Iran's launch 'impressive'

[StrongTurd]

Yes - but it depends

So you can prove a negative, eh?

Okay, prove to me that all the nuclear devices that were manufactured by Armscor in the 70s and 80s have been destroyed. What if I were to claim (hypothetically) that a right wing element in the old defense force actually hid one of these devices in an old abandoned mine shaft in the Northern Cape.

How are you going to prove to me that they've all been destroyed and not only the ones that the IAEA were informed about.

 

[Albereth]

Regarding point 2: Again, if you don't have parity then the party holding the balance of power is far more likely to start pushing red buttons. In the presence of strategic nuclear arsenals, MAD is essential.

Parity is only an issue if there is a squabble between those with buttons.

 

[Albereth]

So you can prove a negative, eh?

Okay, prove to me that all the nuclear devices that were manufactured by Armscor in the 70s and 80s have been destroyed. What if I were to claim (hypothetically) that a right wing element in the old defense force actually hid one of these devices in an old abandoned mine shaft in the Northern Cape.

How are you going to prove to me that they've all been destroyed and not only the ones that the IAEA were informed about.

Okay - that one is quite simple - what is the address of the old mine shaft? And (hypothetically) I'll go and take a look for you.

 

[StrongTurd]

Parity is only an issue if there is a squabble between those with buttons.

Not true. Relations between Russia and the USA have always been uneasy at best, what with NATO's ever growing expansion into Eastern Europe after the USA specifically assured Russia that this would never happen. If Russia did not possess a strategic arsenal in the first place, then the USA would probably have operated with far greater impunity in Eastern Europe than is currently the case.

One power holding the balance of nuclear power is very bad for the world as a whole and makes the likelihood of a nuclear attack far more likely.

 

[StrongTurd]

Okay - that one is quite simple - what is the address of the old mine shaft? And (hypothetically) I'll go and take a look for you.

You see, you can't prove a negative.

 

[Sackboy]

Not true. Relations between Russia and the USA have always been uneasy at best, what with NATO's ever growing expansion into Eastern Europe after the USA specifically assured Russia that this would never happen. If Russia did not possess a strategic arsenal in the first place, then the USA would probably have operated with far greater impunity in Eastern Europe than is currently the case.

One power holding the balance of nuclear power is very bad for the world as a whole and makes the likelihood of a nuclear attack far more likely.

It boils down to a notion of distrust between old adversaries. It is patently unwise to generate more distrust by putting soldiers on the border, no matter what the pretext. Russian generals are past masters at chess, and those that play, will know that you have to prepare for the worst.

 

[StrongTurd]

It boils down to a notion of distrust between old adversaries. It is patently unwise to generate more distrust by putting soldiers on the border, no matter what the pretext. Russian generals are past masters at chess, and those that play, will know that you have to prepare for the worst.

Indeed so.

 

[Alan]

Totally untrue. If the Russians only have 12 operational Topol-M's (I think that's the number I saw last time) and the Americans have a fighting chance of stopping at least 25% of its MIRVs, then what does it do for the effectiveness of that weapon when compared to around 50 Peacekeepers, each with 10 MIRVs that it needs to oppose, considering that there is no active shield against any of the Peacekeeper's MIRVs?

There's no denying the fact that the Russians will have to increase their resources allocated to any particular strategic target in order to compensate for the presence of anti-missile defenses.

Regarding point 2: Again, if you don't have parity then the party holding the balance of power is far more likely to start pushing red buttons. In the presence of strategic nuclear arsenals, MAD is essential.

Hang on a minute. Why you focusing on MIRVs and Peacekeepers. What about the rest of the strategic nuclear arsenal? That would surely be used in an "all out nuclear exchange"

Secondly there is more to determining the risk of one side using nukes than just parity. The chance of the U.S deliberately launching a nuclear first strike on Russia( or anybody for that matter) is absolutely zero. Politically it's impossible

 

[StrongTurd]

Hang on a minute. Why you focusing on MIRVs and Peacekeepers. What about the rest of the strategic nuclear arsenal? That would surely be used in an "all out nuclear exchange"

What do you mean by "focusing on MIRVs AND Peacekeepers"? Do you know what MIRVs are in the first place?! It doesn't seem like it.

As you'll see if you read my original post, I DID address the rest of the nuclear
arsenal including SLBMs etc.

Secondly there is more to determining the risk of one side using nukes than just parity. The chance of the U.S deliberately launching a nuclear first strike on Russia( or anybody for that matter) is absolutely zero. Politically it's impossible

You're still not getting it. If one of the sides in any potential nuclear conflict enjoys significant strategic superiority (through measures like missile defense shields) then it will ultimately "win" in an all-out nuclear exchange irrespective on if it strikes first or if it retaliates to enemy aggression. This is due to the fact that that it will retain a larger percentage of its forces for a second strike because its enemy would have to employ a far larger percentage of its forces during a first strike (offensive or defensive) in order to compensate for the enemy's missile shield.

 

[Alan]

*sigh*

This is going to go around in circles. Could you at least post links for your claims. "fighting chance of stopping at least 25% MIRVs" etc. This is after all what your whole argument comes down too.


And also for the last time there is no potential for nuclear conflict between Russia and the U.S at all and hence no need to keep parity. We agree to disagree on that then

 

[Good Life]

why shouldn't they be allowed to launch a satalite ? it their right to do so!
the americans see everything as a threat !

the usa has nuclear power already and i don't see them trying to get rid of it !
so why should they be against any other country that wants it ?

I agree. I think everybody should own nuclear weapons, as a means to defend themselves, however everybody must sign a peace declaration of sorts not to abuse what they have in their posession.

 

[StrongTurd]

And also for the last time there is no potential for nuclear conflict between Russia and the U.S at all and hence no need to keep parity. We agree to disagree on that then

Yup, I concur. It seems rather pointless debating strategic nuclear matters with someone who doesn't know what a MIRV is and who claims that an anti-missile defense shield has go no impact on nuclear balance of power. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Alan]

Yup, I concur. It seems rather pointless debating strategic nuclear matters with someone who doesn't know what a MIRV is and who claims that an anti-missile defense shield has go no impact on nuclear balance of power. Let's agree to disagree.

ROFL yes and I have no clue what an ICBM is either . Hell even if I didn't know a simple google search would have sufficed.


But I'm still waiting for those links claiming this shield is so effective.....

 

[StrongTurd]

ROFL yes and I have no clue what an ICBM is either . Hell even if I didn't know a simple google search would have sufficed.

You should have followed your own advice by doing a Google search before posting something like the tidbit below, then. You would then have discovered that a MIRV is not a type of rocket. It would have made the rest of your argument more credible.

Hang on a minute. Why you focusing on MIRVs and Peacekeepers. What about the rest of the strategic nuclear arsenal?

But I digress...

But I'm still waiting for those links claiming this shield is so effective.....

Seeing that you're such a proficient Google user, why don't you do a search yourself as I'm not feeling like spoon-feeding you right now. If you use "NMD missile defense" as a search term, I bet that one of your first returned results will point to a Wiki article on the subject.

I'll summarise for you: The NMD seems to have reached limited IOC in 2007, IIRC. This means that the Yanks are satisfied that it stands a reasonable chance of stopping an incoming RV under operational conditions. It would be very difficult to speculate as to the effectiveness of the NMD shield against a Topol-M RV due to the obvious classified nature of both the offensive as well as the defensive weapons.

In fact, I doubt that either the Russians or the Americans themselves would be confident enough to predict the outcome of a confrontation between these two systems with any degree of accuracy due to the reasons mentioned above. In my humble opinion the Topol-M would easily penetrate a missile shield due to the very advanced countermeasures and the maneuverability of its MIRVs. To the best of my knowledge, the NMD has only been tested against ballistic targets and not against vehicles that can randomly perform evasive maneuvers. But that would just be speculation on my side.

Given the above it should be fairly obvious that the Russians need to take any missile defense shield very seriously and would need to allocate more resources to any strategic target protected by a missile shield in order to ensure that at least one RV reaches its target intact. This reduces their second strike capability significantly. I keep saying this but you don't seem to get the simple logic.

 

[Alan]

You should have followed your own advice by doing a Google search before posting something like the tidbit below, then. You would then have discovered that a MIRV is not a type of rocket. It would have made the rest of your argument more credible.



But I digress...

Lol where did I claim it was a type of rocket. As you can clearly see I said MIRVs don't represent the sole type of offensive nuke weapons the Russians have. Tsk tsk clutching at straws

Seeing that you're such a proficient Google user, why don't you do a search yourself as I'm not feeling like spoon-feeding you right now. If you use "NMD missile defense" as a search term, I bet that one of your first returned results will point to a Wiki article on the subject.

I'll summarise for you: The NMD seems to have reached limited IOC in 2007, IIRC. This means that the Yanks are satisfied that it stands a reasonable chance of stopping an incoming RV under operational conditions. It would be very difficult to speculate as to the effectiveness of the NMD shield against a Topol-M RV due to the obvious classified nature of both the offensive as well as the defensive weapons.

In fact, I doubt that either the Russians or the Americans themselves would be confident enough to predict the outcome of a confrontation between these two systems with any degree of accuracy due to the reasons mentioned above. In my humble opinion the Topol-M would easily penetrate a missile shield due to the very advanced countermeasures and the maneuverability of its MIRVs. To the best of my knowledge, the NMD has only been tested against ballistic targets and not against vehicles that can randomly perform evasive maneuvers. But that would just be speculation on my side.

Given the above it should be fairly obvious that the Russians need to take any missile defense shield very seriously and would need to allocate more resources to any strategic target protected by a missile shield in order to ensure that at least one RV reaches its target intact. This reduces their second strike capability significantly. I keep saying this but you don't seem to get the simple logic.

ROFL now I've got to search for links to prove your claims. Until such time you produce your own links I will assume you in fact do not have any and hence are just making assertions......

 

[JHatman]

No hes not... hes a good guy, lives a humble life...

Hey guys, plane just arrived from Heathrow and sitting here in Durbs now, loving this weather and looking forward to some good surf. This comment made my day thanks JK8

 

[StrongTurd]

Lol where did I claim it was a type of rocket. As you can clearly see I said MIRVs don't represent the sole type of offensive nuke weapons the Russians have. Tsk tsk clutching at straws

ROFL now I've got to search for links to prove your claims. Until such time you produce your own links I will assume you in fact do not have any and hence are just making assertions......

Dude, are you just bored or are you truly as stupid as you appear to be?! Instead of incessantly rolling around on the floor laughing your ass of as you are so fond of doing, why don't you argue your case for a change? Do I need to spell everything out for you like a 5 year old?

Let's try again. You said:

Hang on a minute. Why you focusing on MIRVs and Peacekeepers. What about the rest of the strategic nuclear arsenal? That would surely be used in an "all out nuclear exchange"

Okay, so you're asking here why am I focusing on MIRVs and Peacekeepers and why I don't discuss the rest of the nuclear arsenal. Ignore for a minute the fact that I DID in fact discuss all of those and concentrate on the part in bold. Can you see the problem? No? OK, I'll help you by giving you an example.

Suppose we're discussing cars and you ask me why I'm focusing on engines and BMWs and not on all the other makes of cars. Now that would be a nonsensical question, wouldn't it because most cars come with engines? Your question would have made sense if you asked why I'm concentrating on Mercs and BMWs and not on other cars.

See my point? Still not? Here's another example: We're debating the merits of different brands of PCs and you ask me why I'm concentrating on hard drives and Hewlett Packards and not on all the other PCs out there like Asus and Dell and so on. Last time I checked hard drives and PCs could not be compared because the one is a component of the other.

Well, in just the same way, a MIRV is a part of an ICBM; in this case the Peacekeeper. It also so happens that almost every modern ICBM currently in service happens to be MIRV-equipped. So can you see now that asking why we're focusing on MIRVs and Peacekeepers and not on all the other ICBMs out there is a question that could only be asked by someone who doesn't know what a MIRV is because otherwise the question doesn't make sense.

If you still don't get it then I give up because I cannot explain it to you any simpler.

Now let's get back to your second bit:

ROFL now I've got to search for links to prove your claims. Until such time you produce your own links I will assume you in fact do not have any and hence are just making assertions.

OK, so I need to back up my claims. Let's get back to what those claims are again. I said this:

You're still not getting it. If one of the sides in any potential nuclear conflict enjoys significant strategic superiority (through measures like missile defense shields) then it will ultimately "win" in an all-out nuclear exchange irrespective on if it strikes first or if it retaliates to enemy aggression. This is due to the fact that that it will retain a larger percentage of its forces for a second strike because its enemy would have to employ a far larger percentage of its forces during a first strike (offensive or defensive) in order to compensate for the enemy's missile shield.

So what sort of link would be required to prove simple logic to you? Does one really require a link for everything, even for common sense? I'll humor you regardless...

You claimed that a NMD shield holds zero strategic advantage:

My point is 1) the shield makes no significant impact on Russia's offensive capabilities

Well, if you've been following the news over the last couple of years about the NMD, you'll be aware of the fact that this system has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to intercept and destroy incoming warheads. It is also now operational. I did a Google search using the criteria that I recommended that you do and what do you know? The very first link pointed to a Wiki article as I predicted that it would.

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense

How's that? I've posted a link, now all of a sudden my argument is valid, right? If I had more time I could post a couple of dozen links to documented cases of successful missile intercepts by NMD hardware but I trust that you can do that yourself.

Here's the bottom line: Nobody outside of the military and the defense contractors know exactly how effective the NMD shield would be against an incoming Topol-M carrying multiple MIRVs. I would go as far as to say that even those engineers and scientists directly involved in these programs would not know precisely how effective their shield would be against such a thread due to the classified nature of the Russian hardware. I'm sure they've got quite effective intelligence but the answer to this question will always remain an educated guess until both systems have been tested against each other. (God forbid). Regardless, the Russians will have to compensate for such a shield in Eastern Europe or anywhere else and the only way that they can do this is by increasing their hardware. I read recently that this is exactly what is happening at the moment and contracts have been issued for the production of more SLBMs based on the Topol-M design.

To put it another way, if I and the other guy have both got the guaranteed means to destroy each other, we'll never get into a fight because that would be suicide. Peace will prevail even if we hate each other. Then all of a sudden the other guy develops a way of neutralising at least a percentage of my weapons (the actual percentage is not important, merely the fact that he now has weapons that will survive my best onslaught while still having something left to knock me out. What choice will I have but to increase my stockpile of weapons if I want to maintain the status quo?

Can you understand how this might lead to another arms race?

 

[Alan]

Eish so late, so much text to read.......

 

[whipper]

um, because their president is a freaking looney maniac?

and Bush wasnt!!!

 

[StrongTurd]

Eish so late, so much text to read.......

Yeah, let's talk about something else because you've lost this debate 6-0.