• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's Why U.S. Tactical Nukes Are a Bad Idea.

Oh, where have we heard this song before .......... Russia is Nigeria with Snow :roll:


Except it uniquely retains the ability to reduce the US to a pile of smouldering rubble.


Regarding tactical nuclear weapons, the alleged use in Iraq is a joke. But US doctrine is clearly interested in renewing and deploying them physically. For a long time Washington has wanted to use them flexibly, and increasingly incorporate them into offensive force scenarios.

It's not all about Russia. I think the Us would like to use them against ISIS ........ boys and toys and all that.

I'm not suggesting Russia is "Nigeria with snow"... I actually think the fact that Saudi Arabia is out-spending them on defense has more to do with them than Russia. Russia is spending a very credible 4% of GDP on defense (compared to US defense spending of 3% of GDP). Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is spending an aggressive 10% of it's GDP on defense....which speaks to an awful lot of insecurity within the Kingdom.

You're correct that Russia possesses a very significant strategic capability - I don't want to minimize that in the slightest. They have the ability to reduce the US to a pile of smoldering rubble.

The problem that Russia is facing is that they're in the midst of a highly expensive program to modernize that strategic nuclear capability... and to pay for that modernization - without increasing defense spending and thus reducing long-term economic growth - they have had to cut back on their conventional force capability. But they still want to play in the Great Power game and throw their weight around....and the way to do that is to bolster their conventional forces with a tactical nuclear capability. It's deterrence on the cheap.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that Washington wants to use tactical nuclear weapons. Sure, there's always been a small but vocal minority of Curtis LeMay types who view them as "just another weapon".... but the vast majority of the military establishment knows this isn't the case. In the chess game of geopolitics, nuclear weapons are your Queen... you don't bring her out unless you have to. Bring her out too early, and odds are pretty good you'll end up regretting it.
 
I'm not suggesting Russia is "Nigeria with snow"... I actually think the fact that Saudi Arabia is out-spending them on defense has more to do with them than Russia. Russia is spending a very credible 4% of GDP on defense (compared to US defense spending of 3% of GDP). Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is spending an aggressive 10% of it's GDP on defense....which speaks to an awful lot of insecurity within the Kingdom.

You're correct that Russia possesses a very significant strategic capability - I don't want to minimize that in the slightest. They have the ability to reduce the US to a pile of smoldering rubble.

The problem that Russia is facing is that they're in the midst of a highly expensive program to modernize that strategic nuclear capability... and to pay for that modernization - without increasing defense spending and thus reducing long-term economic growth - they have had to cut back on their conventional force capability. But they still want to play in the Great Power game and throw their weight around....and the way to do that is to bolster their conventional forces with a tactical nuclear capability. It's deterrence on the cheap.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that Washington wants to use tactical nuclear weapons. Sure, there's always been a small but vocal minority of Curtis LeMay types who view them as "just another weapon".... but the vast majority of the military establishment knows this isn't the case. In the chess game of geopolitics, nuclear weapons are your Queen... you don't bring her out unless you have to. Bring her out too early, and odds are pretty good you'll end up regretting it.


Good post Cordelier ......... you make some fair points and you're obviously a realist :)


Russia is not a full spectrum military competitor to the US. It always amuses me to see western analysts salivating over a new arms race in which Russia will bankrupt itself like the Soviets did. The thing is, Russia does not repeats its mistakes. It only needs to be able to inflict devastating damage on the US to retain its independence. It will always do that.

The problem we face is to modernise conventional and nuclear forces. You're right - T14s, SU-57s etc have been scaled right back / delayed because of budget restraints. The focus is on the nuclear triad and on conventional precision strike. Tactical nuclear weapons are not currently a big part of Russian strategy. It is, I think it's fair to say, the US which is pushing this envelope.
 
Good post Cordelier ......... you make some fair points and you're obviously a realist :)


Russia is not a full spectrum military competitor to the US. It always amuses me to see western analysts salivating over a new arms race in which Russia will bankrupt itself like the Soviets did. The thing is, Russia does not repeats its mistakes. It only needs to be able to inflict devastating damage on the US to retain its independence. It will always do that.

The problem we face is to modernise conventional and nuclear forces. You're right - T14s, SU-57s etc have been scaled right back / delayed because of budget restraints. The focus is on the nuclear triad and on conventional precision strike. Tactical nuclear weapons are not currently a big part of Russian strategy. It is, I think it's fair to say, the US which is pushing this envelope.

Is it the US pushing the envelope or is it Russia?

The honest answer as that I don't know... I'm not privy to the intelligence to make that call. I will point out, though, that NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, in his Oct. 24, 2018 press conference, asserted that it was the Russians who originally violated the INF Treaty:

Q: Thank you very much, Robin Emmott from Reuters. Secretary General, yesterday evening Washington made clear to Russia that it will withdraw from the INF treaty. Given that NATO as recently as July in the summit declaration committed to upholding this treaty and called it a landmark treaty where does the US decision leave NATO?

NATO Secretary General: The INF Treaty is a landmark treaty but the problem is that no treaty can be effective, can work, if it is only respected by one part and therefore NATO allies have expressed concerns about the Russian behaviour, about the development of a new Russian missile and they have expressed, all of us have, that the most plausible explanation is that Russia is in violation of the Treaty because they have now accepted that they are developing a new missile SSC8. We have had ongoing consultations on this for a long time. This was actually an issue that was raised by the Obama administration. It was an issue that we addressed also at our summit in July where heads of state and government expressed a very strong position on the INF issue and expressed their concerns about the Russian behaviour and at the Defence Ministerial Meeting in October this was one of the main issues discussed in the meeting but also publicly at a press conference I expressed my concerns and addressed the fact that Russia is developing a new missile but also Secretary Mattis also declared and stated clearly that this cannot go on, this is untenable, that Russia is developing the new missile.

I trust what comes out of Stoltenberg's mouth infinitely more than anything Trump or Putin assert.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why all of those digital cameras were just "pixelated"... I would have figured the EMP would have fried them completely. I guess we must have found a way around that too.

EMP is a big boogieman that people have been going on and on about for decades. Most not even realizing that it is largely a theory, based on 2 high altitude tests 50 years ago.

And the defense against it is stupid-simple.
 
EMP is a big boogieman that people have been going on and on about for decades. Most not even realizing that it is largely a theory, based on 2 high altitude tests 50 years ago.

And the defense against it is stupid-simple.

With all due respect, EMP is a fact, not a theory... you may be on more solid ground where it comes to the effects high-altitude nuclear detonations - although the testing there was a lot more extensive then you suggest.... The US conducted 10 such tests at altitudes ranging from 26 km to 540 km... the Soviets conducted 7 tests with altitudes ranging from 22 km to 300 km. Additionally, some of the Soviet Project K tests were conducted over populated areas to more precisely assess the EMP effects.

Regardless... we wouldn't be talking about a high-altitude burst in this scenario.... to use a Neutron Bomb as an area denial weapon, it'd need to be a low-altitude ground burst.
 
With all due respect, EMP is a fact, not a theory... you may be on more solid ground where it comes to the effects high-altitude nuclear detonations - although the testing there was a lot more extensive then you suggest.... The US conducted 10 such tests at altitudes ranging from 26 km to 540 km... the Soviets conducted 7 tests with altitudes ranging from 22 km to 300 km. Additionally, some of the Soviet Project K tests were conducted over populated areas to more precisely assess the EMP effects.

Regardless... we wouldn't be talking about a high-altitude burst in this scenario.... to use a Neutron Bomb as an area denial weapon, it'd need to be a low-altitude ground burst.

Yes, they conducted multiple tests. Only 2 of which (Starfish Prime and one Soviet test) produced any meaningful "EMP" effects.

That is why it is generally considered to be a "theory". And as I said it is stupid-simple to prevent this from being a problem at all.

Have a galvanized steel garbage can, some wire and cardboard? You too can make a 100% perfect protection against EMP.

Here is the problem, my saying "EMP is a theory" is like my saying "Global Warming is a theory". Yes, there is no denial that there are actually hard facts behind both. But what is complete bogus is the way that some people take the facts and then spin it off into something completely different, so that the actual thing being defined now means something completely different.

I do not deny EMP, what I deny is that EMP is a threat that many people seem to think it is. Of course, I also understand it, and understand how simple it is to negate as a threat.

Kinda like the "Neutron Bomb". Yea, they have been made. No, they were entirely theoretical and never actually tested. And they were only in service for a few years. No kind of "Neutron Bomb" has been a part of active inventory for over 20 years.

And no, it does not need to be "low altitude". That was done because of the delivery systems used. The MGM-52 LANCE SRBM, and the W79 203mm artillery round. One was made for use in the SPRINT ABM system, which of course would have been a high-altitude weapon. But it was only in service for 1 year then removed from service.
 
Yes, they conducted multiple tests. Only 2 of which (Starfish Prime and one Soviet test) produced any meaningful "EMP" effects.

That is why it is generally considered to be a "theory". And as I said it is stupid-simple to prevent this from being a problem at all.

Have a galvanized steel garbage can, some wire and cardboard? You too can make a 100% perfect protection against EMP.

Here is the problem, my saying "EMP is a theory" is like my saying "Global Warming is a theory". Yes, there is no denial that there are actually hard facts behind both. But what is complete bogus is the way that some people take the facts and then spin it off into something completely different, so that the actual thing being defined now means something completely different.

I do not deny EMP, what I deny is that EMP is a threat that many people seem to think it is. Of course, I also understand it, and understand how simple it is to negate as a threat.

Kinda like the "Neutron Bomb". Yea, they have been made. No, they were entirely theoretical and never actually tested. And they were only in service for a few years. No kind of "Neutron Bomb" has been a part of active inventory for over 20 years.

And no, it does not need to be "low altitude". That was done because of the delivery systems used. The MGM-52 LANCE SRBM, and the W79 203mm artillery round. One was made for use in the SPRINT ABM system, which of course would have been a high-altitude weapon. But it was only in service for 1 year then removed from service.

Starfish Prime caused EMP damage in Honolulu... which was about 900 miles away - in the direction where the EMP effect was minimalized!

The Soviet Test damaged 570 km of power lines, 1000 km of buried power lines, and destroyed a power plant.

I'd say that's pretty effective evidence, especially given that these tests were conducted in 1961-62 and given the relatively primative electronics of the time. Now try detonating one of those 80 km over Chicago in 2019 and see what it does to modern micro-circuitry. Gonna need a big galvanized garbage can to cover Chicago....

Anyway, all of this high-altitude EMP discussion is beyond the scope of the scenario in question.... for there to be any destruction of ground targets, it would have had to have been a low-altitude detonation, and that just wasn't in the cards.
 
Starfish Prime caused EMP damage in Honolulu... which was about 900 miles away - in the direction where the EMP effect was minimalized!

The Soviet Test damaged 570 km of power lines, 1000 km of buried power lines, and destroyed a power plant.

Both of which were experimental tests, in the upper atmosphere. In the event of a nuclear war, nobody is going to be nuking space.

And also, those tests were conducted before the protections were known to prevent that kind of damage.

A Faraday Cage is all you need. As I said, something stupid simple to make, and is included in almost all military equipment as part of it's design.

And other things cause EMPs, lightning, and solar flares for example. Which is why all commercial aircraft have such protections as part of their design. Aircraft get hit my lightning on a daily basis.

And is also included in many other equipment, because it protects against other similar problems. Such as building it in such shielding in satellites today. I worked at Hughes Satellite (now Boeing Satellite) in 2000-2001, and remember the engineers working hard to modify the birds to include them after the multiple failures from the 2000 event. For those that remember, a lot of birds went dark after solar flares took them out in 2000. Since then birds now incorporate such technology as part of their design, to keep it from happening again.

For example, all PATRIOT equipment have metal gaskets around all hatches. More then once I had a new kid question how a gasket of metal mesh would keep water from getting into the equipment. And each time I explained to them that the gasket was not to keep water out, the components were designed to not be effected by water. The mesh metal gasket was to create a Faraday Cage effect around all of the electronics, to keep them safe from any potential EMP. And conversely, it also protected them from either electronic monitoring, or from electronic interference from outside sources.

Back during the Cold War, many of the computers and other communications equipment we used in the military had similar technology incorporated into them. Not to protect against EMP, but to prevent eavesdropping remotely. Back then we called it TEMPEST. But it literally is the exact same technology. What works to keep emissions in also works to keep emissions out.

I am sure anybody that served from the late 1980's to early 1990's is familiar with the ugly AN/UYK series computers. They were big, green, and weighed a ton (a typical desktop came in 4 crates, and weighed over 250 pounds). And were horribly expensive, in the range of $10k in 1990 for an 80386. But they were quickly phased out for day to day use in the mid-1990's after the end of the Cold War, and the ever increasing speed and lower cost of computers that came after. The only computers similarly equipped today are the proprietary systems found in military equipment, which do not need speed because they only perform 1 or 2 functions.

And Faraday Cage technology is simple, they were invented in 1836. And I can bet that everybody has one in their kitchen and do not even know it.
 
Both of which were experimental tests, in the upper atmosphere. In the event of a nuclear war, nobody is going to be nuking space.

And also, those tests were conducted before the protections were known to prevent that kind of damage.

A Faraday Cage is all you need. As I said, something stupid simple to make, and is included in almost all military equipment as part of it's design.

And other things cause EMPs, lightning, and solar flares for example. Which is why all commercial aircraft have such protections as part of their design. Aircraft get hit my lightning on a daily basis.

And is also included in many other equipment, because it protects against other similar problems. Such as building it in such shielding in satellites today. I worked at Hughes Satellite (now Boeing Satellite) in 2000-2001, and remember the engineers working hard to modify the birds to include them after the multiple failures from the 2000 event. For those that remember, a lot of birds went dark after solar flares took them out in 2000. Since then birds now incorporate such technology as part of their design, to keep it from happening again.

For example, all PATRIOT equipment have metal gaskets around all hatches. More then once I had a new kid question how a gasket of metal mesh would keep water from getting into the equipment. And each time I explained to them that the gasket was not to keep water out, the components were designed to not be effected by water. The mesh metal gasket was to create a Faraday Cage effect around all of the electronics, to keep them safe from any potential EMP. And conversely, it also protected them from either electronic monitoring, or from electronic interference from outside sources.

Back during the Cold War, many of the computers and other communications equipment we used in the military had similar technology incorporated into them. Not to protect against EMP, but to prevent eavesdropping remotely. Back then we called it TEMPEST. But it literally is the exact same technology. What works to keep emissions in also works to keep emissions out.

I am sure anybody that served from the late 1980's to early 1990's is familiar with the ugly AN/UYK series computers. They were big, green, and weighed a ton (a typical desktop came in 4 crates, and weighed over 250 pounds). And were horribly expensive, in the range of $10k in 1990 for an 80386. But they were quickly phased out for day to day use in the mid-1990's after the end of the Cold War, and the ever increasing speed and lower cost of computers that came after. The only computers similarly equipped today are the proprietary systems found in military equipment, which do not need speed because they only perform 1 or 2 functions.

And Faraday Cage technology is simple, they were invented in 1836. And I can bet that everybody has one in their kitchen and do not even know it.

Still, though, Faraday Cages aren't really a viable option for Civil Defense... to go back to my example, it's not like it's going to be practical to shield Chicago in a giant Faraday Cage, is it?
 
Still, though, Faraday Cages aren't really a viable option for Civil Defense... to go back to my example, it's not like it's going to be practical to shield Chicago in a giant Faraday Cage, is it?

*facepalm*
 
I can sympathize...having had my own facepalm moment when you mansplained Faraday Cages to me.

OK, got it snowflake. Anybody who uses terms like "mansplained" while throwing out such stupid analogies simply can not be taken seriously.

Thank you for playing, next time please check your Millennial anger at the door when trying to discuss a serious subject. One that is about facts and not your feelings.
 
OK, got it snowflake. Anybody who uses terms like "mansplained" while throwing out such stupid analogies simply can not be taken seriously.

Thank you for playing, next time please check your Millennial anger at the door when trying to discuss a serious subject. One that is about facts and not your feelings.

Ahhhh.... I see. You can dish it, but you can't take it. I guess you must be pretty self-important, huh?

Word to the wise....Once you find a way out of that small pond of your's, you'll find there are bigger fish in the sea.
 
Ahhhh.... I see. You can dish it, but you can't take it. I guess you must be pretty self-important, huh?

Word to the wise....Once you find a way out of that small pond of your's, you'll find there are bigger fish in the sea.

Actually, I can handle a rational debate. Because that is what I do, debate. Which involves facts.

When all people do is argue and throw up nonsense, I rapidly loose interest. And every time somebody tries to involve facts, you just scream they are mansplaining.

Maybe you should stick to the political areas in here. Over there, nobody cares about facts. In the military section, most of us tend more towards facts.

libdeb.jpg


Do you need me to mansplain that to you some more?
 
Actually, I can handle a rational debate. Because that is what I do, debate. Which involves facts.

When all people do is argue and throw up nonsense, I rapidly loose interest. And every time somebody tries to involve facts, you just scream they are mansplaining.

Maybe you should stick to the political areas in here. Over there, nobody cares about facts. In the military section, most of us tend more towards facts.

libdeb.jpg


Do you need me to mansplain that to you some more?

I see... and that's why you see fit to post up childish memes?

You don't even realize how hypocritical you are, do you?
 
I see... and that's why you see fit to post up childish memes?

You don't even realize how hypocritical you are, do you?

*laughs*

Let me know when you want to have a discussion involving facts, and not your fears and paranoia that avoids all facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom