Is it actually Russia that is imposing more and more costs?

[fathertime]

I hope your Mr. Putin keeps that in mind.

 

He is just as much YOUR Putin as he is mine.

You've based your conclusion Putin isn't a despot by reasoning incorrectly that he isn't independently capable of launching a nuclear strike when in fact he is just as capable (as ineffective as it would be) as his counterparts in Washington/London/Paris, etc..

Although I don't claim to be a nuclear protocol expert some things are public knowledge:


Neither Putin or Obama is independently capable of launching a nuclear strike.  There are safeguards in place for the express purpose of not having one madman make a split second loco decision. In addition,  Military commanders have to cooperate regarding strike packages, launch codes among other things.  If this isn't being legally done, then cooperation will not be forthcoming.   Although the presidency in Russia is stronger than ours, by definition Putin is not a despot as he doesn't have absolute  power....there is a legislature and judiciary. 

"I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot."

Look up 'argument from personal incredulity'  I don't "believe" therefore  "he is not".

 

Well then I will rephrase the statement :
"I don't believe this is not accurate, which would mean he isn't a despot."

You give Russia's ability to wage war on a global scale far too much credibility. Russia's increasingly aggressive actions should not be attributed to a belief that they are somehow on an equal military/economic footing with the west, they're not. Russia's continuing abhorrent actions of late are a result of inaction and lack of leadership in the west.

I don't know where you have come up with war on a global scale. I didn't say or think that to begin with.  Russia can't win a global war, but they don't need to.     
They have submarines and 1000's of nuclear weapons (you claim they are a bunch of duds)they can do us (the US) and the world great harm.  If they are backed into a corner, and they have a crazy leader like many suggest then that is a VERY bad combo.  If they have an angry disgraced leader he may choose to go down his own way rather than like Khadafi.  It is not every country that can do what Russia can do, given that fact, a wider berth is in order, even if we don't like it....With all the maneuvering of ready to launch nuclear weapons going on, any sort of accident can happen, and ruin our planet.  You suggest we have a lack of leadership in the west, but if the suggestions you give would be what a strong leader does, then I'm ok with us having a "Weak" leader...although I know that is EXTREMELY unpopular here! 

What if covers a lot of ground. Besides, your loaded question is framed in a way that presupposes Russia has not already tried such a venture.

Syria would be the most recent example of Russia trying to 'manage' and 'ratchet up' a situation. I suggest you look in on the going ons  there.
 

Brass

Russia has given assistance to the regime in Syria, as they are friendly.  WE and (McCain)should NOT be trying to fund 'rebels and overthrow that regime...we should not be promoting wars it is NOT our business and leads to paranoia by other nations that don't want to abide by the US rules of the world!  Anyway, that is another subject.


All in all, thanks for stating your viewpoints, you bring up good points although I don't agree with all of them. 


Fathertime!   

[mendeleyev]

The West should have been more frim indeed.
In 2008 they should have warned Georgia that attacking  South Ossetia would have strong consequences.

Shadow, you might wish to inform Vladimir that it was Georgia who attacked first.

Prior to the presidential election, United Russia paraded several generals around who claimed that the plans for attacking Georgia were drawn up during the prior term (of Putin) and the military was ordered to be ready. In August war broke out at the generals on the campaign trail claimed that it was a preemptive strike.

In 2012, Vladimir himself on television Q and A claimed it was a preemptive strike. Mr. Putin says that the FSB had uncovered a plot by Georgia to plant terrorists in Abkhazia in advance of the Sochi Olympics. He didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that Abkhazia was already a disputed province, already had Russian troops based in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia, and he didn't bother explaining how the Georgian government was going to accomplish this, nor where the supposed terrorists would hide while in those Russian-protected regions.

As to South Ossetia specifically, one would have to grossly ignorant not to understand the months of attacks on Georgian villages across the disputed border, at which Russian peace keeping troops were stationed, was a provocation and attempt to goad Georgia into responding. Further, Russia had warned Georgia not to continue the pursuit of someday becoming a potential NATO member.

Then, there was the little tiff between Putin and Medvedev in 2010. Watching Putin travel around the country and in his speeches taking credit for war in Georgia, Medvedev snapped back that no, it was he who gave the orders. Putin's handlers responded to that by reminding Medvedev that the plans for attacking Georgia had been hatched prior to his assumption of the presidency.

There is a lot of history here prior to 2008. Not only did Moscow warn Georgia against approaching NATO, but one must remember that even today Putin is convinced that Georgia trained, recruited and harbored Islamic terrorists to operate inside Chechnya. True, Georgia and Chechnya share much Caucasus's history, Georgia has been an officially Christian state since the year 337. Chechnya has been primarily Muslim for centuries. The two aren't exactly "best friends forever" material so could have reason to doubt Putin's suspicions.

There is a pattern with the man and it goes like this: Deny, blame the other guy, then eventually take credit.

Again, you seem to know  more about the sequence of events than even Vladimir, so I'd suggest that you contact the Kremlin and set him straight.

[Brasscasing]

He is just as much YOUR Putin as he is mine.

We'll revisit this.

Although I don't claim to be a nuclear protocol expert some things are public knowledge:


Neither Putin or Obama is independently capable of launching a nuclear strike.  There are safeguards in place for the express purpose of not having one madman make a split second loco decision. In addition,  Military commanders have to cooperate regarding strike packages, launch codes among other things.  If this isn't being legally done, then cooperation will not be forthcoming.   

Although the presidency in Russia is stronger than ours, by definition Putin is not a despot as he doesn't have absolute  power....there is a legislature and judiciary. 

Well then I will rephrase the statement :
"I don't believe this is not accurate, which would mean he isn't a despot."

You're back peddling. We are talking about the authority to launch. Not the mechanics behind it. That authority and decision lies with the leaders, as first in the chain of command, and no one else.

Well so far you've opined Putin's not a despot because he can't launch nucs and Russia has a legislature and judiciary. None of which is relevant/criteria in determining if despotism exists or not in the first place. Several despots have had nucs, legislature and judiciary - Joseph Stalin for example.

I don't know where you have come up with war on a global scale. I didn't say or think that to begin with.  Russia can't win a global war, but they don't need to.     
They have submarines and 1000's of nuclear weapons (you claim they are a bunch of duds)they can do us (the US) and the world great harm.  If they are backed into a corner, and they have a crazy leader like many suggest then that is a VERY bad combo.  If they have an angry disgraced leader he may choose to go down his own way rather than like Khadafi.  It is not every country that can do what Russia can do, given that fact, a wider berth is in order, even if we don't like it....With all the maneuvering of ready to launch nuclear weapons going on, any sort of accident can happen, and ruin our planet.  You suggest we have a lack of leadership in the west, but if the suggestions you give would be what a strong leader does, then I'm ok with us having a "Weak" leader...although I know that is EXTREMELY unpopular here!

You are the one arguing that a worst case scenario would be an escalation to the point of a nuclear strike....

..".If we do this and Russia just ratchets up more and more, then we have to accept this is going to be a very big war and when/if Russia starts losing they could take the last step which would be tactical nuclear weapons"....

..."They have submarines and 1000's of nuclear weapons (you claim they are a bunch of duds)they can do us (the US) and the world great harm"....

...These descriptions of Armageddon you like to conjure is war on a global scale, my friend. You can't have it both ways.

Russia has given assistance to the regime in Syria, as they are friendly.  WE and (McCain)should NOT be trying to fund 'rebels and overthrow that regime...we should not be promoting wars it is NOT our business and leads to paranoia by other nations that don't want to abide by the US rules of the world!  Anyway, that is another subject.

Riiiight. Like I was saying your Putin.

Brass

[fathertime]

Riiiight. Like I was saying your Putin.

Brass

You must be losing it or something if making a strong argument against our involvement in Syria makes me Putin.  That is ridiculous...but Ok...I'm Putin then.   

Well so far you've opined Putin's not a despot because he can't launch nucs and Russia has a legislature and judiciary. None of which is relevant/criteria in determining if despotism exists or not in the first place. Several despots have had nucs, legislature and judiciary - Joseph Stalin for example. 

That is true, although Putin is no Stalin....yet....and hopefully he isn't in a position where millions are dead...the legislative/judiciary is stronger than it was under stalin...that makes a difference if somebody is a despot or not.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/putins-no-stalin-8991

You're back peddling. We are talking about the authority to launch. Not the mechanics behind it. That authority and decision lies with the leaders, as first in the chain of command, and no one else.
 

It is a given that the leader has the authority to launch....but he is NOT the only one that has to agree to the launch for it to happen.....yes we are off track with this argument as it relates to despotism.

You are the one arguing that a worst case scenario would be an escalation to the point of a nuclear strike....
Brass

Can you think of scenario worse than nuclear stikes?

...These descriptions of Armageddon you like to conjure is war on a global scale, my friend. You can't have it both ways.

"Like" to conjure war and Armageddon?   That is ridiculous.   In part the  responses are  to your earlier assertion that Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch as their missiles are outdated and faulty.  Which apparently you feel gives us the ability to go marching into Russian troops and kill em all and assume it ends there.  I don't think it will reach that point where we are actively participating to that degree...but if we did, I don't see Russia backing down...not in Ukraine...so (if you assume that is true) what might be the next logical step?  Is this place, under the totality of circumstances leading up to the battle worth the risk? 


Fathertime!   

[Gator]

2.  I've decided that you are not going to 'listen' regardless so I'm not interested in providing you examples, although there are some out there. 
3.  Even if there was NEVER a time in history of time where an olive branch or a lopsided settlement worked, that wouldn't disprove that it could work this particular time, under the right circumstances. 

You don't have an example, do you.  So just say it.  A man of integrity would.  We know from past episodes at RWD you are not such a man. 

Stick to your position implies that this was your position all along.  I don't recall you saying earlier you were going to accept Crimea being a part of Russia....I know I did, and you probably through a fit...although I'd have to go back and re-read the threads to say for sure. 

   

All along I thought Crimea was sovereign territory of Ukraine, yet I see no way that Russia would ever walk away now that it has annexed it.  Some time ago I expressed an opinion that Russia should pay Ukraine a princely sum for seizing it (remember, some accused me of being in the 19th C.).   Russia the aggressor and  bully will not pay.  Even if Russia were to offer time-discounted compensation for Ukraine's rental revenues, I am not certain that Ukraine would accept it if it meant dismissing its claim for return of Crimea.   

You OTOH proposed a win-win solution in which Russia could keep everything it seized provided it promised not to take more from Ukraine.  What a bunch of horseshit. 

[Gator]

Some comments to your strategic plan: ........................

To clarify, Donbass is never incorporated into Russia.  And Russia pays all costs for rebuilding what the Russian supported rebellion destroyed. 


Nice try in twisting my thoughts to favor Russia. 

As far as new energy sources, who knows in this wild market what will prove feasible in the near future (the price is expected to reach $33/bbl soon).  The Saudiis may be willing to sell oil to Ukraine, including delivery, for less money (on a BTU or kilocalorie basis) than Russia's natural gas.  The world now has 1-2 million bbl/day of excess supply and more supply is still coming on line. 

[fathertime]

You don't have an example, do you.  So just say it.  A man of integrity would.  We know from past episodes at RWD you are not such a man. 

Ha!  Just as I thought still upset and never intended on discussing issues in good faith...Glad I didn't buy your bologna!    Your own lack of integrity earlier got called out a few months back, and you have never been the same since...

   

All along I thought Crimea was sovereign territory of Ukraine, yet I see no way that Russia would ever walk away now that it has annexed it.  Some time ago I expressed an opinion that Russia should pay Ukraine a princely sum for seizing it (remember, some accused me of being in the 19th C.).   Russia the aggressor and  bully will not pay.  Even if Russia were to offer time-discounted compensation for Ukraine's rental revenues, I am not certain that Ukraine would accept it if it meant dismissing its claim for return of Crimea.   

You OTOH proposed a win-win solution in which Russia could keep everything it seized provided it promised not to take more from Ukraine.  What a bunch of horseshit. 

So now you admit you have changed your position although in that recent post you pretended like this was your position all along regarding Crimea. Maybe you can try to chuckle your way out of that one too!     


I see no reason to claim I took a different position regarding a potential win-win....It has never come to pass as the countries have taken the other option and decided to fight it out instead...eventually an end to fighting in the manner  I suggested may come to pass...or maybe not. 

Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:   

 

Fathertime!   

[Gator]

Fathertime, you are the supreme cockwomble. 

[fathertime]

Fathertime, you are the supreme cockwomble.

In a way I'm delighted you have such intense feelings towards me, and have the need to show them! 


Fathertime! 

[calmissile]

Although I don't claim to be a nuclear protocol expert some things are public knowledge:

Neither Putin or Obama is independently capable of launching a nuclear strike.  There are safeguards in place for the express purpose of not having one madman make a split second loco decision. In addition,  Military commanders have to cooperate regarding strike packages, launch codes among other things.  If this isn't being legally done, then cooperation will not be forthcoming.   

Fathertime!

Fathertime, as is often the case you don't  know what your talking about ( at least in the case of the protocols and procedures concerning our ICBM's)  I know nothing about what the Russian protocols are, but spent the better part of my career in the Air Force ICBM world (as a civilian engineer). I was part of the initial team that installed the first flight (10ea) of Minuteman I missiles plus the Launch Control Center at Malmstrom AFB at Great Falls, Montana.  Then followed the additional wings of Minuteman II and III missiles.  Following that I transferred to Vandenberg AFB and was on the launch team for Atlas F, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper (MX), and Small Missile (Midgetman) missile test launches.  I probably actively participated in 40 or so launches over my 23 years at VAFB. 

So, having worked on the weapon system from one end to the other for many years, it irks me when some writer (or blogger) makes ridiculous statements that demonstrate he/she doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

I order to avoid even remotely approaching any classified data, let me steer you to some government sources that will help you understand something about the topic of how our ICBM's are controlled.

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123409922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule

http://www.wired.com/2011/01/death-wears-a-snuggie/

There are two high level requirements that were of primary focus in the design of the weapon system.

1.  Maximun probablility that a launch order will be successfully executed.  This is from the time the President gives the order until first stage ignition.  This includes all the redundancies as well as all the safeguards to prevent deliberate attempts to prevent a launch.

2.  Maximum probability that an inadvertent launch will not occur either by malfunction, accident, or by deliberate means.

These two requirements are reviewed constantly and the weapon system has gone through continuous upgrades to ensure both of the requirements are 100% met.

As you will read in the links I have provided, once the president gives a war plan order to initiate a launch, there is no one that personally gets involved until the messages and codes are authenticated at each Launch Control Center (I think they are now called MAF's).  At least one of the Air Force sources describes the process of first Enabling the missiles, and then the process of multiple 'key turns' by different officers (at the same time) to launch.  There is also a description of the 'Inhibit' command.

So in summary Mr. Fathertime, your statement about a single president not having the ability to launch a nuclear response is inaccurate.  In reference to your comment about the possibility of a madman having the capability, please note the officer that was fired when he asked the question.  Any human interference in carrying out the order of the president would cause our nation and our enemies to question whether MAD is really a functional deterrent.

Now on the humerous side.................  I don't think our current president was even in ROTC let alone served in the military.  Maybe not even a boy scout.   How does that make you feel about half the country voting for someone with a community organizer background that has the sole power to initiate a nuclear attack?   

Perhaps in future elections we should all think about the awesome responsibility (and powers) of our president before we go to the polls.

[fathertime]

Fathertime, as is often the case you don't  know what your talking about ( at least in the case of the protocols and procedures concerning our ICBM's)  I know nothing about what the Russian protocols are, but spent the better part of my career in the Air Force ICBM world (as a civilian engineer). I was part of the initial team that installed the first flight (10ea) of Minuteman I missiles plus the Launch Control Center at Malmstrom AFB at Great Falls, Montana.  Then followed the additional wings of Minuteman II and III missiles.  Following that I transferred to Vandenberg AFB and was on the launch team for Atlas F, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper (MX), and Small Missile (Midgetman) missile test launches.  I probably actively participated in 40 or so launches over my 23 years at VAFB. 

So, having worked on the weapon system from one end to the other for many years, it irks me when some writer (or blogger) makes ridiculous statements that demonstrate he/she doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

I order to avoid even remotely approaching any classified data, let me steer you to some government sources that will help you understand something about the topic of how our ICBM's are controlled.

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123409922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule

http://www.wired.com/2011/01/death-wears-a-snuggie/

There are two high level requirements that were of primary focus in the design of the weapon system.

1.  Maximun probablility that a launch order will be successfully executed.  This is from the time the President gives the order until first stage ignition.  This includes all the redundancies as well as all the safeguards to prevent deliberate attempts to prevent a launch.

2.  Maximum probability that an inadvertent launch will not occur either by malfunction, accident, or by deliberate means.

These two requirements are reviewed constantly and the weapon system has gone through continuous upgrades to ensure both of the requirements are 100% met.

As you will read in the links I have provided, once the president gives a war plan order to initiate a launch, there is no one that personally gets involved until the messages and codes are authenticated at each Launch Control Center (I think they are now called MAF's).  At least one of the Air Force sources describes the process of first Enabling the missiles, and then the process of multiple 'key turns' by different officers (at the same time) to launch.  There is also a description of the 'Inhibit' command.

So in summary Mr. Fathertime, your statement about a single president not having the ability to launch a nuclear response is inaccurate.  In reference to your comment about the possibility of a madman having the capability, please note the officer that was fired when he asked the question.  Any human interference in carrying out the order of the president would cause our nation and our enemies to question whether MAD is really a functional deterrent.

Now on the humerous side.................  I don't think our current president was even in ROTC let alone served in the military.  Maybe not even a boy scout.   How does that make you feel about half the country voting for someone with a community organizer background that has the sole power to initiate a nuclear attack?   

Perhaps in future elections we should all think about the awesome responsibility (and powers) of our president before we go to the polls.

I would say that you know a weee bit more than I about the exact procedures of a nuclear missile launch....although I doubt you know it all...but thanks for the both the links and the explanation.  There is a lot of stuff that us *the public* which I would consider you a part of as well...wouldn't know...so I hold out the hope that it takes a little more than a President waking up and deciding to launch...reminds me of the movie The Dead Zone with Martin Sheen....


  If indeed it only takes the president (or Putin) to wake up and decide he wants to launch nuclear weapons and nothing can stop him, then I do find that surprising and appalling and more of a reason to give Putin and Russia a little wider berth in the current situation.


Fathertime!     

[fathertime]

[BillyB]

If indeed it only takes the president (or Putin) to wake up and decide he wants to launch nuclear weapons and nothing can stop him, then I do find that surprising and appalling and more of a reason to give Putin and Russia a little wider berth in the current situation.

Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran would all hope people in the free world will give them a free pass to accomplish their goals. If we do that, they will continue with their nuclear ambitions and increase their stockpiles.


Putin doesn't want to destroy Russia in a mutual destruction nuclear world so I don't think it will happen but Iran, China, and North Korea are watching the West's reaction to a nuclear armed nation with ambitions of conquest. What we do may determine what they do.

[calmissile]

I would say that you know a weee bit more than I about the exact procedures of a nuclear missile launch....although I doubt you know it all...

but thanks for the both the links and the explanation. 

There is a lot of stuff that us *the public* which I would consider you a part of as well...wouldn't know...so I hold out the hope that it takes a little more than a President waking up and deciding to launch...reminds me of the movie The Dead Zone with Martin Sheen....


  If indeed it only takes the president (or Putin) to wake up and decide he wants to launch nuclear weapons and nothing can stop him, then I do find that surprising and appalling and more of a reason to give Putin and Russia a little wider berth in the current situation.


Fathertime!   

Your right, I don't know the launch codes. Nor would I want to.     
In fact, unless things have changed, only the President has them.

Naturally the mechanism for the communication of the launch codes and war plan specifics are all encrypted and classified.  Bits and pieces to the process are hinted at in the various links.  An oversimplification of the explanation is to imagine that once the president has issued the order, the specifics of the order are propagated throughout the digital, encrypted system without the requirement for human intervention.  It is exactly what is needed if you want to be assured that the order will be reliably carried out.  Computers are much more reliable than humans.    

The system has always had this architecture and I believe it is also applied to many weapon systems.  The basic system architecture has never been classified, only the specifics.  If you are concerned about it, I am surprised you never researched how our control of our weapons are accomplished.

Just remember that the system is very well designed to make sure a launch order from the president cannot be prevented from being implemented and it also is very well protected from inadvertent launch by accident, system failures or deliberate attempts by humans.

As much as it scares you, it has always been implemented this way.  You are watching and being influenced by too many movies and science fiction.  If you have a weapon system it is for a purpose!  You want it to operate reliably and not subject to inadvertent or deliberate actions by terrorists or others, etc.

Another thing to remember (unclassified) is this  is a solid propellant missile.  Once the fuse is lit, it is on the way to the destination.  There is no recall command as in the case of the old bomber fleet.   This places a lot more responsibility on the president and the military.  You don't give the 'retaliate' command unless your are certain that a first strike  is in process.  There are a lot of political considerations before the president would issue the launch command.  In some circles during the cold war there were arguments that we should allow a nuke from Russia to land in the US before launching a retaliatory attack.  I have no idea what the thinking is now in DOD and the Presidents administration at the moment.  It would be all Top Secret and we will never know (hopefully).  The important thing to me/us is that we are prepared and will not be caught will our pants down if the political decision is to retaliate to a first strike attack.

[Изумруд]

Good article.

Russia's sub fleet preparedness was discussed a couple of months ago here if you're interested...

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18025.msg379721#msg379721

Brass

Thanks Brass.

[Shadow]

Shadow, you might wish to inform Vladimir that it was Georgia who attacked first.

Prior to the presidential election, United Russia paraded several generals around who claimed that the plans for attacking Georgia were drawn up during the prior term (of Putin) and the military was ordered to be ready. In August war broke out at the generals on the campaign trail claimed that it was a preemptive strike.

In 2012, Vladimir himself on television Q and A claimed it was a preemptive strike. Mr. Putin says that the FSB had uncovered a plot by Georgia to plant terrorists in Abkhazia in advance of the Sochi Olympics. He didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that Abkhazia was already a disputed province, already had Russian troops based in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia, and he didn't bother explaining how the Georgian government was going to accomplish this, nor where the supposed terrorists would hide while in those Russian-protected regions.

As to South Ossetia specifically, one would have to grossly ignorant not to understand the months of attacks on Georgian villages across the disputed border, at which Russian peace keeping troops were stationed, was a provocation and attempt to goad Georgia into responding. Further, Russia had warned Georgia not to continue the pursuit of someday becoming a potential NATO member.

Then, there was the little tiff between Putin and Medvedev in 2010. Watching Putin travel around the country and in his speeches taking credit for war in Georgia, Medvedev snapped back that no, it was he who gave the orders. Putin's handlers responded to that by reminding Medvedev that the plans for attacking Georgia had been hatched prior to his assumption of the presidency.

There is a lot of history here prior to 2008. Not only did Moscow warn Georgia against approaching NATO, but one must remember that even today Putin is convinced that Georgia trained, recruited and harbored Islamic terrorists to operate inside Chechnya. True, Georgia and Chechnya share much Caucasus's history, Georgia has been an officially Christian state since the year 337. Chechnya has been primarily Muslim for centuries. The two aren't exactly "best friends forever" material so could have reason to doubt Putin's suspicions.

There is a pattern with the man and it goes like this: Deny, blame the other guy, then eventually take credit.

Again, you seem to know  more about the sequence of events than even Vladimir, so I'd suggest that you contact the Kremlin and set him straight.

Putin is as clever in revising as anyone else. When I will lead the peace talks about Ukraine I will remind him.

[fathertime]

Your right, I don't know the launch codes. Nor would I want to.     
In fact, unless things have changed, only the President has them.

Naturally the mechanism for the communication of the launch codes and war plan specifics are all encrypted and classified.  Bits and pieces to the process are hinted at in the various links.  An oversimplification of the explanation is to imagine that once the president has issued the order, the specifics of the order are propagated throughout the digital, encrypted system without the requirement for human intervention.  It is exactly what is needed if you want to be assured that the order will be reliably carried out.  Computers are much more reliable than humans.    

The system has always had this architecture and I believe it is also applied to many weapon systems.  The basic system architecture has never been classified, only the specifics.  If you are concerned about it, I am surprised you never researched how our control of our weapons are accomplished.

Just remember that the system is very well designed to make sure a launch order from the president cannot be prevented from being implemented and it also is very well protected from inadvertent launch by accident, system failures or deliberate attempts by humans.

As much as it scares you, it has always been implemented this way.  You are watching and being influenced by too many movies and science fiction.  If you have a weapon system it is for a purpose!  You want it to operate reliably and not subject to inadvertent or deliberate actions by terrorists or others, etc.

Another thing to remember (unclassified) is this  is a solid propellant missile.  Once the fuse is lit, it is on the way to the destination.  There is no recall command as in the case of the old bomber fleet.   This places a lot more responsibility on the president and the military.  You don't give the 'retaliate' command unless your are certain that a first strike  is in process.  There are a lot of political considerations before the president would issue the launch command.  In some circles during the cold war there were arguments that we should allow a nuke from Russia to land in the US before launching a retaliatory attack.  I have no idea what the thinking is now in DOD and the Presidents administration at the moment.  It would be all Top Secret and we will never know (hopefully).  The important thing to me/us is that we are prepared and will not be caught will our pants down if the political decision is to retaliate to a first strike attack.

What you say could be all be true, and in addition to the president giving the order AT LEAST one other high ranking official has to agree.  That makes a lot more sense then having ONE PERSON make decide the fate of the world.  In my opinion having the fire order be a reasonable one, is worth the minor delay.  I would think that the high ranking officials would think this way also, and have a little top secret 'procedure book' of some sort that you wouldn't know about.    As trustworthy and reliable as Obama is, I still don't like the idea of him solely giving an order and that is all it takes to launch.  Putin with the same sole power isn't a good thought either.... 


I haven't claimed to be an expert on nuclear protocol, but getting the missiles in the air rapidly (to me) is not as important as getting them in the air for VERY good reason...so I really have my doubts about the president solely deciding this.  I would think top flight governments would have a more redundant system in place.


Fathertime!

[Gator]

Your own lack of integrity earlier got called out a few months back...

To refresh your memory (and this is in the archives):

1.  Soon after you joined RWD, you sent me a PM, requesting we talk on the phone about a fellow RWD member who had berated both of us in separate topics.

2.  We talked, and you closed by asking me to tag team with you against the RWD member.  I refused saying such was juvenile and not how RWD is suppose to operate.

3.  Time passed, and in another matter you and I debated against each other and in that discussion you not only disclosed to the forum the subject of our private talk, you embellished lied about what I said to you.

So who violated the integrity of a private call?  You, sir, are the violator.  Who lied?  You, sir, are the liar.

....and you have never been the same since....

You are correct.  I made a personal vow then to ignore you.  I broke my vow and engaged with you because I consider your "win-win" proposal idiotic.  And look at what happened.  I take full responsibility for this week's mess as I should have known better than to interact with you.   I know not to disturb a skunk yet did it anyway.  Now I must bathe away the stench. 

[fathertime]

Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran would all hope people in the free world will give them a free pass to accomplish their goals. If we do that, they will continue with their nuclear ambitions and increase their stockpiles.


Putin doesn't want to destroy Russia in a mutual destruction nuclear world so I don't think it will happen but Iran, China, and North Korea are watching the West's reaction to a nuclear armed nation with ambitions of conquest. What we do may determine what they do.

Hey Billyb!  You bring up a good point...I'd say there needs to be the right balance between how tough we are/act and being willing to negotiate and make the best of a bad situation.  From my POV Obama is walking that fine line pretty well right now.


Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

To refresh your memory (and this is in the archives):

1.  Soon after you joined RWD, you sent me a PM, requesting we talk on the phone about a fellow RWD member who had berated both of us in separate topics.

2.  We talked, and you closed by asking me to tag team with you against the RWD member.  I refused saying such was juvenile and not how RWD is suppose to operate.

3.  Time passed, and in another matter you and I debated against each other and in that discussion you not only disclosed to the forum the subject of our private talk, you embellished lied about what I said to you.

So who violated the integrity of a private call?  You, sir, are the violator.  Who lied?  You, sir, are the liar.
 

That is YOUR sanitized version of the events...YOU brought up the phone call and misrepresented some of the contents of it, all during a political discussion...and you did it out of anger....OF COURSE I corrected your embellishments...I think it is hilarious that even on this post you have embellished your role further!     


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

You must be losing it or something if making a strong argument against our involvement in Syria makes me Putin.  That is ridiculous...but Ok...I'm Putin then.   

I haven't posted that you are Putin. Let's refresh your memory...

I hope your Mr. Putin keeps that in mind.

He is just as much YOUR Putin as he is mine.

We'll revisit this.

Russia has given assistance to the regime in Syria, as they are friendly.  WE and (McCain)should NOT be trying to fund 'rebels and overthrow that regime...we should not be promoting wars it is NOT our business and leads to paranoia by other nations that don't want to abide by the US rules of the world!  Anyway, that is another subject.

Riiiight. Like I was saying your Putin.

Do you understand the context of what you were discussing now?

I'll explain further...

You are contracted is You're (pronoun, verb). ie. You are Putin/You're Putin

Your (possessive adjective). ie. Your Putin as in your candidate/horse/house, etc.

I hope this clears it up for you.

That is true, although Putin is no Stalin....yet....and hopefully he isn't in a position where millions are dead...the legislative/judiciary is stronger than it was under stalin...that makes a difference if somebody is a despot or not.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/putins-no-stalin-8991

Again you are becoming confused with the subject of what it is we're actually discussing. I did not state Putin was Stalin. What I gave you was Stalin as an example of a despot having/possessing nucs, legislature and judiciary. 

It is a given that the leader has the authority to launch....but he is NOT the only one that has to agree to the launch for it to happen.....yes we are off track with this argument as it relates to despotism.

Good, I'm glad you understand now. I've noted Calmissle has also clarified the procedure with you ( and with his expertise far more eloquently than I).

Can you think of scenario worse than nuclear stikes?

Deflective question. It is you who subscribes to the doomsday scenario. I don't.

"Like" to conjure war and Armageddon?   That is ridiculous.   In part the  responses are  to your earlier assertion that Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch as their missiles are outdated and faulty. 

 
I have never stated "Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch". What I have stated on numerous times over several topics is that Russia does not have the ability to launch a winnable preemptive or first strike. The response to a strategic attack would be overwhelming, destructive and final. There is a difference.

Which apparently you feel gives us the ability to go marching into Russian troops and kill em all and assume it ends there.  I don't think it will reach that point where we are actively participating to that degree...but if we did, I don't see Russia backing down...not in Ukraine...so (if you assume that is true) what might be the next logical step?  Is this place, under the totality of circumstances leading up to the battle worth the risk?

You're attributing feelings to me I haven't  made known or even intimated and I've already answered this question.

Brass

[fathertime]

I haven't posted that you are Putin. Let's refresh your memory...
 
 

As I've already explained..Putin is yours as much as he is mine...the contraction issue notwithstanding!

Again you are becoming confused with the subject of what it is we're actually discussing. I did not state Putin was Stalin. What I gave you was Stalin as an example of a despot having/possessing nucs, legislature and judiciary. 

Putin doesn't meet the qualifications as a despot...he doesn't have to total power necessary....Stalin did meet the qualifications.

   

Good, I'm glad you understand now. I've noted Calmissile has also clarified the procedure with you ( and with his expertise far more eloquently than I).
 

 
Although Calmissile id a good job of discussing the nuclear protocol from what he knows...That doesn't include that there are protocols that he is not aware of.  I don't think it is convincing that our country would have a protocol that allows for a president to simply decide to fire missiles without provocation...During an actual live exchange I'll concede he probably does (as he should)...but not preemptively and without a real-time threat in progress. 

 
I have never stated "Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch". What I have stated on numerous times over several topics is that Russia does not have the ability to launch a winnable preemptive or first strike. The response to a strategic attack would be overwhelming, destructive and final. There is a difference.

 

You have said a little more than this regarding Russia's abilities, and by logical extension ability to fire missiles, like this:[/size]

Western media like to build him up for news copy/sound bite but at the end of the day he's really no more of a threat militarily or geopolitically than Hussein or Gaddafi.   Brass

 But that is unimportant for the moment.  There will be no 'winners' if nukes fall.  What it would take us to make it  'overwhelming, destructive, and final" would be ruinous on a global scale.   Like it or not Russia is our equal in that respect.

 

You're attributing feelings to me I haven't  made known or even intimated and I've already answered this question.

Brass

[/size]

[size=78%]


My apologies if I attributed feelings that you don't have.  Based on your prior posts, among other things,you are calling for direct military intervention in Ukraine from NATO which of course includes us...The way that plays out is a whole lot of killing....or maybe you see it playing out differently.


Fathertime!   

[BillyB]

Hey Billyb!  You bring up a good point...I'd say there needs to be the right balance between how tough we are/act and being willing to negotiate and make the best of a bad situation.  From my POV Obama is walking that fine line pretty well right now.


Fathertime!

I think there shouldn't have been a need for balance. We shouldn't have gone this far. A tough initial response by the West is what was needed but didn't happen. Russians respect those who are tough. Putin viewed sanctions as actions of the weak.


After Yanukovych left office, Putin claimed Russian citizens were in danger in Ukraine. Some of us knew this was BS and should've called him on it. Obama should have sent American troops to Ukraine on a humanitarian mission to protect those Russians in danger and Putin probably would've backed off knowing we called his bluff.


There is some debate on what conditions America and a few European nations must honor the Budapest Memorandum and come to Ukraine's defense in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes. Obama could've taken the high road and honored that Memorandum telling Putin we have no choice but to liquidate your forces if you choose to enter Ukraine. Putin wants to win and does care about Russian lives so he won't enter a war he can't win.


All these current problems in Ukraine and Russia could've been over a long time ago if we took a hard stance but the West decided on sanctions that Putin views as a weak response by weak leaders. As a response to sanctions Putin does something crazy by hurting his own nation when creating sanctions that limit trade with the West and arrests oligarchs which in turn scares investors and their money out of Russia. With each step in sanctions the West applies, Putin doesn't back off but gets Russia more involved in Ukraine and wants to show he will defy the West. He's committed and he would face humiliation if he backs down now, especially if he backs down to weak leaders.


Ukrainian people has shown a willingness to defend their country but even with all their patriots, their military is so weak that they can't get rid of a few thousand rebels and Russian soldiers. They need training and weapons. The rebels and a handful of Russian soldiers aren't winning either. They aren't strong enough to march to Kiev. When the weather gets better, Putin may decide on a full invasion realizing sanctions will never end so he might as well get this over with or, he may decide to make the conflict in Ukraine last for years while continuing to claim Russia is not contributing to any of the problems Ukraine is experiencing. Bowing down to sanctions is the last thing I expect from Putin. Weak actions from weak leaders will not discourage him but it will 100% piss him off.

[JayH]

BB-- you have lost the plot-your retrospective comments do not meet what was happening.
Your comments on the military is just plain wrong--if Russian regulars had not reinforced the hired mercenaries-& Russian troops already in Ukraine back in July  they would have been defeated back then.
Sanctions are proving much more effective than anyone thought possible-- you write as you might have back 6-8 months ago when there were many unknowns-- and now many of your comments miss the mark--like previously when I made that exact same point to you.

[BillyB]

Your comments on the military is just plain wrong--if Russian regulars had not reinforced the hired mercenaries-& Russian troops already in Ukraine back in July  they would have been defeated back then.

The Ukrainian military always had and still has numerical superiority over the rebels and Russian troops but they can't gain ground so Poroshenko had to agree to a cease fire to buy time to enlist help from the West. Ukrainian soldiers may have the spirit to fight but they are poorly led, poorly trained and poorly equipped. They can't beat a smaller force on their home turf. Remember Poroshenko's first day in office? He say he would get the rebels out in 24 hrs or something to that tune. He greatly overestimated his military's abilities and readiness. Overestimating one's abilities can get a lot of people killed. Poroshenko to his credit realized his military's capabilities. You should too. The Ukraine's military is not capable of securing it's country against a much smaller force. They need serious help.

Sanctions are proving much more effective than anyone thought possible

Sanctions never worked with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. They surely won't work with a major power like Russia. Sanctions will only delay the inevitable. Hurting Russia's economy isn't the goal of the sanctions. The goal of the sanctions is to get Russia to back off Ukraine and give back Crimea. It's not working. Sanctions rarely hurt the leaders of the nations that it's applied to. Putin and his cronies will always live the good life. The people will suffer and they will either hate Putin, which hasn't happened on a large scale, or acquire a desire to kill you. If you get killed by a rebel during a visit to Ukraine, some of our Russian members may feel joy and feel that you deserved it. They hate many of the things you've written here. When enough Russians get angry and have the desire to kill or see Westerners suffer, Putin will have the green light for war. Unlike the small, uncooperative nations previously mentioned, Russia has the option of war as a way to lift sanctions and inflict major economic damage to those applying the sanctions.