Obama limits U.S. use of nuclear arms

[calfoxwc]

I present to you

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

 

**********************

Thanks for the video, Vaportrail !

 

BTW, that technology, when it is finished and in production?

 

You can thank Ronald Reagan for his vision with the "Star Wars" research,

 

and you can blame liberal Dems for trying to slow it down/stop it entirely.

[VaporTrail]

BTW, that technology, when it is finished and in production?

 

The wiki article says, "The Air Force has not requested any further funds for the Airborne Laser and Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable."

 

"If proven successful, seven ABL-armed 747s will be built and assigned to two combat theaters. The aircraft were originally slated to enter service in 2008, but development has been slower and costlier than planned. The current plan calls for a prototype ABL to attempt to shoot down a test missile in 2009.[19] Data acquired in the test will shape the final production design, which is now expected to enter service several years from now."

 

You can thank Ronald Reagan for his vision with the "Star Wars" research, and you can blame liberal Dems for trying to slow it down/stop it entirely.

 

It really doesn't have much to do with whomever may be in power, whoever's in is going to want the best technology available, this is pretty much the result of a military cost/benefit analysis. Take the F/A-22 Raptor and B-2 Spirit, for example, their costs far outweigh how much they'll be used. But I digress, this laser system is xxxxing ridiculous, it's power according to the wikipedia article is on the order of megawatts.

 

"Use against ground targets seems unlikely. Aside from the difficulty of acquiring and tracking a ground target, firing through the dense atmosphere would weaken the beam. Ground targets such as armored vehicles are not fragile enough to be damaged by a megawatt-class laser."

 

To put that in perspective, a laser pointer that you get at a fair is on the order of 2 or 3 milliwatts. That means it's at least 10^9 (a billion) times more powerful than the laser pointer. 2 or 3 milliwatts is enough to cause temporary or even permanent blindness, one watt can cause burns on your skin. I can't imagine the power source necessary for that kind of laser.

 

The wiki says that 7 were planned to be made, but I wouldn't be surprised if they kept only this one and made one more.

[Westside Steve]

A couple thoughts VT.

Sure you're right about the overkill.

We can do without a portion of our nukes.

Difference between Reagan and Obama is that the world inccorrectly saw Reagan as a loose cannon and warmonger.

He can porpose that deal and maybe it softens his image.

Obama already seems like a guy who prefers to err on the side of caution. Hopefully incorrectly.

This does nothing for his image.

 

 

And whatever we decide to give up, I want the technology kept as current as possible and that will mean testing.

And I don't want to cut down on any defensive systems.

I personally feel a lot better with an actual armed deterrent than a treaty that the real assholes will laugh at.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Yes, Vapor, but on a limited basis, say, on the battlefield, this tech could be implemented.

 

Or in space.

 

But getting back to limiting nukes in a 'pact' with the Russians:

 

READ:

 

**************************

the formerly NY Times bestseller "Biologocial weapons and America's secret war: GERMS"

 

by Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad.

 

It shows that these treaties can be used to gain a serious strategic advantage.

 

Cutting back on nukes only means that Obamao is ignoring the jobs and economy crisis, and is

 

appealing to his leftist/marxist base for more support again to boost his credibility crisis and

 

cover for his failures.

 

Remember when Jimmy Carter actually admitted he was deceived by N. Korea?

 

There are always some nukes that are scheduled to be put out of action anyways.

 

But the pub will enliven the radical left that Obama has under butt for lift.

[Mr. T]

Thought I would add this here.

 

Tehran: If Iran is attacked, nuclear devices will go off in American cities

 

This warning, along with an announcement that Iran would join the world's nuclear club within a month, raised the pitch of Iranian anti-US rhetoric to a new high Tuesday, April 13, as 47 world leaders gathered in Washington for President Barack Obama's Nuclear Security Summit. The statement published by Kayhan said: "If the US strikes Iran with nuclear weapons, there are elements which will respond with nuclear blasts in the centers of America's main cities." For the first time, debkafile's military sources report, Tehran indicated the possibility of passing nuclear devices to terrorists capable of striking inside the United States.

Without specifying whether those elements would be Iranian or others, Tehran aimed at the heart of the Nuclear Security Summit by threatening US cities with nuclear terror.

debkafile's Iranians sources report that Tehran is playing brinkmanship to demonstrate that the Washington summit, from which Iran and North Korea were excluded, failed before it began, because terrorist elements capable of striking inside the US had already acquired nuclear devices for that purpose.

Although Iran has yet to attain operational nuclear arms, our military sources believe it does possess the makings of primitive nuclear devices or "dirty bombs."

 

In an interview ahead of the summit, President Obama warned: "If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications... would be devastating."

In another shot at the summit, Behzad Soltani, deputy director of Iran's Atomic Commission, announced Tuesday: "Iran will join the world nuclear club within a month in a bid to deter possible attacks on the country." He added: "No country would even think about attacking Iran once it is in the club."

 

The Iranian official's boast was run by the Fars news agency, published by Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps.

 

Behzadi further pointed to the construction of 360 MW nuclear power plant and a 40 MW research reactor in Iran's central city of Arak, claiming the projects were 70 percent complete.

This plant is generally believed to have been built to enable Iran to produce weapons-grade plutonium as an alternative weapons fuel to highly-enriched uranium and material for radioactive weapons.

Sunday, April 11, debkafile reported that Iran is making much better progress than Western and Israeli intelligence estimates have held toward completing the Arak heavy water reactor here

 

 

Along with the strides made in its nuclear manufacturing capacity, Tehran's anti-US rhetoric has grown more strident in the past week. Thursday, April 8, Iran's Armed Forces Chief of Staff Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said if the United States made any military moves on the Islamic Republic "none of the American troops in the region would go back home alive."

debkafile's military sources report the presence of app. 220,000 US soldiers in the countries around Iran, including Gulf bases and waters, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian general was reacting to US defense secretary Robert Gates' warning that Washington's policy decision to limit the use of nuclear arms if attacked did not apply to Iran and North Korea.

 

Source

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Thought I would add this here.

 

 

You can expect something to happen with Iran in the near future. Probably will involve Israel, as they have the most to lose if Iran should acquire Nuclear weapons. I don't expect anything good to come out of it. Something has to be done, at all costs to stop Iran.

[VaporTrail]

Awesome... bringing back MAD[/sarcasm]

 

But it's really not that unreasonable of Iran to say such things. If a nuclear weapon goes off in Iran, they ensure one or more goes off here, they aren't saying that they're going to preemptively strike us. As much as we don't want to admit it, they are an enemy that needs to be respected as we don't have the means to win a war against them, imho.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Awesome... bringing back MAD[/sarcasm]

 

But it's really not that unreasonable of Iran to say such things. If a nuclear weapon goes off in Iran, they ensure one or more goes off here, they aren't saying that they're going to preemptively strike us. As much as we don't want to admit it, they are an enemy that needs to be respected as we don't have the means to win a war against them, imho.

 

You must be joking. Iran could be taken out quickly if we wanted to do it. I don't know why you think we don't have the means.

 

www.globalfirepower.com

 

[VaporTrail]

Between a motivated population, the strength of Iranian forces, and our troops being spread through Iraq and Afghanistan, I suppose we could win a war with them, but I wouldn't be expecting another Desert Storm.

[Mr. T]

Awesome... bringing back MAD[/sarcasm]

 

But it's really not that unreasonable of Iran to say such things. If a nuclear weapon goes off in Iran, they ensure one or more goes off here, they aren't saying that they're going to preemptively strike us. As much as we don't want to admit it, they are an enemy that needs to be respected as we don't have the means to win a war against them, imho.

 

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "In it to win it"?

 

Or should we socialize war also.

 

Instead of a sign we will give you a clock....

 

[VaporTrail]

*sigh*

 

I mean, I'm going to keep hoping that it doesn't come down to it. But if just one nuclear weapon goes off in a major city in Russia, the US, Iran, North Korea, GB, China, India, Pakistan, the economy will go to shit if there isn't a war (not likely). What's more likely to happen is everyone gets an itchy trigger finger and a couple go off in retaliation, and the chain reaction continues. Yes, I've heard the phrase, "In it to win it." But there's no victory to be had!