If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Defense News)   US Intelligence: "Uh, you know how we speculated China had around 300 nukes? We may have missed a zero"   (defensenews.com) divider line 231
    More: Scary, People's Republic of China, United States, try, Chinese, nuclear deterrent, Federation of American Scientists, nuclear tests, U.S. law  
•       •       •

17836 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 07:42:19 PM
Welp... I guess 0booger has finally caved to the arms industry and their fear mongering games. Too bad, I kind of liked the dude.
Good news for you repubbers though. I'm sure this will end up funneling a retarded amount of money into the military while people continue to die of easily treatable/preventable illnesses.
 
2013-01-07 07:44:39 PM
@Rich Cream
MAD only works on the grand scale. It only stops grand conflagrations like WW1 and WW2 from occuring. We still have hundreds of armed conflicts at the micro and state level in over 60 countries currently. Also it only works if those making choices are rational actors.
If the Switzerland conscription numbers are correct and 20% of the 20-53 age group (their active armed forces militia) are found to be regularly unable to perform the duties due to either incompetence, inability and/or would be an outright hazard to themselves or others, then it is obvious that to have everyone armed with guns would result in mass gun violence, on an almost daily basis.
Oh what, that's right, that's what we have in the US with an 88% level of household personal armament.

You don't get absolute world peace with MAD, you just get small regional unrest affecting millions, instead of all out aggression towards billions, and you don't get a whole lot of peace with everybody packing heat, either, you just end up with 10's of thousands of deaths, and in many instances, you are getting more deaths from firearms, because they are mechanical, and easily repeat the action, when other means would involve more limiting actions with less force and/or accuracy resulting in more injuries than actual fatalities.

Neither is very useful, for their stated goals. Some how the 1860-1890 mindset and the 1950-1980's mind sets have taken over all dialogue on these issues.
They weren't correct even in their correct chronologies, and this anachronistic revisionism and cult like worship to these value systems do more harm than good today. The only beneficiaries on both these issues are the arms dealers/defense industry, and those who promote hatred, distrust, and paranoia, which I guess in some respects are around 88% of the population at some level or another, at least in the USA.
 
2013-01-07 07:45:04 PM

kd1s: Here's something to remember. Everyone remembers former President Jimmy Carter as weak on defense. Well, he wasn't. He's the guy who moved almost our entire nuclear arsenal to a submarine based force.

In essence we can lay waste to China in the matter of about 10 to 20 minutes. And they know it.


What? How did he manage that? The Tridents? That was Nixon's program, originally conceived as a way around the 1972 SALT 1 limitations (and the first one didn't go into service until Reagan was President). The previous significant nuclear expansion on submarines was the C3 missile which increased the MIRV capability up from 3 to about 14 and that was started under LBJ and implemented (again) under Nixon.

The move to submarines was done in the 1980's as a part of Reagan's forward maritime strategy. Carter did very little for the US Submarine ballistic missile force. In the 4 years of his presidency only 3 out of an intended 24 (at the time) hulls were authorized under his watch. 4 were authorized in 2 years by Nixon\Ford, 9 by Reagan and 2 By GHW Bush before the program was cancelled. There were supposed to be 6 more but while the hull numbers were reserved (and still are) the boats were never built.

Carter was weak on defense. He refused to pay the military personnel enough to live on (for example food stamps were commonly used among the lower ranked enlisted with families). Reagan had to significantly raise salaries that had remained stagnant under Carter (even with his out of control inflation) just to keep an all volunteer military. During the Carter administration the best people were leaving in droves as their enlistments were up.

People in the military absolutely hated Carter because of his disregard for them. He was the worst type of officer, one who didn't think about his people other than a number on a piece of paper. Fark him.
 
2013-01-07 07:46:09 PM
The rational choice is to enact a massive blind out of the blue first strike, damn good chance of catching those yellow devils with their pants down.
 
2013-01-07 07:46:26 PM

clovis69: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes


Kibbler: If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?



I understand an A-bomb does more damage than a gun and that's what prevents people from using it...but

MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?
 
2013-01-07 07:47:51 PM

indylaw: A) The difference between thermonuclear weapons and nuclear weapons is like the difference between flammable and inflammable.


no.

flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing
thermonuclear specifically refers to FUSION devices.
nuclear includes both fusion and fission devices.
 
2013-01-07 07:47:55 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Who's counting anyway?  Even 300 is 295 more than you need to turn all critical cities in the US (or most any other industrialized nation) into glass parking lots.  Anything else is just overkill.

Besides, what motive would they have to use them?  Attack any UN/NATO ally, and the world rains death upon you.  Attack us, and even if you survive the counterattack, you'll lose your biggest global customer, and still haven't received the previously mentioned death from above, sponsored by NATO.


The problem with having that many is that the more you have, the more you have to lose control of.
 
2013-01-07 07:49:53 PM

RandomRandom: RobertBruce: It would be much easier for them to say to us "xxxx trade concessions or we nuke japan and south korea, both who you're bound by treaty to defend,"

You're forgetting the relevant parable.

If you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank.

We don't owe China a billion, we owe them well over a TRILLION dollars. We own them. If they were insane enough to attack one of our allies, we would cancel that debt, then shut down their economy. How? Most of the Chinese economy is based on exports. Exports sent out on very large, very slow cargo container ships. China doesn't have a deep sea navy to protect those ships. We could take every single cargo ship leaving China with hardly a shot fired. We could stop all cargo ships attempting to enter their waters. We wouldn't even have blow their ports or mine them.

We could completely destroy their economy without firing a singe shot into their country, and they're going to start a shooting war with Japan or Korea? Not farking likely.


RandomRandom: RobertBruce: It would be much easier for them to say to us "xxxx trade concessions or we nuke japan and south korea, both who you're bound by treaty to defend,"

You're forjgetting the relevant parable.

If you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank.

is this like guns don't kill people but people kill people?
 
2013-01-07 07:50:47 PM

here to help: pltpltpltpltpltpltpltPLTLTLTLTppp


Dude...seriously. That was pretty stupid, even for you.
 
2013-01-07 07:53:50 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: indylaw: A) The difference between thermonuclear weapons and nuclear weapons is like the difference between flammable and inflammable.

no.

flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing
thermonuclear specifically refers to FUSION devices.
nuclear includes both fusion and fission devices.


You are right, but my subpoint remains - "nuclear weapons" is a set that includes "thermonuclear weapons." Saying that the United States has thermonuclear weapons and China "only" has nuclear weapons only makes sense if you assume that all of China's weapons are fission weapons. It's comparing apples to fruits.
 
2013-01-07 07:56:16 PM

Acravius: MAD only works on the grand scale.



Nice. Good stuff. Not sure 60 years is proof it "works" but so far so good?

/I guess it's also more like two people actually pointing loaded guns at each other rather than just having them.
 
2013-01-07 07:56:31 PM

insertsnarkyusername: To be honest why even bother with a second strike? It's a lot more efficient to let the other country's culture evolve to a better point then it is for us climb our way back out of the stone age in a radioactive wasteland.


Well, if you have enough caps, you might get a nice apartment with running water.
 
2013-01-07 07:57:04 PM
bbsimg.ngfiles.com

Shrimp bomb.
 
2013-01-07 07:57:06 PM

Rich Cream: MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?


Scale. One death is a tragedy but in the grand scheme of things it's not all that big of a deal. A few billion deaths and the absolute destruction of most of your country however... is kind of a big deal.
 
2013-01-07 07:57:19 PM
Mine shaft gap
 
2013-01-07 08:00:05 PM

Rich Cream: clovis69: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes

Kibbler: If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?


I understand an A-bomb does more damage than a gun and that's what prevents people from using it...but

MAD is based on using a deadly force to avert a deadly force. How are guns different from that?


Can you assure me that if someone attacked you, you could, in your dying breaths kill the attacker, his family, and everyone he ever knew, plus wreck his car, his house, and salt the earth of his farm? Could you do that with a pistol? The ethical calculus of MAD is such that you use such an overwhelming guarantee of destruction it's futile to even try to see if you're the fastest gun in the west. And STILL strategists thought a nuclear war could be "won."
 
2013-01-07 08:01:21 PM

A Shambling Mound: here to help: pltpltpltpltpltpltpltPLTLTLTLTppp

Dude...seriously. That was pretty stupid, even for you.


Aww... we hatin'?

Are you mad because I said something mean about Obama or that I pointed out the chicken hawk tendencies of the right?

'Cause seriously... they all suck. I was just hoping the bamster could keep the evil down to a minimum.
 
2013-01-07 08:03:02 PM

HotWingAgenda: Overall, Glaser believes the new reporting requirements are a reaction to Karber's work, making him one of a few lonely challengers to suggest that U.S. intelligence estimates are wrong.

Next time read TFA before drafting your headline, submitter.  China has loads of partially-completed infrastructure it has no need for, because their available labor has outstripped their resources.  The actual intelligence estimates are likely based on . . . y'know . . . intelligence.  Information some Georgetown professor and his teacher's aide wouldn't have access to.


Phil Karber's research has been ridiculed by a good number of people. He has been giving these presentations on China's nuclear tunnels in D.C. for a while now, but I'm still surprised he got this into the NDAA. Either there's a grain of truth to this suspicions, or ... Washington is operating as it always does.

The problem is his analysis is based on how many nukes you can stuff/hide into a large tunnel, not how many nukes the Chinese are known to have built.
 
2013-01-07 08:03:14 PM

PanicMan: Oh no. Stop them. Oh no.


You said that in the Kevin Hart voice in my head.
 
2013-01-07 08:04:04 PM

Kibbler: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

Discuss. (or put me in my place)

If person A and person B get into a gunfight, is it guaranteed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that both person A and person B will die?


Along with everyone and everything else in a 30 mile radius? And everyone and everything downwind? Pretty much the same thing I guess.
 
2013-01-07 08:06:57 PM

SuperNinjaToad: RandomRandom: RobertBruce: It would be much easier for them to say to us "xxxx trade concessions or we nuke japan and south korea, both who you're bound by treaty to defend,"

You're forgetting the relevant parable.

If you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank.

We don't owe China a billion, we owe them well over a TRILLION dollars. We own them. If they were insane enough to attack one of our allies, we would cancel that debt, then shut down their economy. How? Most of the Chinese economy is based on exports. Exports sent out on very large, very slow cargo container ships. China doesn't have a deep sea navy to protect those ships. We could take every single cargo ship leaving China with hardly a shot fired. We could stop all cargo ships attempting to enter their waters. We wouldn't even have blow their ports or mine them.

We could completely destroy their economy without firing a singe shot into their country, and they're going to start a shooting war with Japan or Korea? Not farking likely.

RandomRandom: RobertBruce: It would be much easier for them to say to us "xxxx trade concessions or we nuke japan and south korea, both who you're bound by treaty to defend,"

You're forjgetting the relevant parable.

If you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank.

is this like guns don't kill people but people kill people?


No no. This is Guns don't kill people. Banks kill people.
 
2013-01-07 08:07:13 PM
So, let me guess where this is going...

300 vs. 3000... that means the report coming out in August will say we *dont* have the ability to withstand this and they will recommend we increase our budget to come up with a new solution.

Which could mean 10 times the budget or a brand new spanking toy for missile interception.

And all the while, these nukes are in underground tunnels... So none of us with regular satellite image access could verify if they exist at all.
 
2013-01-07 08:07:32 PM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Obviously the only answer to this is to double or triple the US  defence budget. In fact, I propose the Defence Department take ALL incoming revenue, and give back what they don't need. Oh ya, and invoke conscription again. But only the homeless and people making less than $250000 a year.

/Tea Party for the win!


Annnnnd we have the point of this. More enemies to build bombs against. It really comes down to that.
 
2013-01-07 08:08:24 PM

jmr61: Pointy Tail of Satan: Obviously the only answer to this is to double or triple the US  defence budget. In fact, I propose the Defence Department take ALL incoming revenue, and give back what they don't need. Oh ya, and invoke conscription again. But only the homeless and people making less than $250000 a year.

/Tea Party for the win!

Annnnnd we have the point of this. More enemies to build bombs against. It really comes down to that.


Job creation. Which is what liberals want, right?
 
2013-01-07 08:12:16 PM
I got an idea! Why don't we sell a lot of stock in and whole US companies and government debt and stuff to the Chinese and sign a bunch of contracts to buy and sell stuff to them so that they can't afford to bomb us... Oh wait
 
2013-01-07 08:13:37 PM

Seth'n'Spectrum: The problem is his analysis is based on how many nukes you can stuff/hide into a large tunnel, not how many nukes the Chinese are known to have built.


That depends upon how you want to look at it. On the one side you can go with the lower number and plan accordingly based upon that. The problem with that is that if you're wrong the consequences may be devastatingly catastrophic. Or you can go with the higher number and plan accordingly. The problem with that is that it costs a lot more for what may turn out to be too much for what you ended up needing. Unfortunately when you need it but don't have it it's usually much too late to get it.

Think of it like insurance. It's always better to have too much than not enough. Sure the higher premiums suck, but you sure are glad that you paid them if something really bad happens to you.
 
2013-01-07 08:14:23 PM

clovis69: Rich Cream: Let's see here. Who believes MAD is a viable method to maintain non-aggressive behavior but doesn't think everybody should be armed with guns as a similar method?

With MAD, if I pull the trigger, you pull the trigger, I die, you die, all your relatives die, all my relatives die and most of our respective dwellings are destroyed, and so are most of the dwellings within our zip code.

With a gun, I can shoot at you, you might shoot back, you might miss, I might miss, I might hit a bystander, I might hit the wall, you might hit your foot.

Apples and Limes


Yup cuz North Korea has proven very recently that all long range delivery methods always work and never miss.

Thanks for playing, Try again.
 
2013-01-07 08:14:47 PM
If they program missiles like they drive we have nothing to worry about.

"YOU PROGRAM MISSILE RIGHT?"

"YES I PROGRAM MISSILE RIGHT!"

Missiles fire up into air, then turn around and fly directly back into the ground.

"OH SON OF BIATCH!"

BOOM!

/not racist
//hate everbody
///except farkers
 
2013-01-07 08:19:53 PM
Wanted for questioning:

1.bp.blogspot.com

/has a history of getting decimal points wrong
 
2013-01-07 08:20:44 PM
jehovahs witness protection
Me bomb you long time.

PROTIP: China is not Vietnam.
 
2013-01-07 08:21:11 PM
Oh great. Now the NRA shills are gonna demand that every home has a nuclear weapon... 'cause, yanno... anything less would be completely irresponsible and without one everyone you love is gonna get raped and chopped up into to tiny little pieces then raped again.

AMERICA!1

yeah
 
2013-01-07 08:21:41 PM

thisisarepeat: Yup cuz North Korea has proven very recently that all long range delivery methods always work and never miss.

Thanks for playing, Try again.


Only a fool thinks that they didn't learn anything from their failures. People like you also thought that the first Sputnik launch was a failure, only it wasn't. It was a successful ballistic missile test intentionally disguised as a failed satellite launch.

It's hard to get pinpoint accuracy with a ballistic missile (and even more so with the ones out at sea), but when you're talking about nuking a city, close is good enough for the purpose of being a threat. Our first missiles were not all that accurate either, but they worked well enough for their intended purposes.
 
2013-01-07 08:21:45 PM
Also, a quick check of the internets shows the 3000 number is not new, and has pretty much been debunked. Even the 300 are not strategic (on a missile or bomb), but in reserve.
 
2013-01-07 08:22:18 PM

fusillade762: His team estimated that as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons could be hidden

They possibly maybe could conceivably have 3,000.
EVERYBODY PANIC!


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
/oblige
 
2013-01-07 08:23:24 PM

cretinbob: Also, a quick check of the internets shows the 3000 number is not new, and has pretty much been debunked. Even the 300 are not strategic (on a missile or bomb), but in reserve.


Yea, but with that big a population you can carry them almost anywhere.
 
2013-01-07 08:24:43 PM
I wonder what Dr. Octogon has to day about this?
 
2013-01-07 08:24:43 PM
When you really only need one to make folks have a bad day, does a zero really matter?
 
2013-01-07 08:27:00 PM
ReverendJynxed
When you really only need one to make folks have a bad day, does a zero really matter?

Uhhh, yes? Like "more than ever" yes?
 
2013-01-07 08:27:01 PM
www.conservativecommune.com

"I'm not the thief; the government is. Every year you make hardworking Joes like my reporter friend pay income taxes. And for what? Aid to ungrateful foreigners, do-nothing nuclear missiles, tomb polish for some unknown soldier."
 
2013-01-07 08:30:22 PM
Well we gotta hype the new enemy goddammit. Those new Pentagon purchases aren't going to build themselves so we're going justify even more military spending and conveniently lobby against ever cutting our huge defense budget. And we'll pay for that with another round of tax cuts for the rich.

For your safety, of course
 
2013-01-07 08:30:40 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: China declaring war on us would be like the local Walmart declaring war on a nearby trailer park.


You win +1 Internets.

/laughed her ass off
 
2013-01-07 08:30:53 PM

Radioactive Ass: thisisarepeat: Yup cuz North Korea has proven very recently that all long range delivery methods always work and never miss.

Thanks for playing, Try again.

Only a fool thinks that they didn't learn anything from their failures. People like you also thought that the first Sputnik launch was a failure, only it wasn't. It was a successful ballistic missile test intentionally disguised as a failed satellite launch.

It's hard to get pinpoint accuracy with a ballistic missile (and even more so with the ones out at sea), but when you're talking about nuking a city, close is good enough for the purpose of being a threat. Our first missiles were not all that accurate either, but they worked well enough for their intended purposes.


So, you agree. With the addition of some shiat about learning curves.
 
2013-01-07 08:36:25 PM
Am I the only one amazed by how often US intelligence agencies get stuff wrong (that we know about), yet they still manage to get paid/be part of the government/exist?
 
2013-01-07 08:41:37 PM

Yoyo: Am I the only one amazed by how often US intelligence agencies get stuff wrong (that we know about), yet they still manage to get paid/be part of the government/exist?


It is amazing, but once a government agency is created, it NEVER goes away regardless of effectiveness. They can even DO the very damage they were formed to prevent and nobody even thinks that dissolving them could be a good idea. The most recent example would be the Fast & Furious farkup with the BATFE.
 
2013-01-07 08:42:58 PM

thisisarepeat: So, you agree. With the addition of some shiat about learning curves.


Agree? No (assuming that you were being sarcastic, which, given the context I thought that you were). Once a nation can get anything into sub-orbital space they presumably have the capability to make IRBM's. If they can achieve orbit (no matter how sloppy it is) they presumably can make ICBM's. To assume otherwise is courting disaster.
 
2013-01-07 08:45:15 PM
how many cities in the US have more than 250,000 people?
 
2013-01-07 08:48:24 PM
So China only has 30 nukes? Sweet....
 
2013-01-07 08:51:38 PM
rack.1.mshcdn.com
 
2013-01-07 08:52:04 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Come on now. No one thinks the Chinese are going to bomb the U.S. with nukes.


Except, possibly, the Chinese Central Committee.
 
2013-01-07 08:52:44 PM

Radioactive Ass: thisisarepeat: So, you agree. With the addition of some shiat about learning curves.

Agree? No (assuming that you were being sarcastic, which, given the context I thought that you were). Once a nation can get anything into sub-orbital space they presumably have the capability to make IRBM's. If they can achieve orbit (no matter how sloppy it is) they presumably can make ICBM's. To assume otherwise is courting disaster.


I don't assume otherwise, never even implied that i did. I just said you can miss with a nuke, in response to a statement that a person could miss with a bullet. And just as there is a lot more air than target with respect to using a firearm there are still a lot more uninhabited square miles on this rock than there are inhabited ones.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report