Obama Wants Nuclear Weapon Free World

[bme2nuke]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/ ... 50722.html
What implications do you think this has for the Trident Missile program and the US/GB? Although we know not all nations will respect this and as such there will always be a need for SSBNs, will the Navy replace the heads of the Trident missiles with conventional explosives?

[admin]

I think that this will only happen if we are able to design weapons even more destructive than our current nuclear arsenal. It won't matter if we have nukes once we have built a deathstar.

We're still working on the next generation SSBN so I'm pretty sure nuclear deterrence will be around for awhile.

I don't think much will change on the navy's side of the strategic triad. If any service sees a drawback it will probably be the Air Force.

[oregonjohn]

I think that this will only happen if we are able to design weapons even more destructive than our current nuclear arsenal. It won't matter if we have nukes once we have built a deathstar.

We're still working on the next generation SSBN so I'm pretty sure nuclear deterrence will be around for awhile.

I don't think much will change on the navy's side of the strategic triad. If any service sees a drawback it will probably be the Air Force.

Here's the specs on the current deathstar (http://gizmodo.com/5146010/death-star-c ... he-us-debt)

I think our nukes will be relevant for the foreseeable future. Unless Dick Cheney wins the Presidency. Then we will definitely have a deathstar, no matter the cost!

[tatoonic]

I think that this will only happen if we are able to design weapons even more destructive than our current nuclear arsenal. It won't matter if we have nukes once we have built a deathstar.

We're still working on the next generation SSBN so I'm pretty sure nuclear deterrence will be around for awhile.

I don't think much will change on the navy's side of the strategic triad. If any service sees a drawback it will probably be the Air Force.

Here's the specs on the current deathstar (http://gizmodo.com/5146010/death-star-c ... he-us-debt)

I think our nukes will be relevant for the foreseeable future. Unless Dick Cheney wins the Presidency. Then we will definitely have a deathstar, no matter the cost!

Dude, that is too funny. Just goes to show what type of dumb shit smart people can think up with too much time on their hands.

[SSN_Seawolf]

I think that this will only happen if we are able to design weapons even more destructive than our current nuclear arsenal.

Also, this decision extensively involves extensive use of our foreign policy tools. Currently VERY HEAVY militarization of the foreign policy is having a counter effect. Just look at the past events, China has nuke weapons (America is too economically connected to china to say anything). China is also a sneaky bitch, they do whatever they want anyway. When Indian did Pokhran-II Nuclear tests, it caught America by surprise (It was a complete failure of American Intelligence Agencies, given that India put up a front in which they were NOT pursuing Nuclear standing but were doing extensive research). The United States, bitched and whined and complained and tried putting economic sanctions and what happened then.... basically nothing and economic sanctions were basically ineffective given India's economic standing. Then Pakistan did it. Isreal in the Middle East have Nuclear Weapons Capability. Now North Korea and The Republic of Iran are pursuing the same capability and that makes them a legitimate player. So my point is that, United States will never get rid of its own Arsenal, and it will try but probably fail at stopping other nations from getting nuclear weapons sooner or later. It is a nice thought (because of which, in part he received the Nobel Peace Prize) but totally unrealistic. Iran is being an ass and obviously not listening and they have loads of Oil to economically damage the United States (It is possible, but unlikely). So, we can bitch and complain but once a nation has this capability, they have it forever and that makes them a player in this global economy. Nothing we can do, especially if a volatile state chooses to pursue it and have the technology and intelligence for weapons grade uranium/plutonium.

If you want to read more on this from a political side, pick up any book on American Foreign Policy and especially the ones that focus on maintaining America's role as global Hegemon. You will also see that Capitalism is consistently above Democracy. CIA has rigged elections, funded the minority parties of different nations and effectively decided elections so that whoever gets elected is "friendly" to the United States. If this leader did not accommodate us, he was overthrown and many times executed. For the longest time Great Britain fulfilled this role but after WWII, the US basically took over and remains the superpower to this day.

So, a Nuclear weapons free world decision is extremely political. FYI: Last of the SSBN's will be decommissioned in 2080.... thats right... 2080 so thats 70 more years! EB is already planning the next generation SSBN(X) program. I believe the # of WH a D5 can carry is classified. So I dont see us or anyone getting rid of the Nuke Weapons anytime soon. Which is exactly why Navy BMD fleet will increase and there have been talks of Aegis Shore based BMD, especially in HI... planned to go live in 2014-2015.

Seawolf