[From your post ]
Source, please. This is in fact, common knowledge. But you need a source, again proving you don't know very much about defense.
For some odd reason, I do not believe every bit of pontification that comes out of your mouth (see the note on the double-top-secret "Strategic Framework Agreement" you bandy about).
Ditto right back at you.
[My post] Guess you don't know much about strategic targetting in nuclear planning either.
[Your post]
I know enough to understand that most "nuclear war" plans make good fodder for a technothriller, but lack any connection to reality.
Then you know less-than-nothing. These have to have enough credibility...connection to reality...to be effective for deterrence...and that is what is being allowed to be eroded.
[My post] You probably think we can get by with a couple hundred warheads and a mere launch-on-warning strategy (which, btw, we are not actually following...we are publically and officially in a "take it on the chin" policy.
[Your post]
Interestingly enough, we "publicly and officially" followed such a policy during the entire Cold War--all while secretly following a far different policy in private.
Source please? LOL! Hoist by your own petard!
We had a launch on warning capability, accentuated by a whole slew of systems making it feasible...principally Operation Looking Glass which was flying 24/7 to keep us from being caught off-guard. Guess where it is stationed now. On the ground. De-alerting is trumpeted as 'stabilizing.'
So what's actually changed?
Precisely. Precious few improvements over Xlinton, and none in that particular.
[My post]
And as far as retaliatory capability, he is ignoring serious risks to the policy of stationing so many of SLBMs at home port, rather than constant deployment as we used to with Blue and Gold teams.
[Your post ]
Which, incidentally, just happens to match the Russian policy re: SLBM patrols and mobile missile deployments (they tend to park them in their garrisons as opposed to moving them around). Makes a US first strike much easier.
Source Please? Again hoist by your own petard! As a matter of fact, the Russians did deploy along our coasts well after the collapse of the Soviet Union...up to 1995 deploying their subs from such bases as Cienfuegos, Cuba have been deploying them along our East and Gulf Coast. And they are not limited to their bastions. Which they only went to in general due to a fear of our ASW. But in fact, they can roam at will. And our ASW was seriously crippled under Xlinton. And there has been virtually no restoration to date, despite China's massive improvements in SLBM technology and clear signs of ramping up for major deployments. A missile sub can go on patrol a hell of a lot faster than we can restore ASW capability.
The B-1B went out of the nuclear delivery business about a decade ago.
Source please? Anyways, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review makes it clear this was W's conversion, to be completed by 2006.
And the Russian strategic bomber force is similarly parked at one base as well.
Source please? And of what relevance. These are all easily changed situations. They just have to go on manuevers and presto, surprise is achieved.
How will the command and control network (which, being necessarily of high bandwidth, will be extremely vulnerable to nuclear weapons effects) fare in a real, no-kidding engagement?
Who knows. But I know one thing. I wouldn't trust appeasers and unilateral disarmers in making a decision as to what and whether its a credible CI4 capability or not. Deterrence requires real top-to-bottom confidence.
Let me guess: someone in the Texas Air National Guard gave you some memos, and Dan Rather and Jayson Blair vouched for them.
Nope. Not even close. Would you reveal a friend? What's the Frequency, Dan? Still have lumps in your noggin? No, you need to actually prove a single contention.
Already proved, the cancellation of TMD, THEL, the slow-walk testing program for Aegis NMD, refusal to develop and fix the SM-3 with the 21-inch diameter upper stage that Xlinton lamed-up "to prevent an ABM treaty violation". You haven't posted any thing other than questions. No proofs. No links. No credibility on your side.
The burden is on you to disprove it.
Prove it. I have carried the burden, and you've sloughed. Typical of liberals and RINOs.
Again, the burden is on you to prove your assertion.
Again, Prove it.
You're the guy who claims to know the content of the Strategic Framework Agreement; please produce a certified true copy of same.
Let's see, you want me to produce something that is secret. H'mmm. Can't say I can. But I can know about it. And so could you if you are serious about national security.
It's a valid question.
No it isn't. It was pure liberal malice.
I always ask liberal moonbats if they get their money from the money-down-the-rathole programs they support.
Oh really? You're the liberal moon-bat anti-defense proponent here. Calling Duncan Hunter and other pro-defense hawks beholden to defense contract work. That may be the case with Duke Cunningham, but it isn't for most hawks.
They respond pretty much as you do--they get all huffy, and never answer the question.
B.S. I am not conflicted. You, on the other hand...
One must always ask "who gains?" when the question is how to disburse public funds, and it's always a good idea to disclose one's pecuniary interest if one exists. (For the record: I would actually make a fair chunk of change if your recommendations were made national policy.)
I Doubt it. I am somehow unable to believe your "pontifications" and disavowals. I really hit a nerve with the Bots to have provoked this level of response by the RINOs. Punctured your comfortable delusions that the "moderates" are still really okay on defense...when they aren't. Almost as sadly deluded as the liberals...whose positions they often buy into. They are "Bipartisan" As Rush always says, that is where Republicans buy into Democrat policy.
There are a lot of liberals who prattle about "public" and "civic" duty.
Sources please. I don't think I can recall seeing any liberals pushing for a real NMD, and naval and air preparedness. And Scoop Jackson is long dead.
It boils down to "give me lots of money and I'll spend it for you."
Welcome to W's Big Government "conservatism". [ The non-sequitur]
I don't pretend that conservatives, whether genuine or narcissistic Internet trolls, are immune to that disease.
So maybe you are admitting you're conflicted by your position after all?
Guess that tells me the answer.
Nope. As I told Sinkspur, it tells you nothing, except that I am a citizen who actually cares about the defense of the country...unlike you two.
Already did. I don't work in the defense biz any more
I frankly doubt you ever did.
(I am retired,
Obviously.
so I don't have to deal with either trying to deal with Air Force SSEBs [frequently peopled by colonels and above looking for nice jobs in their retirement] or the abortion of an acquisition system we have, THANK GOD!), but I do own shares of LockMart, Boeing/Mickey-D, Northrop Grumman, GE, and other defense contractors.
We can be forgiven if we doubt this assertion. Interesting how you claim to be self-less and public spirited all of a sudden, [which you castigated as a liberal ploy up above] but dispute anyone who is to the Right of you on defense as venal. You are just not a serious measure of credibility.
Going back to the grand old days of large-scale defense acquisition would do my finances a world of good, but I don't pretend that my financial interest is automatically the national interest.
Good, but again your credibility is shot, and in fact, if we apply your own venality standard as against the positions you take, isn't it really more than likley that really don't own defense stocks, and more likely you are in fact one of the members of the Honeywell Project or some similar group...out to stop defense of the country...