Slashdot Mirror
US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers On 24-Hour Alert (defenseone.com)
DefenseOne reports on new preparations at Barksdale Air Force Base:
The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991. That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base's 11,000-foot runway -- dubbed the "Christmas tree" for their angular markings -- could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment's notice... Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come...
Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale -- home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service's nuclear forces -- to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building -- where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment's notice -- is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside... Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words "Peace The Old Fashioned Way," written underneath.
General Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat... 'It's no longer a bipolar world where it's just us and the Soviet Union. We've got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It's never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.'"
Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale -- home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service's nuclear forces -- to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building -- where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment's notice -- is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside... Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words "Peace The Old Fashioned Way," written underneath.
General Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat... 'It's no longer a bipolar world where it's just us and the Soviet Union. We've got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It's never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.'"
While I've got no idea whether this site is a reliable source for such information, it does seem like a step backward.
Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea. The public relations cost of using them alone could devastate our country. They were always sold to the American public as a temporary weapons system due to the Soviet, then Chinese, threat. Today no country on earth will let lose with these armaments because the retaliation would be devastating.
Even North Korea must know that internally.
But it sure seems like a bad idea to have these systems on 24 hour alert. Especially since retaliation with nukes essentially destroys both sides.
Of course I'll take a lot of heat for taking this position. But after reading books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with survivor accounts, and photographs- I could draw no other conclusion.
Nukes go way beyond military supremacy issues- into overkill. No pun intended.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Call up Major Kong, he knew how to handle a nuclear weapon. Ahhhhh hoooo!
Greg Stillson finally captured the White House.
This would send a clear, unambiguous to each and every nation that would do America harm:
"We have no idea what we're doing, but we're gonna look real tough doing it."
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I'm curious the strategic use of bombers on 24 hour standby, when there are enough ICBMs, including those in nuclear subs which are likely really, really close to North Korea already, to totally decimate that country. North Korea could be a smoldering ruin before the bombers would even leave US airspace (even if they were on standby). So I wonder if the bombers would simply be more "obvious" to Kim Jong or what?
Better known as 318230.
Yep, a total win. This is EXACTLY what I voted for. Killary would be gotten us into a stupid small war. TRUMP is serious. Big wars are glorious. Big wars are winning. Another win for Trump!
He's a narcissist sociopath with senile dementia.
But at least there's all that winning going around.
In the words of Darth Vader: Yippee!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, the constant tone of movies and tv and news from that era is depressing, a lot about the cold war and nuclear mutually assured destruction.
I really hoped my children would get to grow up without these threats hanging over their heads.
In my opinion, the only acceptable outcome between any two states with brandishing weapons, is a diplomatic one. No amount of chest thumping or insults are worth killing 10s of millions of people. It's immoral and unconscionable.
MAD only works against a RATIONAL enemy. Guess how many leaders aren't rational.
Given how easy it is for the US to launch enough missiles (both land based and submarine launched) to turn North Korea into a smoking hole in the ground, why would they need nuclear-armed bombers that take far longer to get to the target?
how about spending that money to GET RID OF THEM!
What where Major King Kong's last words, Alex!
Also, I always wanted to try heroine without suffering the consequences.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Nukes go way beyond military supremacy issues- into overkill. No pun intended.
President Draft Dodger demonstrated just how much he cares about non-white people with his callous disregard for Puerto Rico. His concern for the well-being of South Koreans is even less. He's putting us on a hair-trigger for annihilating millions because his idea of "negotiating" is to drop bombs and then swoop in and exploit the chaos for his personal gain. Except in the past it was always rhetorical bombs, like he did in the Republican primary. Now its literal bombs.
The crazy guy in NK isn't crazy enough to be suicidal.
He seems unlikely to do anything to justify this.
And if he did, the other 2 parts of the triad should be waaaay more than sufficient to return fire.
Don't see how this helps anything in the NK direction.
Given the overwhelming force imbalance, it doesn't seem like a sign of strength.
Not sure what it is a sign of, but it doesn't seem wise.
Can be recalled after launch. Missiles not so much.
The only reason for doing this would be to prevent a preemptive strike from an enemy that was capable of taking out all or most of our nuclear weapons at once. The Soviet Union probably had that capability in the 1970s and 1980s. Does Russia have that capability today? Possibly, but if they made that strike could expect a response from Britain's and France's nukes, as well as all of NATO's conventional weapons. In other words, it would suicidal for Putin. NK, China, and Iran are not going to launch a first strike against America. That would be like what Japan tried in 1941, which didn't work out well for them.
... this is your fault. Fuck you.
I don't respond to AC's.
Coming off a low of 35%. (Lowest was 34% back in August.) [1]
So natch he's got to do something.
And I dunno, maybe he thinks he can hit the norks before they have a chance to build another nuke, or a missile to launch it. I just hope China doesn't decide retaliate for them.
Getting a few million Americans killed will almost certainly do wonders for his job approval. But then those people knew what they were in for when he was elected, right?
Putting the B52s on alert doesn't bother me too much, in the grander scheme of things. Let me know when he takes off in Air Force One with no set destination. Of course by then it'll be too late.
[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/20...
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves this is not normal. Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, this is just one more bizarre thing that seems to be bending to the will of a crackpot president. I hope if he decides to use nukes that Tillerson and Mattis are in the room to beat the living shit out of him before anyone hears the order.
----- obSig
Once upon a time, I bought and started playing Pandemic. Right after, just as I started enjoying the game, there was the West African Ebola outbreak. And now? I start replaying Fallout and this happens.
That's it. From here on out my only entertainment will be re-watching the Death by Snu Snu episode.
everything going according to plan. just as the war on terror is losing its punch, along comes cold war 2! gotta give people those common enemies.
Exactly!
The approximately half of the US voters who voted for Trump are directly at fault!
The approximately half who voted for Clinton, after all, were supporting war again Russia, much more sane!
Or, just possibly, not.
My gib me dats will all be gibbed away ;_;
The boomers are about to really give fresh meaning to their name, I'm afraid. We haven't nuked anyone for 70 years, y'all must have some awful blueballs by now.
The culture warriors have hemmed in the old militarists who were supposed to be baby sitting Trump. They can't silence the shrieking liberals of twitter (tm) so they circle the wagons, in this case the nukes, around this clown they despise but is, in their mind, the lesser of two evils. And they figure we're going toe to toe with China eventually so why not now - which was LeMay's opinion of October 1962.
No I don't think this will lead to war.
No I don't think Hillary would have pushed to hard against Putin or been 1) this nuts, or 2) any good.
No I don't think Bernie would have won.
We've got a lot of blood on our imperial hands and karma's got a twitter account.
most of the pilots are younger than the bombers they fly. 486
They have been working on a new toy, precision guided nuclear bombs. They want to play with the new toy. If they can't drop them on somebody they can at least put it on the bombers and park them out where everybody can see them. Also the New START treaty goes into effect Feb 5th, 2018. They may feel like with fewer missiles they need the bombers to be more ready.
Brown lives matter. http://africasacountry.com/201... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But you might end up wishing you could've...
Anyway, as I was saying before I was so rudely modded down for stating the truth...
Bipolar? Oh no...
He's a narcissist sociopath with senile dementia.
But at least there's all that winning going around.
In the words of Darth Vader: Yippee!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
A site no one has ever heard of says something might happen.
It's not clear exactly who the U.S. is planning to bomb. Is it North Korea? Russia? Iran? Afghanistan? Then there's that business over the Islands in the China Sea. Venezuela, they were told they're on notice. And something's going on in Niger or so I've heard. Did I leave anyone out? Syria? They got it coming too.
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, [...]
Err... isn't that exactly what the B52s are armed with: cruise missiles? Does the US even have any atomic bombs any more?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Enabling an old trigger for an old enemy for lack of anything better.
Our media lies constantly, lies about the middle east, lies about the group of jewish radicals you happily merc for.
I know folks who voted Trump because they saw Hilary as a war hawk. She is (more a Chicken hawk than anything else since I can't see her ever in harms way) but Trump certainly wasn't the answer. At least Hilary wouldn't be riling up Iran just to appeal to her base.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There are better ways to compensate.
Like you know, getting pissed on by drunken Russian Hookers.
> Because Clinton didn't and Obama (or you) wouldn't have, right?
Buh, buh, buh, buh clinton!!!
Somebody critizes Hair Furor and you have to stroke it to clinton in order to release the stress of all that cognitive dissonance.
captcha: reinsert
It's most likely that the weapon of choice vs North Korea is a B61-11 or B61-12, the most recent versions of an air-dropped weapon.
The air-dropped weapons are likely more precise and more suitable to use against reinforced underground structures with less surface yield.
Ballistic missiles, whether land based or sea-based can only use one particular warhead intimately configured with the delivery system and guidance, because of the need to match the mechanical dynamics & mass with the guidance. I.e. there is no way to change the weapon. Additionally, they are not as precise--they re-enter the atmosphere at extreme velocities within a giant ionization cloud, and prior to re-entry they have only one chance for guidance, immediately after release, and are thereafter falling, unpowered.
The ICBM and SLBM warheads are also very large (200-500 kt) and intended as retaliation. If you want genocide, any of them will do, but if you intend a military attack then you'd want to be more specific.
Against DPRK you'd be looking at using 'bunker buster' weapons---there are rumors that there are nuclear designs which may direct maximum force downward seismically (e.g. use the primary to accelerate a secondary penetrator downward?)---and probably low-yield neutron weapons against the artillery units threatening Seoul. Probably under 10kt.
Those need to be launched by bombers, or maybe from cruise missiles carried by those bombers.
In any event, it's insanity as it undoubtedly gets Seoul, Tokyo or maybe even Seattle obliterated. DPRK has plenty good enough missiles to put whatever size warhead they have already over Korea and Japan---and missile defense is awfully difficult. DPRK could easily launch 40 missiles simultaneously, four of which are nuclear, and each one puts out 10 decoys in space .
I don't think it is all that smart to announce to North Korea that any part of our ability to respond is limited. To announce that it is going to be limited until facilities are brought up to date for prima donna pilots is truly ridiculous. You get your shit together and then announce that the planes are now ready to go 24x7 ... not that you are working on it.
We've still got B61 and B83 bombs, at least. But I suspect you're right, most of the B52 nuke armament is cruise missiles.
When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.
Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves this is not normal.
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves who voted for who?
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, this is just one more bizarre thing that seems to be bending to the will of a crackpot president.
Time is a strange thing when talking nukes. The only time of import is reaction time of your adversaries from the point in time they discover they are under attack to the point in time they can effectively respond or are destroyed. No other consideration is relevant.
ICBMs have a more or less fixed time to target with relatively little possibility of successfully obscuring launches or improving general characteristics of the technology simply due to energetics of the system.
Stealthy strategic bombers and submarines especially when coupled with hypersonics have a much greater capacity to benefit from technological advancement placing significant pressure on reaction time. From what is publically known Russians are currently kicking ass and taking names in the hypersonics department while the US is sleeping on their feet.
I hope if he decides to use nukes that Tillerson and Mattis are in the room to beat the living shit out of him before anyone hears the order.
What makes you think anyone deserves a second chance? Ya'll voted for a geriatric petulant unstable idiot knowing full well what consequences could be. Count every day you are not vaporized a blessing.
The idea from the start is not to scare Kim, he cannot afford to be scared / to give up. No, the idea is to scare
1) the North Korean people, most people (99.99%) want that regime to terminate, they want to be free, but they have to pretend the opposite, to act as if they were the happiest people in the world, and
2) scare the high ranked in the military ; they know Kim cannot win a war, and he won't surrender (to end at The Hague court).
In both groups, the US expects a violent reaction from these people, perhaps a revolution.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
That's a really interesting take on the Rosatom transaction. Did you get it from Fox News, perhaps? Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?
What really happened is that Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, bought a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian company with 20% of the US uranium mining capacity. This deal had to be approved by a committee composed of a dozen different US government agencies, of which Clinton was the head of one (as Secretary of State), along with agencies in Canada and Kazakhstan, and stock markets in Toronto and Johannesburg.
Apparently none of them found sufficient reason to halt the sale. Are you arguing that Clinton has somehow secretly convinced all those people involved to permit the sale AND stay silent about the convincing? And even if Clinton had decided that the deal wasn't a good idea, she couldn't have unilaterally stopped it -- she would have had to convince Obama that there was a national security reason to do so.
So was there a national security reason to halt the sale? What Rosatom bought was the mines, meaning they can dig up rock and refine it, but they can only sell it to the same people that Uranium One could always sell it to. They don't have a license to export the uranium, so who cares?
dom
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, [...]
Err... isn't that exactly what the B52s are armed with: cruise missiles? Does the US even have any atomic bombs any more?
Yes and maybe prepared to use them if North Korea strikes back with one after we start bombing them which every indication is that Trump is ready. Please to God I hope I am wrong.
http://saveie6.com/
What hypocrisy are you talking about?
I did not put us on a hair-trigger for nuking the korean peninsula
Clinton did not put us on a hair-trigger for nuking the korean peninsula
Obama did not put us on a hair-trigger for nuking the korean peninsula
Yeah, that's what I thought you dumbass turnip.
There are strategic resources for the equipment needed for renewable energy production and use. Rare earth metals for motor magnets for electric cars, as one example. Some of the 'new' critical resources are more localized and scarce than petroleum ever could have been. There will be new resource wars, just as there have always been.
You sure there aren't any other deranged, paranoid, irrelevant talking points you'd like to work in there? Surely Russia is involved in this *somehow*.
>President Draft Dodger Because Clinton didn't and Obama (or you) wouldn't have, right?
Big difference between someone who did and others who might have done.
Somebody needs to send Trump a copy of "On the Beach". Radiation sickness is not a pleasant way to go. You vomit and deficate like the flu. According to the book, you might get better, but it only lasts for two weeks before the symptoms recall and then you die. http://www.atomicarchive.com/E... I think people need to hear the graphic effects of what a nuclear war would be like.
go to defcon 4!
Get it over with, no nukes necessary, a single bullet to his brain and NK is out of the game.
Let them know that every time they get close, their leader(s) will die in their sleep.
Next up, tactical nukes to take out ISIS/ISIL... Every place they show up, turn to glass. Guess what happens after the 2nd time. No place will allow ISIS/ISIL to live, they will take care of these rabid paramecium brains for us.
So you're saying Hillary was the better businessperson
Only if launchers are modified specifically for tests. The deployed ballistic missile weapon systems, e.g. ICBM's and SLBM's have no such capability.
Firstly, there is no reliable means of reception by the missile or a reliable command system to transmit such messages, and if there were, it could be exploited by an enemy. Warheads are made to be very robust and sealed, given that they re-enter the atmosphere at stupendous speeds. They don't have any antennae or radios.
The first monolith must have malfunctioned, need another correction, please? Before it's too late.
4wdloop
...As in : your government is batshit crazy, THE batshit crazy they are trying to sell Iran/NK as. The US folk definitively lost any handle they had on their own government.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They can be re-targeted before launch. That's it.
After launched, their course is fixed, and non-recallable. Ballistic missiles run out of fuel very quickly after launch and fall to their targets on gravity alone (which is the meaning of 'ballistic'). The course is set by the launch dynamics, and a bit of maneuvering in space for a minute or two refines the target accuracy.
North Korea doesn't have the ability to launch a massive counter-strike, so their continued existence after rattling the nuclear sabre the way they've been doing depends on utterly on the US sticking to the "no first strike" policy. Yet TFA claims that General Goldfein is asking his staff to come up with ways to use nukes in combat. To me that sounds very much like the US Joint Chiefs are preparing contingency plans for pre-emptive strikes and "small" tactical nukes after that. To be fair, it is the clear duty of the Joint Chiefs to come up for contingency plans for pretty much every possible scenario, even the incredibly unlikely ones. But, one doesn't juggle squadrons around and re-assign personnel for unlikely contingencies.
Meanwhile, there have been a slew of articles which suggest the US Navy is in dire straits. It's my understanding that successive administrations have forced them to cut back on new ship purchases and skimp on maintenance so long for the sake of short term availability, that now some ships are sitting in dry dock for years, waiting for repair. Likewise, there has been a clear trend to lower head counts in the ground forces as well. The focus has been on smaller, more nimble forces, aimed at dealing with insurgents and the like. That smaller force has become very sensitive to combat losses, has been forced to keep guys posted in combat far longer than expected (stop-loss) and is deployed in a number of hot spots all over the world. The ground forces are just not prepared to get into a land war in Asia right now. As an aside, I'm not sure I buy the fears of fanatically loyal human wave attacks. There was some concern about that in Iraq as I recall, because both Iraq and Iran had an established history of using such tactics. There were human wave attacks in the Korean conflict sure, but as in Iran, Iraq and WWII Russia, human waves always rely on political officers at the back, sending the hapless troops into battle at gun point, threatening family members back home if necessary. But, as we saw in Iraq, once the troops got totally cut off from high command, most couldn't surrender fast enough. (there is an apocryphal tale of an Iraqi regiment that tried to surrender to a BBC camera crew)
The only arm of the US forces that seems to be ready to open a can of whoop ass in Korea is the Air Force. Problem is, there is a long standing dictum "You can bomb it, shell it until the rubble bounces, but you don't control it until you stick a kid with a rifle on it." The Air Force is guaranteed to wipe out anything on the surface taller than a dandelion with conventional weapons alone. But the Koreans have had decades to dig in and there is a lot of evidence of their tunnelling prowess in the tunnels the south Koreans have intercepted at the DMZ. The upshot is that the Air Force can not win the war on it's own.
With that situation, it is going to be very tempting to just nuke the place.
And we have Donald Trump with his finger on the button.
Donald Trump...let that sink in for a moment.
Tactically, this is shaping up to be a bigger version of Vietnam and the US had to worry back then about the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China who were not only pretty close allies at the time, but backing the north Vietnamese. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all far more savvy poli
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
The USA should be considered harmful for humanity. They need to be stopped and the nuclear armaments they and their lunatic president controls need to be dismantled - by force if necessary.
The USA is extremely volatile and unreliable player on the global stage and the people have shown to be easily controllable, low educated and attracted by charismatic TV stars like Trump making extravagant promises.
The USA is a threat to western democracy and global peace. It's a country controlled not by their people, but corporate greed and narcissistic white supremacists.
They must be stopped.
>. There really isn't a good way to use them, the exception being the EMP pulsing
And of course the way we've BEEN using them, as deterrents. I'd say the primary use of nukes is with them remaining in their silos. Having them in strategic locations has been very useful, without pressing the button.
Here we have the US military using them, by freshening up the paint on the runway near them. That gets people's attention, and that's the point.
... those “30 years” of war between Iran and Iraq, where more than a MILLION people died, by the way, were because, remember, Saddam, who had always been a major asshole, was still the USA‘s favorite "ally" (read: vassal/dog) in the region, and the US told him, that if he stops Khomeini, he’d get to keep the oil wells he conquered, and would keep getting the support (read: weapons, training, money) like all that time before.
But Saddam didn't get in, because the stupid Persians kept defending themselves, because they had the third or fourth largest military in the world at that time. This changed literally overnight, when Saddam became stroppy, wanted his promised oil wells anyway, and decided to take them from Kuwait. Suddenly, the USA got stroppy too... we can’t have it that Saddam doesn’t invade what he’s told to invade! ... But honestly, *what did he do different than before?* All he did, was *turn around*. ^^
Suddenly he was "The new Hitler".
And the best part is: The only reason Iran became such a big military power, with the third or fourth biggest military in the world, was because the USA previously armed them to their teeth too! "As a stronghold against the reds." ... Yeah, unless millions of you are prepared to die for it, your system won’t improve either. Things still need to get a *lot* worse for that to happen.)
But they had installed such an evil cruel dictator, that the Persians turned to Khomeini as the better alternative, in their desperation. Imagine how fucked-up of a situation you would have to be in, to turn to the WBC, to get rid of your president! (Okay, nowadays, that sounds almost reasonable. ^^)
Which, interestingly, ended in a semi-peaceful revolution! The military stopped shooting people because they realized that the people were so determined, they stopped giving a fuck about if they died. (So much about how you actually get rid of a dictator.
So whatever fake news reality distortion scheme about these things is going on in your "Number One!" (in propaganda, online trolls, and population control too) country... using the war between Iran and Iraq as an argument, for them to NOT have nukes to stop the USA from fucking with them, is REALLY FUCKED-UP! :)
That whole shit might not even have started, if they would have had nukes. (Remember, that Iran and Afghanistan were comparatively very modern countries back then, with women wearing mini-skirts and going to universities; with philosophy and sports clubs; and being a cool tourist destination for hippies! Extrapolate THAT!
But yeah, Pakistan did have nukes, and still got made to breed "mercenaries" for Afghanistan by the USA. Now known as the Taliban. I guess it also requires being determined enough to actually threaten the CIA with *using* them, instead of being best friends and drinking tea together, like those CIA operatives did with Hamid Gul (Pakistan’s ex military general who oversaw the construction of the nukes, told Bin Laden what to do, and was so crazy that the *Al Qaeda* gave him house arrest because he threatened to fly nuclear warheads to the US, and even Al Qaeda leaders knew that wouldn’t have ended well for them!).
So what do I know. I only have a dad who worked as an reporter and operative in this clusterfuck for 4 decades now. I’ve only been threatened to be killed by terrorist groups twice. One of those being backed by my own western government.
Maybe my flaw is that I don't hate *anyone*, not the USA, not Kim Yong whatever, not Israel, not the Palestinians, not even the literal Nazis. They're all fucked-up people, and all I want, is to fix shit so that we can have a self-determined happy life. Even you.
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves this is not normal.
We were warned that perhaps it was a bad idea to give nuclear launch authority to the crazy real estate mogul/reality TV star. But the electoral college made sure the 'merica contingent prevailed.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier
Clearly your ignorance of military strategy and tactics is on display. Bombers can be recalled after launch and return to their bases with their weapons unused and intact. In the meantime bombers can fly a course towards a target, but then turn away at the last minute. This allows for nuclear sabre rattling and brinksmanship as well as reducing the time available for an enemy response to the bombers because the bombers usually turn away at the last possible moment and return to base except for the one time when they don't. Finally, human crews can respond to complex changes in orders mid-mission, by switching targets or flying alternative routes, which further enhances the opportunity to confuse and confound the enemy in ways that are difficult or impossible with unmanned systems. Missiles have their roles, but strategic bombers with their unique capabilities are an important and indispensable part of the nuclear triad.
The "threat" posed by NK is completely different, and an administration's failure to recognise that means they are helping NK in its goals, not reducing the possibility of an attack. Kim Jong Un does not seem to be fearful of american aggression - he seems to be actively provoking it. A small gesture on his part produces a massive reaction from the USA. What an ego trip that is!
And the thought of having thousands of megatons "pointed" at his tiny, little, country: 25 million people, means nothing. A nuclear war wouldn't do much to alter their standard of living - at least, not that of the survivors. So the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction is a failure. If it was ever a plausible concept, that is because it was intended to be used against an adversary who "loved their children too". But KJU is not in that category.
But really, this response has nothing to do with trying the dissuade North Korea from progressing down the nuclear route. This is just a "fear response". Just like all those scared americans who are armed to the teeth. Their guns and other weapons are merely safety-blankets: bought and hoarded in an attempt to make them feel safe. And resurrecting the bomber readiness status is just another act of domestic reassurance. Just like the gun-nuts who spend all their time cleaning and oiling their weapons to keep their emotions of fear and panic under control.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Yeah, because Russia really didn't have enough Uranium already to build some nukes ...
Oh. You educated me. Clearly I was ignorant. Sorry about that.. I'd edit my comment if I could.
----- obSig
The United States of America has more nuclear weapons than any other country on the planet.
And they have handed the launch codes to an intellectually lazy, narcissistic asshole.
Have I got that about right?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Should we? No. But, let's say we did. Are nukes more dangerous now than the last time the U.S. used one in WWII? Oh Yes. However, after reading a few comments, here is what I noticed most people don't know about modern nuclear weapons: variable yield and mass production. This means that nuke blasts can be adjusted but also have to be economically sound; it would not be like in Nagasaki (plutonium implosion) and Hiroshima (uranium gun-type); Little Boy (16 kilotons) and Fat Man (21 kilotons) had to be specially designed to pretty much just work and still be safe for pilots to carry. Modern nukes can be adjusted and we've had this technology since the 1950s. Some examples of mass produced nukes still in service are the B61 Mod 3 and 4 ( adjustable .3 to 170 kilotons), B61 Mod 7 (340 kilotons maximum), being done by and the Mod 11 was declassified as not being adjustable using deuterium or tritium gas like in the previous versions, but it can still vary from 10 kt to 340. Kilotons refers to the equivalent in the amount of TNT. However, it's most likely the U.S. would use Tellerâ"Ulam, aka hydrogen bombs. This is because they are much more efficient and can be adjusted down to .3 kt like the others. The old nukes split atoms and the new ones push them together. However, also realize that the largest one tested as of yet is the Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton (50000 Kt) bomb, but it wouldn't make since to use something like that in an actual nuclear war. It's far more likely they would be adjusted to fairly low at first. To put thing in perspective, the Oklahoma City bombing was 0.002 kilotons. The largest MOAB (non nuclear bomb designed to do the most damage) dropped is currently equivalent to 44 tons. We could use those instead, but the cause and effect says its not that efficient to do so. War is expensive.
always about making war and killing innocent people to get what it wants.
Nuclear weapons won't protect resources ever again ...
You don't respond to the AC's post until the fourth paragraph. Writing 3 paragraphs on a straw-man and personal attacks should get you stripped of your 5-digit user Id.
But I'll respond to the more coherent arguments:
There have been plenty of conflicts in the last 40 years, with the USA starting or joining most of them. I failed to see why you chose a war involving only 2 countries, that didn't involve oil or the USA.
The neighbouring country, Ukraine has plenty of oil, so does the recently annexed Crimean Sea. For some reason, Russia isn't worried about oil from the middle-east.
Even the Saudis ...
The Saudis are well-placed for wind and obviously, solar energy. They want to create a functioning economy rather than a welfare state dependent on a rent-seeking opportunity that will run-out one day. A day that may arrive sooner, not later since they, likely, have been lying about their oil reserves since the 1990s.
Oil is used for much more than just energy. It's extraction and value is not going away any time soon.
And you gave away your complete bias by stating that anyone agreeing with Trump is automatically a white-supremacist. Do you even fathom how ridiculous such a blanket claim like that is?
Nukes only serve as a deterrent if you're willing to use them. Having them and saying they're off the table is as good as not having them. Also keep in mind that the B-52 is capable of payloads other than nukes. Some of which might actually be more effective in that we would not be looking to demoralize the populace, but just to take out the leadership and strategic military sites.
Every successful renovation of a nuclear bombing fleet includes complimentary cowboy hats, one for each grew.
Can these planes also carry MOABs, I would have thought that those would be more frightening to NK as we are more likely to actually drop them.
Nullius in verba
You mean he was responsible for the complete lack of any local response to the emergency in PR? Supplies and personal were dispatched. Problem is, the federal response relies on local boots on the ground that know the region, have distribution centers, and transportation available. It also depends on local leaders actually participating rather than just giving politically divisive interviews while not attending a single FEMA conference call.
I am SO glad none of you has any chance of affecting events.
I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
The public image of our opponents is generally outrageously stupid, and it's encouraged by the press who will uncritically reproduce any claim about the opponents. We're not that different, any claim about North Korea is deemed credible.
But cruel dictatorships are often easy to negotiate with. We call them mad because it suits us, that's all.
In the case of North Korea there is a long history of their willingness to negotiate.They still are ready to talk. They will no longer consider getting rid of their nukes an option though. For good reason.
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
Clinton did dodge the draft, Trump did not.
I think many always thought that Russia was the counter threat that would start Armageddon. But as time and money past into countries like Iran and North Korea. We find these poor little piss ant countries were spending all their resources on building nukes. In the end its mad men like Kim and radical Islamic leaders who will try and wipe us off this Earth.
" For some reason, Russia isn't worried about oil from the middle-east."
Really? Then why are they trying to get a foot-hold in Syria? They are trying to halt our (USA) progression into the area. They feel the US is trying to get a lock on the Middle East in order to cut off any supplies to Russia in case of War. This was the case before Trump came into power, who knows what's up now.
I don't think anyone knows the actual goal of Trump and Putin but I assure you it isn't in Americas best interest. We all live on this tiny Blue Planet, but for some reason think we are all separate. If we don't come together as 1 People, 1 Planet; then Humans are destine for extinction -- perhaps for the better.
It is used for more than energy. In fact most of the value of oil comes from none energy use. As I understand it 97% of the value of oil comes from the 3% that is not used for fuel.
If we only need the 3% not required for fuel then the west has sufficient home grown supplies for decades. Consequently random unstable places around the world can go stew. So can all the places governed by dictators real and defacto (so Russia included).
Rare earth metals are not localized, they're deposited all over the world. They're rare because they're spread out and it is expensive to concentrate them. The US was a major producer before the Chinese started selling cheaper.
The neighbouring country, Ukraine has plenty of oil, so does the recently annexed Crimean Sea. For some reason, Russia isn't worried about oil from the middle-east.
From wher do you get your facts? Ukraine is an importer of gas and oil. Coal they do export but that's not what this discussion is about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Has it really come down to creating facts to support your viewpoint on a country?
"And if you ain't shitting bricks about Trump being in charge of our nuclear arsenal, then I'm guessing you're one of those white-supremacists who want him to have them."
Thank you for revealing yourself as a completely brainwashed idiot.
eleven plus two / twelve plus one
So you're argument is that Clinton and fellow shitbag Eric Holder (also on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) found no reason to block the sale, huh? That's a real fuckin' surprise right there. You'd put the fox in charge of the hen-house.
eleven plus two / twelve plus one
EMP attack on US. don't even need to know the blast went off, and the world ends as we know it ends.
Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?
Of course not. I much prefer just to take the word of random ACs on Slashdot who don't cite a single source.
This is NOT the official policy. This was a discretionary decision by one rogue general who decided to make these preparations "just in case" Trump gives an order to do so, which he has never even suggested he would give.
A Strange Game.
The only winning move is NOT to play.
How about a nice game of chess ?
The nuclear threats in *Pakistan* certainly kept the USA from marching troops in go dig Osama bin Laden out of his hidey hole in Pakistan for roughly five years.
This is not tech news
its never dotard45's fault is it?
always some half-baked excuse
whatever happened to "the buck stops here?"
oh, that's right, dotard tried to stiff the guy responsible for making the sign and it got repossessed.
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
I most agree with your post but not with this last bit. For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want. The fact is the DPRK hasn't got anything we want or did not up till now. Sure we did want security for our allies in the region but not bad enough to give the DPRK anything for it. Now that they have the bomb we might be willing to negotiation for our own security.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Let's conquer space, quadrillions are in those asteroids.
Dial-A-Yield B61 bombs are still in active development.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
with no mod points...
Interesting "coincidence" around Trump's executive order authorizing the activation of retired military personnel was signed recently..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
This was signed with the explanation that it is solely intended to do so in order to get the air force pilot rosters back to their mandated minimums by activating retired air force pilots. It is still cause for concern when viewed in conjunction with these other activities..
Reading from an article from: https://www.salon.com/2017/10/...
"But the broad wording of the executive order seemed to imply that the executive branch would have the power to call up retired military officers and force them back into service for any reason, as the “emergency” Trump used to justify the executive order was extremely vague: “the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.”"
MOAB requires a cargo plane to drop, it won't fit through bomb bay doors but must roll out the back of a C-130 or C-17.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Better than putting Fox News in charge of the cuck-house.
For fuck sake, bombers are not first-strike assets - not by any stretch of the imagination. It takes 10-14 hours to deliver a warhead using a bomber, depending on destination.
Would you namby pamby armchair military strategists just shut the fuck up already and leave the military planning to actual military strategists?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do you expect Clinton and Holder to have information on the deal that nobody else has? I haven't heard anybody articulate a reason the sale should not have been approved other than "Hillary! Uranium! Russia!".
And considering that of the 300+ deals that the Committee looked at during Clinton's term as Secretary there was exactly one (1) that was rejected, it's not like there's anything odd about this one deal.
Nobody's coming out and saying "I tried to block the deal but Hillary silenced me" or "Here's the email thread where Hillary conspired to prevent us from dissenting". In fact, I haven't heard of any evidence suggesting that she even took a remote interest in the deal.
So what information do you have on the deal that Hillary was bribed to keep quiet?
dom
Oh, well in that case at least you have a chance to be reasonably informed!
I don't really understand your response to the one above it ? Pretty sure aardvark was referring to voting for Bernie, not Trump, and none of the Rosatom stuff is really all that relevant as far as I can tell, unless you're implying the one single event proves the sanity of Hillary Clinton ?
Posting to undo mod.
Perhaps this is just a ploy to boost the perceived importance of the B-52 to help justify a budget for its re-engining program? https://youtu.be/vHdIRwKtnig
And, there's no 'Crimean Sea' :)
Also, the Black Sea does have some oil, but so little compared to the Arab peninsula it wouldn't even show in a graph. Not to say us Romanians aren't happy with getting the Snake Island back from Ukraine, but that won't turn the country into Qatar, was mostly a 'fuck you' to our not-so-nice-when-they-don't-want-to neighbours.
The conversation about that is still quite hilarious: them - "but you killed thousands of us in Odessa", us - "mkay but that's our oil", them - "thousands dead", us - "our oil" sigh
As Weird Al once said... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t039p6xqutU
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
What exactly have we given them? Money? Food? Weapons? Drugs?
The USA does not have normal relations with NK. Diplomatic communications have to go through a third party. The USA just hasn't had the leverage to apply without going the military route, and until now (when NK is actually capable creating nuclear weapons, rather than just fanciful propaganda), the USA hasn't been able to persuade China to apply it either.
Any unilateral military action taken by the USA in a country on the other side of the planet (that shares a land border with China and isn't too far away from Russia would be extremely dangerous). At the very least her troops in the region (Guam, Japan) would be under immediate and direct threat, as would her regional allies. In the worst case scenario, escalation into a global four minute warning is conceivable.
That is why we are here today. Not because of some policy of "Appeasement", but because at every point on the path here there has been no better direction to take. It may well be that we are on an unavoidable path to war, just as the path that Neville Chamberlain walked led Britain into WWII.
The World (including China) understands that the USA would strike NK if necessary. Ever since WWII, the USA has shown repeatedly that it is willing to take covert and military actions to protect its interests. Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Niger. That incomplete list contains actions of various sizes that had varying degrees of national and international support, and various degrees of success. It's clear to all that the USA has the means and determination to defend itself anywhere on the planet whenever necessary, but taking action before it's warranted though has geopolitical costs. If China isn't on-side then Taiwan would cease to be exist as a country. Whatever language the USA used to justify its action in NK would be mirrored right back as China crossed the straits. It wouldn't matter whether that language contained any truth - the simple political calculus that the USA would need to accept to avoid escalation is, China + NK - Taiwan = China + Taiwan - NK. I'm sure that Japan would like to avoid being involved in that equation just as much as China would like to bring them into it. What does Russia want?
Armchair quarterbacking international relations is fun, isn't it? Best left to the pros I think.
You're assuming a direct correlation between an oil based economy and nuclear deterrence through mutually assured destruction. While there are entanglements between the two the benefit of MAD is not lost due to decreasing reliance on oil. MAD has been proven to work. We can sign disarmament treaties all day long, but who upholds it? Who ensures all sides are adhering to the agreement so that one country doesn't stand up and say "surprise!" We had an agreement with Iran to not develop nuclear weapons, North Korea as well. For years we gave them billions of dollars while they continued to pursue nuclear weapons in secret. What makes anyone think we can negotiate with them now and have them act honorably? It is to laugh. Our reduced reliance on foreign oil gives us a stronger economic position. We don't have to support these rogue regimes anymore. We can dry up their funding and still maintain our position on the global stage without having to wage war. But that doesn't change the fact that if another country attacks us and we have the capability to respond they stand to be devastated. That deterrence remains in tact. Even crazy people like Un have to understand that he loses everything if he plays that card. Iran too. Sure in the case of Iran they're motivated by Islam, however, they're also pragmatic to a certain extent. While some may be willing to blow up the whole world for a shot at paradise those people aren't typically in leadership roles. You can guess that all Trump supporters back white supremacists but you'd be wrong. Even Trump himself has denounced those folks. If we want to have a serious conversation let's have it and stop with the false equivalence. I think Trump is way better for our country than someone selling our uranium to Russia for personal gain, and compromising national security to obfuscate her self dealing and pay to play scheme. But perhaps that's because I'm not blinded by the mainstream media who isn't even attempting to hide their bias anymore. I'm in the American boat, and so I don't think America first is an unreasonable position. I can't think of any other country in the world that doesn't put its own interests first. It's just basic common sense. There's nothing racist about it. Everyone looks out for their own interests first. And I don't think Trump wants war. But he's also not afraid to stand up against our enemies and after so many years of capitulation that's a nice change as far as I'm concerned.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Gotta love all the 12 year-olds on Slashdot and their brilliant grasp of world politics.
well, they could nuke the Pee Resident when he's on one of his golf courses.....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Actually, I think we can, in fact, trust Mattis with that one.
You have heard of the two-man rule, right? Even the President of the United States can't unilaterally order a nuclear first strike... ... and if it's a reply strike, even the President isn't necessary, the Air Force can do that on its own.
Bone spurs WERE a draft-dodge idiot, any fool sees that.
They are already under manned with security people, where are they going to get the guards?
Clinton burned his draft card. He never dodged the draft you asshole. Stop spreading FUD.
Not sure why we would put bombers back on alert status when we have several platforms on site capable of dealing with NK already.
Both ICBM's and Cruise Missiles ( all variants, including nuclear ) can be launched by a subsurface platform. Guarantee we have more there than the one the public knows about.
Conventional or nuclear weaponry can also be delivered by aircraft via the nearby aircraft carrier(s). Even more cruise missiles ( all variants ) via the ships that make up the battle groups.
Bombers really wouldn't be required.
That said, Kimmo isn't gonna lob a nuke at anyone unless he's got nothing to lose. Though any missile launch will certainly be treated as a potential nuclear armed device.
We start a conventional campaign against NK and he thinks we're about to take him down ? ( ala Iraq ) Then, yes. He'll launch everything he has as a last " fuck you " to the US. Nukes, chems and even bio stuff if he has any.
The NBC possibility is the only reason the US would use a nuclear pre-emptive strike. You would want those delivery platforms and payloads obliterated without question before he had the option to use them.
Thus the dangers of obtaining / stockpiling those weapon types. You raise the risk of a nuclear first strike on your country dramatically due to the risk they pose to everyone else.
If any of this comes to fruition, we'll get to see first hand how well the THAAD and Sea Based Ballistic Shield systems work.
( Or how effective the first strike is )
I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq
But is it really? I don't think we have enough data to say that. The only certified nuclear states in existence are either US allies (France, Israel), or countries with a huge military. The US also hasn't invaded ANY country with a very powerful military in the last 50 years (for example, North Korea's military regularly hovers around a million men). Iraq at the time they were first invaded only had about 350,000 men in their army, 100,000 of those were recently called-up "reservists", and the US felt it had to ally with half the world to do the job. So it seems equally likely its the military and not the nukes doing the deterrence.
Its quite possible for any small nuclear state without a top-4 military, the US would simply identify their nukes, and take out their ability to deploy them as job one (normally, taking out air defenses are job one).
Do you REALLY think that China would permit the USA to "take responsibility" for NK, and sit on their borders? ...
You must be ignorant, or retarded.
That's no more likely to happen than China taking control of the Bahamas or Mexico.
If the USA makes ANY move against NK, then China kills the petrodollar overnight, and you zeppos are ALL fucked, one and all.
Don't be an idiot
Why is parent post modded Troll? Seems insightful to me. Did Breitbart or the Trumpanzees buy mod points?T
Only I can judge you.
Do you even know how oil is processed and used? Even if we only used 3% of the raw material, we would probably still have to refine as much of it as we do now. We still need to process as much crude as it would take to extract those "non-energy" compounds.
If anything, we would then have to figure out what to do with the "energy by products".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
No, not really. The real nuclear powers have arsenals measured in the thousands with well tested means to deliver those weapons to targets.
None of these so-called "new nuclear powers" have that.
The best they could really do is a sneak attack with a cargo container or something along those lines. That makes them somewhat dangerous by highly unpredictable. That puts them on the same level as some non-state actor.
No. Arming yourself with nukes is a quick way to make Russia or the US think you need to be taken out before you can get really dangerous. It's painting a target on your forehead.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I wonder if it is just a coincidence that Afghanistan became the enemy just as the lithium industry was taking off and it became clear to everyone just how important lithium would be to the 21st century energy industry, and at the same time as it was discovered that the largest lithium deposits were in Afghanistan.
Coincidence?
Oo oo I know we could burn it of as a waste product.
we could always burn them for energy. O.o
> For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want.
"Everybody is looking for something." - The Eurythmics
Posing a hypothetical wherein someone doesn't want something, is ridiculous. Power can mean "endangering your safety", if that makes more sense to you.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Are you stupid or just on brain addling drugs?
It's not a matter of "believing", it's a matter of fact.
Just how much a moron do you have to be to take my response out of context in that way? Did you not read what I was replying to? Can you read? The original poster was describing a strike, not retaliation.
You have to be the single most ignorant individual I've dealt with today... And that's quite a fucking achievement. Not being able to "deal with them directly" isn't an attitude, it's a fact. And nobody outside of the rotting watermelon you use for brains suggested it would be bullying to respond to an attack.
I love community colleges too.
You're missing that I'm saying he has pretty strong opinions on what to do about north korea when it's clear he doesn't even have the sort of introductory knowledge you'd acquire from a community college.
I'm sure that if I argued with him about it he'd accuse me of being brainwashed by the "MSM" which is like triple irony because he no doubt formed his ignorant opinions from years of fox news soundbites and headline skimming.
Make America Genocidal Again!
That's Hillbot Handwaiving. Even if there's nothing to indict her with, Hillary flagrantly violated her confirmation promises to keep a wall between State and the Clinton's foundation, with any conflicts of interest disclosed. Much like with her email server that people make excuses for - even if there's nothing to indict her with, there's her attacks on the Bush Administration for using private email, made two years before she started her own private email server and used it exclusively.
Everyone that know about NK and history would have picked something close to option 2, Ignore. Not because we are ignoring them, but they are hoping that we don't ignore them.
During the Cold War, the USA and USSR both had nukes. The world was at the brink of nuclear war. At the same time, both side knew that they didn't want to start the actual nuclear war. So both side waited out for a very long time while having some conflicts and competitions in between. The only thing that ended it was the fall of USSR internally.
NK is in the same boat. Their dictatorship is controlled by brainwashing the citizen about the west is about to attack. It drives the citizen to continue to believe, but their system can at one point fall apart when the citizen found out that the west isn't about to attack, and everything was a lie.
But if the USA attack or picked option 1 - The use or threat of deadly force. At least more than 1/2 the world will be deleted with this nuclear war.
If we use you scenario, we will need to add two extra things. The gun the man held can only hit a target within 1ft. And both the man across the street and you are wearing a visible grenade filled vest. Even if you don't play fps game, it should be obvious that the first to shoot is the one who's going to die soon after.
So in both the scenario and in real world, using deadly force is a big no go. You could still say that the USA should do something about China and other countries that are still supporting NK, but using deadly force is surely not the good option.
I agree but it was a measured statement: it is reasonable to think nukes help your deterrence.It may be wrong but it does not make you an unreasonable party. It does not make your position 'below par' on the international stage. It might also depend on the specific situation a country is in.
There is one clear case to me of a state that doesn't believe nukes help their defense and it's Iran, though everybody seems to believe otherwise. I follow Gareth Porter and Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett in their assertions that Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program and never wanted one. There are more stages to the nuclear stance: Japan is an extreme case of a nuclear threshold state. It's official policy is that when needed it can create a nuclear arsenal at short notice, in the time of a few months. Brazil has stepped back from their weapons program to 'weapons capability' status. Iran's position is that the fact that they have civilian nuclear capabilities has a deterrent value: if really pressed hard they could create nukes , which demonstrates strength and restraint.
China is interesting but I don't know a lot about their nuclear strategy. They have nukes but appear to show a lot of restraint.
It certainly raises the tension if you have nukes and that's part of the consideration. It may have the advantage of forcing the US to the negotiation table. North Korea already has a target on its forehead. They have been completely destroyed by the US in the fifties and have a lot of reason to think the US at least wants to overthrow them again. AFAIK they first started to work on nukes when the US invaded Grenada by surprise. They also consider how Iraq and Libya gave up a nuke program and then got overthrown by the West.
There are those in the US who also like to raise the tension: it's good for business and it signals to Japan and South Korea that they need the US and shouldn't be tempted to cuddle up to China. Simultaneously it puts pressure on China to reduce the tension (purportedly by pressuring North Korea).
I agree that the nuclear strike capability of North Korea for striking US is still close to non existing. That will change at some point to a real capability to at least hit one city.
I'm not sure that's a disagreement.
]Acquiring nuclear weapons is really dangerous. Having a few is quite safe. A country doesn't have to have MAD to be reasonably safe from major power attack.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's just bullshit. Electric cars can do just fine without permanent magnets, just look at Tesla. There plenty of wind turbine designs not using permanent magnets. And most solar panels don't use rare earths.
You mean the same bullshit excuse wingnuts used in 2005 when Bush left a major American city to drown? The "locals" are completely incapable of dealing with disasters of this magnitude, that's why we have FEMA. Do you also blather on about how the local fire department in Santa Rosa should have been able to hold off the record fires sweeping through California? Asshat.
Isn't it time we had a reboot of Dr Strangelove? Good luck with finding anyone as good as Peter Sellers though.