in a coup it isn't even clear if they could have launched if their leader wanted to. If they had had nukes chances are Russia would have moved on them much earlier anyway, to neutralize that threat. WMD are always a good excuse for attacking an unstable country, and unlike Iraq they wouldn't even have been imaginary.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[cyberchondriac]

Okay, I can agree with that. And in fact, the US and Russia have reduced their arms over the years. But I think many people are calling for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, and that's never gonna happen, that'd be like repealing the 2nd amendment.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Kjella]

And yet in nearly 7 decades of MAD, no one has ever done so.

The Romans managed 206 years in their "pax romana", it's not exactly proof MAD is working or everlasting. What we do know is that there's an awfully big boom when it doesn't work.

What's the alternative, trust that others will actually do what they say and remove all nuclear capability? Every country would see that as a golden opportunity to keep some hidden by hook, nook, or crook, so that then they're the only ones in the world with nukes.. win!

Enough to win if everyone else sees it as a madman's weapon that should be neutralized before they go all Hitler on us? Because when you pop outside that little bubble called global thermonuclear war everyone else who talked about killing hundreds of millions of civilians would be considered a genocidal lunatic. Could a rouge nuclear nation be stopped conventionally? How quickly could a global alliance against you gain nukes again? Will nukes get through rocket shields? How sure are they nobody else also kept some?

Don't forget that the "nuclear club" has a pretty solid double standard where they perfectly legitimize having their own nukes and last I checked the official NATO and Russian policy is that they can respond to any attack, conventional or nuclear with nuclear force while they strongly work for non-proliferation to prevent others from having the same weapons at their disposal. They trust it so much they very strongly don't want anyone else to join the "MAD club", why do you think that is? Because they know the whole thing is fickle as hell and someone might end up pushing the button.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[cyberchondriac]

That said, I can see where that might backfire too, in an extreme.
Say Country-A reduces its capability too much, Country-B might, if losing a war, find it to be an acceptable risk if it launches a first strike on Country-A, assuming Country-A can "only" take out a few cities (since Country-A's missile silos are also targets in that first strike) leaving Country-B, for the most part, intact, while annihilating Country-A. Of course there are other factors: number of desirable targets in a country, size, etc..

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[cyberchondriac]

Don't forget that the "nuclear club" has a pretty solid double standard where they perfectly legitimize having their own nukes and last I checked the official NATO and Russian policy is that they can respond to any attack, conventional or nuclear with nuclear force while they strongly work for non-proliferation to prevent others from having the same weapons at their disposal. They trust it so much they very strongly don't want anyone else to join the "MAD club", why do you think that is? Because they know the whole thing is fickle as hell and someone might end up pushing the button

You'll get no argument from me there. It's not a great solution by any means, but seems to be the most realistic at the moment.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Say Country-A reduces its capability too much. Country-B might, if losing a war, find it to be an acceptable risk if it launches a first strike on Country-A, assuming Country-A can "only" take out a few cities (since Country-A's missile silos are also targets in that first strike) leaving Country-B, for the most part, intact, while annihilating Country-A.

The problem with your scenario is that if Country B only has about as many nukes as it takes to annihilate Country A, then after destroying country A, they'll have countries C to ZZ which might readily see Country B as too much of a risk and either (1) conquer country B though conventional means since they don't have enough spare nukes to press much of a counter strike or (2) just outright nuke the country as viewing it as too much of a rogue threat to exist.

The whole reason "MAD" as an idea was/is so bad is that in the current scenario, Country A is targeting Country B-MM and Country B is targeting Country A and MM-ZZ. Sure, hypothetically they'll only actually launch against each other, but even just that could result in a nuclear winter, lots of nuclear fallout, etc. As horrible as nuking out whole countries is on the scale of 10 or 20 nukes, it hardly compares to launching thousands of nukes. That Russia and the US have significantly shrunk their stockpiles still doesn't fundamentally change this.

In any case, that people call for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons is an extreme fantasy on their part (like people calling for world peace). I think that as much as it's a lauded goal and their cause, I feel few actually believe it's obtainable. But being the end objective, it's the best step towards greatly moving towards a much saner world. Just like how plenty of people who don't want guns don't call for a repeal of the 2nd amendment but for man's better nature to simple continuously give up guns by choice.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[MachineShedFred]

I don't think even those nut jobs would be retarded enough to effectively nuke themselves.

Or are you talking about tossing a few at Russia? That would be even stupider.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Scot Seese]

Ironically, despite my comment sounding as though I may be opposed to nuclear proliferation, I am not. I'm only opposed to nuclear capability falling into the hands of stateless organizations or despotic regimes unbeholden to the wishes and well being of their populace.

Nuclear weapons are an incredibly powerful normalizing force, creating symmetry from military, industrial, technological and population asymmetry.

In this century, nations such as France or Great Britain lack the ability or political will to project real military power beyond their borders against potential future aggressors such as Russia or China - but the relatively small number of very sophisticated, highly accurate ICBMS maintained by both nations acts as a guarantor of sovereignty and minimizes the likelihood of invasion by a land army.

That both France and Great Britain have placed the majority of their nuclear arsenal in Boomers - ballistic missile submarines - making them virtually impossible to neutralize - creates the ultimate "Dead Mans' Switch", in which case you will never be able to destroy those nations without suffering a terrible retaliatory strike.

Terrible weapons of destruction? Yes. That have ironically prevented large scale conflict between developed nations for over seventy years.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[MachineShedFred]

It doesn't matter if the silos are targets in the first wave - early warning satellites and whatnot would make sure the silos are empty before the warheads arrive.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Sentrion]

Launch staff are consistently drilled to launch the nukes on command. They receive launch codes and attempt to arm the nukes. When the codes provided are part of a drill, the nukes don't launch. If the codes are legit, then the launch crew has no idea until they hear the silo doors begin to open.

So as long as the soldiers are properly trained and show a track record of doing what their told, they might as well be a hard circuit to the launch systems.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Sarten-X]

Xorploxina, for one. The extensive military capability of the Xorplo race is well documented in any sufficiently-funded library.

However, your concern about the grammatical structure of the sentence is well-founded, as the Xorplo ambassadors have not attended any interplanetary events in recent memory.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[TomGreenhaw]

Reminds of something we joked about years ago. It's like a couple of kids, knee deep in gasoline each with a pack of matches arguing over who has more matches. Now we have more kids with more matches...

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[argStyopa]

1963 called, wondered where the imminent apocalypse was?

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Aqualung812]

Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I always was told there was a "DRILL" code book and a "LIVE" code book, so the operator would know.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[dunkelfalke]

It does very well, in fact.
You see, the reason why Ukrainian army is so weak is that while they have inherited a shitload of Soviet weapons (Ukraine was the second largest weapon site of the USSR), they have sold almost everything to unscrupulous buyers. Who knows where their nukes would be now.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[ShieldW0lf]

I really doubt they would have pushed that button over Crimea, or over the current low level conflict.

It's not low level if it's in your own backyard.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[TangoMargarine]

Rogue! Not the French for 'red'!

the official NATO and Russian policy is that they can respond to any attack, conventional or nuclear with nuclear force while they strongly work for non-proliferation to prevent others from having the same weapons at their disposal.

I get so tired of the arguments ad absurdum around here. The few nuclear powers we have now have--for the MOST part--proven themselves to be relatively sane and unlikely to actually use them. But no, let's just publish complete designs for The Bomb on the Internet and let every country with the raw material build their own. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm not a fan of anybody having nukes either, but they do, and your argument sounds to me like, "Wah! This other country has nukes and we don't! *I* want nukes!!"

You can be a hypocrite without necessarily being wrong. Jerkass Has A Point.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[skaralic]

Nuclear proliferation is becoming to sound like the plot to some absurdist classic Star Trek episode.

The leaders of all the planets' nations sit in a room, arrayed in a circle. The room is white and completely bare, except for their chairs, and in the center of the room a single gleaming, chromed post rising from the floor about 3 feet tall. Atop the shiny post is a single large, tennis-ball sized red button.

It is widely accepted among all the leaders that pressing the button activates a mechanism that destroys the planet. Yet this doesn't stop them from rising from their chairs, and arguing - yelling, taunting even - other leaders around the circle, so enraging them that at times several of them are close to snapping, rushing forward and pounding the red button.

Because at the end of the day, the leaders are all flawed human beings, driven by the psychological baggage of behavioral evolutionary holdovers, cultural and religious constructs, and overwhelmingly the inability to view the other participants in the room as peers equally deserving of resources as the tribes represented by the leaders.

Sooner or later, someone - in a moment of hubris, misplaced confidence in their own technology or military, or religious zeal - is going to dash out of their chair and smack that button.

I would venture to guess that the leaders peddling this stuff rarely believe their own propaganda. It's marketing to get their people's support and posturing for the other guy's people. They just have to make sure they don't whip the locals up into such a frenzy that they do elect someone who believes it.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[GNious]

Moscow has a fairly advanced missile shield too, so it might not even work.

Just thinking... If you know your target has a missile-shield, launch 1-4 missiles* to test where they get intercepted, then set the next couple of nukes to detonate just before reaching the point of interception. Now your target still has to deal with EM, radiation, and a scared-shitless citizenry and military.
At this point, launch another to see if their missile-shield is still operational (and manned?)...

*: These don't really require actual warheads, if you're certain they'll get intercepted.

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[GNious]

Good thing they gave their nukes to Russia, in exchange for Russia not attacking them...

"The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;"

Re:Angry Proliferation Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the Pakis have

A) nukes

B) regular U.S. drone strikes against their populace

I venture to say you are very wrong.

France can be struggled to almost economic death by the U.S. if the latter establishes a naval blockade. Then the French have to come to the negotiation table and install Vichy 2.0. The Russians could do almost the same if it were not for the U.S.

Given what France did in the Snowden affair, it appears they are just one of the many U.S. vassals these days. Not a kernel of DeGaulle left. And even he was effectively put in power by America. All of the "EU" are America's bitches and you can see it where it matters: INFORMATION. Empires rule by Information Superiority. The U.S. rule over the "EU" by either having NSA firmly implanted into the telecom system (such as the 66th MI group in Frankfurt) or by forcing the "Europeans" to fork over critical data streams themselves (e.g. the SWIFT data).

Truly Sovereign Nations: China, Russia, U.S. Everybody else has to bow to these three.

bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we're the good guys. We invaded another country for non-existent WMDs,,, and have one of the largest stockpiles of WMDs in the world. Its "self-defense" for America to have thousands of nuclear weapons.... but for everyone else its wrong.

p.s. Its also wrong for other countries to spy on us -- while we use mass surveillance on a level that Stalin and Hitler could only dream of

And in no time at all it'll blow up in its silo

[Anonymous Coward]

because that is the way things work which are Made in China.

Re:And in no time at all it'll blow up in its silo

[WindBourne]

These are not in silos. These are truck launched that will be hidden in their 3000 mile long underground tunnel.

Re:And in no time at all it'll blow up in its silo

[Anonymous Coward]

The Israelis have a solution to that. Bomb everything in and around the tunnels.

Rooster

Re:And in no time at all it'll blow up in its silo

[WindBourne]

Less than a couple of miles of tunnels in a VERY tight 10 mile area, is easy compared to going after 3000 miles of tunnel.

thats awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology sure is amazing, what sort of brilliant thing will they come up with next.

It's the reddest red line of all red lines

[gelfling]

Obama has already wagged his finger at them and double dog dared them to defy him. No worries.

Re:It's the reddest red line of all red lines

[WindBourne]

Really? What has he done?
The only red line that has issues was Syria, where the neo-cons/tea* were very opposed to O providing help to the good rebels.

Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised that they currently admit to designing weapons that can bust through our defenses -- hopefully we can proactively delay their efforts by trying to buy things not made in China -- I know, "good luck with that", but I'm in and will do my part

Re:Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

What kills me are all the right-wing nutso companies who love 'merka are also the same companies who sell that cheapo Chinese bullshit; Wal-Mart, Hobby Lobby, etc.

The Fuck?

Re:Walmart

[Archtech]

Funny, isn't it? But Lenin foresaw it exactly, when he remarked "the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them".

Re:Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

but I thought China was communist and the US was capitalist.

You thought the moon mission was for science?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were merely following the footsteps of the great powers, who all developed their nuclear ICBM programs alongside "space exploration" activities.

Oh Noes

[Uloi]

The Chinese are developing technology we have had since the 70's!

Re:Oh Noes

[WindBourne]

Actually, they are 'borrowing' much of that technology from the west, israel, and Russia, and simply building it.

This can not be.

[WindBourne]

After all, so many here have pointed out that China only has 300 warheads, 700 at the most.
And as the far left wingers know, there is no way that they are in active production that enables them to put 600 warheads on their subs (100-160 warheads / sub, with 3 subs currently, and another 5-6 coming ), another 500-1000 in their planes, and another 1000 on land-based ICBM (i.e. 100 missiles).

So, yeah, I have no doubt that the far left is right.

All ready coming

[WindBourne]

Lasers and Rail guns. In addition, I have to wonder with CHina's actions esp. in space, what reactions the west is taking?

Re:All ready coming

[Sentrion]

Busy dismantling "big government" space programs with the expectation that the free market will supply the slingshots and parachutes to get in and out of orbit.

Re:All ready coming

[WindBourne]

Not at all. The neo-cons/tea* are hard are work trying to kill off SpaceX, SNC, while keep alive Boeing, L-Mart and ULA, even though the later costs us almost 300% more.

Almost

[WindBourne]

Not only must it include CHina, but their allies. In particular, North Korea, Burma, Iran, and Venezuela.
Basically, China is in the process of building their own NATO with a quiet spread out system.

Fake name-brand watches direct to your door

[JustNiz]

Don't worry, its just their way of competing against Amazon's droid delivery service.

Re:Fake name-brand watches direct to your door

[almitydave]

Right, that or they're just working on a faster way to send letters to their mothers.

Angry Proliferation Game

[Aqualung812]

You're missing one critical piece in this example: the red button doesn't destroy the planet, it sends a message to other humans outside the room to destroy the planet.

This is how I understand both the US and Russian system to function, but I don't know about the Chinese system. I would hope the designers of these systems realize that leaving this decision up to a politician alone is not the right answer, as the other systems have recognized.

Iron Dome is "a public relations weapon."

[MRe_nl]

http://thebulletin.org/iron-do...

This is just wrong ...

[CaptainDork]

... version 41is better than 5A?

Not news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has had MIRVd ICBMs for decades, but international treaty bans their use.

Throw Weight

[RudyHartmann]

The multi warhead capable assertion is lame. It's just a matter of the weight the missle is capable of delivering. Since the miniaturization of thermonuclear war heads has been done years ago, this is silly. A W-88 warhead in the US arsenal weighs little enough to be transported on an appliance dolly for heavens sake.

So our largest trading partner has...

[cybersquid]

... developed weapons specifically ranged to reach US? Nice.

Re:So our largest trading partner has...

[Anonymous Coward]

you western fascists are stupid enough to underestimate asian fascists

Re:So our largest trading partner has...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you have never once had weapons pointed at them?

Re:So our largest trading partner has...

[Swave An deBwoner]

Try to think of it as an enhancement of Amazon's drone delivery system.

I'm Not Worried

[Anonymous Coward]

We are their best customers (or at least we probably owe them tons of cash). You don't nuke your best customers.

Re:I'm Not Worried

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, 2nd best. Still...

Postol's argument is weak. No fatalities.

[raymorris]

His argument is based on looking at contrails and comparing them to his guess as to the best angle of intercept, then theorizing about what might happen. What actually HAS happened is that thousands of rockets have been fired at Israel and no-one has been killed by them.

Re:Postol's argument is weak. No fatalities.

[MRe_nl]

As of July 2014 the attacks have killed 28 people.

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/...

"I don't want to set the world on fire..."

[AtomicSymphonic]

The video game franchise "Fallout" is all I'm thinking when seeing news like this. In the Fallout universe, nuclear war breaks out in the year 2077 between USA and China (in this universe, the USSR still exists and is an ally to China) as the Earth's non-renewable resources like fossil fuels run out.

In our world, it just seems to be purely over who controls the World Order: the East or the West? I'm sure there are many factors I'm unaware of right now, but this buildup of military forces in the Pacific has me concerned for the future.

For more info on what I'm referring to, here's the Fallout Wiki's article on the "Great War" aka WWIII.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/...

Forgot to read your own link?

[raymorris]

Did you forget to look at that page before linking to it?
Iron Dome, fully deployed in November 2012, is a system for intercepting medium-range rockets. Count the number of ROCKET fatalities after November 2012. For that matter, look at the number after they STARTED deploying Iron Dome in the first location compared to before they had iron dome.

Iron Dome is not designed to defend against snipers, flu, mortars, or insults. It defends against rockets.

Re:Forgot to read your own link?

[AutodidactLabrat]

And, as perennial gadfly of the Star Wars crowd Theodore Postal points out, fails almost as often as the 100% failed Patriot system used in Oilwar I.
Notice the patriot is discontinued in Israel?
Notice too that 4 major system upgrades, each costing close to 1 billion has yet to demonstrate kill in flight of an ECM equipped 'real launch' target (no prior warning, no known angle of attack, simple chaff defense)?
Trust the gadfly when he has access to the data. Like lack of flight pattern distortion in the Katusha

Sad but true: Accidents happen; yet, Active Hope

[Paul Fernhout]

A leader might accidentally trip and fall on the button in your scenario too. Einstein said, learning how to release atomic power changed everything except our thinking. That issue is still playing out, and motivates much of my efforts (whether towards abundance for all, better tools for civic sensemaking and education, or work towards self-replicating habitats for Earth and space). Who in the tech profession has not seen a variety of complex systems fail in unexpected ways over the years? So, speaking purely probabilistically, chances are, we will see these weapons go off sooner or later due to accident or error. They might go off because of a technical accident ("99 Red Balloons" wrongly interpreted as an attack, a massive solar flare causing a launch, bad capacitors causing a launch, etc.). Or they might be used because of a psychological or political accident (like the one your insightful story is about). As others have also pointed out, "MAD" assumes rational actors trying to act in self-preservation; if you put lunatics in charge of the button then it might get pressed for any number of crazy reasons same as many people regularly do other self-destructive things.

21st century technologies of abundance (nuclear, biological, chemical, nanotech, robotic, AI, communications, bureaucracy) create more "buttons" in more places in the hands of more people. That makes it more and more likely a button somewhere will get pressed. Worse, many (probably most) the people using these 21st technologies are still locked in a 20th century (and earlier) mindset of worrying about material scarcity. So, they ironically are willing to use nuclear energy (as bombs) to fight over oil fields, when nuclear energy could instead produce all the energy we might otherwise get from oil (not that I'm much of a conventional nuclear fan compared to renewables, energy efficiency, fusion, or LENR).

While we need to do what we can to reduce the chance that any of the buttons get pressed including by promoting a philosophy of mutual security, we should also design with the expectation they will eventually get pressed, and create an infrastructure that is resilient and distributed enough to muddle through anyway as a form on intrinsic security. The internet was supposedly designed to survive nuclear war. We need to apply some of the same thinking to agriculture, power, medicine, education, transportation, and so on. However, this strategy for intrinsic and mutual security is completely at odds with maximizing short-term economic profits by "just in time" delivery of good produced or routed through centralized hubs controlled by a few monopolistic actors.

My OSCOMAK project (and precursors) was a hope in that direction (not that I've succeeded much with it directly).
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/prin...
"Why do I want to build these habitats? Most people would agree there is at least a one percent chance the human race will wipe itself out within the next century through a nuclear or biological war. The issue isn't even necessarily about our politicians making mistakes. The fallibility of the Soviet missile command computer technicians is what worries me most. Like anyone else familiar with computers, I know how easy it is to make a mistake with one. Beyond accidental warfare, expanding populations and industrial pollution threaten our lives just as much. I feel that even if there is only a one percent chance of ecological disaster over the next century, I want to do my best to ensure human survival in that case.
Most people do not think about these issues, or if they do, rapidly dismiss the problems as too large and impossible to do anything significant about. I feel I have an alternative to apathy or despair. Some habitats in space or underwater would probably survive a nuclear war. Unlike bomb shelters, they would provide an intact technological

Nice Try, Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to trick everybody out of their nukes, so that your a/c carriers have free reign. This kind of propaganda works only on an insanely naive people like the Germans.

Also, go ahead and disarm yourself and Israel FIRST.

Thank you.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the R&D was done in Moscow or other Russian cities. Russian efficiency was the main force of the SU. And before you start arguing about "efficiency" - yes there is. Maybe not the German/Anglo style efficiency, but a different one.

Just as a nugget - German cryptanalysis was (effectively) started by the chief of the czar's crypto efforts. When that man had to flee from the commies.

You don't need great weapons.

[NewYork]

Just Drop A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....
You'll Drown The World.

Funded by US consumers.

[Anonymous Coward]

All funded by US consumers and companies exporting their manufacturing to China because "it's cheap".