The Continuing Cold War.
 

I was at a thingy at my school and someone was talking about the BMD (ballistics missile defence) system, and how right now the US and Russia are stalemated because both could nuke each other but arent because there missile defence sucks, but as soon as one gets a sattelite or moon based BMD system operational they would be virtually safeguarded from anything that the opposing country threw at them, and they could be asses and nuke the other one without having to worry about a counterattack.

So I was wondering what you guys had to think about it.

ps: I'm not sure if a similar thread was posted recently but even if it was I woulnt mind finding out your guys oppinions on this subject.

Well, Russia won't be lobbing nukes at us anytime soon now that the Comunist cold war ended... about 15 years ago... We might have to worry about Korea, but I doubt it. The country is dirt poor, and can't make a decent ICBM for its life. I don't think they'll be bringing the BMD system to the stratospheric level, like President Regan wanted, because that would cost to much money and is impractical right now. The current system uses regular missles to shot down the incoming ICBMs. Much more simple, don't you think?

The difficulty you're referring to here is commonly called the Security Dilemma -- states seek their own security, but any increase in the security of a state will almost inevitably cause a decrease in the security of other states in the system. There is concern that a system to shoot down incoming ICBMs would give the owner the capability of launching a nuclear first strike which would preclude the possibility of retaliation in kind, and therefore eliminate the main concrete deterrent to such an attack.

When you consider alternative delivery methods, using missile submarines as a specific example, or realize that more advanced states are likely to attempt to devise countermeasures to evade or penetrate this new defense, the question becomes less settled. If the system is up and running, the US won't be invincible, just harder to hit. In essence, the missile defense program is really at the newer members of the nuclear club, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and so on. Countries like France and Russia are likely capable of upgrading their arsenals, though they would have to put in the resources to do so.

I'm of the opinion that a ground-based missile defense system is both cheaper to upgrade/maintain and more difficult to disable. I don't have the scientific knowledge to say with any certainty whether an orbital system might be more effective. The current model includes orbital and ground elements.

Don't be so sure. They already have the capability to produce IRBMs like the Nodong missiles (a modified Scud, to describe it in a nutshell), and those are threat enough in and of themselves, with enough range to easily strike at targets in Japan or South Korea. Research continues on their Taepodong ICBM, and they claim to have successfully launched a satellite into orbit in 1998. Currently, these missiles are known as being relatively inaccurate, and so not effective against military targets on the same level more advanced weaponry would be -- but the need for such accuracy is vastly reduced, if you're willing to target civilians. CIA and DOD officials have informed Congress that North Korean missiles could potentially reach the American west coast.

Let's not even get into other methods of delivery.

NK's nuclear posture strikes me as defensive in nature. Put simply, it's unlikely they'll ever reach the point that they can eliminate the possibility of a US nuclear reciprocation, and so it seems we're faced with two possibilities: (1) the North Korean government is acting irrationally, or (2) the North Korean nuclear arsenal is intented for use in a second strike to deter a nuclear attack.

That said, that doesn't mean that their development of nukes is defensive, only that their nuclear stance is. Once they develop the capability to nuke the US, our willingness to use nuclear weapons in any conflict with them will naturally fall. With that done, they wouldn't have as much to worry about if they invaded South Korea. I'm of the opinion that the missile defense program is partially intended to take that safety out from under them.

I see the Korean Peninsula as one of the powder kegs in today's world. Given all the players, including China, the US, Japan, Russia, obviously South and North Korea, and potentially any number of neighboring countries, any violent conflict could quickly escalate to very dangerous levels -- just look at the resolution of the Korean War. In any conflict solely between the US and North Korea, the victor is obvious, but we'll have a lot more to lose if they can hit us with those missiles, and China's proximity nearly assures their involvement one way or another.

As it stands, today, I think the situation is mostly safe. North Korea stands to lose everything in any aggressive action, and as long as that's clear, any aggression is unlikely.

I think the whole missile defense system issue is very ammusing.

The sattelite based defense system is a pipedream, and would be insanely expensive, as well as insanely complicated. Thus I doubt it will ever happen.

The ground based system we have now is hilarious becuase of how it works. They shoot a missile at us, so we shoot a missile to take it out before it hits us. They know we have this missile, so they shoot a second missile to take out our missile. We know they have this so we shoot a second missile to take out their second missile. they know we have this so . . . . . . . ad infinitum. The current system goes to six missile if I remeber right.

Also, there is the point of the missile defense system which I find funny. So we can safely Nuke anyone without fear of their Nukes or other missile hitting us. So the point is to be able to make Huge areas of land desolate, unlivable, and permanently un-farmable.

I wouldn't call it a powder keg. China doesn't want to cause any more conflict with the US or other western countries than is necessary, as that they lack the military resources to seriously combat us. They have the troops, but they don't have the equipment. Even with their interference, it'd still be obvious that the US would win. It would just be a much bloodier war. Besides, China can't afford the economic repurcussions of damaged relationships with the western world.

All in all, if North Korea tries something it will be the world vrs them, as that it would piss of China that NK is putting them in a position where they have to lose an ally that is worthless or piss off potential enemies capable of stomping them to the ground in every way (militarily, economicaly, socially, etc). More of a slaughter than a powder keg explosion, like in the Balkans. Even if they have nukes, the best they can hope to do is wipe out one or two international cities before they're beaten into the ground.

The point of the missile defense system is to keep nuclear retaliation from being used as a defense by countries incapable of forming missile defense systems. Like Luna said, any first world country would easily circumvent a missile defense system in some way or another, by upgrading their arsenal. A third world, country, however, doesn't have that ability... and the only way a third world country could hope to threaten a first world one is with nuclear capability.

In other words, Dictator X wants to attack Country Y, but first world Country Z says, "Oh hell no." X lacks the military might to directly fight Z, BUT if X develops nuclear weaponry Z now has something to lose if they attempt to stop X. X says it won't fire its nukes if Z stays out of the fight with Y. Z begrudgingly agrees and Dictator X conquers another country making him Emperor X.

Now, lets introduce missile defense system W. X, again, develops nukes and promises not to fire if Z stays out of it. Z says, "Take your best shot, asshole," and goes off to stop X anyway, who can't do anything thanks to a missile defense system.

one of the key deterents of this kind of war is the backlash it will have because lets say the us develops an ultra mega defense system that is unbreakable and decide what the Blam and they uke the world well the radiation from those nukes is still enough to come back to the us and cause dmg to them its an endless game that noone can win and everyone can lose.

easy solution.. don't drop a nuke without a few mile wide lead dome over where the blast will be :p

Drop a nuke attached to the roof of a huge lead dome... dome hits ground nuke falls down.. nuke go boom.. radiation don't get to us :p earth is just a bunch of lead domes nexxt to each other, and the US... problem solved right?
[/Sarcastic joke]

I'm pretty sure the lead domes would be vaporized on detonation along with the target. Unless you mean domes that are large enough to escape the initial blast completely, in which case I doubt they could be launched without using ridiculous amounts of rocket fuel. We'd be better off developing a laser-shooting satellite that can aim with surgical precision.

Or, in other words, that idea is just a bit too spammy for discussion.

Also, grthwllms, I've got a present for you.
It's an interpunction starter kit. Learn to use it.

If North Korea does decide to nuke someone, it will not be us. While he is crazy, Kim Jong Il is not stupid, and he knows his limits. We're just too far away to hit. Seoul, however, presents a juicy target if he decides to take advantage of his newfound nuclear capability. But North Korean artillery has already been trained on the south's capital for years, so nuking it would be redundant if war broke out. So the next feasible target would be Japan, another ally to the evil empire of America. This leaves us and our allies in a very tight spot. A pre-emptive strike would result in the destruction of Seoul, and now, possibly Japan enduring a third nuclear attack. We now find ourselves in a situation eerily similar to the Cold War. The situation will continue to grow more and more tense until Il's balls grow large enough to make a move on South Korea. At this point, what will we do? Will we defend our allies, or will we back down and wish them well like we did during the days of the containment policy (ie: the Hungarian revolt, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)?

This Cold War we face in the twenty-first century. Any nuclear threat from Russia disappeared after the U.S.S.R. began to collapse in 1989. Russia has been our ally since Boris Yeltsin, and although Putin has enacted alarmingly authoritarian policies, I don't see our countries' relationship disolving into what it once was.

Your world view is warped, dude. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler and killed many, many, many more people than Hitler did. The American alliance with Stalin was by necessity only. Everyone at the time was aware that Stalin would have to be dealt with after the war. The leading American generals wanted to continue the war and march into Russia after defeating the Nazis, that's how prepared they were to fight Stalin.

And when/if he does nuke someone, MAD theory will come into play. In theory, if North Korea resorts to an unprovoked nuclear attack on any country, then every other country with nukes should nuke them back. This is what is supposed to be what is keeping every nuclear power in check.

Okay, new question. I read somewhere that we are more at risk now of a nuclear attack (don't know if it was by terrorists or otherwise) then we were during the Cold War. Is this true?

Dabiggman: I'm not deep into demographics, but China has a total population of about 1 billion (1 billion PEOPLE, not men). You think China would just tell all their soldiers AND citizens to invade the rest of Asia and Europe? More importantly, do enough guns exist to equip that many people (Sadly, there probably is, but anyway). If that's what you meant, it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, aside from Brother in FFX-2.

As for what China's capabilities are...I don't know. In fact, I know very little about what Russia, China, India, Pakistan, NK, SK, or any other countries could do. I'm pretty confident that very few of us here do. Most of the discussion here about nuclear checks and balances (as well as the first world vs. third/second world nuclear defense) sounds logical.

I've got no data on hand, so I can't even make hypotheses here. I can randomly throw figures at everyone in total darkness, though. I doubt the U.S. would stomp China, personally. Maybe on the defense, but I don't even see THIS superpower having enough resources to fight an international war against someone the size of China, not without immense casulties.

Instead of blabbering on about a topic I know little about. I'll just say this:

What about those one or two million U.S, Canadian, British, Chinese, Russian, or Korean civilians which'll be annhilated in a matter of minutes by "one or two measely nukes." What about the horrible fallout which will subsequently affect millions more? I almost find it sickening that some people were talking about it like, "Ah well we'll only lose a couple cities, they'll lose 'em all har har!!!"

Besides, in my opinion, nuclear attacks probably wouldn't target cities, they'd target key military installations. Again, I could easily be dead wrong. After all, the U.S. dropped its two bad boys onto cities. And terrorists are fucking nuts. Hmm...okay, so it depends WHO fires the nuclear missiles. But in war, I'd say only military installations would be attacked on that scale.

If only it were secluded to military installations... If it results to Nuclear War, cities will be the target, becasue by that point the war itself will be a last ditch, all or nothing, sink or swim affair. You tactically strike military installations for obvious reasons, then detroy civilians to destroy their morale.
In world war 2 England started by only flying daytime raids, on military installations, then realized that they were loosing far too many soldiers for the week or 2 they set back the enemy with their bombardments. Then, they realized, theres is NO civility in War any more, so htey did hte most logical thing, night time raids. And in the night time, the biggest target is a city or town, in short, civilians. While destroying civilians is by far the least ethical approach to winnign a war (imo) it is the most logical. If the enemy can decimate your civilian population, who is left to grow the crops ot sustain your army? Who is left to pay the taxes to afford this war? Who is left to suport the administration? Who is left to replenish the ranks after countelss soldiers have died? Who is left to_______? Add whatever you want there, the sad fact of war is that civilians are the key to victory. All soldiers (except seelct few who were raised form birth to fight, i.e. Spartans) began life as a civilian. As a civilian they decided to answer their country's plight for help, and server their country in the best way they knew how. You take out the civilians you take out the reinforcements. Strenghten the resolve of hte remainging forces in some cases, and completely destroy their will to carry on in others... So yes, civilians will be lost when it comes time to go to war, or in the case of a nuclear war as is being discussed in this hypothetical situation.

And Azin, be sickend all you want, but a lot of people out there are willing to sacrifice those few million souls in order to acheice what they concider the greater good. The military trains its personel to think that way. The grunts are taught to value every life and do everything in their power to save everyone. If sacrificing a lone baby will save billions more, they will strive to find another option, a way to save the baby and they billions of others. The officer's on the other hand, are taught to weigh the losses and the potential gains. They would sacrifice hte baby to save countelss others (or atleast thats waht they are trained to do). That is why officers often times lead a lonely life in troubled times, and why after such atrocities as nuclear war they are the bad guy in the end. [/rant]

As for who has what capabilites, it doesn't matter.. If any one person who is crazy enough, or who has hte balls enough to launch a nuclear weapon gets hish ands on one of these, its over. He will launch it, undoubtedly he will actually want to take credit, (as terrorists are netoriously proud of their work), unless his goal is to start and internation war, in which case he'll plant evidence pointing towards another country, likely one with probable cause to do so... but even if he does take credit for his work, unless he anounces the bomb seconds before its detonation, whoever he attacks will retaliate too quickly and war will erupt until the cool heads regain control, and by then atelast 2 nukes will have been launched. Terrorist blows L.A, president freaks out, thinks it was Korea (or whoever) and nukes back, to try and show the country he will fight to protect us no matter what he has to do. Korea launches in retalliation to our attack, on South Korea or Japan or whoever they can hit where they think it will have the biggest impact, they retalliate. And this is all within a matter of hours if not minutes. Then we get a tape that says "Haha! I nuked you american bastards." What then... we jsut appologize for nuking North, and they appologize for retaliating? Nope, its gone too far for that. Depending on who is attacked there may be no chacne of reconciliation...
Also, I'm less worried about terroist getting nukes as opposed to EM missles... A nuke still costs millions of dollars, and often times will only have short range launch capabilities. An EM bomb can be bought for $5k, and have an intercontinental laucnh capablility. With a single EM bomb they could turn New york into the stone age, and all for the price of a '98 Tauraus. Our economy crumbels, riots ensue, killings erupt all across the city. Sure, they didn't directly kill thousands, possibly millions of people, and casue a radioactive fallout, but they saved $995,000 and crippled, if not ruined America. And sitll were the indirect cause of countless deaths.


Wow... so I apparently like to rant and carry on a LOT when I'm pissed.. lol sorry for the insane length and sort of randomness of soem of htose ideas... it may not be compeltely coherent, but somewhere in there I had a point...

BTW, in my last point it was all one sarcastic joke, just icnase you didn't catch that little tag at the end :p

I don't really see how a WWII reference is valid here. In this day and age, you don't need to send any soldiers in bulky, slow bombers to strike installations. You launch an intercontinental missile from all the way across the world.

And I wasn't sickened by the points of the discussion, I was a little taken back by the tone is all. Casulties in war is pretty much inevitable, and don't take me for some anti-war pro-lifer hippie or anything either, war can be necessary too.

I'm fully aware of what the military trains their personnel to do, but that point only has limited validity, if we're talking specifically about war (or a handful of other cases). Some people would be willing to sacrifice a few million souls for the greater good. In this discussion, I'd probably call them stupid. Now, I agree, a few million is better a hundred million. But a few million souls to stop one crazy guy that decided to push the red button? Then subsequently nuke hundreds/thousands/millions of his citizens? I don't think that's worth it. Killing a baby to save a billion lives? Just give me the weapon.

Regarding the whole buying nukes/EMP bombs off the blackmarket and such. I don't really think its a problem right now. Why? Because none of it has ever happened before, and even if it has, it must not have been very devastating, because it sure wasn't covered well by the media. You could say, "Yeah, but it MIGHT happen in the future!!! We need to be ready AHH!! We're all gonna die AHHH!!" But then you're a paranoid basketcase. Oh my god aliens haven't attacked us yet, but they might! Ahhhhh!

The WWII was jsut to show that militaries do attack civilians in a war. its sad but true

The EM Bomb thigny... not sure why I mentioned it really... just sort of a random thought. Dunno... streesful times, had a nice rant on random subjects in this and another thread or two... lol. Rants are fun

Okay. I've taken your advice and I've checked on China's facts. Among the literal plethora of .org sites (Including public CIA sites, China census sites, etc), never once did I see a population above 1.3 billion. Most were 1.2-1.3, nothing anywhere close to what your "official military intelligence" claims.

After having this discussion, I'm probably wrong about city targetting when it comes to nukes. I can admit that. (Though, I have to point out there are only two data points in history regarding nuke targetting, so none of us have a terribly great idea).

I also took your increasingly sarcastic advice and googled blackmarket EMP bombs, and also general EMP bomb information. In the BM search, I came up with game sites, CnC, Star Wars, a couple d20 games, etc. But I did read up on general EMP bomb information, pretty impressive stuff. According to everything I read, only first world countries really have EMP launch capability right now. Some projections said they will become very dangerous in about a decade as terrorist groups/other countries gain the capability.

It's definitely something to be aware of. Not as bad as nuclear weapons, but they would be pretty bad. You also must forgive my lack of faith in general world security, because I really doubt every 'attempt' at detonating an EMP bomb (or something else just as bad or worse) has been stopped. (I realize some haven't, hence some of the successful terrorist attacks around the world, but NOTHING has been near the scale of this stuff).

I'm having trouble reading that. Can you please spellcheck your posts?

I gather the gist of it is something along the lines of that the U.S. shouldn't nuke the rest of the world. Contrary to that belief, we already know that, and have absolutely no desire to kill everyone else. Our nuclear weapons are now a means of self-defense, nothing more.

To quote Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

Uhhhhhhh... No?
Right now china may have a large force of soldiers an infantry, BUT they have little to no navy (someone already said), and also they only have liquid fuel nukes.
If you didn't already know the US's nukes are a dry fuel, the kind used in there spaceshuttles, and for the americans to launch a missile it takes about 2 minutes to launch it, so not much time to think about it when they've given the order.

And for china it takes close to 20 minutes after the orders given, so the emporor or whoever it is in charge of that has a good while to think of the pros and cons of the launching, so theres a chance they'll back down.

Actually, now that china has come out of the 'dark ages', they have been revamping their navy and military. That'll be a problem.

Next, allow me to spread some tactical wisdom I have learned. If you have more men than I can shoot, blow up, and nuke, YOUR GOING TO WIN. Example; The russians. Horrid army, horrid navy, barely a semblance of an airforce, and yet they won two world wars all thanks to superior numbers.

So the chinese would still be quite the opponent for the US to deal with, especially with the USA's lack of enlisted men.

the zombie theory
 

that may be true but I would like to apply a hypothetical (an nerdy) situation to this.

say you have a shotgun, it never runs out of ammo and it has no kickback so you can pretty mush constantly shoot bullets. lets also say that a hundred thousand zombies are charging you, and everyone knows the best gun for zombie slaying is a shotgun, but eventually there going to overpower you and eat your brains, cause theres a hundred thousand of them and one of you.

now lets say there is still one hundred thousand of them, but there is now 25,000 of you, there is a good chance you will win because you have a better equipped army, and shotguns kill zombies.

but give these zombies guns and a little military training to, they may be clumsy and everything, but its 4 zombies to each of you and so you will porbably lose.

so there is in fact strength in numbers, and if you din't follow that, I apologize cause I am in fact a crazy bastard.

Perciously my point in case.