Our foreign policy is fucktarded

[Uncle Sherm]

Barack Obama admits US has 'more nuclear weapons than we need'


US to build ($13 bn) super base on Pacific island of Guam

So...Nuclear disarmament is a step toward recognizing the cold war is over, but we need to expand our naval presence on Guam to counter a naval buildup with China. I don't know who is stupider, the Chinese government for loaning the money to fund our military buildup, or the US government for making interest payments on those loans to fund their military buildup.

Japan and South Korea are both perfectly capable of taking steps to defend themselves, as is Taiwan, but why should they bother when we are willing to spend the money doing it for them?

[Santa]

That's the part you take issue with? Really?

[DTower5]

Isolationism Ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MarcusAurelius]

Isolationism Ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh fucking please. you're first in line to call cold war era military spending and building new military bases around the world "warmongering" when bush is responsible. now opposition to that is a looney grasp at isolationism.

[Uncle Sherm]

That's the part you take issue with? Really?

Obama's entire peicewise foreign policy is what I take issue with. Generally, I don't like overseas military outposts, but at least in the past it has been consistent with some vision of our place in the world. Today it is schizophrenic at best.

[Uncle Sherm]

Isolationism Ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Military non-intervention is not isolationism. Diplomacy and Commerce can take place without the enormous foreign military presence.

[DTower5]

Isolationism Ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh fucking please. you're first in line to call cold war era military spending and building new military bases around the world "warmongering" when bush is responsible. now opposition to that is a looney grasp at isolationism.

Go blow a goat, Sherm has made his Randian views apparent and it borders on nutball isolationism. There are more colours than black and white champ. That being said, I disagree with the buildup in Guam

[Uncle Sherm]

Go blow a goat, Sherm has made his Randian views apparent and it borders on nutball isolationism. There are more colours than black and white champ. That being said, I disagree with the buildup in Guam

I don't see any connection between my supposedly "Randian views" and isolationism.
a)My views are not randian
b) rand was no supporter of isolationism (I've only read one of her books, and 2 of her protagonists in Atlas Shrugged were foreigners)

What colors are you seeing besides black and white that should influence how we deal with foreign countries? Let's compare the differences between Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and South Korea. What do these countries have in common and what are their differences that should influence our foreign policy toward them?

[MarcusAurelius]

Isolationism Ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are more colours than black and white champ.

gee whiz, amusing contrast in statements there.

That being said, I disagree with the buildup in Guam

great, me too. the polarizing thing about black&white people like you is that instead of starting from a springboard where you agree with someone like sherm, you just attack him.

[Santa]

That's the part you take issue with? Really?

Obama's entire peicewise foreign policy is what I take issue with. Generally, I don't like overseas military outposts, but at least in the past it has been consistent with some vision of our place in the world. Today it is schizophrenic at best.

Obama's? When hasn't it been schizophrenic? For fuck's sake, we're still punishing Cuba for allowing the Soviets to build a base 50 years ago. Our foreign policy is nothing more than pandering to the feelings of retards.

On this issue in particular, I don't think any of you have the military reasoning or information to have a valid opinion on whether or not this base is needed.

[DTower5]

Isolationism Ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are more colours than black and white champ.

gee whiz, amusing contrast in statements there.

That being said, I disagree with the buildup in Guam

great, me too. the polarizing thing about black&white people like you is that instead of starting from a springboard where you agree with someone like sherm, you just attack him.

Do we really discuss anything on here anymore - it generally devolves into Sherm and Dave going to task about pedantic bullshit...

[MarcusAurelius]

Yeah, you are the kind of guy to throw out a two word flame and then complain about lack of discourse without any sense of irony

[Uncle Sherm]

Obama's? When hasn't it been schizophrenic? For fuck's sake, we're still punishing Cuba for allowing the Soviets to build a base 50 years ago. Our foreign policy is nothing more than pandering to the feelings of retards.

Bush's foreign policy was stupid, but consistent (his inflexibility when applying that policy was a common criticism, if you recall). His administration was an assembly of the best neoconservative minds of the Cold War, and they were pro-intervention in everything. Obama is the one preaching change and humble foreign policy and then picking and choosing where it is applicable with no discernible method to his madness.

On this issue in particular, I don't think any of you have the military reasoning or information to have a valid opinion on whether or not this base is needed.

This statement should tell you exactly what is wrong with our country today.

Why should I need some specialized military reasoning or information to hold a valid opinion on how my government spends 13 billion dollars it doesn't have to build a base on the other side of the ocean to defend foreign countries from a country that enjoys favored nation status with the US?

[Santa]

This statement should tell you exactly what is wrong with our country today.

I agree with your premise but not with your conclusion. The loudest uneducated fuck gets the worm.

[Uncle Sherm]

In this case, the military got $13 Billion for a bigger base on Guam. What does that say?

[DTower5]

That Ike was right?

[MarcusAurelius]

On this issue in particular, I don't think any of you have the military reasoning or information to have a valid opinion on whether or not this base is needed.

oh come on, you're really going to take the "they know what's best for us" tact? i expect better.

[Uncle Sherm]

That Ike was right?

Assuming you are speaking of the military industrial complex, of course Ike was right. But what does that mean in the context of this discussion?

The military expanding the base on Guam is not an example of "The loudest uneducated fuck gets the worm".

[Santa]

On this issue in particular, I don't think any of you have the military reasoning or information to have a valid opinion on whether or not this base is needed.

oh come on, you're really going to take the "they know what's best for us" tact? i expect better.

That's a lot different than saying "They know better than Sherm".

I don't tell Boeing how to make moving runways because I'm not a subject matter expert in treadmills. All I'm saying is that Sherm isn't informed enough to have a valid opinion on this issue.

[MarcusAurelius]

On this issue in particular, I don't think any of you have the military reasoning or information to have a valid opinion on whether or not this base is needed.

oh come on, you're really going to take the "they know what's best for us" tact? i expect better.

That's a lot different than saying "They know better than Sherm".

I don't tell Boeing how to make moving runways because I'm not a subject matter expert in treadmills. All I'm saying is that Sherm isn't informed enough to have a valid opinion on this issue.

you can just as easily extend that argument to state that none of us are informed enough to a have a valid opinion on basically anything in PCE.

[Uncle Sherm]

All I'm saying is that Sherm isn't informed enough to have a valid opinion on this issue.

Who is informed enough?

[Santa]

For this issue in particular? Probably a small group of military strategists and not an isolationist keying off the word "nuclear" to try to show hypocrisy.

[Uncle Sherm]

For this issue in particular? Probably a small group of military strategists and not an isolationist keying off the word "nuclear" to try to show hypocrisy.

Riiight...

Whenever the people a small group of military strategists are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

I'm not talking about hypocrisy at all. I'm talking about inconsistency. Obama's foreign policy is a patchwork with no doctrines, principles, or clear vision that can be explained rationally. If you can explain it, by all means do so. In the meantime, we're stuck on a bus that's $16 trillion in debt and the driver won't provide a straight answer about we're going (at least not until after the election).

[Santa]

So, is the problem that it's too expensive, part of an inconsistent foreign policy or a bad military decision?

You're kind of all over the place on your arguments about inconsistency.

[Uncle Sherm]

All the above, but these things are not mutually exclusive. Expanding the base would be expensive, but so would doing the things that the base is there to do (respond to a military strike against South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan). Getting involved in such a conflict would be both too expensive and a bad military decision. It is also part of an inconsistent foreign policy. Why are we poised to respond to a militant China while sending them $75 million/day in interest payments? And why are we talking about doing so with naval ships and bombers when we are also talking about reducing our nuclear ICBM stockpiles?

[Thinine]

Why are we poised to respond to a militant China while sending them $75 million/day in interest payments?

Seriously Sherm? I think we'd stop interest payments if we were at war with China. Hell, we'd probably just write it off entirely.

And why are we talking about doing so with naval ships and bombers when we are also talking about reducing our nuclear ICBM stockpiles?

Seriously Sherm? They aren't equivalent you imbecile.

[Uncle Sherm]

Why are we poised to respond to a militant China while sending them $75 million/day in interest payments?

Seriously Sherm? I think we'd stop interest payments if we were at war with China. Hell, we'd probably just write it off entirely.

Actually, if the past is any indication, we'd send them a hefty check for rebuilding efforts and spend trillions protecting them afterwards with our own military. But the point remains, why are we so leery of a country that enjoys the equivalence of favored-nation status?

And why are we talking about doing so with naval ships and bombers when we are also talking about reducing our nuclear ICBM stockpiles?

Seriously Sherm? They aren't equivalent you imbecile.

You are correct, ICBMs don't cost as much and are far more effective against invasion fleets crossing thousands of miles of ocean. The only reason we have a base on Guam is to protect foreign countries from the phantom menace. Not just any foreign countries, but industrialized, 1st world foreign countries perfectly capable of taking care of their own defense needs.

[MarcusAurelius]

Why are we poised to respond to a militant China while sending them $75 million/day in interest payments?

Seriously Sherm? I think we'd stop interest payments if we were at war with China. Hell, we'd probably just write it off entirely.

Actually, if the past is any indication, we'd send them a hefty check for rebuilding efforts and spend trillions protecting them afterwards with our own military.

haha, unfortunately true

[Gretyl]

Yeah, it sucks losing money after you achieve global hegemony.

[Thinine]

And why are we talking about doing so with naval ships and bombers when we are also talking about reducing our nuclear ICBM stockpiles?

Seriously Sherm? They aren't equivalent you imbecile.

You are correct, ICBMs don't cost as much and are far more effective against invasion fleets crossing thousands of miles of ocean.

Sherm, are you honestly suggesting that if, for some crazy reason, China wanted to invade the United States, they would do so via boat? And that the appropriate reaction to seeing such a fleet coming across the Pacific at us is to nuke it? And not just nuke it, but nuke it with an ICBM? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

[MarcusAurelius]

And why are we talking about doing so with naval ships and bombers when we are also talking about reducing our nuclear ICBM stockpiles?

Seriously Sherm? They aren't equivalent you imbecile.

You are correct, ICBMs don't cost as much and are far more effective against invasion fleets crossing thousands of miles of ocean.

Sherm, are you honestly suggesting that if, for some crazy reason, China wanted to invade the United States, they would do so via boat? And that the appropriate reaction to seeing such a fleet coming across the Pacific at us is to nuke it? And not just nuke it, but nuke it with an ICBM? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

why do you think that's so stupid as to require all caps?

a medium range ballistic missile has a range of 1000-3000km, so you kinda have to use an icbm. an invasion by a military the size of china's pretty much necessitates nuclear weapons.

[THW]

Isolationism Ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are more colours than black and white champ.

gee whiz, amusing contrast in statements there.

That being said, I disagree with the buildup in Guam

great, me too. the polarizing thing about black&white people like you is that instead of starting from a springboard where you agree with someone like sherm, you just attack him.

Do we really discuss anything on here anymore - it generally devolves into Sherm and Dave going to task about pedantic bullshit...

Do they teach those dodges in law school?

[Uncle Sherm]

Sherm, are you honestly suggesting that if, for some crazy reason, China wanted to invade the United States, they would do so via boat?

a)The idea that China would ever want to invade the US is crazy, yes. That's why having any pretense that our military base on Guam is for our own protection is crazy.
b)There are no land routes between China and the US, so boats are pretty much the only option for an invasion, unless they use an enormous number of paratroopers that can be shot down with relative ease.

And that the appropriate reaction to seeing such a fleet coming across the Pacific at us is to nuke it? And not just nuke it, but nuke it with an ICBM? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

A large hostile military flotilla in the middle of an ocean with no civilians around would be the ideal scenario for a nuclear strike.

[Thinine]

You scare me.

[Uncle Sherm]

The entire situation is absurd, but seriously, what would you do to stop a Chinese Armada sailing for the West Coast?

[MarcusAurelius]

You scare me.

you are an idiot. are you capable of contributing anything other than drive-by insults?

i know you thought that "ICBM" means "only from north dakota to moscow."

[Jobu]

All the above, but these things are not mutually exclusive. Expanding the base would be expensive, but so would doing the things that the base is there to do (respond to a military strike against South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan). Getting involved in such a conflict would be both too expensive and a bad military decision. It is also part of an inconsistent foreign policy. Why are we poised to respond to a militant China while sending them $75 million/day in interest payments? And why are we talking about doing so with naval ships and bombers when we are also talking about reducing our nuclear ICBM stockpiles?

You can't be so dense as to realize that building up naval forces in the SE pacific has very little to do with mainland defense. It's all about maintaining a visible presence in the area and as a potential buffer against Chinese influence in the region. The last thing the US wants is allies such as S. Korea and Japan bullied by China. It's also a subtle message to China to not directly fuck with Taiwan. There also the real possibility that the North Korea whack jobs toss some missiles over the DMK and cause all kinds of shit to hit the fan. Inconsistent or not, the USA has pretty much maintained a large presence in SE Asia since WWII and to a lesser extent even before then.

I'm sure you realize that much of the military movements nowadays are simply political plays.

[Uncle Sherm]

All the above, but these things are not mutually exclusive. Expanding the base would be expensive, but so would doing the things that the base is there to do (respond to a military strike against South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan). Getting involved in such a conflict would be both too expensive and a bad military decision. It is also part of an inconsistent foreign policy. Why are we poised to respond to a militant China while sending them $75 million/day in interest payments? And why are we talking about doing so with naval ships and bombers when we are also talking about reducing our nuclear ICBM stockpiles?

You can't be so dense as to realize that building up naval forces in the SE pacific has very little to do with mainland defense. It's all about maintaining a visible presence in the area and as a potential buffer against Chinese influence in the region. The last thing the US wants is allies such as S. Korea and Japan bullied by China. It's also a subtle message to China to not directly fuck with Taiwan. There also the real possibility that the North Korea whack jobs toss some missiles over the DMK and cause all kinds of shit to hit the fan. Inconsistent or not, the USA has pretty much maintained a large presence in SE Asia since WWII and to a lesser extent even before then.

I'm sure you realize that much of the military movements nowadays are simply political plays.

These political plays are getting pretty expensive and posing a bigger threat to our long term survival than any foreign whack jobs or bullies. Why do we need a visible presence? They buy our food, we buy their cars and electronics. Our allies are perfectly capable of defending themselves against North Korea, which can't even feed itself, much less pose a threat to an industrialized power like Japan or South Korea. Much of China's success is owed to their ability to reverse engineer foreign technology and expendable population, which in a few decades will be more of a burden than asset. India, Russia, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are all perfectly capable of forming their own "keep China contained" club, since none of them want to see a China become too ambitious. As long as they keep the cost of electronic components cheap, I don't see them as a threat to us.

[Jobu]

Now you're changing your argument. You were arguing that the policy is inconsistent, now you simply disagree with it. You're welcome to disagree with it and I tend to side with you in that respect, but you are going to have trouble arguing that maintaining a presence in SE Asia for 70+ years is inconsistent.

[Uncle Sherm]

Now you're changing your argument. You were arguing that the policy is inconsistent, now you simply disagree with it. You're welcome to disagree with it and I tend to side with you in that respect, but you are going to have trouble arguing that maintaining a presence in SE Asia for 70+ years is inconsistent.

SE Asia is not the extent of our foreign policy. In fact, it isn't even the major focus. I'm talking about Obama's "The Cold War is over and we can disarm" schtick coupled with "Let's keep on policing the world" action. Obama's foreign policy doctrine, whatever it may be other than telling foreign leaders to wait until after the election to see what he's planning to do, is inconsistent. GW Bush's policy was fucktarded, Clinton's was fucktarded, GHW Bush's policy was Fucktarded, but all were consistent.

Obama is all over the place. Bombing Gaddafi out of Libya without congressional approval because it's not war, refusing to blow up a drone in Iran because that is war, expanding the war in Afghanistan because they have terrorists there, sending aid to Pakistan after finding Bin Laden there, dismantle nuclear weapons to appease Russia, expand a naval base in Guam to contain favored-nation China.

[Santa]

A large hostile military flotilla in the middle of an ocean with no civilians around would be the ideal scenario for a nuclear strike.

You're a special kind of special.

[Santa]

blow up a drone in Iran because that is war

See, this is where your lack of military understanding makes you look a bit stupid.

The military knew exactly what it was losing with that drone, along with a time frame to reverse engineer. The threat of Iran responding in a hostile manner would have been weighed against the loss of technology against that time frame. You really think your Fox News story about letting these shits have a tail rotor or a drone, that we've probably already got a next generation of in the works, is because of weakness or inconsistency? It's a military decision based on risk. They'll propaganda and package it differently but they've already done a risk analysis before you wake up and read the story.

Furthermore, you can never really know why that drone crashed. The CIA might have crashed it on purpose. It might have had confusing rabbit holes of technology built in. It might have had sensors that will track it to secret Iranian facilities.

[Uncle Sherm]

blow up a drone in Iran because that is war

See, this is where your lack of military understanding makes you look a bit stupid.

The military knew exactly what it was losing with that drone, along with a time frame to reverse engineer. The threat of Iran responding in a hostile manner would have been weighed against the loss of technology against that time frame. You really think your Fox News story about letting these shits have a tail rotor or a drone, that we've probably already got a next generation of in the works, is because of weakness or inconsistency? It's a military decision based on risk. They'll propaganda and package it differently but they've already done a risk analysis before you wake up and read the story.

Furthermore, you can never really know why that drone crashed. The CIA might have crashed it on purpose. It might have had confusing rabbit holes of technology built in. It might have had sensors that will track it to secret Iranian facilities.

I don't care about the drone, or Iran getting its hands on any super secret US technology. They are not a threat. Neither was Libya. I care about Obama's "a cruise missile launched at an American spy drone in Iran is an act of war" BS vs Obama's "I don't need congressional approval to launch air strikes against the Libyan government because that's not an act of war" BS.

[Uncle Sherm]

A large hostile military flotilla in the middle of an ocean with no civilians around would be the ideal scenario for a nuclear strike.

You're a special kind of special.

I really don't see an alternative response in this scenario.

[Santa]

A large hostile military flotilla in the middle of an ocean with no civilians around would be the ideal scenario for a nuclear strike.

You're a special kind of special.

I really don't see an alternative response in this scenario.

Send in the USS Merimack. I'd imagine it's about as up to date as the rest of your approaches to politics.

Or, you know, conventional missiles/torpedoes built to take out ships.

[MarcusAurelius]

blow up a drone in Iran because that is war

See, this is where your lack of military understanding makes you look a bit stupid.

The military knew exactly what it was losing with that drone, along with a time frame to reverse engineer. The threat of Iran responding in a hostile manner would have been weighed against the loss of technology against that time frame. You really think your Fox News story about letting these shits have a tail rotor or a drone, that we've probably already got a next generation of in the works, is because of weakness or inconsistency? It's a military decision based on risk. They'll propaganda and package it differently but they've already done a risk analysis before you wake up and read the story.

Furthermore, you can never really know why that drone crashed. The CIA might have crashed it on purpose. It might have had confusing rabbit holes of technology built in. It might have had sensors that will track it to secret Iranian facilities.

you forgot that the orcs lack the cognitive capabilities to reverse engineer a cessna

[Uncle Sherm]

A large hostile military flotilla in the middle of an ocean with no civilians around would be the ideal scenario for a nuclear strike.

You're a special kind of special.

I really don't see an alternative response in this scenario.

Send in the USS Merimack. I'd imagine it's about as up to date as the rest of your approaches to politics.

Or, you know, conventional missiles/torpedoes built to take out ships.

Why get close enough to use conventional weapons? Why would sinking/burning troops alive on a troop transport be more favorable to you than a nuclear blast either doing the same thing much quicker or an EMP disabling the ships? What are you going to do with all those Chinese soldiers floating in the ocean after their ship sinks? Rescue them and take them back? Put them in a Prison camp in California? Let them drown? Do you realize what a massive effort that would be compared to a nuclear strike?

[Santa]

A large hostile military flotilla in the middle of an ocean with no civilians around would be the ideal scenario for a nuclear strike.

You're a special kind of special.

I really don't see an alternative response in this scenario.

Send in the USS Merimack. I'd imagine it's about as up to date as the rest of your approaches to politics.

Or, you know, conventional missiles/torpedoes built to take out ships.

Why get close enough to use conventional weapons? Why would sinking/burning troops alive on a troop transport be more favorable to you than a nuclear blast either doing the same thing much quicker or an EMP disabling the ships? What are you going to do with all those Chinese soldiers floating in the ocean after their ship sinks? Rescue them and take them back? Put them in a Prison camp in California? Let them drown? Do you realize what a massive effort that would be compared to a nuclear strike?

I'm not quite sure you understand military technology after the wright brothers but close and conventional are not synonyms to the United States military.

[Uncle Sherm]

How many ships do you think it would be? 19 ships carried 36000 troops in the invasion of Normandy, with the benefit of surprise. How many do you think the Chinese would use to establish a foothold in Alaska or somewhere else on the west coast/Hawaii? The Chinese military is not known for being economical in its strategy.

The Ohio Class nuclear submarine carries a maximum of 154 tomahawk missiles, and the submarine variant has a range of 250 miles.

Again, though, even if you did manage to stop the invasion with conventional weapons, what would we do with the survivors?

[Santa]

How many ships do you think it would be? 19 ships carried 36000 troops in the invasion of Normandy, with the benefit of surprise. How many do you think the Chinese would use to establish a foothold in Alaska or somewhere else on the west coast/Hawaii? The Chinese military is not known for being economical in its strategy.

The Ohio Class nuclear submarine carries a maximum of 154 tomahawk missiles, and the submarine variant has a range of 250 miles.

Again, though, even if you did manage to stop the invasion with conventional weapons, what would we do with the survivors?

Are you really suggesting it's better to use nukes so we don't have to deal with survivors?

I'm with you that our foreign strategy has little to do with defense but ICBMs have a purpose and that purpose is not to take out a mobile Navy.

[Uncle Sherm]

Are you really suggesting it's better to use nukes so we don't have to deal with survivors?

Not exactly. Unless you are planning on rescuing the Chinese troops you just sank in the middle of the ocean, there won't be survivors either way. If you are planning on rescuing them, you should have some plan for what to do with them afterwards. Capturing prisoners tends to be a sticky issue, in case you haven't noticed.

I'm with you that our foreign strategy has little to do with defense but ICBMs have a purpose and that purpose is not to take out a mobile Navy.

The purpose is to deliver as much destruction from a single warhead over as much area as possible. For that, they are ideally suited for taking out a mobile Navy.

[Santa]

Are you really suggesting it's better to use nukes so we don't have to deal with survivors?

Not exactly. Unless you are planning on rescuing the Chinese troops you just sank in the middle of the ocean, there won't be survivors either way. If you are planning on rescuing them, you should have some plan for what to do with them afterwards. Capturing prisoners tends to be a sticky issue, in case you haven't noticed.

I'm with you that our foreign strategy has little to do with defense but ICBMs have a purpose and that purpose is not to take out a mobile Navy.

The purpose is to deliver as much destruction from a single warhead over as much area as possible. For that, they are ideally suited for taking out a mobile Navy.

Might work for a port, not for a Navy moving across what - 12000 miles?

When you have superior ships, subs, planes and missiles, the term "sitting duck" comes to mind.

[Uncle Sherm]

You can kill a sitting duck with an ICBM just as easily as you can with a hundred cruise missiles.

[Santa]

You're being ridiculous.

[MarcusAurelius]

I'm with you that our foreign strategy has little to do with defense but ICBMs have a purpose and that purpose is not to take out a mobile Navy.

i think MIRVs would be pretty capable at this.

icbm flight time is something like 30 minutes, and the reentry vehicles are maneuverable enough that the distance traveled by a navy in that time away from it's previous trajectory should be no big deal

[Santa]

I'm with you that our foreign strategy has little to do with defense but ICBMs have a purpose and that purpose is not to take out a mobile Navy.

i think MIRVs would be pretty capable at this

I can't claim to have any clue about how advanced these are but I'd imagine they're quite a ways behind/incapable of mobile target acquisition.

Regardless, it's fucking stupid.

[Santa]

I'm with you that our foreign strategy has little to do with defense but ICBMs have a purpose and that purpose is not to take out a mobile Navy.

i think MIRVs would be pretty capable at this.

icbm flight time is something like 30 minutes, and the reentry vehicles are maneuverable enough that the distance traveled by a navy in that time away from it's previous trajectory should be no big deal

You're talking about targeting systems built 30 years ago versus missiles built yesterday.

Even if you were going to use a nuclear warhead against a naval target, you'd do it from a cruise missile.

Don't worry about ICBM launch Russia, we're just nuking the chinese navlyol

[MarcusAurelius]

You're talking about targeting systems built 30 years ago versus missiles built yesterday.

Even if you were going to use a nuclear warhead against a naval target, you'd do it from a cruise missile.

point is, cruise missiles have pretty short range, necessitating shit like having a navy all over the globe.

i'm pretty sure the targeting systems on ICBMs are sufficiently advanced to hit a navy (the whole point of MIRVs is independent targeting/maneuvering), not that you really need to do much in the way of course correction when you're talking about giant nukes aimed at a navy that can move less than a mile during flight time.

[Uncle Sherm]

Missiles built yesterday? Most of our cruise missiles are little more than upgraded systems from the early parts of the Reagan Administration. ICBM targeting systems are every bit as advanced as tomahawk cruise missiles. Moreso considering Ship-based Tomahawks are Radar guided.

You think if the Chinese were sending an armada across the pacific, the Russians would be worried we were attacking them?

[Santa]

You're talking about targeting systems built 30 years ago versus missiles built yesterday.

Even if you were going to use a nuclear warhead against a naval target, you'd do it from a cruise missile.

point is, cruise missiles have pretty short range, necessitating shit like having a navy all over the globe.

i'm pretty sure the targeting systems on ICBMs are sufficiently advanced to hit a navy (the whole point of MIRVs is independent targeting/maneuvering), not that you really need to do much in the way of course correction when you're talking about giant nukes aimed at a navy that can move less than a mile during flight time.

The only reason we need to be closer is to protect foreign interests.

For protecting our own country, a long range bomber with cruise missiles negates any purpose an ICBM would have outside of complete nuclear destruction of a foreign state.

[Santa]

Missiles built yesterday? Most of our cruise missiles are little more than upgraded systems from the early parts of the Reagan Administration. ICBM targeting systems are every bit as advanced as tomahawk cruise missiles. Moreso considering Ship-based Tomahawks are Radar guided.

You think if the Chinese were sending an armada across the pacific, the Russians would be worried we were attacking them?

If we put an ICBM in the air, so will Russia.

[MarcusAurelius]

You're talking about targeting systems built 30 years ago versus missiles built yesterday.

Even if you were going to use a nuclear warhead against a naval target, you'd do it from a cruise missile.

point is, cruise missiles have pretty short range, necessitating shit like having a navy all over the globe.

i'm pretty sure the targeting systems on ICBMs are sufficiently advanced to hit a navy (the whole point of MIRVs is independent targeting/maneuvering), not that you really need to do much in the way of course correction when you're talking about giant nukes aimed at a navy that can move less than a mile during flight time.

The only reason we need to be closer is to protect foreign interests.

For protecting our own country, a long range bomber with cruise missiles negates any purpose an ICBM would have outside of complete nuclear destruction of a foreign state.

that's totally wrong, bombers are slow as fuck and awfully easy to intercept. that's why scramjets are pretty big in military research right now.

[Uncle Sherm]

Diplomatic channels with Russia would be on high alert, but with an open line of communication, I'm sure they would be assured our target is not Moscow when the Chinese Navy is heading for the west coast. Hell, if anything we could ask the Russians to join us in nuking the Chinese Navy.

[Santa]

You're talking about targeting systems built 30 years ago versus missiles built yesterday.

Even if you were going to use a nuclear warhead against a naval target, you'd do it from a cruise missile.

point is, cruise missiles have pretty short range, necessitating shit like having a navy all over the globe.

i'm pretty sure the targeting systems on ICBMs are sufficiently advanced to hit a navy (the whole point of MIRVs is independent targeting/maneuvering), not that you really need to do much in the way of course correction when you're talking about giant nukes aimed at a navy that can move less than a mile during flight time.

The only reason we need to be closer is to protect foreign interests.

For protecting our own country, a long range bomber with cruise missiles negates any purpose an ICBM would have outside of complete nuclear destruction of a foreign state.

that's totally wrong, bombers are slow as fuck and awfully easy to intercept. that's why scramjets are pretty big in military research right now.

Scramjets are big due to drones. China's only aircraft carrier can't launch aircraft. Not exactly capable of outranging our bombers/fighters.

[Santa]

Diplomatic channels with Russia would be on high alert, but with an open line of communication, I'm sure they would be assured our target is not Moscow when the Chinese Navy is heading for the west coast. Hell, if anything we could ask the Russians to join us in nuking the Chinese Navy.

And China would ask Mexico if they'd put more salmonella in our spinach.