https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...A13wiYb?cvid=6ae697db3cef4b64b706b2cc795f2b28 shipping them before the end of the year rather than in 2023. I'm inclined to see this as an ominous development. How about you?
It's an agressive move. But I mean...you have a guy who's threatening nukes almost every ****ing day.
I don't see it as ominous. Were Putin to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine I am already on the record as saying I think it is extremely unlikely that we would follow suit, and further both destroy, and contaminate for generations, the country of Ukraine. It is a near certainty, as well, we would not use nukes as a first strike, inside Russia. So, in the unlikely scenario that the U.S. were to use a nuke, in response to Russia's using one or more of them, the only possiblity I see would be to sink a Russian battleship, if any are in international waters. Even this is kind of a waste, as the Ukranians have already shown that all that is needed to sink a Russian warship, is essentially the fire from a wastepaper basket. The only really worthwhile naval target that would be highly vulnerable to nuclear attack, would be the Russian's lone aircraft carrier, but that is in a Russian port, for repairs and upgrades, until sometime in 2024. So, I don't see why this move should substantially change the facts in the ground, though I do see it as a signal, meant to be understood by Putin, to mean, "we're not f***ing around, when we say it's a bad play, for you to use nukes." Of course, the Pentagon denies that the current situation in Ukraine has anything to do with this; and it is true, that these weapons have been in the works, for a long time, now. <Snip> Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder told Politico that the accelerated deployment of the B61-12 gravity bomb "is in no way linked to current events in Ukraine and was not sped up in any way," but the move comes at a time of heightened tensions over Russia's nuclear threats, and it brings its own risk of escalating a situation already under strain. At the moment, the U.S. has some 200 deployed working tactical nuclear weapons, according to Reuters, half of which are deployed in allies' bases in Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey. Russia, on the other hand, is estimated to have around 2,000 such weapons <End> I have long thought it unwise of us, to allow Russia to so dominate the field, in tactical nuclear weapons. So even though Russia's arsenal still dwarfs our own, once the nukes start exploding, there is certainly no guarantee that all (of the battlefield variety) will find opportunity for use. Hence, this not insignificant upgrade on our part, I see as, if anything, contributing to our overall deterrence, against Russia's employment of nuclear weapons. In conclusion: it's about time!
Why? For the last decade or so the US has slowly been upgrading their weapons. Not increasing numbers, but pulling older ones out of service and rebuilding them into newer versions. Not increasing the yield at all, mostly these improvements are simply in the area of reliability and accuracy. The B61 series are a "dial a yield" device, that most believe are generally set at 50 kt. The Mod 12 series are updates to the older Mod 4 series of 1979. And after 40 years, they were well past time for being rebuilt. Russia should be glad we are not sending the Mod 11. That is a 400 kt penetration warhead model. The very fact that we are sending updates of our smallest nuclear bomb should be telling them we are not planning for an exchange.
Well, the one thing that made this of not much of a concern was the INF treaty. For decades, most of the Soviet plan for the use of tactical weapons was missiles. But the INF in 1988 eliminated all of those on both sides. After that, most of the tactical nukes moved to aircraft delivery. And one thing that most of the experts were sure of, is that in a Warsaw Pact - NATO war, the air space would be so contested that it was unlikely that they could ever really be used effectively. However, the Russians openly ignoring the INF has had me worried for years now.
I would imagine, if I could figure this out, using merely common sense, the Russians should have already expected as much. Then again, I hear they are disposed to being overly paranoid, so it doesn't hurt to send a de-escalatory message. But the mere fact that we are going ahead with this deployment, now, I feel is also meant to show Putin that his threats are not intimidating us. This, also, I see as a better posture, with Putin-- of presenting strength-- than to seem obsequious.
Its beginning to look like a mistake that we retired Artillery delivered nukes. I Commanded an M110A2 8" Battery in Germany in the early 1980's. We could deliver four different yields from 2.5kt to 15kt (Hiroshima size), providing better battlefield options than starting with a larger 50kt device. M109 (155mm) Artillery could deliver yields as small as 1.25kt. All that went away when MLRS/ATACMS came along. So now we start with 50kt? Much more dangerous, I would think.
Not that I'm aware of. An MLRS payload consists of 600 M442 DPICM rounds. Can put a piece of shrapnel in every square inch of a football field. They felt that was good enough. And its success in Desert Storm and OIF was so devastating, I don't think they felt a nuke round was necessary. But I've been out of the game for awhile. There was no nuke as of about ten years ago.
In case you did not notice, they are not increasing the stockpile there. In other words, they are removing older Mod 4 bombs, and replacing them with Mod 12 bombs. They are not adding more bombs. And this has been going on for years, and I still remember the uproar about 3 years ago when President Trump ordered the production of the Mod 12 bomb. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/10/nuclear-stockpile2021/ Notice, the date on the article above is 6 October 2021. And with the deployment of these, it was the intent of both the Trump and Biden administrations to remove the final B83 devices, which are 1 megaton gravity bombs. As the article says, this had been ongoing for several years now, and has nothing to do with Russia. To be honest, I find it rather annoying that so many people have these obsessions, and thing everything done is because of something or somebody else. BDS, ODS, TDS, a new form of BDS, a lot of people with PDS, I see it all as childish, and a borderline mental illness. And why should they not deploy them? They are not going into Ukraine, so what does it matter?
I have never heard of it even being considered for the M270 MLRS itself. I know it was considered early in the development of the MGM-140 ATACMS. But for rather obvious reasons it was dropped while still in development. The ATACMS started development way back in the early 1970s, and indeed the use of tactical nukes in the system was considered. Essentially making a variant of the MGM-52 LANCE missile with a 100 kt warhead. However, like so many programs, it took over 20 years from when the system was first proposed until a finished and working model was in the hands of the US Army. And that was not until 1991. Which means obviously that there were no nukes that ever went beyond the pencil and paper stage of design, as the INF treaty signed in 1987 prohibited those.
This post of yours shows, despite your much greater than average knowledge of nuclear stockpiles, far less of a sensitivity to, or understanding of, ironically, international politics. Do you really fail to recognize that the U.S. doing anything, with regard to NATO'S nukes, at this particular moment, cannot help but be regarded with heightened scrutiny, by Putin & Russia? Further, it sounds like it is you who must be suffering from one of those syndromes of cognitive dissonance, which you cite, since my post had nothing at all to do with Trump. I had merely been saying that I do not believe our entire military, and State Department, are so clueless as to not understand the delicateness of the current situation, and so I would imagine that this replacement of our nuclear weaponry, well ahead of schedule, is something that almost certainly, was signed off on, and considered, by President Biden. I agreed with you, that this is not meant to convey, obviously, our desire for nuclear conflict. But I had offered that for us to go ahead with it now, as if the Russian invasion and talk of using its own nukes, were not anything factoring into our decision, was a way of showing Putin that his threats had failed to intimidate us. Do you disagree with this speculation and, if so, why? If your reasoning is based upon the bombs having a lower yield, that is a misplaced argument. First of all, they can be more precisely delivered, which means that they can be just as effective at wiping out a target, as would be a less accurate, but more powerful device. Secondly, though, that they can get the job done, with less collateral damage, and less residual contamination, actually makes these new bombs of ours, more easily applied, in a tactical military situation. Again, with all your knowledge, do you, yet, not realize this?
You see, that is the problem. The fact is, I am aware. Have you ever raised children? When your 2 year old has a temper tantrum, the best thing to do is to ignore them. And to me, that is largely how we should treat Putin. Like a spoiled child, and just do as we would do, because in the end what they think and say is of little to no importance. They have been going on and on that no country has a right to tell them what they can do in their own areas. And of course that means that they have no right to order other countries like the US in what they can do. You see, you are making the exact same mistake so many are doing. And that is appeasement. Don't dare piss off Russia, they might get mad! Well, I could not care less. Let them get mad, what are they going to do? They are already threatening to nuke the US and NATO, and the world is more and more pulling away from them because they see they are acting like children. Well, they want to act like spoiled brats, the worst thing you can do is to cater to them. You totally misread what I said. I am very aware of his "reactions", he vomits them almost daily. But I do not care, and I think the world needs to show that they care about as little as when any of the tinpot Marxist nations try to behave like they rule the world and their demands must be obeyed. Ignore them, and do as you would have done otherwise. That is one of the first things as a parent you learn. Just ignore the screaming, unless it is the time to apply some corrective action on the seat of the pants. Oh, and I mentioned President Trump simply to show that the program to upgrade the B61 bombs goes back years. Long before the current conflict in Ukraine. But your then going off the rails just because I mentioned him does show that you are suffering more than a tad from TDS. Notice, I said nothing for, or again the action, or for or against that President. Simply stating that it had started years before, and the current administration was continuing with the upgrade program. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your supposed analog falls short, if your two-year-old is standing over a smaller child, holding a sharp object: you cannot then just "ignore them"-- especially, if they're having a temper tantrum. It is hard to understand what you are trying to convey-- that we shouldn't oppose Putin's invasion? Or that we shouldn't be intimidated by his rhetoric? If it's the latter, that was exactly my point. Did you somehow not catch that? I was saying that it was a good thing, to show that we were going ahead with out plans, as if Putin's attitude were nothing that we were overly concerned about. I don't know how you could possibly have mistaken my meaning...maybe because you only read less than half of my first paragraph, just the snippet you quoted? Here's the end of that 1st paragraph: No, that represents the furthest possible interpretation, from what I'd actually written. Please do better, in the future, if you would like me to continue our conversation.
That is something completely different. And not the actual topic here. And once again, we are a sovereign state, just as Russia and Ukraine are. But these nukes as was stated repeatedly were moved because that was scheduled. The invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with them.
But one would need be utterly blind to ignore the reality-- if that enters at all into your calculus-- of the current situation. Not that I'm saying it was the wrong move. What I'm saying is that it is certainly possible that some leaders might have wanted to wait-- as I've said, a couple of times *this refurbishing of nukes, had not been scheduled to happen until next year, in the summer, I think. Waiting, however, would have been a mistake. In the simplest sense, one must deal with Putin, as with any bully, and never let him think that he can control you with mere threats. (I take it, you agree with this.)
OK, what is your point here? We should have waited, and at the same time not waited? Sorry, I can't take you seriously anymore.
Great, because you clearly have a reading disability-- I never said that we should have waited-- I said that this would have been a mistake! God, get a new pair of glasses, or some app that will read texts to you! HA! And I had been using the "utterly blind" phrase, in my last post-- I'd thought-- only metaphorically!
