• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

How many nations could conceivably destroy america, if so inclined?

jetski

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Any one of Russia, UK and France, could get up with a bad hangover and fire 200 nukes stateside.
Russia could probably send 2000 nukes stateside.

Is there anyone else out there that could get up tomorrow and end your world, if they decided to?
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
An army of 900 well trained men, smuggled across our wide open borders, and armed inside the United States would bring our society to collapse in a weekend. It doesn't take a military confrontation or a weapon of mass destruction.

1) They attack shopping malls / centers and kill thousands forcing America to shut down,
2) They destroy the grid by simply taking down massive transmission lines,
3) They hit key choke points and diesel fueling stations so that our commerce is toast, food shipments end,

America would implode in 10-20 days.

Any one of Russia, UK and France, could get up with a bad hangover and fire 200 nukes stateside.
Russia could probably send 2000 nukes stateside.

Is there anyone else out there that could get up tomorrow and end your world, if they decided to?
 

jetski

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An army of 900 well trained men, smuggled across our wide open borders, and armed inside the United States would bring our society to collapse in a weekend. It doesn't take a military confrontation or a weapon of mass destruction.

1) They attack shopping malls / centers and kill thousands forcing America to shut down,
2) They destroy the grid by simply taking down massive transmission lines,
3) They hit key choke points and diesel fueling stations so that our commerce is toast, food shipments end,

America would implode in 10-20 days.

not if russia nuked them first :p
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mexico is doing a pretty good job at destroying America. America has been under invasion for over forty years now.

Question is, will Congress surrender with comprehension immigration reform ? Over 10 % of Mexico's citizens are already occupying America and President Obama and the Democrat Party want to wave the white flag and surrender.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,524
Reaction score
50,126
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Any one of Russia, UK and France, could get up with a bad hangover and fire 200 nukes stateside.
Russia could probably send 2000 nukes stateside.

Is there anyone else out there that could get up tomorrow and end your world, if they decided to?


Mmkay.


First, "has 200 nukes" does not mean "could send 200 nukes to another continent successfully tomorrow". That requires the right kind of missles, or aircraft, and there are other factors involved.

At the height of the Cold War, there were estimates that perhaps no more than 1/3 of Russia's missile force was actually properly maintained and capable of successful launch and successful attack. It is probably far worse today.

However, it is a good argument in favor of perfecting the missile defense systems we are currently working on. They are not yet up to standard, but everything requires RnD and time.

In the meantime, massive retaliation remains the primary deterrent.
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,897
Reaction score
4,270
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The biggest threats to America right now are non-State actors, like private financial institutions, globalists and terrorists.

Soft powers like China are already chipping away at us, via trade deficits.

No one has to attack us to take us down. We are rotting from the inside out, thanks to our own people betraying us.
 

jetski

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mmkay.


First, "has 200 nukes" does not mean "could send 200 nukes to another continent successfully tomorrow". That requires the right kind of missles, or aircraft, and there are other factors involved.

At the height of the Cold War, there were estimates that perhaps no more than 1/3 of Russia's missile force was actually properly maintained and capable of successful launch and successful attack. It is probably far worse today.

However, it is a good argument in favor of perfecting the missile defense systems we are currently working on. They are not yet up to standard, but everything requires RnD and time.

In the meantime, massive retaliation remains the primary deterrent.

Im pretty sure the uk and france have deployment. Russia too for that matter.

The uk have astute submarines a blue water navy and 200 nukes. What more is there?

Of course it does. However the issue is, if more countries go nuclear, the MAD system becomes less relevant.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Im pretty sure the uk and france have deployment. Russia too for that matter.

The uk have astute submarines a blue water navy and 200 nukes. What more is there?

Of course it does. However the issue is, if more countries go nuclear, the MAD system becomes less relevant.

And it's very likely that more countries will be going nuke.

Japan for example and many allies and non allies in the western Pacific depended on America's nuclear umbrella. With the over downsizing of our nuclear arsenal and just Obama in general, many countries can no longer depend on America's nuclear umbrella.

Just a few months ago the last U.S. Navy Tomahawk nuclear tipped cruise missile was eliminated from our nuclear arsenal.

After almost fifty years U.S. Navy warships can now make port calls too New Zealand.
 

Fallenangel

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
1,099
Location
Israel/Russia/UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And it's very likely that more countries will be going nuke.

Japan for example and many allies and non allies in the western Pacific depended on America's nuclear umbrella. With the over downsizing of our nuclear arsenal and just Obama in general, many countries can no longer depend on America's nuclear umbrella.

Just a few months ago the last U.S. Navy Tomahawk nuclear tipped cruise missile was eliminated from our nuclear arsenal.

After almost fifty years U.S. Navy warships can now make port calls too New Zealand.

:2wave:
Hey, do you have any stats on which systems/rockets were decommissioned?

Cheers,
Fallen.

Edit: stems -> systems
 
Last edited:

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It's hard to envision a scenario where any country decides to attack America with nuclear weapons. What would their purpose be? To take out the vast land that is America, you pretty much would destroy the entire planet. Not to mention all the doomsday nukes that will be coming at you in return.

The whole worlds wealth is still measured in US Dollars. A damaged or destroyed America renders all those dictator bank accounts worthless. Pretty much causing death and starvation for the few survivors. As things are today, I'd be more worried about asteroids than about nukes.

Some day, when the smaller countries have them, we may yet see a regional nuclear war. But even that is doubtful. No matter how much the leaders of the crazy nations are, well, crazy, in the end they usually have big bank accounts and lavish lifestyles. Using nukes anywhere is likely to interrupt their pleasures.

As for America "rotting from the inside", I'll refer you to a genre-creating Sci-Fi book published in 1984. Neuromancer by William Gibson. The Japanese were then the ones sucking away our economy and the future looked like all Japan all the time. That's not what happend though and China will not eat us alive either. Regardless of the outcome of the pending immigration legislation, we'll survive that also just as we have for so mant decades now.

The state of the nation is strong (enough). Specklebang for President 2016.
 

jetski

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's hard to envision a scenario where any country decides to attack America with nuclear weapons. What would their purpose be? To take out the vast land that is America, you pretty much would destroy the entire planet. Not to mention all the doomsday nukes that will be coming at you in return.

The whole worlds wealth is still measured in US Dollars. A damaged or destroyed America renders all those dictator bank accounts worthless. Pretty much causing death and starvation for the few survivors. As things are today, I'd be more worried about asteroids than about nukes.

Some day, when the smaller countries have them, we may yet see a regional nuclear war. But even that is doubtful. No matter how much the leaders of the crazy nations are, well, crazy, in the end they usually have big bank accounts and lavish lifestyles. Using nukes anywhere is likely to interrupt their pleasures.

As for America "rotting from the inside", I'll refer you to a genre-creating Sci-Fi book published in 1984. Neuromancer by William Gibson. The Japanese were then the ones sucking away our economy and the future looked like all Japan all the time. That's not what happend though and China will not eat us alive either. Regardless of the outcome of the pending immigration legislation, we'll survive that also just as we have for so mant decades now.

The state of the nation is strong (enough). Specklebang for President 2016.

I think the multipolar world is an interesting thing.

America couldnt ever nuke France for instance, without getting sent to the stone age.

Doesnt matter how you cut it, no american president is likely to invade france any time soon either.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
:2wave:
Hey, do you have any stats on which stems/rockets were decommissioned?

Cheers,
Fallen.

The U.S. Naval Institute carried the story about the retirement of the Navy's nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles.

But so did Federation of American Scientist (FAS)

US Navy Instruction Confirms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missile:
US Navy Instruction Confirms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missile - FAS Strategic Security Blog

Federation of American Scientist is a pretty reliable source for info on America's nukes. I'm sure you can find what your looking for here -> https://www.fas.org/


Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces

(Still) Secret US Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Reduced - FAS Strategic Security Blog

United States Nuclear Forces

nuclear weapons Archives - The FAS Blog


Navigate around the site and try using the FAS search engine. Be careful of outdated info.
 

Fallenangel

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
1,099
Location
Israel/Russia/UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The U.S. Naval Institute carried the story about the retirement of the Navy's nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles.

But so did Federation of American Scientist (FAS)

US Navy Instruction Confirms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missile:
US Navy Instruction Confirms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missile - FAS Strategic Security Blog

Federation of American Scientist is a pretty reliable source for info on America's nukes. I'm sure you can find what your looking for here -> https://www.fas.org/


Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces

(Still) Secret US Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Reduced - FAS Strategic Security Blog

United States Nuclear Forces

nuclear weapons Archives - The FAS Blog


Navigate around the site and try using the FAS search engine. Be careful of outdated info.

Thank you very much :) , i"ll check 'em out.

Cheers,
Fallen.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,772
Reaction score
8,066
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Im pretty sure the uk and france have deployment. Russia too for that matter.

The uk have astute submarines a blue water navy and 200 nukes. What more is there?

Of course it does. However the issue is, if more countries go nuclear, the MAD system becomes less relevant.

On the contrary MAD becomes much more relevant. Normal people don't like dying.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,992
Reaction score
13,187
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How many nations could conceivably destroy america, if so inclined?

Why bother?

We are doing just fine at destroying our own nation...
 

Chatter

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
1,742
Reaction score
388
Location
Britain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Im pretty sure the uk and france have deployment. Russia too for that matter.

The uk have astute submarines a blue water navy and 200 nukes. What more is there?

Of course it does. However the issue is, if more countries go nuclear, the MAD system becomes less relevant.

The British Nuclear Deterrent is hardly independent and actually relies heavily on the Americans and American technology. :roll:

logo.png


A secret review into the future of our nuclear deterrent is underway - and it's time to face some home truths

CRISPIN BLACK

Fri 2 Mar 2012


Nonsense at the heart of Britain's 'independent' nuclear defence | News | The Week UK


FINGERS on buzzers - your starter for ten. In the phrase 'British independent nuclear deterrent' – how many of the words are actually true? Just one, in fact – 'nuclear'. The rest are baloney.

The system is certainly not British: the 58 Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles operated by the Royal Navy (from four Vanguard-class submarines) are as American as Dolly Parton and apple pie. The Americans make them, maintain them and provide the satellite intelligence to target them.

This also means the system is not independent, obviously. No one knows for sure, but it's probably not independent in an even starker sense. The Americans certainly believe that the system belongs to them rather than to the Brits.

According to a US diplomatic telegram released by WikiLeaks last year, President Obama handed over the unique serial numbers of the UK's missiles to the Russians as part of an arms reduction deal, despite the strong objections of Her Majesty's Government. As a result the Russians now know exactly what we have got and what it can do. Sucking up to Putin is clearly more important than the 'independence' of the British deterrent.

Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.

Even if you buy into the theology of deterrence, this means that the system has little deterrent value. Intelligence officials in Beijing or Tehran must know this. I am surprised President Kirchner of Argentina hasn't used it in her recent bitchy exchanges on the Falklands.

Is this what the country needs in an uncertain world? Our last line of defence is a bluff that cost the taxpayer in 1994 £14.9 billion (in 2005 prices) and costs another £2 billion a year to run.

The missiles will be good for many years yet but the submarines carrying them were only designed to last 25 years and so will have to be replaced by 2020 at a probable cost of £25 billion.

The decision will have to be made by the coalition government, which is currently awaiting the results of a secret review of our nuclear deterrent needs.

The Liberal Democrats to their credit have come up with an alternative and cunning plan. Why not build, say, three extra Astute Class hunter-killer submarines (nuclear powered but not currently nuclear armed) and equip them with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles? It would cut the cost of replacing Trident by half.

There are military disadvantages to cruise missiles. They don't have the range of ICBMs (inter-continental ballistic missiles) so the submarine has to sail closer to the target, increasing the risk of detection. Travelling at the speed of a commercial jet-liner they are also much slower and easier to shoot down.

And there would still be one major snag – all the missiles would still come from the United States and only the Americans currently produce a suitable warhead. Still the Liberal Democrats are on to a winner - a £12 billion bluff offers better value than a £25 billion one.

As currently constituted, our deterrent is more of a status symbol, a designer accessory to bolster the status of British politicians and admirals rather than a convincing weapons system. It's the last bauble from a lost Empire.

The mystique of nuclear weapons surrounds the office of prime minister. On entering 10 Downing Street for the first time as prime minister, David Cameron's first action, excitedly reported on television and in the press, was to sign 'letters of last resort' - his personal instructions to the captains of our four Trident-equipped submarines in the event that the government can no longer function after a nuclear attack on the UK.

Some suggest that these orders tell any surviving subs to sail to Australia as in Neville Shute's 1957 novel On the Beach where exactly this happens after the UK is destroyed in a nuclear war. But no one knows.

It would make a great episode of Yes, Prime Minister. Politicians and civil servants conspiring as ever to bamboozle the long-suffering British public. Except it's more important than that.

The original decision to go nuclear was taken just after the war by politicians and officials deeply shocked by our narrow escape from invasion in 1940. They wanted a last ditch back-up in case anything similar happened again. From then until 1998, when the last aircraft-delivered nukes were dropped from the inventory, we did enjoy the protections - such as they were - of an 'independent' system.

One critic of Trident has called it the UK's 'stick-on hairy chest'. My view is that we need such a thing in an uncertain and dangerous world. But we need one that can be stuck on, in extremis, by a British prime minister.
 

jetski

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The British Nuclear Deterrent is hardly independent and actually relies heavily on the Americans and American technology. :roll:

Im pretty sure they can push the button independently. America does not have an off switch for the uks deterrent.
 

Chatter

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
1,742
Reaction score
388
Location
Britain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Im pretty sure they can push the button independently. America does not have an off switch for the uks deterrent.

The Americans make them, maintain them and provide the satellite intelligence to target them.

So you can press the button as much as you want, but it's not really going to do anything without US guidance.

UK Parliament House of Commons Defence Select Committee said:
UK'S TRIDENT SYSTEM NOT TRULY INDEPENDENT

House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence

33. Acquiring Trident gave the UK a greater nuclear weapons capability than it could ever have achieved on its own. This enhanced capacity, however, had significant consequences.

34. The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. The USA would see such an act as cutting across its self-declared prerogative as the world's policeman, and would almost certainly make the UK pay a high price for its presumption. The fact that the UK is completely technically dependent on the USA for the maintenance of the Trident system means that one way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea.

35. In practice, the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it. There are precedents for the USA using UK participation in this way for conventional military operations. The principal value of the UK's participation in the recent Iraq war was to help legitimise the US attack. Likewise the principal value of the firing of UK cruise missiles as part of the larger US cruise missile attack on Baghdad was to help legitimise the use of such weapons against urban targets.

36. The most likely scenario in which Trident would actually be used is that Britain would give legitimacy to a US nuclear strike by participating in it.

37. The well-established links between the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in Omaha Nebraska and the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, London would facilitate the planning of such attacks. In a crisis the very existence of the UK Trident system might make it difficult for a UK prime minister to refuse a request by the US president to participate in an attack.

38. The UK Trident system is highly dependent, and for some purposes completely dependent, on the larger US system. The assembling of information available in the USA, but kept secret in Britain, by John Ainslie in his 2005 report The Future of the British bomb, shows how extensive this dependency is (see table below).

39. The UK's dependency on the USA has operational significance. For example, the UK's reliance on US weather data and on navigational data provided by the US Global Positioning System (GPS) means that, should the USA decide not to supply this data, the capacity of the UK's Trident missiles to hit targets would be degraded.
 
Last edited:

jetski

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Americans make them, maintain them and provide the satellite intelligence to target them.

So you can press the button as much as you want, but it's not really going to do anything without US guidance.

House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence

Im not so sure about that one. You are saying astute submarines cant fire a nuke into america without american permission.

For obvious reasons this would limit their second strike use in the first place.

These things are designed to be used if America and the UK no longer exist. Think about what youre saying.
 

Chatter

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
1,742
Reaction score
388
Location
Britain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Im not so sure about that one. You are saying astute submarines cant fire a nuke into america without american permission.

For obvious reasons this would limit their second strike use in the first place.

These things are designed to be used if America and the UK no longer exist. Think about what youre saying.

I very much doubt that an Astute Submarine is going to fire a nuclear weapon full stop, as they only carry conventional warheads in the shape of Tomahawk missiles with a 1,000lb explosive warhead as opposed to the UK Trident Nuclear submarines which carry nuclear warheads. :roll:

Tomahawk Cruise Missile

Astute Class | Royal Navy

In terms of a trident upgrade/replacement there are those who have been arguing that Britain has alternatives to an American led trident system, with a joint Anglo-French Nuclear force or downgrading the American system and fitting nuclear weapons to tomahawk missiles however this could still be expensive and require major investment in new technology and facilities as well as an increased number of Astute boats. :)

UK and France should build nuclear deterrent together, says minister | World news | The Guardian

BBC News - France's enduring nuclear deterrent

RUSI - Debating the Deterrent: Why the Cruise Missile Option Does Not Add Up

As things stand at the moment it must be concluded that Britain would have severe difficulty in launching a nuclear attack without US authorisation making the only concept of an independent nuclear deterrent flawed. Not that we have any wish to attack a fellow NATO country and ally such as the US. :)
 
Last edited:

jetski

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I very much doubt that an Astute Submarine is going to fire a nuclear weapon full stop, as they only carry conventional warheads in the shape of Tomahawk missiles with a 1,000lb explosive warhead as opposed to the UK Trident Nuclear submarines which carry nuclear warheads. :roll:

Tomahawk Cruise Missile

Astute Class | Royal Navy

In terms of a trident upgrade/replacement there are those who have been arguing that Britain has alternatives to an American led trident system, with a joint Anglo-French Nuclear force or downgrading the American system and fitting nuclear weapons to tomahawk missiles however this could still be expensive and require major investment in new technology and facilities as well as an increased number of Astute boats. :)

UK and France should build nuclear deterrent together, says minister | World news | The Guardian

BBC News - France's enduring nuclear deterrent

RUSI - Debating the Deterrent: Why the Cruise Missile Option Does Not Add Up

As things stand at the moment it must be concluded that Britain would have severe difficulty in launching a nuclear attack without US Authorisation making the only concept of an independent nuclear deterrent flawed.

Yes and the trident system is being replaced, hence the future tense. :roll:

Essentially this system is meant to exist irrespective of the existence of the uk or usa, so i disagree.

Your whole evidence is a list of opinion pertaining to after the fact consequences of use.
 

Chatter

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
1,742
Reaction score
388
Location
Britain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jetski said:
Yes and the trident system is being replaced, hence the future tense. :roll:

The decision on Trident has not yet been taken and has been left until after the next general election in 2015 :roll:

Cameron in coalition rift over Trident nuclear system | Reuters

The Tories currently support replacing Trident, the Lib Dems are against and Labour is yet to announce a firm decision as to where they stand on the issue but have been keen to examine alternatives to the expensive Trident replacement system. The future of Trident will not be determined until after the 2015 election and will very much depend on which political party or coalition takes office. :)

jetski said:
Essentially this system is meant to exist irrespective of the existence of the uk or usa, so i disagree.

Your whole evidence is a list of opinion pertaining to after the fact consequences of use.

You disagree with the UK Parliamentary Defence Select Committee, as I am not arguing I am merely stating fact. :roll:

House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom