Posted on 12/19/2014 8:18:55 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
'We Still Have More Work To Do''
The State Department's Rose Gottemoeller, under secretary for arms control and international security, spoke at the Brookings Institution Thursday where she reaffirmed the United States' "unassailable" commitment to putting the nuclear weapons genie back in the bottle. Gottemoeller told the attendees at the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative-sponsored event that "the U.S. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unassailable."
She went on to note that the nation's stockpile of active weapons is down 85 percent from maximum cold war levels, falling to 4,804 in 2013 from a high of 31,255. But, she said, "We still have more work to do."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
“We” - the America hating communists infesting government
We are probably going to get hit before Obama leaves office. I hope they take out DC while Obama is on a local golf course. He’s community organized the Middle East with jihadists to take over slaughter Christians and take out Israel, too. Now he’s strengthening China, Castro, North Korea and Putin. The fatso in NK is crazy and mean enough to do the nuclear dirty deeds without hesitation.
We still have plenty to wipe out anyone that threatens us, multiple targets as well (and they are likely not including in the number of all the nukes we have onboard submarines and ships). But again, with O tripping the lights fantastic with the Nuclear Football at his command, we unfortunately will see him stash it aside as he sits in his bunker slugging down drinks and watching a couple of major cities get decimated.
We now must say “calorically-challenged”.
Nothing. 4800 nuke warheads are enough to survive a first strike by Russia and devastate their cities. Forget bombers and missle silos (not sure we still have those), think Tridents that have attack subs around them for protection. MAD still exists, even with China. They wouldn't nuke simply because it would destroy their economy from lack of US consumers.
The real problem is the Islamists who wish for their death for fruit, and trees, and 72 virgins. THEY worry me. What if Pakistan, with its nukes, was taken over by extremists? Please don't tell me that can't happen - look at the Arab spring and what it has brought.
Glad to help. Always keep Tridents in mind. They are the most advanced subs on our rock, and just one can deliver a payload that could destroy an entire nation.
And our satellite-based laser systems?... Perhaps.
MIRV is independent warheads from one missle. I surmise the 4800 number includes all warheads. Still, enough after a first strike to wipe out any nation, including Russia.
This is the main reason why I would like to see Bill Clinton behind bars or hung for treason. He, along with his biggest campaign contributors (Loral, Hughes, Riady, Chung) is responsible for giving China its current missile and nuke technology.
Without his Executive Order (or is that now a Memo according to Obambi?), to change multi purpose technology from the State Department to the Commerce Department, China would be far behind. They couldn't even figure out how to stop their ICBM's from blowing up until Clinton and the above gave them the answers. Also, he and Mad Albright gave so many concessions to the Norks and got nothing in return. Who knows how far they've advanced in their nuke program since? Sorry, off topic.
Also consider that the development of conventional weapons has reduced the need to use nukes in many instances.
Iirc, for all the talk from Bush and Thatcher and Major and others leading up to Desert Storm, using nukes to respond to an Iraqi chemical attack was off the table.
The contingency plan was to use F-111s with GBU-15s to blow the Tigris and Euphrates dams and put Baghdad under 10’ of water. Those GBUs were ultimately used to close off those pipes Hussein had opened up to dump oil into the Persian Gulf.
Consider a hypothetical military conflict with China where they nuke a US carrier. Or at least try to. Why pop off a nuke in return when a couple B-2s with MOPs can drop the Three Gorges Dam? “Yes, we were within our rights to respond with nukes, and were fully prepared to, but decided to show great restraint in the face of unwarranted Chinese escalation”.
I don't understand. Please explain.
Moreover, Russia is developing new ICBMs and improving both accuracy and warhead survivability (along with a host of other new nuclear capable delivery systems), while the US is relying on old ICBM tech - land based is the oldest, followed closely with sea based.
Russia has had anti-ICBM tech for decades - mostly relying on small nuclear warheads, but has now deployed SA-500s country-wide and is certainly working on an SA-600. Currently Russia is looking to add to the land mobile ICBM carriers by reinstating its railroad mobile launch program.
The US only has SM-3s which are in very limited supply and only sea based. (The SM3 development budget was severely slashed to $7 million or so). The US neither has nor is working on anything comparable to the SA 500 (or SA-400 for that matter). The list of Russian weapons systems for which the US has no current answer is growing daily. A bunch of blimps over DC is a joke - maybe they missed the memo that Russia now has nuclear capable hypersonic naval missiles.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that by the end of the current Resident’s current term, the US will have exactly zero nukes.
Ok does one MIRV warhead with 6 “reentry vehicles” (warheads) inside count as one or six warheads?
Treason. Don’t forget Ethel and Julius, you bastards.
Huh? Where have you been since the 1950s?
We many of us grew wondering each day, if it would be our last, we endured that for decades.
4, 726-729 were, at one time, scheduled to be converted to SSGN’s - cruise missile launch only.
The remaining 14 of the 18 built were of D-5 (except the remaining early C-4 boats upgraded to D-5 Trident II status).
Whereas they used to have about 14 MIRV’s per missile, they were reduced to 3/per — as I recall.
If true, that would be 14 x 24 x 3. 1008 warheads sailing on Tridents.
Nothing to sneer at, of course. But a shadow of what it once was. And given maintenance rotation, that is not the number sailing at any given time.
You're suggesting we have satellite lasers to kill the enemy? Yes, we may be more advanced than any of us know on the Internet know, but I doubt it we're there just yet. I will still sleep at night knowing our Submariners are out there.
Again, my worry is the Islamists if they get their hands on weaponry that could take out an aircraft carrier. I'm talking about some 5,000 lives in one strategic hit.
Considering that we built a facility for the Russians during the late 90’s to dismantle their nuclear weapons, and of course they could just as easily use a facility like that to build them or maintain them as well if someone put half a brain to think about it. Its kind of humorous that not too long after it was built, our inspections to keep track of there dismantling program had suddenly stopped. They where no longer allowed access so one couldn’t verify what was actually going on. Then of course I could bring up the money we gave them to build what was supposed to be a facility to help burn out the fuel in their unused ballistic missiles for treaty purposes, but only to have them come back for more money (and approved by the managing office) that eventually lead to the building of a facility that had the ability to now make them. The treachery in our deep recesses of our government runs very deep.
Think about how we are always ahead of our enemies in aircraft, ships, ground troop tech, satellite, etc. Yes, Russia is building up somewhat and so is China. However, even though we have a quisling in the WH, I doubt that the Pentagon is ignoring the above and has shelved its research and development.
I know, it's been cut back, but what do you do then? You set priorities and become more efficient. The Pentagon is not the Obambi Administration. There are things going on there that even the Joint Chiefs won't share with him. Believe it.
Maybe I wasn’t clear; I am referring to an attack invited by weakness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.