Why are we allowing Bolton to take us to possible Armageddon against a country that does not seek to destroy us, while we are literally being destroyed here?
This is stupid.
“Hopefully, I’m not being too naive here, but why are either of us flushing all of this money and effort into weapons that we’re never going to use?”
I guess we’re having to re-debate why having a good deterrent is a good idea when another country (actually, now, other COUNTRIES) can blow us off the map.
As for launching a nuclear strike at a smaller opponent, as was discussed regarding North Korea, that’s a non-starter too. Any country who did that, including the United States, would immediately become an international pariah and potentially face a catastrophic military coalition forming against them.
Countries have interests, not friends.
Priorities:
1. Stop the 2,000 Mexicans crossing our borders RIGHT NOW
10,000. Develop a whole new class of space-age weapons in order to threaten slavic people we have never met
Hmmm......hey, lessay we just put priority 10,000 first:
Whaddya say..?
ICBMs have been flying at “hypersonic” speeds for decades now. Why the hoopla?
“There are only two scenarios I continue to worry about in terms of a nuclear conflagration.”
This guy never read “Failsafe.”
Can’t we all just get along. Peace and Love.
This actually good for the U.S. The Russians were cheating anyway and it gives us the best weapon and stealth fighter match up. There is a huge amount of land mass that is bomber exclusive (or ballistic missiles). This would allow us to significant cut down that territory with more numerous and survivable fighters.
Who is really the biggest problem for Russia? That would be China. China could overwhelm them with shear numbers. And the Chinese call nuclear war population control. China would really like to have Russia’s oil/gas supply.
Without a mad man president, that means the impact of the INF treaty falling apart is negligible. It only means several American and Russian companies getting between a couple hundred million (Russia, since they already have intermediate missiles and just need to enhance them for nuclear delivery) and a couple billion (US since things are more expensive and the US did actually honor the INF treaty) to develop weapons that are not needed and will never be used. Thus, a wash. Only money gets sloshed around.
The only real danger from this is that more weapons are placed under the control of people lower down the decision making tree, meaning there is a mathematically low-but-still-greater chance of a ‘mistake’ happening. A very interesting book called ‘The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nucear War Planner’ shows how this came close to happening several times during the Cold War. Sure, the President still has to authorize a nuclear strike, so a sane president is still essential and this takes away the minusculy higher risk of more weapons scattered around. And anyways, there are already very powerful weapons in boomers prowling the oceans as we speak.
All in all, not that big of a deal.
the reason for the increased speed is due to hillary’s leaking of the time it takes for a missile to be launched once ordered.... which was VERY highly classified
and nothing happens to her for doing it