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.'"

29 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. Strange days indeed.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."
    1. Re: Strange days indeed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea.

      Unless you also have a valuable resource, such as oil, then being in possession of a nuclear weapon dramatically decreasses the possibility of a direct invasion by a foreign army. Saddam sure coulda used one to the Yankees at bay.

    2. Re:Strange days indeed.... by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, there were only two Superman films in that series. Just like how there were only three Indiana Jones films and only one Highlander film.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Strange days indeed.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, a single nuclear weapon removes the need for tens of thousands of soldiers to risk their lives. It is also drastically more cost effective. It's also the only way to reduce the loss of lives in cases like Seoul where people will have to endure "only" several hours of artillery strikes rather than weeks.

      Ah, so you actually think a single weapon will be used? Anyhow let us back off from that idea for a sec, so as we can get your atomic lust some info.

      Pyongyang is 118 miles from Seoul. Kaesong is around 30 miles to the center of Seoul. So lets say that the assholes start shelling from near Kaesong. So we decide to nuke Kaesong. A 1 megaton will suffice. Whether an air or ground burst is to be determined, and terrain is a factor as well

      Seoul isn't going to like that very much, because they gonna get irradiated. China will get some of that radioactive goodness as well, especially if we decide to take out the North Korean Capital as well. China is about 100 miles away. Japan getting dusted will depend on how the upper atmosphere winds are blowing.

      As likely as not, NC will set up multiple shelling locations, and while the radiation effects will eventually kill those further away after a short time, they can continue to shell SC before they croak. So some nucs will be needed there as well to stop that shit. And of course, they have their missiles in the first place, so more nucs for them. Also a problem for China. Probably for Japan as well. So yeah, if Trump gets his wish of wiping NC off the map, it will be multiple weapons, and a lot of people killed in both North and South Korea by our weaponry, we will spread the radiation into other nations, who also have nuclear weaponry. They probably won't like this at all.

      By golly, since this has now become a critical international act of war incident wht with making a mess out of the place, and contaminating other countries, one might not be too surprised if old Alex in Russia decided to help the rest of the world by sending a few gifts our way. And us them. And it wouldn't be too surprising if the rest of the world supported them.

      All manner of scenarios are being gamed out right now, and your simple happy one nuc scenario, then happiness all around afterwards is almost certainly not one of them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: Strange days indeed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason Saddam got invaded, (at least the excuse) was because he was acting like he was going to get nukes, which is the same reason N. Korea is getting special attention now. N. Korea (that insane boy leader there) is being a special dumbass about it. Without nukes they have Seoul as hostage to their gazillion conventional guns and have China as a protector. Knocking them off wasn't worth it for either the US or S. Korea, an annoyance which can be safely ignored. With nukes they become dangerous enough for both countries to calculate if it is worth it to try a first strike and get those nukes on the ground, and China may just figure it isn't worth protecting a nutcase who will get them involved in nuclear fallout themselves. The leaders of N. Korea had a pretty good three generation run without nukes. Sooner or later, this nuke thing doesn't end well for them. It may not end well for a bunch of other people but it makes N. Korea a goner.

    5. Re:Strange days indeed.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But imho nukes are a war crime.

      Most of the world will concur with you. The history of nucs and their testing brought some interesting things to light. First, it eally sucks to be in the vicinity where one goes off. The things are completely indiscriminate. Thy make one hella mess. And with few exceptions the shakers and movers in the Military loathe them. There really isn't a good way to use them, the exception being the EMP pulsing, but even then, there is the travelling radioactivity. But the concept of quickly killing millions, mostly civilians, and leaving many of them terribly injured, is going to get the country first using nucs instant pariahhood.

      And despite the murderous wet dreams of some folks, the US has been waging war for 16 years now, and that uses up a lot of money. I severely dougt we could stand against the combined forces of the rest of the world. That might be blunt,

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Strange days indeed.... by djinn6 · · Score: 5, Informative

      As much as I would like to disagree with you (as nukes are disagreeable), the fact remains that combat deaths, and the number of conflicts worldwide, has dropped dramatically since nuclear weapons were invented.

      I'd like to see the stats to back up that claim.

      Here you go: https://ourworldindata.org/war...

    7. Re:Strange days indeed.... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Funny

      only one Highlander film.

      Duh. Everyone knows there can be only one Highlander.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re: Strange days indeed.... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the US got rid of nukes

      China would attack Taiwan, and maybe Japan too. There'd be a regional war as all the other Asian powers divided into pro China and anti China groups.

      Russia would invade all of Ukraine, and threaten one of the Baltic States. They'd be opposed by the UK, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. France and Germany may intervene on the NATO side or might decide to sit it out.

      Iran and Saudi Arabia would escalate their proxy war into actual open war.

      It's worth pointing out that Japan, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan are all able to build nukes relatively quickly if they are forced to. The reason they haven't done so is because the US has done a deal with them - so long as they don't claim to be a nuclear power they're under the US's nuclear umbrella. Of course if you're China then it is in your interests to strike before Japan or Taiwan have built a survivable second strike force which is non trivial - you need a SLBMs to guarantee that a first strike won't wipe out all your warheads. Submarines take time to build.

      Iran would become an open nuclear power. So would Israel. Israel might decide to strike Iran before Iran had a viable second strike force. Or Saudi Arabia might.

      I.e. US hegemony has frozen in a lot of conflicts that would otherwise have escalated. In particular a lot of US allies have not developed nuclear weapons in return for guarantees from the US that it would retaliate against a nuclear attack on them. If that guarantee goes away they would probably build their own nukes but they'd be vulnerable to a nuclear armed opponent striking before they'd built a survivable deterrent force.

      One of the things that make dealing with Iran hard is these sorts of calculations. From a US point of view Iran having a small number of ICBMs isn't fatal - the US could probably shoot them down and in any case deterrence applies. What makes it hard is that US allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia may regard Iranian nukes as being something they cannot tolerate and threaten to leave the current arrangement they have with the US where they do not openly wield nukes in return for US protection.

      It's the same in a way for North Korea. Japan has not openly nuclearised in return for security guarantees from the US. They may well regard a nuclear NK as being intolerable. On the other hand China may regard a nuclear Japan as intolerable.

      The US's hegemony allows it to interpose itself in between the two sides of all these conflicts and that is beneficial. If it pulls back, I think you'd see one of them explode.

      Russia and China have both made clear statements that they are wannabe expansionist powers. Right now the US keeps them in check. If it didn't it's hard to see who else would. On the other hand expansionism is something which always leads to war in the long run because expansionist powers keep grabbing more and more until they inadvertently make the case that appeasement has failed and that war is inevitable. .

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re: Strange days indeed.... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately our insane boy leader of the US doesn’t know how to deescalate these problems. They are both trolling each other until one side hits first. Neither will be the adult and back down. Our only saving grace is that both sides are big cowards and want to have the other guy strike first.

      Neither leader cares about the loss of life, nor the effect these weapons will have on the world. They just want everyone to like them, and are hopping they get attacked first so they look like the poor victim.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re: Strange days indeed.... by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That isn't accurate at all. Under Clinton NK threatens to nuke us and we say "settle down. we'll give you some stuff if you calm down." NK continues nuclear research. Then under Bush Jr they do the same thing, we respond in the same way and they inch a bit further into being a real threat to us and the region. Obama, same.

      What is the solution to NK? How do we de-escalate? We've spent decades playing softball with them and allowing their continued research into nuclear armament.. at what point to we stop appeasing them and start dealing with them directly? When they can actually nuke California? The whole point of this isn't to nuke NK. It is to make China realize that we will strike NK if necessary and to finally take responsibility for this crazy nation on their border.

  2. Sending A Clear Message by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. Bombers? by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Bombers? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once launched, aircraft can be recalled.

    2. Re: Bombers? by sound+vision · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The posturing is for domestic consumption as much as any foreign audience.

  4. Just started replaying Fallout: New Vegas by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  5. Re:Why bother doing this? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a statement that can be photographed and noticed - putting your ballistic missile force on high alert has few physical signs as potent as bombers sitting on ready alert at the end of a runway.

  6. What I like about this is by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/
  7. Pointless saber rattling by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re: What threat? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The crazy guy in NK is also somewhat of a figurehead. There are always tons of older generals standing around him in the official photos. He only has the power his military grants him. It's an actual whole country with people in it, and not democratic, but there is a political party running things, not a kingdom.

    There are English language North Korean books, from the DPRK point of view, that you can buy right in the Kindle eBook store. It is obviously totally the biased 'official' propaganda, but it's important for people to realize the NK leadership are not Marvel Comics villians. There is an 'official' Kim Jong Il (the previous leader and current leader's father) biography published by the Foreign Language Publishing House, and since they are, (uh..) kinda a non-profit, it's very inexpensive. Checking stuff out and not treating our enemies like comic book villians is the way to resolve things.

  9. Re:US uranium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  10. On the Beach... by robert.piskule · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. Not true for major weapon systems. by mbkennel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. O.M.G by morethanapapercert · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Any sane person should be fucking terrified about this. During the Cold War, both sides subscribed to the "No first strike" policy, which was in turn the foundation for Mutually Assured Destruction. In other words, both sides were promising not to shoot first, but to also unleash nuclear Armageddon if attacked with nukes. (and possibly other weapons of mass destruction. The Russian Dead Hand apparently didn't just rely on sensors detecting nukes after all. It was rumoured that it relied on certain radio stations continuing to broadcast and would launch the missiles autonomously is a set number of stations went off the air such as when a virulent plague wiped out a town)

    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
  13. You are aware that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... 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."
    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. ... 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.)

    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.

    1. Re:You are aware that ... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Well, you clearly know more than the average American. As you know, Americans have foreign policy presented to them as a Western, in which the good guys in white hats (The USA) deal with the bad guys in black hats (America's enemy du jour). It's a neat, simple morality play that Americans love to see played out again and again. Connections are never made between the various actors motivations, actions and reactions. Everything seems to happen in a vacuum. So Americans think they are watching an old western, when really they're watching the Godfather.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  14. Re: Rational days indeed.... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The U.S. no longer leads the world in diplomacy, nor climate change, nor nuclear non-proliferation."

    None of those things are things we really have to lead the world in though. The only things we really need to lead in are things that actually make us more powerful and our military and economic power still ensures we are very diplomatic even if we are complete assholes. But it is certainly true that while other nations may not have a choice but to deal with us, avoiding dealing with us where they can get away with it will certainly erode our position over time.

    Given that for the most part the choices remain The US, Russia, and China though, the US is still the least distasteful of the bunch.

  15. Re:No,no,no,no,no! by tinkerton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. Go read about the man. He and Trump would have been on the same wavelength.

    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'.

  16. Re: No,no,no,no,no! by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.