U.S., Russian nukes still set on hair-trigger alert

[seemslikeadream]

The first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which took effect 10 years ago last month, doesn't address hair triggering. Nor does the Treaty of Moscow, which Bush signed with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2002 to reduce the U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals.

Nunn believes the hair-trigger status has become ``the most dangerous element of our force posture.''

A hair trigger means missiles are launched -- either from land or sea -- upon the warning of an attack. That is, within about 15 minutes of a confirmed warning. In theory, the assurance that a retaliatory attack would be launched before the missiles could be destroyed would deter either country from trying a nuclear sneak attack.

''This is the logic of the Cold War -- Mutual Assured Destruction,'' said Daniil O. Kobyakov, a nuclear expert at the PIR Center, a policy studies institute in Moscow. ``De-alerting requires a change in rationale. There's still a certain inertia on both sides.''

Nunn and others see that inertia in the Bush administration's refusal to consider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and its request -- since defeated in the Senate -- for some $500 million for research on a so-called ''bunker buster'' nuclear weapon and low-yield ``mini-nukes.''

PUTIN'S COMMENTS

Russia, too, has some Cold War inertia to overcome. Putin proudly announced in November that Russia was testing ''the newest nuclear missile systems . . . that other nuclear states do not have.'' He offered no further details about the weapons.

more
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/10542804.htm?1c

[RC]

1. Here we go again.

when Mad Men Rule...

In the grand scheme of things, Humans count as much as the extinct dinosaurs. We are hell bent on joining them.

[Voltaire99]

8. Whew! I'm relieved we have such wise leaders.

I'd want a lying ex-cocaine freak with a mental age of 16 managing my country's hair-trigger nuke stockpile. Wouldn't you?

[satori]

2. Russians planted "tectonic weapons" in Afghanistan

Johnsons Russia list
Argumenty i Fakty
October 17, 2001
OUR PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN


Russia's special services have recently started actively encouraging Afghans who wish to return to their homeland. (True, there aren't too many of them. The Afghan diaspora in Russia has fewer than 50,000 people - nothing like 150,000, a figure often quoted in the Russian media.) Those Afghans who wish to regain power in Afghanistan are being trained in the latest partisan warfare methods and modern weapons-handling techniques.

According to our sources within the Afghan diaspora, elite commando units made up of native Afghans are being sent to the rear of the Taliban. Their objective is to help the Northern Alliance take Kabul, while preventing the Americans and British from setting up their own puppet government there under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

According to our sources, Russia might deploy some top-secret "tectonic weapons" which were planted in the mountains of Afghanistan before the Soviet troops pulled out. These weapons can create a series of subterranean tremors with vast destructive power; this would make the former Soviet-Afghan border impassable from the south for a long time.


http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5503-5.cfm

[genieroze]

7. tectonic weapons?

"These weapons can create a series of subterranean tremors with vast destructive power" Hum, the earth has had over 300 earthquakes in the past month.

:tinfoilhat::shrug:

[reprobate]

9. Who is responsible for this, Dr. Strangelove?

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. the most frustrating thing about this

is that if Russia were to hit us with a nuke, the most likely places to get hit would be the blue states.

Silly thing to worry about, I know, but ironic.

[Barkley]

11. They'd hit the red states (ICBM silos) first

Most of our land-based ICBMs are situated: Montana, Wy. Col. etc.

I don't believe we have any silos are in the red states.

Then they'd hold our cities hostage.

We'd to the same to them.
But Russia's land based ICBMs are not in Siberia but along the geographic pathway of the settlement of the Slavic migration eastwards.

[GHOSTDANCER]

14. I've been thinking that Dumb-ya doesn't do anything about North Korea.

Because maybe the missle technology they poses may only reach.... guess who? people that don't worship the king.
<>

[happyslug]

15. Where did you read the latest Strategic hit list?

Every time I have heard of the targets of the Former USSR, first was Air Ports, Second were Ports third was Electrical power stations. From What I have read since the 1980s that list HAS NOT CHANGED. The only people who used the idea that the former Soviet Union would hit out silos first where the right wing in the US who wanted the US to adopt even more expensive missile launching systems. The former Soviet Union wanted to reduce the US ability to re-enforce Europe, thus the above two targets (the Soviet Union also thought that the US population so use to electric assess could not adjust to a life without electricity thus the third thing on the list was electric power plants).

To my knowledge (I do NOT have access to any secret or top secret plans) that above is still the plan of the Russian Republic. Any other plan makes no sense. Now the right wing in the US always spouted the line that the USSR could destroy our Missile silos and than we would have to "Submit" to their demands. This was straight right wing propaganda. The Soviet Missiles even of the 1980s could NOT have destroyed ALL of the US Missiles and what President would have elected to "surrender" to the Soviet Union after such an attack? The answer to the question is No President, whoever was President would have ordered an attack from out Submarines (who would have survived the "first strike") from our Carriers (Which would have survived a first strike) from our other missile carrying ships, from mobile tactical missiles in Germany etc.

My point is the main target of the missiles of today's Russia are the same as the former Soviet Union, aimed at out ability to re-supply Europe, Japan and the Mid-east. As such these targets are primary in the blue states.

[Barkley]

17. Check out "Inventing Accuracy" by Donald MacKinzie (1990)

The Russians did go through all of the trouble of improving the accuracy of their missiles to lob them on cities.

If I were going to attack someone, I'd try my best to limit their ability to strike back. Knocking out silos would go a long way.

[happyslug]

18. Yes a lot of trouble

Prior to the mid 1980s the Russians had a hard time hitting something the size of an airport or a electric power station so their constantly updated their missiles to be able to hit such targets, but what their aimed their missiles at where still targets that permitted US re-supply to Europe.

With the achievements of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) exchange of Nuclear Weapons became less and less likely. The biggest advocates of Nuclear Strikes was NATO and the US not the Soviet Union. NATO and the US wanted to offset the Soviet Union Advantage in land forces and did so with the threat of going Nuclear. The Real big threat from the 1950s onward was NOT a Soviet or US first strike but a NATO tactical strike to stop the RED Army from overwhelming West Germany. In such a case once NATO had launched a Nuclear Strike the Soviets would respond with its own tactical Nuclear Strikes. Furthermore Soviet Doctrine from the 1940s on wards emphasized getting their forces as close to NATO forces as possible so that fear of hitting their own (AND their NATO allies) men will stop the US from nuking Central Europe.

This also followed the Communist doctrine of the Soviet Union, that internal problems with the Capitalist system would cause a break down of the Capitalist states. During that break down the Rich will suppress the working class, at which point the Soviet Red Army would sweep across Europe freeing the Workers from these tyrants (Please I do not agree with this political doctrine just restating the political doctrine the Soviet were operating under). A "First strike" was NOT compatible with this doctrine and thus never adopted by the Soviet Union. Remember this doctrine basically said that the war when it came would be two front, first internal struggle within the capitalist system and only secondary East and West. In this scenario the Capitalist west would gladly permit a First Strike and a retaliatory strike because only the working class would be killed.

My point is that once MAD was achieved any "First Strike" on the Soviet Union would be answered with a Retaliatory strike by the US, the same if the US strike at the Soviet Union first. Once MAD was achieved Nuclear war EXCEPT as a escalation of a land war became impossible (People forget that the Red Army are basically Clausewitzian in thinking, what political gain do you get by the military operation? Given their Political orientation as Communists a First Strike made no sense for them).

MY point was the First Strike was NEVER Soviet Doctrine, while the Soviet Union system of control on their Nuclear weapons were weaker than in the US, the Soviet DOCTRINE never advocated a "First Strike" use of Nuclear weapons (as a rule even NATO planning showed that the Soviet Union lost more in a nuclear exchange than in any non-nuclear war in Europe).

Thus once MAD had been achieved in the late 1960s, the Soviet Union no longer had to fear a US First Strike, thus MAD ended for over 30 years any real possibilities for Nuclear exchange. The real push to protect the US missiles from increaseingly accurate Soviet Missiles was NOT the Air Force (Who understood the Soviet Doctrine and how it limited Soviet thinking) but the Pentagon and Congress who do to lobbying by defense contractors had books like "Inventing Accuracy" by Donald MacKinzie (1990)" published. This move started under President Carter (Once he cut the B-1 Bomber as not needed to defeat the Soviet Union). The movement to protect American Missiles was all the result of defense contractors lobbying not any real need to protect American Missiles from a Soviet First Strike. This is further shown when under Reagan, Carter's plan was canceled (Do to local opposition) and replaced by the same contractors pouring more concrete around existing silos.

My point is this is the whole threat of "First Strike" is the result of American Lobbyists lobbying for more money for their pet projects. Even if that means less money for things we really need to help our soldiers. Do not get fooled by such writings, "First Strike" is not and has never been a Soviet or Russian Military Doctrine. "First Strike" is a lobbying theme to get money for defense contractors than it was to really protect America.

[Just Me]

4. I dunno. I guess I'm possessed with a "been there, done that",...

,...mentality.

At worst, the wackos would finally put fear to rest and would have no one to manipulate anymore.

At best, the wackos are still trying to profiteer off human fear which is awakening and challenging their bullshit.

Either/Or,...the power-possessers cannot hold power, without the rest of humanity's cooperation.

[American Parnell]

5. interesting.

This is Old News, but important nonetheless. Nuclear Armageddon is still a pretty feasible scenario, and I can't really think of anything scarier. In a weapons race, there are no winners. In agriculture, the Treadmill Effect is a term used for the constant pursuit of developing and researching new and more effective pesticides. What happens is that over time, pests can build up tolerances to pesticides used on them, causing a more caustic and dangerous chemical to be developed. In a nuclear arms race, the tolerance goes without saying, but until you have been able to "win" against your ally (either by force or not), you have to keep inventing new and exotic systems, each successive one being more deadly and effective than its precursor. I think we should all be tugging at our collars uneasily right about now.

I just shake my head in digust, knowing full well that at this rate, we'll never colonize space. so much for my dreams of a Jetson's-style space-house.

[merh]

6. Putin has been warning the weed that would be king that he better

stay out of Russia's affairs for some time now. When the school was attacked by terrorists and those children were killed, Putin believed that the weed was behind it, encouraging and financing the terrorist rebels. He warned the weed then to stay out of Russia's affairs and reminded him that they still have nuclear weapons. I betcha the Ukraine election has pissed him off even more.

Yeah, that is the weed's legacy, an immoral and illegal war that has resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people and the jump start of the cold war.

How folks could have voted for him is beyond me, but then again, I don't believe everything that the MSM releases as "news".

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

10. but he may want a Nuclear disaster- so Jesus can appear in the sky !

Chimp, being the religious fundamentalist extremist that he is, actually believes that if he ushers in Armageddon then somehow all those whacked out "bible" interpretations will come true.
They seriously feel they're on some sort of mission.

Alot of these Christian fundamentalists actually believe that Jesus is literally going to appear in the sky to take them all to heaven while allowing the "non-believers" to stay here and burn.

Chimp wants to press that button.
He doesn't care about the Soviets or the Chinese.
In fact maybe he'll tell them to bring'em on !
He gets to go to heaven.

[Barkley]

12. During NATO's Kosovo bombing ...

a Russian law-maker erroneously announced that the country’s Strategic Rocket Forces had been directed to re-target Russian ICBMs toward the West; within hours of the announcement, Britain launched a second Trident submarine. The Trident's American-made SLBMs have star-guided inertial navigational systems that enable its warheads to preemptively strike Russian ICBM silos. No doubt London's reaction, far more extreme than warranted, was coordinated with Washington (or at least one hopes so).

[GHOSTDANCER]

13. blasphamie...........I'll hear none of this bull crap!!!!

The Reagan Jesus saved us from them evil red commies long ago...whahahahaha
<>

[Strawman]

16. More on this

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0506/p07s01-woeu.html

I used to coach high school debate and some of my debaters ran the dealerting case on the Russia topic in 1998-99. It was one of the most common cases that year. Lots of ex-high school debaters are experienced advocates for this. Bruce Blair has written alot on this topic for tose interested in reading more. He's at http://www.cdi.org/

Apparently some now claim that the Russians will never "launch on warning" so the threat of accidential launch has been reduced. Of course, Chimpy would never launch on warning either right? In any case, during a crisis, that could change really quickly.

In the 2000 campaign, back when he said he wanted America to have a more "humble" foreign policy, I believe Bush was actually in favor of dealerting. Bet that's changed. Good to see Nunn bringing this topic back up.