US Scientists Want Nukes Pointed at Russian Economy

S

Sackboy

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
5
Location
LittleBIGPlanet
The Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council has published a study entitled From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons.

It says a new targeting category and policy, termed "infrastructure targeting," would focus on "a series of targets that are crucial to a nation's modern economy," naming in the report 12 potential targets in Russia.

New Report Recommends Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Nuclear Disarmament

Author: Monica Amarelo

Type: Release

FAS and NRDC Chart Minimal Deterrent Nuclear MissionOccasionalPaper7

Read the post on the SSP Blog: Study Calls for New U.S Nuclear Weapons Targeting Policy

Read the full report.

(WASHINGTON DC) In Prague, President Barack Obama called for a world without nuclear weapons. Today, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released a report calling for fundamental changes to U.S. nuclear war planning, a vital prerequisite if smaller nuclear arsenals are to be achieved. (PDF)


“From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence -- A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons” calls to abandon the almost five-decade-long central mission for U.S. nuclear forces, which has been and continues to be “counterforce,” the capability for U.S. forces to destroy an enemy’s military forces, its weapons, its command and control facilities and its key leaders.

“The current rationale for maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons no longer exists.” said Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Strategic Security Program at FAS and one of the report authors. “And to get future reductions in the number of weapons, we have to eliminate the missions they are assigned.”

The nuclear mission flows from directives and guidance given by the president, through the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Strategic Command where it is implemented into elaborate war plans. The report calls for eliminating all but one mission for nuclear forces.

“President Obama has already taken the first step by stating America’s commitment to a world without nuclear weapons,” said Robert S. Norris, senior research associate with the Natural Resources Defense Council and report co-author. “We present the radical changes needed in U.S. policies to make disarmament a reality.”

That sole mission is deterrence, narrowly defined, to mean the certain capability to retaliate if any nation was unwise enough to use nuclear weapons against the United States or certain allies.

“Under minimal deterrence, all requirements for war planners to achieve an advantage in a nuclear exchange or limit damage to ourselves will disappear, leaving only in place the most basic mission of a sure retaliatory response,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the FAS Nuclear Information Project and report co-author.

The report makes these main points:

* Current nuclear doctrine is an artifact of the Cold War that needs to be fundamentally altered. The counterforce mission, and all that goes with it, should be explicitly and publicly abandoned and replaced with a much less ambitious and qualitatively different doctrine.

* A minimal deterrence mission should be adopted as a transitional step on a path to zero nuclear weapons.

* The President must be continuously engaged in this transformation with specific and direct instructions to the national security bureaucracies. Otherwise, presidential intentions can be co-opted and diffused.

* Once formulated the President should publicly announce the changed role for nuclear weapons and the new types of targets.

* Under American leadership the process should lead to engagement with the other nuclear powers towards a global goal of abolition.

* The new strategy can be carried out with weapons in the current arsenal. No new weapons need to be built nor an extensive new complex created.
Click to expand...
http://www.fas.org/press/news/2009/apr_newreport.html
So much for pressing the 'reset button' and reducing weapons. What is Obama doing?
121174556_free.html
 
Stickfigure said:
Excellent way to piss the Russians off and start a new Cold War. Wonder what Putin thinks of all this.
Click to expand...
Putin is now the PM, Medvedev is the President.
I imagine the generals are thinking of upgrading their own weapons and targeting US economic zones like the NYSE, Fort Nox, 3-Mile Island etc...
 
well, it's times like these that I enjoy my country :D, no one gives two poops about South Africa, so we sit here watching every one blow each other up :)
 
Sackboy said:
The Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council has published a study entitled From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons.

It says a new targeting category and policy, termed "infrastructure targeting," would focus on "a series of targets that are crucial to a nation's modern economy," naming in the report 12 potential targets in Russia.

http://www.fas.org/press/news/2009/apr_newreport.html
So much for pressing the 'reset button' and reducing weapons. What is Obama doing?
121174556_free.html
Click to expand...

Its just a normal strategic report. But I couldn't find those 12 targets.
 
Stickfigure said:
I know but it's still evident Putin is running that country. Medvedev is simply a puppet.
Click to expand...
I've heard this before but could find no evidence apart from the fact that these two are in the same political party and have worked together in the past.
Perhaps you have further info/links?
 
Kenny said:
Its just a normal strategic report. But I couldn't find those 12 targets.
Click to expand...
Did you read the actual report??

The notional infrastructure target set considered here for a minimal
deterrence posture consists of twelve large industrial targets in Russia: three
oil refinery targets; three iron and steel works; two aluminum plants; one
nickel plant; and three thermal electric power plants. Most of these targets
were visible in high-resolution commercial satellite imagery hosted by
Google Earth. (To view nominal target set, open the following file in
Google Earth: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/MinimalDeterrence
Targets.kmz). This analysis estimates the damage and casualties caused by
Damage and Casualty Analysis | 35
Target Category Description of Severe Damage
Installations for the
refining of crude oil
and/or intermediate
petroleum products
Single-story, Severe Structural Damage [NTDIH, pp. 14-15]
reinforced concrete
(industrial) building
structures with heavy
cranes
Thermal and
hydroelectric power
plants, electric
substations and
electric power
control centers
targeting these large facilities with nuclear weapons of varying yields. While
only twelve targets are considered, we believe that these results could be
scaled up to include several times as many similar targets.
Click to expand...
 
Stickfigure said:
Excellent way to piss the Russians off and start a new Cold War. Wonder what Putin thinks of all this.
Click to expand...

Russia needs to fall apart and their republics - made up of ethnic minorities need to rule themselves. Russia was originally a tiny, Muscovite principality and it got to be the biggest country by cruel subjugation of various, ethnically different minorities. Those people are now waking up again and hopefully, soon instead of one - outdated Tsarist behemoth with no purpose, we'll see a dozen or so independent countries emerge with a much less powerful and hopefully more sensible Russia. Russia is just a larger, version of Yugoslavia.

As for cold war, Russia would start one long ago, it's just that it needs Western aid and needs to sell it's gas and oil somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Sackboy said:
It says a new targeting category and policy, termed "infrastructure targeting," would focus on "a series of targets that are crucial to a nation's modern economy," naming in the report 12 potential targets in Russia.
Click to expand...

It seems more morally acceptable to target industrial centres and communication/transportation hubs than civilian population centres.

Kudos to the US scientists. Bombing industry and not women and children is what ultimately wears down an enemy war machine.

Good plan.
 
PeterCH said:
Russia needs to fall apart and their republics - made up of ethnic minorities need to rule themselves. Russia was originally a tiny, Muscovite principality and it got to be the biggest country by cruel subjugation of various, ethnically different minorities. Those people are now waking up again and hopefully, soon instead of one - outdated Tsarist behemoth with no purpose, we'll see a dozen or so independent countries emerge with a much less powerful and hopefully more sensible Russia. Russia is just a larger, version of Yugoslavia.

As for cold war, Russia would start one long ago, it's just that it needs Western aid and needs to sell it's gas and oil somewhere.
Click to expand...

So should we split up South Africa into Zululand, Xhosland, Sotholand, Tswanaland, Boere-Republiek, Coloured Country etc etc?

Moron.
 
Sackboy said:
I've heard this before but could find no evidence apart from the fact that these two are in the same political party and have worked together in the past.
Perhaps you have further info/links?
Click to expand...

No links perse but it's generally guessed that Russia is still run by Putin. His 8 years of office were over so the only way he could still be in charge was by being appointed PM. What he did with the Russian economy, the Russian government don't want him to retire any time soon.

The war in Georgia last year was Putin's doing. Medvedev pretty much had no say in it.

PeterCH said:
Russia needs to fall apart and their republics - made up of ethnic minorities need to rule themselves. Russia was originally a tiny, Muscovite principality and it got to be the biggest country by cruel subjugation of various, ethnically different minorities. Those people are now waking up again and hopefully, soon instead of one - outdated Tsarist behemoth with no purpose, we'll see a dozen or so independent countries emerge with a much less powerful and hopefully more sensible Russia. Russia is just a larger, version of Yugoslavia.

As for cold war, Russia would start one long ago, it's just that it needs Western aid and needs to sell it's gas and oil somewhere.
Click to expand...

So in other words the same case as Ukraine and Chechnaya? Well Russia will be waging a lot of wars then because Russia is a country that resents the break up of their federation.

I'm sure China will still want Russia's oil and gas, aswell as their land :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
smokey said:
So should we split up South Africa into Zululand, Xhosland, Sotholand, Tswanaland, Boere-Republiek, Coloured Country etc etc?

Moron.
Click to expand...

He's right though smokey. Back when the Tsars ruled, all the smaller minorities agreed to their rules and didn't object.

Think about it. The two main cities in Russia are Moscow and St. Petersburg. Other than that it's vast amounts of land with one or two small towns or villages here and there. I doubt the Russian government bats an eyelid as to what goes on there.
 
So in other words the same case as Ukraine and Chechnaya? Well Russia will be waging a lot of wars then because Russia is a country that resents the break up of their federation.
Click to expand...

Think it this way. Why is Russia the biggest nation on earth and also look at the Russian Federation's demographics. Russia subjugated these various minorities, they never wanted to be Russians - Crimean Tartars, Kalmyks, Ingushetias etc....

I'm sure China will still want Russia's oil and gas, aswell as their land :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about the oil and gas. Russia is selling those to Europe but there aren't any other buyers. In addition Russia can't shut down many of their subzero temp oil fields, or the oil will freeze up incurring huge expenses to get the oil flowing again, that stuff just has to be pumped out. In addition Russia is a paper tiger. They weren't much good in the Cold War - Eastern Europe had to feed Russia so that they could export AK-47s to Cuba or build their space programme. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia failed to take advantage of high oil prizes and unlike ME nations failed to modernise and invest in alternative technologies.

China does eye vast expanses of unihabitable Russian land. The next major conflict involving Russia will be with China. If you speak to Chinese from those regions you'll hear negative sentiment towards Russia.
 
PeterCH said:
Think it this way. Why is Russia the biggest nation on earth and also look at the Russian Federation's demographics. Russia subjugated these various minorities, they never wanted to be Russians - Crimean Tartars, Kalmyks, Ingushetias etc....



I'm not so sure about the oil and gas. Russia is selling those to Europe but there aren't any other buyers. In addition Russia can't shut down many of their subzero temp oil fields, or the oil will freeze up incurring huge expenses to get the oil flowing again, that stuff just has to be pumped out. In addition Russia is a paper tiger. They weren't much good in the Cold War - Eastern Europe had to feed Russia so that they could export AK-47s to Cuba or build their space programme. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia failed to take advantage of high oil prizes and unlike ME nations failed to modernise and invest in alternative technologies.

China does eye vast expanses of unihabitable Russian land. The next major conflict involving Russia will be with China. If you speak to Chinese from those regions you'll hear negative sentiment towards Russia.
Click to expand...
I noticed the Poles bitching madly about not getting the gas from Russia when they wanted it. I guess the Russians are mates when it comes to that.

You miss the whole point of the article. Russia is supposedly not an enemy of the USA, and the cold war ended long ago, so why are missiles pointed at them?
 
Sackboy said:
I noticed the Poles bitching madly about not getting the gas from Russia when they wanted it. I guess the Russians are mates when it comes to that.
Click to expand...

Some people will bitch about everything but when push comes to shove, Russia can't eat the gas, they have to sell it. Europe can survive without Russian gas, but Russia needs to sell it's gas and oil or it's sunk. However, Russia should prove itself reliable if it wants Europe to continue to buy from it, if emotional temper tantrums and regional spats with its neighbours are going to upset energy supply - that will only accelerate the move away from Russian energy products.

You miss the whole point of the article. Russia is supposedly not an enemy of the USA, and the cold war ended long ago, so why are missiles pointed at them?
Click to expand...

Because Russia is full of nuclear weapons and it's not very friendly towards the West. Russia has even more 'nukes' aimed at the USA. Russia wasn't friendly towards the West under the Tsars either. Russian leadership is still stuck in 19th century empire think.

Look at it another way. The French, British and Germans have lost their empires. It's time for Russia to loose hers too, what she has now is a relic of the pre-WW1 world.
 
Last edited:
PeterCH said:
Some people will bitch about everything but when push comes to shove, Russia can't eat the gas, they have to sell it. Europe can survive without Russian gas, but Russia needs to sell it's gas and oil or it's sunk. However, Russia should prove itself reliable if it wants Europe to continue to buy from it, if emotional temper tantrums and regional spats with its neighbours are going to upset energy supply - that will only accelerate the move away from Russian energy products.



Because Russia is full of nuclear weapons and it's not very friendly towards the West. Russia has even more 'nukes' aimed at the USA. Russia wasn't friendly towards the West under the Tsars either. Russian leadership is still stuck in 19th century empire think.

Look at it another way. The French, British and Germans have lost their empires. It's time for Russia to loose hers too, what she has now is a relic of the pre-WW1 world.
Click to expand...
How do you know where the Russian missiles are 'pointed'. Considering they are in bunkers facing skywards, and they haven't ever publicly discussed targeting, then it's pretty hard to make that assumption. If they were targeted at Poland, then why did they have to install Iskanders recently?

I wish you would use modern day analogies. During Tsarist times, most countries were different. Germany was also an enemy as I recall.
 
Because it's Russia. They do what they want. Look at the war in Georgia. The entire EU was k*king them out for it but Russia didn't even bat an eyelid and they kept their troops in Georgia.
 
Sackboy said:
How do you know where the Russian missiles are 'pointed'. Considering they are in bunkers facing skywards, and they haven't ever publicly discussed targeting, then it's pretty hard to make that assumption. If they were targeted at Poland, then why did they have to install Iskanders recently?
Click to expand...

It's a trivial matter to re-target an ICBM. It takes a few minutes.

Iskanders are short range missiles and they 'had to install them' for political reasons. Russia could have used any of several thousand nuclear weapons to hit Central Europe from current locations, moving Iskanders (which aren't suited for nuclear warheads at present) was a political move in order to threaten and coerce various people. In addition because these are short range missiles they won't travel as far as Germany, or hit any of the US assets in the region. That's what the Poles/Czechs want US assets on their soil (the way Germans, Italians and others have had) in order to prevent Russia messing with them. Russia is too scared to target US military assets because they know that the response would be terrible and the Americans are not scared of standing up to Russia.

I wish you would use modern day analogies. During Tsarist times, most countries were different. Germany was also an enemy as I recall.
Click to expand...

That's just it. The rest of the world has changed. The British, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch and German empires collapsed. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires went the way of the Dodo too. Japan lost Manchuria, Korea and parts of China. The world has changed, but Russia still has a mentality that it can have such an empire as existed in the 15th-19th centuries.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X