However, to bypass START treaty restrictions on making new kinds of nuclear weapons, Bolton already had to state it was not a new kind of weapon, but a modification of the B612-12 nuclear bomb. So he only pissed off the Russians, but didn't actually violate the treaty. — ernestm
mass cannibalism with so much infrastructure wrecked? — Bitter Crank
But this doesn't address Wallows thoughts on SDI which is a defence strategy making America impregnable. What you're talking about us another offence weapon. — Brett
↪Wallows If you want to be safe from MAD (which term was coined before Ronald came along) you have to get rid of the means to achieve MAD -- nuclear weapons, whether launched from the air, the land, or the sea. — Bitter Crank
What now happens, is, Bolton claims, there will not be mutually assured destruction after he uses tactical nuclear devices. The most the Russians can justifiably do is use nuclear bunkerbusters themselves. — ernestm
Interesting. So they’ll fight each other on an agreed upon breaking of the rules. Sort of a gentleman’s agreement. — Brett
Actually it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible even now.It's my understanding that Reagan's concept at the time was infeasible due to not being quite there yet technologically and economically. But, things have changed considerably since then. Rocket launch costs have drastically decreased due to the efforts of Elon Musk along with every country pursuing laser technology to defend against hypersonic missiles and such arising threats, which can be mounted on land, sea, and air-based systems. — Wallows
Look at it the other way around: possessing an actual nuclear deterrence is the most obvious and practical way to deter US aggression if your country is already in the "axis-of-evil" sphere in the minds of the American neocons. Libya very stupidly stopped it's nuclear and chemical weapons programs, but on the other hand the totalitarian state run by a crazy loon had meager chances in them being highly successful. Syria's nuclear weapons program was on the other hand destroyed by Israel (just like Iraq's).The situation is almost a catch-22. As it stands there is no country in the world that presents a danger to us. After all, the Cold War is over and we won, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But, the appeal of the Star Wars concept first introduced by Ronald Reagan is appealing due to in an absolute manner eliminating the viability of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. — Wallows
This is the, should I say "politically incorrect" and taboo-like, argument that when publicly said will get more flak than the US bombers over Germany.If we did denuclearize, we would have to fight a bunch of areal-drone and boots-on-ground wars to re-establish hard territorial control. Imagine a hot war between the U.S and Russia (which would almost certainly have occurred if not for M.A.D). — VagabondSpectre
Lasers don't work against mirrors. — VagabondSpectre
But there's a significant upshot that must be recognized: MAD not only prevents the usage of nuclear weapons, it also prevents direct conflicts between nuclear armed nations, for fear of escalation. — VagabondSpectre
EDIT: I should also mention that if we do make satellites with lasers strong enough to melt ICBMs, they would probably be strong enough to harm surface targets as well. Somehow the idea of being cooked with radiation from space isn't any less terrifying than nuclear explosions... — VagabondSpectre
Actually it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible even now. — ssu
Let's not forget a thing called physics here: a satellite has fly quite fast not to fall back and a satellite in geostationary orbit is useless as it's so far away with over 35 000km (for comparison the ISS is in orbit 340km above the Earth). — ssu
Can you explain your reasoning as to why practically impossible? My limited understanding on the matter is the miniturization and power needs to make the idea viable from space to counter threats like ICBM's. — Wallows
A telecom satellite is a bit different than a satellite that has to somehow destroy a man size object flying something like 20 000 km/h. As I said, the real issue is cost effectiveness. Hence we have firearms that function as the one's from WW2 or earlier, not ray guns.In regards to #1. Elon Musk is deploying satellites in LEO that can provide internet to the world. Can't the same logic apply to defensive warfare satellites? — Wallows
Why need a laser?Also, have you heard of the new 150+kW lasers to be equipped soon on F-35's and F-22's? Hypothetically four of them operating in unison *could* eliminate the threat of ICBM's? — Wallows
I think the Israelis favour more their own Iron Dome system than a missile that actually was developed in the 1950s. But then again, the to be intercepted targets are basically Katyusha-rockets. And basically Patriot is great to shoot down aircraft, not so actually at ballistic missiles (as we saw during the Gulf War).Further investment in laser-based attack systems has, as far as I know, been totally discontinued for quite a long time, in favor of the "MM104 Patriot" Surface-to-Air (SAM) Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM), since their spectacular success in Isreal, in 2014. — ernestm
Nope. It would be absolute heresy for the US navy to use a missile system from another branch!The US navy missile destroyers, such as the USS John McCain, probably carry Patriot missiles to protect aircraft carriers, but I don't know the details. — ernestm
They will have a problem with the nuclear arsenal, because now it's very old. The US hasn't renewed it's nuclear arsenal, unlike Russia has been doing all the time. Just renewing it will be very costly, as we know how costly these things are made to be. A new budgetary fiasco in the making I guess.For nuclear bombs, the 2019 defense budget included $13.9 billion. — ernestm
Nope. It would be absolute heresy for the US navy to use a missile system from another branch!
And carriers usually aren't attacked by ballistic missiles (even if they can be, especially the Chinese have these kinds of plans). Something like a torpedo works better. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.