Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues

quote:

---

The death of a President is the death of a President, whether by heart attack or nuclear attack.

---

I now realize how you work. You just post what you find on the internet and don't analyze or understand it. The average flight time of a ICBM from Russia is less then 30 minutes. A Typhoon or Oscar (I or II) launched could be less then a 5 minutes. A cruise missile off a cargo ship would be less then 2 minutes. And an attack on the president could be a non-missile. A suicide bombing killing the president followed by a launch would not allow enough time to transfer the authority and codes to whoever is left in charge. There is a reason why the US authorized a variety of people to launch and why Russia allows middle upper level commanders to launch as well. During the cold war, Russian submarine captains were authorized to use nuclear tipped torpedoes.

quote:

---

If I jury-rig a landline telephone to deliver a deadly shock to anyone who picks up the reciever, does that mean telephones are deadly?

---

....that was retarded. US missile commanders, well at least one, has bypassed the system and was able to be able to start WWIII whenever he wanted. That kind of problem is what we need to deal with, not bitch about how religious whackjobs can allegedly kill us all. A computer glitch is far more likely to wipe us all out then a religious crazy. Plus the US during the Cold War could have reasonably attacked the USSR with nukes without a fear of a complete launch. The US had satellite maps detailing exactly where Russian silos were due to their specific road patterns that the Soviet missile transports needed to turn around (not too creative them soviets). And we tapped the key underwater line off Vladivostok (it didn't hurt us that they had a big sign saying "do not fish") that let the US shadow every missile capable of carrying SLBMs. The US could have waged a nuclear war. But we didn't.The idea that the biggest threat is a religious crazy is just dumb if you look at history.

quote:

---

You didn't read the thread, did you?

---

Did you? I remember him stating this: "Our discussion can be quite broad."

quote:

---

therefore the government was established so that no one entity in the government would have exclusive power.

---

The US delegated US launch authority to a various number of people. It just makes NO sense to give authority to ONE person who can be eliminated easily. Read

You are naive if you think it would take any time whatsoever to delegate the authority to the appropriate official. That has nothing to do with who is authorized to launch a nuclear attack. Had you bothered to read the thread, you would have noticed that I've already mentioned that some military commanders were delegated the authority from the 1950s until the 1980s.From Message 134: You will note that the info is classified. The author of the book you linked can not be certain that the policy is still in place.From the U.S. Army War College: No webpage found at provided URL: carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/cimbala.htmMay have, Obvious.

quote:

---

You are naive if you think it would take any time whatsoever to delegate the authority to the appropriate official.

---

You are naive to think you understand how an actual attack would work.

quote:

---

That has nothing to do with who is authorized to launch a nuclear attack.

---

True, but it does show that our systems are hardly as you think they are (among many other things). I now realize how you work. You just post what you find on the internet and don't analyze or understand it.

quote:

---

Had you bothered to read the thread, you would have noticed that I've already mentioned that some military commanders were delegated the authority from the 1950s until the 1980s.

---

I read that. I just don't believe that we stopped that practice. And as your sources state, there is a level of uncertainty as to whether the US still does it or not. While the threat of a actual deliberate exchange between the US and Russia is virtually nil, for the US to give up its long practice of worse case contingency plans seems very put of place. The US military changes two things rapidly, and the rest at a snails' pace: weapons and combat tactics. Procedure for ICBMs and SLBMs falls in the later. Hell, Congress had to force the navy to build and implement SLBMs.Do you always have a bad tendency to ignore the majority of posts?I can see you are out of your league here.The biggest threat, as I've stated before and NO ONE seems to be able to argue against this, is merely the existence of the weapons themselves. If everyone went to virtual arsenals, we'd be pretty safe no matter who was in charge.

Horseshit.I was discussing authorization, not what-if scenarios. The Brookings Institute disagrees with you. Bruce G. Blair, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Air Force nuclear launch officer, is an expert on nuclear policy and he thinks predelegation was revoked in the 1980s. For the nuclear powers to disarm would be foolish. The technology could be acquired by a non-state actor. http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/opstatus-blair.htm

quote:

---

The Brookings Institute disagrees with you. Bruce G. Blair, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Air Force nuclear launch officer, is an expert on nuclear policy and he thinks predelegation was revoked in the 1980s.

---

But it just doesn't make any sense! Try analyze instead of just regurgitating whatever you find for a change. Especially with the advent of weapons that can be fit into a small car, the need for delegation of authority is still needed. A single small (5kt) could easily wipe out the heart of DC. If a missile launch occurred right after the detonation killing everyone on your list of succession, we'd be out of authority. Plus it goes against a long history of how the US military operates. We don't put all our eggs in one basket.

quote:

---

For the nuclear powers to disarm would be foolish. The technology could be acquired by a non-state actor.

---

I feel like I'm talking to a bot. A non-state actor cannot be deterred with nuclear weapons. They have no home address. You cannot send a missile back at them for what they did to you. Hence why it is believed that the US is letting Bin Laden hang out in Northern Pakistan. MAD does not work against a homeless organization.And did you even read your post quotes?"There is reason to believe that state and non-state actors, including terrorists, may be able to exploit weaknesses in these systems of control by physical or informational means, heightening the risks of unauthorized or accidental launch."If we went to a virtual arsenal, no weapons can be stolen, no unauthorized launches could be done as no weapons would be in physical existence. And terrorists do have access to nuclear weapons plans. But the difficulty of producing one is rather high, unlike merely stealing one. The Nunn-Lugar CTR plan was designed to secure and remove WMD from FSU states.I don't think you even understand this subject at all.

I think I will rely on the expertise of a Brookings Institute senior fellow, rather than you, dear. Really. You think our missile warning systems are that poor?You think that contingency plans aren't in place in the highly unlikely event that every person on that list is killed? You've managed to drive 2 other posters off a thread with your nonstop ill informed bloviating. Are you trying for 3? Again, had you bothered to read the link, the access they are talking about is thru the Russian system.Furthermore, non state actors can be located and stopped. Yeah. That's going real well, isn't it? Since non proliferation treaties were signed, 6 nations have acquired nuclear technology.North Korea, a known weapons dealer to terrorist organizations, is just the latest in a long line of threats.I'd like to hear your plans for negotiating disarmament with Israel, Iran and North Korea. Especially since Israel denies having any nuclear weapons.

Not quite accurate. Israel neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons as its official stance, but everyone knows that they do. It is the biggest deterrent that they have against their neighbors that have shown a willingness to attack Israel from all sides, at any time, in order to wipe the nation out.

---

We never seem to acknowledge that we have been wrong in the past, and so might be wrong in the future. Instead, each generation writes off earlier errors as the result of bad thinking by less able minds-and then confidently embarks on fresh errors of its own. --Michael Crichton

quote:

---

We don't put all our eggs in one basket.

---

And the whole iceberg isn't visible.

quote:

---

If we went to a virtual arsenal, no weapons can be stolen, no unauthorized launches could be done as no weapons would be in physical existence.

---

Isn't that an old Star Trek episode?What exactly do you mean by virtual arsenal? Are you saying they would engage in a computer battle or have I missed something?

quote:

---

I think I will rely on the expertise of a Brookings Institute senior fellow, rather than you, dear.

---

It would help if you understood what they were saying instead of just copy-paste.

quote:

---

Really. You think our missile warning systems are that poor?

---

For cruise missiles and SLBMs offshore yes, and these systems don't work against truck bombs. Again, it would help if you actually understood this subject instead of just copy pasting. Missiles come in many different forms. It appears you only think they come from ICBMs.

quote:

---

You think that contingency plans aren't in place in the highly unlikely event that every person on that list is killed?

---

I do. It's called pre-delegation.

quote:

---

You've managed to drive 2 other posters off a thread with your nonstop ill informed bloviating. Are you trying for 3?

---

It's not my fault that the knowledge of you people is quite limited to science.

quote:

---

Again, had you bothered to read the link, the access they are talking about is thru the Russian system.

---

Doesn't matter. Everyone needs to go to virtual. The Russians keep their weapons because we keep ours. If we didn't have weapons in operation, they wouldn't need them either. The threat of MAD is still there, just without the actual weapons on alert.

quote:

---

Furthermore, non state actors can be located and stopped.

---

You sound like Bush. Even if they can be located, they are often in places that are not against the US. You are saying that we should be able to lob a nuke over, killing millions of innocent people. If you actually understood this subject, you'd see how ridiculous you are looking. You can't deter NSAs with nukes.

quote:

---

Yeah. That's going real well, isn't it? Since non proliferation treaties were signed, 6 nations have acquired nuclear technology.

---

Well, we probably gave Israel weapons. And Pakistan's design was likely stolen by Khan during his time in the West. Plus if the US can figure it out, other states can as well. But you seem completely incapable of understanding this subject. Plus if you actually knew what you were discussing, you'd know that the number of states actively getting programs prior to the NPT was over 15, with South Africa already having several gun types. Now it's just states outside of the NPT getting weapons. It's not the failure of states within the NPT (unless that bastard India-US plan goes through), it's the failure to include states outside of the NPT.

quote:

---

North Korea, a known weapons dealer to terrorist organizations, is just the latest in a long line of threats.

---

Oh how I have seriously overestimated people's understanding of politics. Why would NK give a weapon to someone who may use it against them? The Russians funded and gave millions of weapons to people we'd consider terrorists and never a nuke. Plus if they used a nuke against us, we'd figure it out and they'd be gone. The #1 goal of NK's regime is to stay in power. Using a weapon will end that goal.

quote:

---

I'd like to hear your plans for negotiating disarmament with Israel, Iran and North Korea. Especially since Israel denies having any nuclear weapons.

---

Do you understand the concept of a deterrent?

A virtual arsenal is where no weapons actually exist, but the machinery, knowledge, blue prints and raw material to build them do. If a short period of time after a attack, a state could retaliate. Because no weapons exist, a first, devastating strike can't occur, and any accidents can be investigated without the fear of overhanging immediate nuclear annihilation. And MAD still exists because a state is still capable of destroying each other, abet on a longer time frame.Frankly, I'm used to discussing these subjects who understand everything from the Uranium (and sometimes Thorium) fuel cycle to how weapons are used to prop up regimes.

You have demonstrated no understanding of the issues at hand. Your what-if scenarios are worthless. That's the best you've got? A truck bomb?Check out this scenario: collision detection: Nuclear-strike simulator A 400 kt truck bomb is detonated in front of the White House.If you think that's going to wipe out every one on that succession list, you got another think comin'. There's a difference between succession and predelegation.The VP doesn't have nuclear launch authority. Were the President killed or disabled, he would, thru the rules of succession, not predelegation.Were everyone on that list killed (highly unlikely), I am certain there are additional successors that are known to the chain of command. That's ridiculous. Let's assume everyone on this planet agrees to go virtual. How do we verify their status?After all, a virtual system just means the weapons are disassembled.Furthermore, were a nation to assemble a weapon and launch, our response time would be considerably longer.That's a risk you're willing to take?All a virtual system does is remove the specter of an accidental launch by a nuclear power. None of the problems that you are trying to circumvent (terrorist access, truck bombs, etc.) are mitigated in the least by a virtual system. So what? The fact remains, they have the weapons. Bush would have no problem nuking a NSA with a nuclear weapon. Neither would most Americans.And, despite your hyperbole, millions wouldn't be killed. Hundreds of thousands, yes. Millions, no. What makes you think NK would be hit by Al Quaeda? Or any other terrorist group that would target America/Europe? I'm not talking about MAD wrt to North Korea.I'm talking about the possibility of NK selling weapons to NSAs/terrorists. So. You're omniscient now.1. You have no idea when or if Israel became a nuclear power.
2. You have no idea if anyone gave Israel the weapons.
3. You have no idea, if they were given weapons, who gave Israel the weapons.
4. You have no idea what the USSR gave away or to whom.You are pulling these fanciful what-if scenarios straight out of the Ian Fleming novels you read late at night. Oh my goodness gracious! Obvious has done gone an caughted me. I ain't got no idear t'all bout no de teer ant.

quote:

---

You have demonstrated no understanding of the issues at hand. Your what-if scenarios are worthless.

---

This is almost amusing. You assume an attack will be purely ICBMs. When I mention things such as Typhoons or Oscars (which I'm pretty sure right now you don't even understand) you ignore them. Are you saying they don't exist? That the SLBM capabilities of Russian subs don't exist? (Granted, the US doesn't have much in that line anyways given the conversion of the Ohios to cruise missile platforms). I've given you more then enough to prove I actually understand the technical issues here. I have yet to see you prove you even understand anything similar.

quote:

---

That's the best you've got? A truck bomb?

---

Your inability to critically think scares me. A truck bomb by itself no. As a part of a larger attack yes.

quote:

---

A 400 kt truck bomb is detonated in front of the White House.

​

If you think that's going to wipe out every one on that succession list, you got another think comin'

---

Obviously you have no idea what a attack would include. If the the Russians were actually going to first strike us with the hopes of avoiding a full retaliatory attack (madness yes but let's have some fun), they'd probably use a number of large truck bombs across the country coupled at the same time with numerous cruise missiles from either subs or cargo ships (it's surprisingly easy to take a standard cargo container and turn it into a platform) to wipe out most of the command of the US short of Cheyenne within 3~4, minutes, maybe less if the cargo ships and subs are right off the shore. Most of the Hollywood crap (where you are getting your info from) revolves around working on a 15~30 minute timetable of ICBMs from Russia. Then the ICBMs would come. There's a reason the US placed numerous missiles in Turkey, to significantly decrease the time to wipe out Soviet positions.

quote:

---

There's a difference between succession and predelegation.

---

Of course. We probably have both.

quote:

---

The VP doesn't have nuclear launch authority. Were the President killed or disabled, he would, thru the rules of succession, not predelegation.

---

But that doesn't mean someone like the one or all of joint chiefs doesn't have pre-delegation.

quote:

---

Were everyone on that list killed (highly unlikely), I am certain there are additional successors that are known to the chain of command.

---

But not able to be reached in the necessary time to launch silo missiles before they are wiped out. With the conversion of the Ohio classes to cruise missile platforms and the known location of the Spirits, and it is stupid to assume the Russians don't know where our silos are, it's real questionable if we could respond with a retaliatory strike in less then 5 minutes on succession. Again, you are obviously working off Hollywood.

quote:

---

That's ridiculous. Let's assume everyone on this planet agrees to go virtual. How do we verify their status?

---

The same way we verify their status now. Besides, having a handful of nukes lying around isn't the end of the world. What is dangerous is having thousands on hair trigger. Plus more weapons exist, the greater the possibility of them being stolen. You can't steal a weapon that doesn't physically exist.

quote:

---

Furthermore, were a nation to assemble a weapon and launch, our response time would be considerably longer.

​

That's a risk you're willing to take?

---

That's the point. You have no idea just how many times hair trigger has almost ended all life on the planet. Neither you nor jar seem willing to talk about how human error and glitches have done what you claim a religious crazy could do. Without actual weapons, there is no threat of nuclear instant death. If Russia, US, India and Pakistan did this, the world would be much, much safer. Pakistan already has a form of this in dissembled weapons. Not quite there, but it's a good start. The fact that you guys are against this scares me since you argue that nukes+crazy=death. If we remove nukes, then your problem equation doesn't work. It's really simple.

quote:

---

All a virtual system does is remove the specter of an accidental launch by a nuclear power.

---

And this is bad why? Again, I remind you of your deliberate avoiding of the issue of how that has almost ended life on the planet numerous times in the past. Make up your mind. I get the feeling that if I said I like _____, you'd say you'd hate it. When I was back in high school, I just went to sleep when someone like that opened their mouth.

quote:

---

None of the problems that you are trying to circumvent (terrorist access, truck bombs, etc.) are mitigated in the least by a virtual system.

---

Obviously you aren't paying attention. The truck bomb was part of a larger attack, which you can't understand because all you understand is what Hollywood tells you. And my point about how you work is true. You don't understand. Explain to me how a terrorist steals a weapon that doesn't physically exist.. Or are you going to pretend I never asked that?You people are no different then creationists.

quote:

---

So what? The fact remains, they have the weapons.

---

So you throw babies out with the bathwater? Do you know who is one of the biggest detractors of the NPT and weapons control programs? Dubya

quote:

---

Bush would have no problem nuking a NSA with a nuclear weapon. Neither would most Americans.

---

How can you nuke a NSA when you don't know where they are? Can you shoot something you cannot see? Do you even und....nevermind. I know the answer to that.

quote:

---

And, despite your hyperbole, millions wouldn't be killed. Hundreds of thousands, yes. Millions, no.

---

Care to tell me just how large some of the Pakistani cities are?And you haven't answered the question. Do you or do you not agree with what I said?

quote:

---

What makes you think NK would be hit by Al Quaeda? Or any other terrorist group that would target America/Europe?

---

AQ? Not likely. But you miss the point. nations can't control terrorists. Not even Syria who exports terrorism as a way to get it out of the country. The US has constantly faced a boomerang effect with its weapons. To give someone you cannot control a WMD is insane. Iran has been practicing terrorism for decades and has chemical and biological weapons for a very long time. Yet we have yet to see any of its WMD being used by terrorists, even against Israel. There has yet to be a single instance where a state gave terrorists WMD. And there's a reason for that. Try use critical thinking before responding.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about MAD wrt to North Korea.

​

I'm talking about the possibility of NK selling weapons to NSAs/terrorists.

---

There's no difference. Any attack by a weapon would be traceable. One thing Hollywood DID get right was in Sum of All Fears where the tech crew could pinpoint where the critical mass came from. Any attack would be traceable as to where the critical mass came from and therefore we'd be soon sending a couple weapons their way. Why would a state who knows it would be on the wrong end of several ICBMs sell a weapon if that weapon would be used against its enemies? Welcome to the Madness of MAD. It works.

quote:

---

So. You're omniscient now.

---

No, I unlike you, have studied the subject as it is evident by my posts and the exponentially decreasing amounts you want to acknowledge.

quote:

---

1. You have no idea when or if Israel became a nuclear power.

---

Nuclear Weapons - IsraelStrike One. I don't know if the US helped, but I wouldn't be surprised if we did.

quote:

---

2. You have no idea if anyone gave Israel the weapons.

---

True, but would you be surprised if we did?

quote:

---

3. You have no idea, if they were given weapons, who gave Israel the weapons.
4. You have no idea what the USSR gave away or to whom.

---

Actually we do. The USSR kept relatively good records about its WMD. Not its conventional weapons, but its WMD were models of accounting. Only during the Fall of the Evil Empire did weapons disappear. But that could have been ol' Drunkard's (Boris!) way of scaring us rather then telling the truth.Just give up. You are clearly out of your league with no understanding of the geopolitical complexities of nuclear weapons.

You sure got somethin' against the Ruskies.You know, for a pup of 25, you sound an awful lot like a John Bircher.I am going to post a more detailed response tomorrow, but I would like to dispense with a couple of things tonight. My previous post was in response to your pile of horse apples that "a truck bomb will wipe out everyone on the succession list".Now, having no way to defend that scenario, you've chosen to fabricate a ridiculous plot worthy of a Tom Cruise movie.I get the distinct feeling that no matter how many times I tear your paranoid blithering to shreds, you're going to ignore my response and foam at the mouth about an even more convoluted fantasy. Au contraire mon frere. I am well aware of the glitches inherent in the current system.But the fact remains, your "solution" creates more problems than it solves.In fact, your 'solution" does nothing to prevent a scenario like the gibberish you posted tonight.What, praytell, would prevent those wiley Ruskies from carrying out such a fiendish plot if all nuclear weapons were disassembled?You think the Russians are incapable of covertly assembly the necessary weaponry? Yeah. That's going real well. A terrorist steals the parts.Now was that so tough? Um. You don't have to be real precise with a nuke. Oh! I see. It's just Pakistan you're worried about.Well. Given that a 400kt bomb can't even wipe out Washington DC, I'm not too awful worried. You were the one who said, and I quote: Now you're nattering on about "not being able to control terrorists" and "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".Try to focus, mmmkay?Now.We "can't control terrorists" BUT "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".Either we can't control terrorists and they are a threat OR we can control terrorists and they do not pose a threat.Try to pick a side and stick to it. Dear, I never disputed that there are rumors that Israel has nukes. I brought it up! I merely pointed out that no one knows whether or not Israel has nukes and you for damn sure don't know whether or not the U.S. gave them nukes. I'm going to ask that you document this claim.But. For the moment, let's assume it's true.Doesn't that kinda take alla the air out of your virtual system? After all, if the Russians sold off some of their weaponry, that means there are nukes out there that can't be accounted for. Up to 100 1kt bombs, they say.More tomorrow!Ciao bella.

Obvious.I have intermittent internet service tonight.The rest of my reply will have to wait until tomorrow.