It is vital that the U.S. destroy China within the next 20 years.

[Dayton3]

Because the US doesn’t operate mobile ICBMs. Russia and China do and they are building more of them.

While they can be moved, they cannot be effectively protected like a missile in a silo can. A mobile ICBM can be destroyed by a light, conventional attack like a Hellfire missile launched from a drone. Not to mention the obvious

1) Mobile ICBMs are NOT nearly as mobile as the Iraqi SCUDs in Desert Storm.
2) Reportedly the U.S. has gotten far, far better at finding that type of missiles than it was 40 years ago.

 

[Logophile]

Why?

You'll still have exactly the same reasons to invest in the US as now.
Being the number 1 economy is just a meaningless title. Do you think people in other countries care that they don't live in the largest economy as I know I don't.

It may be you don't care because Great Britain is well protected by say, NATO which in turn is fairly reliant on American firepower. As long as the US is the global economic engine, free countries can enjoy that freedom - even "socialize" it - without the fierce competition and insecurity that America's near laissez faire capitalism produces. American influence is predicated on two factors: economic strength and military dominance. As long as the US leads on those two fronts, the free world is more or less secure. But should the US lag even economically, and China lead, then we have a situation where China can use its economic advantage to build a formidable military machine. Then, the philosophical, military and economic influence on every nation around the world comes from a very different source, a source that is an anathema to freedom and what we share in democratic nations as a precious, such as human rights and free speech. It's very important that we recognize China for what it is and curb our economic reliance. Thanks!!

 

[vegas giants]

Why do you insist those people are "innocent"? and actually technically I HAVE NOT called for a "nuclear war" with China and/or Russia. I've called for the U.S. to if possible destroy their nuclear arsenals preemptively. That is so they cannot launch an effective response.

That isn't a war. That's a massacre.

So you call for a massacre.


What a waste

 

[Peter]

It may be you don't care because Great Britain is well protected by say, NATO which in turn is fairly reliant on American firepower. As long as the US is the global economic engine, free countries can enjoy that freedom - even "socialize" it - without the fierce competition and insecurity that America's near laissez faire capitalism produces. American influence is predicated on two factors: economic strength and military dominance. As long as the US leads on those two fronts, the free world is more or less secure. But should the US lag even economically, and China lead, then we have a situation where China can use its economic advantage to build a formidable military machine. Then, the philosophical, military and economic influence on every nation around the world comes from a very different source, a source that is an anathema to freedom and what we share in democratic nations as a precious, such as human rights and free speech. It's very important that we recognize China for what it is and curb our economic reliance. Thanks!!

The problem I have is that even if China and India overtake the US as the largest economy it would still be insane to try any sort of attack.
The US will still have the most technologically advanced military for the next 50 or maybe even 100 years I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money on that.

India especially will not be spending the same amount on military R&D as the US anytime soon as they're going to be spending on just getting the majority up to the same standard of living as people in Europe or the US. There's also no chance of an attack on Europe as even without US help Europe will band together in defense and the UK will help even after Brexit as its in nobodies interest to let a European Allie fall. Europe can put together quite the force if needed and certainly enough for pure defence.

I think the need to be number 1 is just something about American pride rather than it having any actual tangible benefit.

 

[Logophile]

The problem I have is that even if China and India overtake the US as the largest economy it would still be insane to try any sort of attack.
The US will still have the most technologically advanced military for the next 50 or maybe even 100 years I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money on that.

India especially will not be spending the same amount on military R&D as the US anytime soon as they're going to be spending on just getting the majority up to the same standard of living as people in Europe or the US. There's also no chance of an attack on Europe as even without US help Europe will band together in defense and the UK will help even after Brexit as its in nobodies interest to let a European Allie fall. Europe can put together quite the force if needed and certainly enough for pure defence.

I think the need to be number 1 is just something about American pride rather than it having any actual tangible benefit.

We'll have to agree to disagree. We can do that without fear of reprisal because we're in a couple of democracies. Thanks!!

 

[Questerr]

While they can be moved, they cannot be effectively protected like a missile in a silo can. A mobile ICBM can be destroyed by a light, conventional attack like a Hellfire missile launched from a drone. Not to mention the obvious

1) Mobile ICBMs are NOT nearly as mobile as the Iraqi SCUDs in Desert Storm.
2) Reportedly the U.S. has gotten far, far better at finding that type of missiles than it was 40 years ago.

Drones can’t operate in contested airspace. How are we going to get drones over Russia and China? Our stealth drones aren’t armed and there’s good indication that modern Russian radars can defeat stealth especially at close ranges.

Reportedly by who? I worked in intelligence for more than a decade and I can say definitively that you have no clue as to what the actual limits of US collection capabilities are.

 

[Peter]

The main problem being China is bloody huge and they can just bung mobile launchers anywhere. Unless you have some way to track them at all times they can and will slip away.

I have a feeling the Chinese will be trying to prevent them from being spotted and people can be pretty sneaky when they need to.

 

[Dayton3]

Drones can’t operate in contested airspace. How are we going to get drones over Russia and China? Our stealth drones aren’t armed and there’s good indication that modern Russian radars can defeat stealth especially at close ranges.

Reportedly by who? I worked in intelligence for more than a decade and I can say definitively that you have no clue as to what the actual limits of US collection capabilities are.

Oh really? Then why do we constantly hear about how the "drones are the future of warfare" and other stuff like that from people who insist that "large scale conventional warfare is no more"?

Note, that I'm actually agreeing with you about drones. I simply mentioned drone fired Hellfire missiles as an example of conventional ordnance that can destroy mobile ICBMs.

 

[Questerr]

Oh really? Then why do we constantly hear about how the "drones are the future of warfare" and other stuff like that from people who insist that "large scale conventional warfare is no more"?

Note, that I'm actually agreeing with you about drones. I simply mentioned drone fired Hellfire missiles as an example of conventional ordnance that can destroy mobile ICBMs.

Because people are idiots and military contractors make huge profit margins on drones. Drones can’t operate in contested airspace, they are easy to shoot down. The primary US combat drones (the Predator, Reaper, and Grey Eagle) lack any kind of stealth, have zero maneuverability, and are powered by weak prop engines.

They also can’t operate in the face of full spectrum jamming (as they see to constantly receive signals to control them), and as I pointed out already, the Russians are better at EW than we are, especially jamming.

Russia has the most complex air defense network and tightest SAM system in the world, with the world’s most advanced SAMs. How exactly are we going to get conventional strikes on all of their road mobile ICBMs, without telegraphing we are trying to knock out their nuclear deterrent, thus prompting them to launch?

 

[Dayton3]

Because people are idiots and military contractors make huge profit margins on drones. Drones can’t operate in contested airspace, they are easy to shoot down. The primary US combat drones (the Predator, Reaper, and Grey Eagle) lack any kind of stealth, have zero maneuverability, and are powered by weak prop engines.

They also can’t operate in the face of full spectrum jamming (as they see to constantly receive signals to control them), and as I pointed out already, the Russians are better at EW than we are, especially jamming.

Russia has the most complex air defense network and tightest SAM system in the world, with the world’s most advanced SAMs. How exactly are we going to get conventional strikes on all of their road mobile ICBMs, without telegraphing we are trying to knock out their nuclear deterrent, thus prompting them to launch?

To the former, something we agree on.

To the latter, you're the expert, you tell me. And don't say it is impossible You know full well that anything is doable.

 

[Questerr]

To the former, something we agree on.

To the latter, you're the expert, you tell me. And don't say it is impossible You know full well that anything is doable.

It is impossible. Their mobile ICBMs would be spread across their country. There is no way to conventionally target them in such a way that all of them would be destroyed simultaneously. For a starter, we do not know where all of them are at any given time.

Think about what you are suggesting. You’ve called for taking out Russian silos. That would require nuclear strikes. You think the Russians are going to just have their mobile ICBMs sit silently while American warheads are inbound on their silos? Alternatively, if the Russians see US conventional assets hunting their mobile ICBM’s, you think they aren’t going to flush their silos and subs?

If the US starts sinking their boomers, you think they won’t start firing their silos and mobile launchers? For **** sake, there is a reason why the concept of “use them or lose them” exists in nuclear strategy. The only way you could prevent a Russian launch would be by perfectly simultaneously eliminating all of their nuclear assets at the same time with zero warning. That capability not only doesn’t exist, the Russians would take steps to counteract it if it looked like we were trying to develop that capability.

 

[Rich2018]

How very dare they.
It's almost like they don't want to have them all wiped out in a surprise first strike and that's just not cricket is it?

It's like they don't want to lose...

 

[Rich2018]

The U.S. can track and sink enemy SSBNs....

And if one was missed and fired it's full complement of missiles, US anti-missile missiles would shoot them all down, and Donald J Trump won the election, and unicorns exist...

 

[Dayton3]

It is impossible. Their mobile ICBMs would be spread across their country. There is no way to conventionally target them in such a way that all of them would be destroyed simultaneously. For a starter, we do not know where all of them are at any given time.

Think about what you are suggesting. You’ve called for taking out Russian silos. That would require nuclear strikes. You think the Russians are going to just have their mobile ICBMs sit silently while American warheads are inbound on their silos? Alternatively, if the Russians see US conventional assets hunting their mobile ICBM’s, you think they aren’t going to flush their silos and subs?

If the US starts sinking their boomers, you think they won’t start firing their silos and mobile launchers? For **** sake, there is a reason why the concept of “use them or lose them” exists in nuclear strategy. The only way you could prevent a Russian launch would be by perfectly simultaneously eliminating all of their nuclear assets at the same time with zero warning. That capability not only doesn’t exist, the Russians would take steps to counteract it if it looked like we were trying to develop that capability.

From what I've read, "launch on warning" has NEVER been the actual nuclear weapons response policy of any nation. Not the U.S. or the Soviet Union/Russians. That EVERY nuclear armed nations policy has been to ride out a nuclear first strike and only then respond after they had a chance to access the damage.

Otherwise if you're simply going to launch your nuclear weapons as soon as there are signs of an attack (use them or lose them) then there was absolutely no point in building mobile ICBMs or for that matter with bothering to put ICBMs in hardened silos at all.

 

[Questerr]

From what I've read, "launch on warning" has NEVER been the actual nuclear weapons response policy of any nation. Not the U.S. or the Soviet Union/Russians. That EVERY nuclear armed nations policy has been to ride out a nuclear first strike and only then respond after they had a chance to access the damage.

Otherwise if you're simply going to launch your nuclear weapons as soon as there are signs of an attack (use them or lose them) then there was absolutely no point in building mobile ICBMs or for that matter with bothering to put ICBMs in hardened silos at all.

You don’t think the Russians would change their position on “launch on warning” when the US is explicitly planning on targeting their nuclear deterrent? You plan an irrational, blatantly genocidal strategy for the US, and then you expect the Russians/Chinese to do nothing in response

You position is as idiotic as the Wehraboos who say shit like “If the Germans had focused on just building U-boats they could have beaten the British and forced them to surrender.” That relies on the British admiralty drinking lead paint and taking no actions that would counter German U-boat construction. In reality, the British would have focused almost entirely on anti-submarine efforts if the Germans didn’t build any surface navy. The convoys would have had scores more escorts to counter the scores more U-boats.

Similarly, you are counting on the US being able to make these massive changes in both equipment, posture, and planning and for our enemies to do nothing in response. It’s exactly what one could expect from an AMATEUR ARMCHAIR GENERAL WHO HAS NEVER SERVED A DAY IN HIS LIFE.

 

[Rich2018]

You don’t think the Russians would change their position on “launch on warning” when the US is explicitly planning on targeting their nuclear deterrent? You plan an irrational, blatantly genocidal strategy for the US, and then you expect the Russians/Chinese to do nothing in response

You position is as idiotic as the Wehraboos who say shit like “If the Germans had focused on just building U-boats they could have beaten the British and forced them to surrender.” That relies on the British admiralty drinking lead paint and taking no actions that would counter German U-boat construction. In reality, the British would have focused almost entirely on anti-submarine efforts if the Germans didn’t build any surface navy. The convoys would have had scores more escorts to counter the scores more U-boats.

Similarly, you are counting on the US being able to make these massive changes in both equipment, posture, and planning and for our enemies to do nothing in response. It’s exactly what one could expect from an AMATEUR ARMCHAIR GENERAL WHO HAS NEVER SERVED A DAY IN HIS LIFE.

Are you saying that Russia has a policy of launching a nuclear strike at the merest warning of receiving one ?

 

[Questerr]

Are you saying that Russia has a policy of launching a nuclear strike at the merest warning of receiving one ?

I'm saying they will adopt one if the US makes the destruction of Russia's nuclear deterrent an explicit target. It wouldn't be the first time. The Soviets moved to a launch on warning posture during the crisis around Project RYaN and Able Archer 83.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm saying they will adopt one if the US makes the destruction of Russia's nuclear deterrent an explicit target. It wouldn't be the first time. The Soviets moved to a launch on warning posture during the crisis around Project RYaN and Able Archer 83.

How will they know US targets ?

 

[Questerr]

How will they know US targets ?

Because they have intelligence resources too. The US can't just change their strategy at the drop of a hat. It requires wargaming and exercises to prepare forces for it. It requires redeployment and re-posturing of forces. For what Dayton wants, it requires the development and deployment of lots of new equipment. They would see this, analyze it, and act on the implications of what it means.

 

[Dayton3]

I'm saying they will adopt one if the US makes the destruction of Russia's nuclear deterrent an explicit target. It wouldn't be the first time. The Soviets moved to a launch on warning posture during the crisis around Project RYaN and Able Archer 83.

I've studied Able Archer thoroughly. It is my understanding that the Soviets were preparing for a RETALIATORY strike against NATO IF NATO and the U.S. struck first. Not a launch on warning response.

 

[Questerr]

I've studied Able Archer thoroughly. It is my understanding that the Soviets were preparing for a RETALIATORY strike against NATO IF NATO and the U.S. struck first. Not a launch on warning response.

They were most definitely preparing for a first strike if they received confirmation that NATO was planning a first strike of their own. The entire point of Project RYaN was to give the Soviet leadership sufficient warning to carry out a pre-emptive strike.

 

[Dayton3]

They were most definitely preparing for a first strike if they received confirmation that NATO was planning a first strike of their own. The entire point of Project RYaN was to give the Soviet leadership sufficient warning to carry out a pre-emptive strike.

Something I've wondered about but never been able to confirm. It is true during the Able Archer exercise that the Soviets moved nuclear weapons out of storage at a base in East Germany and mounted them on a regiment of strike aircraft? IIRC a regiment of such Soviet aircraft would've been 21 aircraft. Given the nuclear strike mission I figured that meant two nuclear weapons per aircraft (SU-24s probably) and two aircraft assigned to each target. How close are my assumptions to being correct?

If I start teaching again I can incorporate the things I got correct into my history lesson on the critical year of 1983.

 

[Questerr]

Something I've wondered about but never been able to confirm. It is true during the Able Archer exercise that the Soviets moved nuclear weapons out of storage at a base in East Germany and mounted them on a regiment of strike aircraft? IIRC a regiment of such Soviet aircraft would've been 21 aircraft. Given the nuclear strike mission I figured that meant two nuclear weapons per aircraft (SU-24s probably) and two aircraft assigned to each target. How close are my assumptions to being correct?

If I start teaching again I can incorporate the things I got correct into my history lesson on the critical year of 1983.

I don't know why it matters. I've never heard about it but they may have. If I was a NATO planner, I wouldn't give a **** about a regiment of Fencers. I'd care about the couple hundred SS-20's the Soviets would be deploying.

 

[Rich2018]

Because they have intelligence resources too. The US can't just change their strategy at the drop of a hat. It requires wargaming and exercises to prepare forces for it. It requires redeployment and re-posturing of forces. For what Dayton wants, it requires the development and deployment of lots of new equipment. They would see this, analyze it, and act on the implications of what it means.

Yeah, I guess they call up the Pentagon and just ask where the missiles are targeted ?

What an asinine response

With absolutely no evidence.

 

[Questerr]

Yeah, I guess they call up the Pentagon and just ask where the missiles are targeted ?

What an asinine response

With absolutely no evidence.

Where did I say they were going to call up the Pentagon? Are you unable to address my points without lying? Are you that weak of a debater?