opinion(s) about the development of new nuclear weaponry by superpowers

[PeaceGen]

related thread in different sub-forum : https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lockheed-raytheon-to-develop-new-nuclear-cruise-missile.513916/

The Americans and Russians are developing new nuclear weaponry at a fast pace.
This has the potential to change the global balances of military power significantly, because China will keep it quiet, but they're not going to fall behind in military technology *that much*.

The Americans are building nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, also (again), ones that can be launched from nuclear submarines. I say about that : make slighly bigger subs even, stealthier ones etc, but with bigger launch-tubes. To have a deterrent effect, you need to be able not only to fire small nukes, but large ones as well.

I say this, because the Russians have been reported by mass-media news-sources (Western ones, indeed) to be building 'autonomous nuclear tipped attack submarines'. I say : if they want to, the Americans get not only the same tech (hopefully again better than compared to anything the Russians produce), but those cruise missiles with big nuclear payloads as well. And yes, the Russians can put the same on their new subs.
With those nuclear tipped attack submarines (development of which was initiated by the Russians according to the reports i read), Russia can attack the entire western and eastern and southern coastal cities of the US. That really screws up the balance of power.

So to reach Moscow from a sub (submarine), you need a large nuclear warhead with a large nuclear payload (nothing else will be understood by the moron population of Moscow (and that is NOT me saying all Moscovians are morons, far from it, but still)), embedded in a large cruise missile.

This is going to make life aboard the submarines that form a last-line-of-defence police force between the superpowers and thus the entire *shipping lanes* and *economic delivery lines* (roads, railroads, air traffic, tourism, etc),
at least somewhat *easier* i think.
"haha, you now have a nuclear-tipped depth-charge sitting right next to you, opposing submarine crew, be reasonable or we'll detonate it".
and they have to add that "be reasonable or else" line, because of the implications that a military incident like that (larger scale war between superpowers, and *nobody* wants to see that happen for real),
hold a too devastating potential for destruction of innocent life on a massive scale.

And while we're at it :
YOU WILL ALL KEEP YOUR "A.I." STRICTLY AT THE EXPERT-MACHINE LEVEL (human-built old-fashioned programmed-into-EMP-proofed-computers logic rules).
YOU WILL ALSO CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE EVERY HUMAN KILLED BY A ROBOT IS ULTIMATELY KILLED BY ANOTHER HUMAN IN REAL-TIME BY THE HUMAN PRESSING A BUTTON AFTER A CAREFUL LEGAL REVIEW OF THE ABOUT-TO-BE-EXECUTED'S CASE.

If you don't, superpower leaderships, then you'll find me ringing the alarm bells not just on this forum.
i call myself natowatchdog on another forum for a reason.

i leave this thread here as a message or as the starting point of a discussion i won't be directing much.
i happily just listen to your opinions first, and take weeks to think about it all after reading them.

 

[TOTUU]

this is MAGA ,TRUMP ,Good job .

 

[PeaceGen]

i sent this via email to :
- US, Dutch and Israeli governments
- US and Dutch mass media corporations

Subject : about the US Russia meddling investigation, and about those new hypersonic nuclear-powered cruisemissiles of Russia and the potential for a new arms race.
Hi.

First off : arms races at too fast a pace drain the civilian economy way too much.

Second : i don't think it's going to be a big problem with Putin neatly describing the capabilities of weaponry he's developing on live TV. it may scare some people, but to people like me and the people in the defense industries especially it's just a minor game-changer. Ok, maybe these unlimited range nuclear cruisemissiles are a headache for some months to come to the ones coming up with the counter tech designs to it.

But what you shouldn't lose sight of is that the US and Russia are actually co-operating in a way that will most likely prevent an actual arms race the likes of which devastated the Russian economy back in the 1990s.
By boasting about new weapons in development.

And i also think the US is actually better off with Trump as President than Hillary.
So is the world. Sorry, Hillary. Democrats and women especially know nothing about the real arts of war. That's been my observation.

Sometimes your enemies know better what leader is good for a country than the people themselves do. And exposing emails sent by Hillary is not a strike under the belt, it's using the admirable goal of accountability as political tools.

And what i'm missing from CNN's reporting about how the Russia investigation should go on, is how Obama expanded US military bases right on Russia's doorstep, in Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. Belarus is like 200 miles away from Moscow, and how it's been all over the press that the US really wants to put missile defense shields in Eastern Europe. (Bush + Obama days)

i haven't heard a thing about expanding US bases on Russia's doorstep (Belarus, Latvia, Ukraine, that belt of countries), nor more missile defense bases planned for Eastern Europe, since Trump is in office.

and if you want to avoid an arms race just after some very expensive wars, Americans, which you have no real choice in by the way, then you gotta play nicer with the Russians but at the same time show strength and humor.
humor much like Putin's humor about his new unlimited range nuclear cruisemissiles
it may be gallows humor, but i was laughing when i read that one.

here's the counter-tech tip: you put a lot more funding on this : https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html - that'll power the engines and lasers aboard very fast aircraft and sea vessels with wings they can use to move fast to a location and be seavessels at the patrol area. (both designs i recon should be fairly small, and definitely dedicated to stealth and laser power on the battle field), and ta-da, with a bit of advanced radar from multiple sources (triangulation principle) you can now blast all of Putin's toys that arent even finished yet, right out of the sky.

a counter for the submarine nuke-delivery weapon of Putin?

swarms (widely spread out swarms) of nearly fully autonomous search&destroy submarines. (but destroy with human permission only, as per publicly repeated US promise to the world, and a still very necessary promise because that overlaps into other matters of geo-security).
again, there's no hiding from low-intensity sonar pulses that are timed from different locations at just the right time. and then you send a hunter-killer torpedo (fairly long-range, doesnt need to be nuclear powered) after that Russian nuke-delivery weapon.

what i haven't figured out yet is if you blast these things out of the sky and water as soon as you see one. but given how they're nuke delivery weapons, i'll take the risk of saying that you can make it a policy to blast these types of weapons upon sight.

see, ICBMS should have secure self-destruct capabilities.
i don't like to see a chaotic nuclear weapons environment on our planet. not one bit.

now, all that, makes Putin's presentation a very friendly and very humorous one.
under no circumstances should this be fearmongered over.

To me it's not surprising at all the Russians tried to meddle with the elections, get a guy in office they could reason with like men. It's also not surprising that they're developing tech that circumvents anti-ICBM weaponry, because folks, we'd be in conventional war after conventional war without a solid nuclear deterrent, and that again drains the civilian economy so much *we* could end up with breadlines like the Russians had in the 1990s and we in the 1920s.

DO NOT UPSET THE M.A.D. PRINCIPLE.
M.A.D = the Mutually Assured Destruction principle of modern warfare, which guarantees peace but not always without tension ( which can result in brief periods of intense geo-political brinkmanship like during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s or so)

see also : https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/opin...f-new-nuclear-weaponry-by-superpowers.543023/

i leaked this back onto defence.pk as a tit-for-tat friendly gesture back to the Russian leaderships, who were courageous and honerable enough to reveal these new weapon design specs while they are still in the initial testing phase.

with autonomous unmanned swarms of relatively inexpensive search&destroy-specific-other-unmanned-weaponry, it's hard to even penetrate the national waters/airspace of any country. and your defending swarms could meet the enemy en-route of course too. that would be totally acceptable to the world audience.

now the interesting bit about ICBMS with secure self-destruct capability (greatly enhances their political value, that feature, and i doubt anyone would touch a sattelite used for the self-destruct comms to an ICBM),
is that they can be used as dirty nuclear bombs too.
or even very dirty nuclear cluster bombs.

and no laser power or anti-icbm missile power or flare power will be able to defend against such an attack.
build a faraday cage around the electronics and use optic fiber to control components, and your missile is pretty much cyberwarfare proofed,

and so i propose to restore the full M.A.D. principle, but with fallout as primary active force rather than large blasts at surface level.

 

[PeaceGen]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-is-good-for-another-10-years/article/2650987

Nuclear weapons chief: Doctrine of 'mutually assured destruction' is good for another 10 years

The Cold War-era doctrine of mutually assured destruction will continue to deter nuclear war for at least another decade despite Russia’s claims of new and provocative doomsday weapons, said Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command.

But Hyten warned that the U.S. must modernize its arsenal and touted the Trump administration’s decision to pursue low-yield nuclear cruise and submarine-launched missiles.


Mutually assured destruction, or MAD, is the theory that no nuclear power will launch an attack if it would result in obliteration of both sides. The doctrine underpinned the decades-long nuclear standoff between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union.

“I don’t think we have to worry about that [changing] for at least a decade,” Hyten said in a testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. “I think the capabilities that we have, that we will operate for the next decade, will allow us to maintain the basis of nuclear deterrence.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a stable of new weapons last week and claimed Russia has developed a submarine drone capable of carrying a nuclear payload and a hypersonic nuclear missile that can evade any U.S. defenses.

Hyten said the real risk is a miscalculation by Russia or China, which is also a nuclear power bent on developing new weapons to challenge the U.S.

“We can’t allow them to think that they can employ a nuclear weapon, either on the battlefield or strategically, and the United States will not be able to respond,” he said.

The Trump administration’s pursuit of low-yield nuclear weapons is seen partly as a bargaining chip with Russia, which has spent years growing its own arsenal as well as violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with shorter range missiles.

But it does little to change the calculus of nuclear war, which could be triggered by the use of small or large weapons, and Hyten said the U.S. still holds the ability to take out Moscow.

“There is nothing that they can do outside of a massive attack against our country that we would not have the ability to respond to,” he said. “And oh, by the way, our submarines, [Russia and China] do not know where they are and they have the ability to decimate their country if we go down that path.”