In the thread where INVAR waves "goodbye for now," Nikoli says,

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DETERENCE AGAINST THE RUSSIANS FIRING A FIRST STRIKE AT US.

Let me say this to start with: the stealing of our nuclear secrets by China has upset me, too. I think the Clinton adminstration is guilty of criminal negligence (if not outright treason) in this matter ... and I happen to be a registered Democrat, FWIW.

Is there an increased threat? Yep, no doubt about it. But the threat is in the form of our decreased ability to influence matters overseas; we are no more likely to be "nuked" now than we were 10 years ago.

The real nuclear threat is, and always has been, submarines. If you make a submarine quiet enough, it can sneak right up to the coastline and launch without warning.

The Russians and Chinese don't have this capability at present, but WE DO. A single Ohio-class submarine could blast Russia or China back to the Dark Ages -- and they know it. The fact is, we have SEVERAL of these on station in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at any given moment.

How good are these subs? They're the best in the world. They define what "quiet" is. Our own people have a very difficult time tracking them with the best sonar equipment available.

(Tom Clancy doesn't exaggerate this in his books, by the way -- if anything, he understates it.)

The real danger here is that Clinton is perceived as weak overseas, and I'm not understating that. (In fact, I think one reason why he was so quick to jump into Kosovo is because he's trying to demonstrate to all the Furriners that he still has a backbone.)

But the Chinese and Russians aren't complete idiots. There IS a powerful deterrent still in place, on station 24/7, hundreds of feet down in the ocean. Believe me, they know about it. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 28, 1999

Answers

Are these great subs compliant?

-- Wiseguy (got@it.gov), May 28, 1999.

Hey Stephen, I agree with most of what you wrote!!!

Well...except for this, "we are no more likely to be "nuked" now than we were 10 years ago." I think we're more vulnerable now than we've been since around the early '80's and I really don't want to think that way.

Just my opinion, however. I'd love to be wrong!

Mike =================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 28, 1999.

Washington (AP) - In a special hearing today, Congressman Cox submitted the second of his sub-committee's reports on espionage and China. The report list several damaging details that reveal critical submarine technology was systematically stolen by Chinese operatives working for private corporate contractors involved in top secret submarine research and design.

In an unrelated story, the Democratic National Party returned newly discovered campaign contributions from possible illegal sources connected to Chinese military naval officials. Party officials had no immediate explanation, except to say that somehow it was Reagan's fault.

-- Hawthorne (00@00.com), May 28, 1999.

Poole.

That is the first post I've ever seen from you that has a grasp on the facts. However, a stupid or deperate leader could make that moot.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 28, 1999.

Wiseguy,

Yes they are compliant.

On a different note, Here is an interesting site for the chinese millitary.

http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 28, 1999.

Stephen,

Just curious. Did you ever hear anything about Russian submarines?

"But the Chinese and Russians aren't complete idiots."

Do you really think they are partial idiots?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 28, 1999.

Perhaps poole you would like to explain to Skousen, Nyquist, Ruddy, Stratfor Intelligence, Dr. Coleman, Whitley, Kissenger, Senator Inhofe, Nikoli, myself and many other folks on this forum the error of our ways.

I find it strange that you would start this thread without once having contributed anything to ANY of the other threads concerning this subject. Why not? Why this, now? Running out of embedded chip challenges?

you really are pretty transparent, but if you get your jollies doing this...

SO000...

You've read the hunt for Red Oktober, maybe even seen Sean Connery in the movie, and you now come up with this lame-assed theory on the MAD scenario as it purportedly stands now.

I guess running a big boomer in your imagination fits in with your constant trolling on this forum.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 28, 1999.

Sir you never cease to amaze me. An expert at every thing and every subject. Ah! But you seem to dis-remember the flap about the Japaneese selling the Russians "our" advanced propeller technology for submarines several years ago. Nor have you checked lately or you might find that our minute man sites missle sites (those that are not completely de-comissioned) are in a state of non- alert, a state I might add which requires at least thirty minutes to spin the missle up to where they can be fired. Or the other little minor factor that the trident firing subs have had their codes pulled. And the other little ditty our prez has put in place, you now, the one where we won't fire unless or untill an incoming missle has exploded oon target (read that as american soil i.e. cities, bases etc. You know! Americans.) Now if you will check you will find that both the russians and we "plan" a "time on target" firing pattern for our/their missles...This means that all missles arrive on target at the same time. And we won't fire untill an actual explosion on one of cities? Sir, instead of flaming, spamming and generally making a fool out of your self. I suggest that you spend more time reading the past news articles at any libaray, Perhaps some day you may learn to think for your self instead of thinking the party line. But you won't. Perhaps some time you would care to elaborate how such a hugely successful IT business man as your self can run a business while at the same time spending hours making an ass of himself of this forum. Never mind! You won't listen; liberals never do.It is when they have their mouths open that their brains go into neutral.

This is the first time that I have posted here. And very likely the last. So howl away Poole. You have only a lttle longer to play the court jester for your masters (who ever they are). Because I think that our (R)esident (L)etcher is about to get us in WW III and then let's see you talk your way out of that one. May be you will stand , like the cartoon of the little mouse, his finger held on high at the swooping hawk coming for him.. your, the last great act of defiance.

SHIVERING

-- SHIVERING (Bunker@30feet.com), May 28, 1999.

I'm not as comfortable about the subs acting as a deterance as in the past. I seem to recall in 1998 that our top-secret ocean maps were given to China & Russia to reduce their fears of a US Y2K first- strike. These maps describe in great detail the ocean currents, at various depths and densities, which reportedly are used by subs to hide from radar.

Someone also posted previously that a sub can only fire one missle before being a "sitting duck". According to that post, after a sub launches a single missle, its position is known, and the sub is easy to sink.

Finally, unlike the US, doesn't Russia have a substantial anti- balistic missle system (not, BTW, a joke like the US "Patriot" system)?

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), May 28, 1999.

Also, we have more players in the nuclear club. Missles and bombers are not the only way to deliver a nuclear weapon, especially a tactical size one.

We have some pretty open boarders. Ask any international drug smuggler.

I give thanks for the FBI's and the service Intelligence office's efforts at protecting us from terrorism of various nasty sorts. But it's an end game. Someone will get through eventually. Nukes? Biowarfare? Chemical? I don't know. If you are at ground zero or near it, the only difference will be in how fast you die.

Back to my first statement, the "Cold War" was actually a much more stable situation than our current one. Too many of the players care too little about individuals in their society compared to ours. Like that line from "Braveheart": "But, we'll hit our own men! That's OK, we have reserves...."

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), May 28, 1999.

Stephen M. Poole, CET

Want more info re: Chinese nukes check out this website.

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/ch-war.htm

MA Tuowen

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The following information on the Chinese Military was compiled from various sources on the Internet (acknowledgment omitted). This information in no way represents the whole picture of the PLA. PLA guards its secrets quite well and it is extremely diff icult for other countries to conduct spying activities in China (because Chinese are harder to buy with money?)

Chinese ICBMs Chinese Name West name Range Warhead Notes DongFeng-1 ? 600 km 1500Kg HE ? No longer in service DF-2 CSS-1 1250 20KtTNT No longer in service DF-3 CSS-2 2650 3Mt Nuke DF-3A CSS-2 2800 Nuke Multi heads DF-4 CSS-3 4750 2Mt Nuke DF-5 CSS-4 12000 5Mt Nuke DF-5A CSS-4 13000 5Mt Nuke DF-6 ? 19000 ? Multi heads DF-7 ? 15000 ? Multi heads DF-11(M11) CSS-7 300 500Kg HE DF-15(M9) CSS-6 600 500Kg HE DF-21 CSS-5 1800 500Kt Nuke M-7 ? 180 500Kg HE For export only M-18 ? 1000 ? HE for export only JuLang-1 CSS-N-3 1700 500Kt Submarine launched JL-2 CSS-NX-4 8000 ? (multi) Sub Launched

The strength of Chinese strategic force is unknown; the estimated number of warheads is 2,500, with 140-150 produced each year. Most of the ICBMs are hidden in tunnels in the mountains (only 4 DF-5 are in silos - the figured cited in America as being th e total of China's ICBMs!). The estimated length of the underground tunnels about 1,000 metesr deep is 2,000 km. Chinese missile production capacity is also unknown. The Western intelligence agencies estimate that China has only a dozen of DF-3s; note t hat China sold 120 DF-3s to Saudi Arabia, delivered so quickly that U.S. did not have time to react.

The M-9 was the one tested recently. The export version M-9's precision is 300 meters.

Firing sequence is simple:

Check things are functioning Zero the inertia guidance system Input target coordinates Fire (the missile will calculate how to get there)

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), May 28, 1999.

SHIVERING please continue to post you have a good tone.

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), May 28, 1999.

SHIVERING wrote "...are in a state of non- alert, a state I might add which requires at least thirty minutes to spin the missle up to where they can be fired. ...And the other little ditty our prez has put in place, you now, the one where we won't fire unless or untill an incoming missle has exploded oon target"

Two points: 1) strategy warning comes measured in days or weeks (maybe even months), plenty of time to "get ready" and 2) our prez writes the policy and changes the policy based on his perceptions; he can put any number of policies in place at any time, many have come and gone in the last twenty years.

Jon, I don't know about the cold war being more stable. There were many times during the cold war that we came extremely close to war with russia (sorry no links but I was there). It's not the cold war (or lack of) causing an unstable situation but the prez whittling down our military capabilities and the American people accepting it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 28, 1999.

Like many other people born before 1930, I've had my share of serious wars. WW2 (AUS, Infantry, ETO), Korea, Vietnam. Plus a bunch of local skirmishes. And what was called the "Cold War." From about 1955 on, the U.S. has been vulnerable to just this sort of attack. It hasn't happened. Not once. Check it out.

According to several contributors to this thread, we're still at great risk of nuclear attack. For much the same reasons. Assuming the worst case claimed here, isn't it peculiar that the U.S. hasn't yet been blown away? If they have all the cards now, as claimed, what can be holding the rascals back? It sure ain't our charm.

Maybe they know something.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 28, 1999.

One of the items sold to China was a radar capable of finding submarines deep under the surface. Apparently it's in the early stages, not really practical yet, but they've got the theory anyway. More importantly, the Russians have an extensive civil defense system and apparently have ballistic missile defense--not a fancy "star wars" system, just big radars and nuclear-tipped interceptors. (See Weinberger's 1998 book The Next War.) Unlike us, they're not terrified of exploding nukes high over their own territory--it's a lot better than having them explode on the ground. And I'm skeptical about this claim that the Russians don't have decent nuclear attack submarines.

One of our submarines may be able to bomb us back to the dark ages, because of our lack of civil defense, but it won't do the same to them.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), May 28, 1999.

Maria,

Your two points mystify me. What in the world is a strategy warning? And what makes you think we will have time to get ready? And even if we could get ready, what makes you think we have enough to answer with?

On your second point: What makes you think this president will change his policy? He has already said in PDD 60 we will absorb a first strike before we retaliate.

Poole,

Do you realize that submarine commanders cannot fire without the President supplying the firing code?

Do you realize that in accordance with START the U.S. must have at least half of its submarine fleet in port at any one time?

Do you understand that Russia has over 10,000 missiles ready to blow up any incoming missiles? Yes, a few of our nukes might get through which is why they have a civil defense, stockpiled food etc, and have built large underground cities.

I use to think the our subs was the trump card in deterrence and MAD but no longer.

Furthermore, don't let Nik see your post. He will embarrass your assessment.

b

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), May 28, 1999.

Tom, good point, one that I've tried to get across but can't.

BB, Strategic warning is different from tactical warning. I have worked in the "warning" business for some 15 years; I know what I'm talking about and I'll try to explain it to you. Everyone (I think) knows about tactical warning; it comes when we detect a missile launch. There are web sites and tours of NORAD, so the public can get a up close view of our systems at work. Strategic warning (as the name implies) happens when global situations change, other countries begin to deploy certain systems, change posture levels, and so on. Our intelligence is closely tied to these global indicators. Strategic warning went off many times in the past, most notably the Cuban missile crisis. Does that explain it?

Second point was that I've seen many presidential directives in the past, working for the military. They come and they go very easily. Some of them are conflicting. Sorry, I'm jaded about their significance as opposed to others on this forum.

Firing takes an order from the prez. That movie with Denzel Washington was pretty accurate.

Where did you get that 1/2 number at port? Sorry, it's wrong but I can't say what the correct number is.

I've argued with Nik many times. His assessment of Russian capabilites (especially in civil defense) is very inaccurate. Yes they have many missiles but as Tom points out they've many missiles for some time and haven't fired one.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 28, 1999.

BB, no need for me to get wound up on this again, you and the others have already blown the opening post out of the water. Just a couple of points which have been left out. We are keeping four out of eighteeen of the Ohio(trident) subs on station. The others are always in port, where they would be destroyed in a first strike. The DOD recently reported that the ELF antenna arrays and radio equipment are not y2k compliant and cannot be made so, they will have to be replaced and this cannot possibly be done(their assesment) in the time remaining until rollover. Further we have only two of these antenna's and they would also be destroyed in first strike, rendering communications with the four Tridents inoperative, no communications no launch codes. EMP pulse and residual static charging and ionization of the atmosphere would render regular radio communications useless for an extended period of time following a massive first strike. Soviet defectors have indicated that the russians already have agents equipped with suitcase nukes on alert in the U.S. awaiting orders to make tactical strikes against command and control facilities to be coordinated with a strike, which if succesful would destroy any reactive abilty we retain. Nyquist latest report indicates the Russians have put nearly 100 nuclear subs to sea since the bombing campaign began. I saw a post two days ago on Frugals board that stated Clinton had shut down SONUS in 97, and it remains offline. I haven't been able to confirm this though. I might also add that even the DOD openly acknowledges that Cheyenne Mountain is no longer invulnerable to nuclear attack. Russian advances in penetrator warheads now assure it will be destroyed in the opening salvo.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 28, 1999.

CHINA READIES INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE TEST May 28, 1999 The South China Morning Post reported yesterday that China is planning to test an intercontinental ballistic missile, the sea-to- surface Julang-2 (JL-2) missile, with a range of more than 8,000km before the end of the year. The JL-1 ICBM was successfully tested from submarines in the 1980s. Analysts say the missile could be operational by next year and would carry either a warhead of 2.5 megatons or three 90 kiloton warheads.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times reported yesterday that new congressional documents reveal that "China stole secrets on every deployed U.S. nuclear missile warhead in recent years and now has 20 long-range missiles aimed at the United States." Thought I might contribute something

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), May 28, 1999.

Thank you Nik for some "sanity" if that is the right word here.

Maria,

"1) strategy warning comes measured in days or weeks (maybe even months"

what planet are you on?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 28, 1999.

Please go look at the www.abcnews.com story. Written in WSJ today that we are closer than anytime in the past decade to nuclear war. Anyone know the url for the nuclear war countdown clock?

-- (cannot-say@this.time), May 28, 1999.

Andy, read my explanation to BB then ask me questions.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 28, 1999.

Thanks Nik for the homework. I looked in past threads for the info on subs you posted before but came up empty.

Maria,

What do you mean that you worked in the warning business for fifteen years? For the DOD?

You said, "Our (strategic) intelligence is closely tied to these global factors."

That is what concerns us Maria. Yes, maybe we were on the ball during the Cuban crisis with a President who understood deterrence and the communist threat but it is exactly our present strategic intelligence that is the problem. Here is the evidence:

America's intelligence failure

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

Let's put the Cox Committee's report in perspective. Last year Russia and China officially announced a "strategic partnership." In the words of the Chinese government, this partnership was founded to challenge the "perceived global dominance of the United States." Did our vaunted CIA anticipate this new alliance between Russia and China? Probably they were caught napping, like the time Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, or when India conducted a number of surprise nuclear tests in May 1998. Judging from U.S. foreign policy, there has been no official reaction to the new Moscow-Beijing axis. From all external appearances, the U.S. intelligence community has not yet recognized that the "former" Communist Bloc is reappearing under a new guise. And yet, we were warned of this impending Russian-Chinese partnership as far back as 1984, by a Russian KGB defector named Golitsyn. We were told of a secret strategy of Russian-Chinese collusion. We were told that America was still the "main enemy" of the Chinese, and that one day Russia would unite with China into "one clenched fist." But few believed these warnings, because most Americans assumed that the FBI and CIA would have long ago discovered any Sino-Soviet collusion, and American policy would have been adjusted to meet this challenge.

Unfortunately, America's intelligence and counterintelligence functions are tertiary, and will never be allowed to interfere with the making of money, which is primary. As President Coolidge once said: "The business of America is business." And as it happens, American business has become deeply involved in China.

Therefore, the bad news about Russia and China has been ignored. Espionage has been tolerated. Human rights abuses have been excused. But the intelligence failure goes deeper than the sociology of the market and our desire to make money from cheap Chinese labor. America's inability to protect vital secrets also stems from national laxness, hedonism, and a desire for convenience.

America's prosperity has led it away from the call to arms of President Kennedy, who asked Americans "to pay any price, to bear any burden" in the struggle against totalitarianism. After Kennedy's assassination we began a long retreat, first in Southeast Asia, then in Africa. Under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush we snuggled up to the Chinese Communists, the world's foremost butchers and murderers. Clinton has followed this example, with his own special twist. Now we're in a strategic mess, and it's entirely our own fault. Every time we buy that cheap item that says "Made in China," we're adding to the problem.

In this context, the FBI and CIA do not exist in a vacuum. These agencies cannot avoid sharing in the faults and failings of the American people. And so, as the American people softened, the FBI and CIA softened too. America's failure to cope with Communist subversion and penetration in the 1940s and 50s was a small failure. Small at first. The atomic bomb spies, Julius and Ethel Rosenburg, were caught and convicted. They fried in the electric chair on June 19, 1953. The chemist, Harry Gold, was sentenced to 30 years for giving away atomic secrets gleaned from Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, a friend and classmate of Julius Rosenberg, also got a 30-year sentence. But American vigilance lost its edge. The espionage situation gradually worsened in the 1960s and '70s. By the 1980s we had a virtual explosion of traitors and spies.

If you track the espionage cases in this country from 1953 to 1999, you will see direct evidence of the increasing decay and rottenness of the intelligence side of our security establishment. Seventeen major espionage cases were brought into the limelight between 1984 and '85 alone. Consequently, the year 1985 became "the Year of the Spy."

Among the more spectacular cases of the 1980s: 1) Edward Lee Howard, a CIA employee, fled to the Soviet Union after his espionage was discovered; 2) The infamous Walker spy ring consisted of Navy Warrant Officer John Walker, his brother Arthur Walker (a retired naval officer), and Jerry Whitworth (Navy radioman). The Walker spy ring went undetected for 17 years; 3) Glenn Souther, a Navy satellite photography expert, is believed to have stolen the Navy's nuclear war plan. He successfully escaped to the Soviet Union in 1986 where he was given the rank of major in the KGB. Souther was an ideological convert to Communism. Souther's wife suspected him after their divorce, and contacted the Office of Naval Intelligence, who sent someone out to interview her. But naval intelligence did not follow through.

There is no doubt the United States was seriously penetrated by Soviet agents in the 1940s and 50s. A top-level U.S. official named Alger Hiss was -- indisputably -- a Soviet agent. But do we imagine it ended with him?

In December of 1984, then-FBI Director William H. Webster stated, "We have more people charged with espionage right now than ever before in our history. ..."

The spies we caught in the 1980s were military and intelligence personnel. At the time, nobody was looking at the American business community, or at our politicians. We know that politicians around the world have been recruited and blackmailed by the Chinese and Russian intelligence services. Can we honestly assume that our country has been immune to this sort of penetration?

In 1985, Sen. Malcolm Wallop reacted to the espionage problem in America, saying: "There are far too many in the intelligence community who either do not understand counterintelligence or who, understanding its concepts, have climbed to the top of their career ladders by opposing it."

Some might say that espionage against the United States isn't a serious problem. After all, America is an invincible superpower. Our enemies have always been weak and pathetic. But the former Director of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral William Studeman, says that the espionage of the 1980s had "powerful war-winning implications for the Soviet side."

The same must be said about the espionage of the 1990s.

Could it be that the FBI and CIA are clueless, that they have failed miserably at the intelligence game, that the United States has been tricked and outmaneuvered by its adversaries time and time again?

Overall, there is nothing that should surprise us in the Cox Committee's report. The Chinese stole secrets from every major U.S. weapons project for the past 20 years. What else could we have expected, given our laxness?

Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore were penetrated by Chinese agents. Why not? Who would have stopped them, other than the New York Times? Secrets from seven U.S. nuclear warheads were compromised. (Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were there first.)

Electromagnetic weapons technology has also been taken. These could be used to bring down satellites or sink our submarines. Are we getting to the powerful, war-winning implications yet?

The citizens of this country need to harden themselves, to harden their thinking on these issues. The fight against treason and espionage depends on zero tolerance. Now that we are facing a combined Chinese-Russian threat, it's time to get serious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), May 28, 1999.

Maria, I think people understand the concept of a strategic warning. But it just isn't relevant to their points.

They are specifically concerned with a massive 'tactical' strike launched quickly without significant 'strategic' warning. You know, secrecy... ? Although if one cares to look, there's plenty of 'strategic' warning right now...

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 28, 1999.

BB, you believe this report? You actually believe ...It's not worth the response. I could counter through each sentence in the report with facts not some opinion but... I feel you (and Nik and Andy) are beyond any rational reasoning.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 28, 1999.

Maria,

Please pray for us.

But just for fun, in the likely case that some ray of light might just get through the dense darkness, I would carefully read your line by line response to Nyquist.

I would also like to hear your response to Blue. He pretty much has hit the kernel I was intending to get to.

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), May 28, 1999.

BB, Who's nyquist? BTW sorry so the flip remark.

Blue, sorry you can have an attack without the strategic warning. Attacks don't occur totally under cover. Attacks (if they are to be successful) require mobilization and that kind of mobilization can not go unnoticed. I've seen this mobilization in the past. I know what it takes and it is very apparent. That's why I say we came real close in the past but nothing happened. No attack happens out of the blue.

Another thing I keep trying to get across is that not only military posture, but also economic and government factors come into play for war planning.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 28, 1999.

Maria,

I appreciate your point of view, especially regarding the differences between tactical and strategic planning.

If possible, especially given your last post where you mention government and economic factors, can you give a personal assessment of how you view the world situation today?

I've never, in my lifetime, seen a world so out of balance or on the edge of chaos. Thus, my response to Stephen that I disagree about the possibility of a nuclear attack being the same as it was 10 years ago. It seems to me that with the proliferation of nuclear technology and the arms race going on around the world and the black market arms availability that exists today this world is much more dangerous than it was during the official "cold war".

I would love to hear your opinion regarding the world today and what you feel are the likely strategic plans at this time if you can offer them.

One quick point regarding my appreciation of this thread. IMHO, the truth must lie somewhere between absolute fear of nuclear attack and the comfort of having a "nuclear deterrence". I'm sure there is a lot of misinformation, disinformation, etc. that we hear and read about. I'm sure that there are efforts to manipulate opinion and information. I'm totally naive about what exactly may be going on behind the closed doors of the power brokers of this world. So, I am left to forced to realize that even if the truth is somewhere between fear and comfort I'm still left fearful and the thought of a nuclear detterence gives me no real comfort.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 28, 1999.

I hate nuclear weapons. But I'm glad that we've got them, because that's the ONLY thing that has prevented their use for the past 50 years: the almost certain knowledge that, if you use them against us, we will find some way to retaliate against you.

The public is generally unaware of this, but we have been very close to a nuclear crisis several times in the past few decades. In 1995, for example, the Norwegians launched a missile (after informing the Russians beforehand), and yet some of their military STILL mistook it for a Trident launch ... and went to full alert. Some quick talking across the Atlantic managed to defuse that one before it became a disaster.

(I trust Bill Clinton about as far as I could throw him, but I give his administration credit for talking that one out of the "Crisis" category.)

We have decided to change our posture from "fire on launch" to "fire on impact" to help further defuse the situation, and have encouraged the other nuclear powers to agree to this. Why? BECAUSE OF INCIDENTS LIKE THE ONE JUST MENTIONED. Early-detection systems are flawed and can result in mistakes.

I wish there was some verifiable way to destroy every single one of the things. But there ISN'T. Therefore, I'm stuck with assuring myself that any enemy of the United States knows that a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on us will be met with an overwhelming response. Since we don't have bios and chems in any significance, our standard response will be a NUKE. They know this, too.

I was addressing Nikoli's statement, which was incorrect. He makes further patently false statements above; for example, that only 4 Trident-carrying subs are on station at a time. Wrong; it's 10. We still use the Blue Crew/Gold Crew scheme (ie, two separate crews for each sub) to ensure that as many as possible are on station at any given time).

As for communications with the subs, the VLF array method is only one of many. There are a host of ways (some of which you obviously don't know about, and I see no need to discuss them here) for command to talk to the subs.

The President must authorize release; you're right about that. But there's a fallback chain of command if the President is taken out. To present the idea that assassinating Mr. Clinton would somehow prevent us from launching is worse than silly ... and our enemies know THAT, too.

Further, Nikoli, you completely sidestepped the most important statement that I made above: A SINGLE OHIO-CLASS SUB COULD KNOCK RUSSIA OR CHINA BACK TO THE DARK AGES -- and they KNOW this.

I'm not interested in a detailed nitpick here. Are we at risk? Yup, and have been for DECADES. Is the risk greater now? Marginally.

I wish I could take some of you people back to the 70's at the Carter Administration, when I became a survivalist-type. I read everything I could get my hands on, and became convinced that the Russkies were planning a surprise nuclear attack. This is deja vu for me; I see the SAME ARGUMENTS here all over again; the names and details have been changed, but the plot is the same.

You have a choice: you can choose whether to live in a constant state of fear, or to make prudent preparations and get on with your life. (I made those preparations many years ago, long before Y2K ever came along. I think EVERYONE should do that.)

I was simply addressing a patently false statement from Nikoli. He is NOT an expert on this; he has made other statements that I know for a FACT to be false. I answered this one because, every now and again, I get tired of seeing him repost crap from World Net Daily and other far-right wacko publications.

You guys continue anticipating the apocalypse, believing the worst of everything and eventually becoming scared of your own shadows.

Me? I've got a life to get on with. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 28, 1999.

Stephen,

God, how I hate to say this. But for once, I agree with (almost all of) what you said. There are other methods than VLF. There are back ups and catch-22's built into the system.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), May 28, 1999.

Mr. Poole, The Number I gave for Tridents on Station comes from last months article from the American Association of Atomic Scientist Bulletin. Now where is your source for the number you give?

A policy of launch on verifacation of launch may be flawed but a policy of launch on verification of impacts is suicide. Your opening post was full of crap, and your line of reasoning following it is just a bad.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 28, 1999.

Come on poole you started this thread lets have some considered refutations... stop dodging the issue - answers please, point by point...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 28, 1999.

Mike, I think you hit on it when you wrote, I've never, in my lifetime, seen a world so out of balance or on the edge of chaos. From my experience in analyzing these matters, chaos does not beget war. Internal chaos does bring about civil conflict, for example, the revolution in Russia, the civil war, and others. But on a global level, I dont think so. Looking back on the other world wars, certain mobilization took place in relatively stable governments. The Germans had a fairly strong economy. I think economics play a more important role than military. Yeah, they have the weapons but it takes more money to fight a war than just the missiles. Russias economy was much more stable a few years back, even if it was bad for the second class. Their media control kept civil unrest down. Their political structure seemed sound (dictators have a way of doing that). None of these factors are in play now and thats to our benefit. Their chaos leaves them less likely to attack than a few years back. Their military (the elite in Russia) is not getting paid. Their separation of classes is beginning to break down even further. They were just about to impeach Boris. Of course, this is just my opinion, but a country cant mobilize within this chaos. It takes more than just a death to the Americans objective.

So China can launch a few weapons at us, maybe a little more accurately than a few years back. What does that gain? They cant knock out our military (as decrepit as it may be at this point) with what they have. They couldnt win. Even the Chinese realize, you dont start something you cant follow through. Even with a pack with Russia, this joining still does not correct Russias woes and give the Chinese military might.

The arms race started a long time ago and what youre seeing now is possibly a more public view. But I can assure you we have been on the bleeding edge for quite some time.

Im not sure about Clinton but the only good thing is that we have military advisors who know whats going on. Whether Clinton takes their advice is anyones guess. And again, policy comes and goes. It changes when theres a need for change and that can happen in an instant; all it takes is a signature. I hope I answered your question while I know I cant decide that comfort level for you.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 28, 1999.

Some facts:

In February of 1996, the Times of London reported that Britain's Royal Navy was concerned about "Russian nuclear hunter-killer submarines" stalking British Trident submarines operating off Britain's coasts."

The British Navy described these submarines as "larger, quieter and and more deadly than anything Western navies can put to sea."

The Times also disclosed that Russia had deployed a new "Akula-class" submarine that carries WW-21 nuclear missiles aimed at American targets. The head of U.S. Naval Intelligence, Admiral Mike Cramer, said the new submarine "has demonstrated a capability that has never been demonstrated before to us..."

Both British and U.S. military experts have been astounded by new Russian, super-silent technology that allows their new submarines to avoid American sensors and early warning systems. Gone are the days of the big, noisy Russian subs.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), May 28, 1999.

Me? I've got a life to get on with. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET

Does this mean you're leaving? God I HOPE SO! Please take Maria with you!

-- none (none@none.none), May 28, 1999.

None, Hmmm really intelligent remark. Is your name an indication of the amount of data you contribute to this forum?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 28, 1999.

Poole, it must be great to be an expert on EVERYTHING! But just for the record, you don't have a clue about Russian submarines. Your statement: "If you make a submarine quiet enough, it can sneak right up to the coastline and launch without warning. The Russians and Chinese don't have this capability at present..." is off the mark.

I know you probably will discount this information because of the source, you being a registered Democrat and all (now who here is really surprised to hear that???), but I'm going to post it anyway: Russia's Recent Military Build-up

[snip]

Russia has also been modernizing its strategic weapons. Air Force General Eugene Habiger, commander of the US Strategic Command in Nebraska, told the Washington Times last year that Russia and China have been engaging in a massive weapons modernization program.

Habiger told the Times that "Russia has begun producing its new SS-27 strategic missile (the Topol-M) and is building new submarines armed with multiple-warhead missiles and new bomber-launched cruise missiles."

[snip]

Further, according to the Reform Monitor, this past September Russia had its 58th test launch of the missile, a sign the Monitor said demonstrated that the missile was well into serial production. In late December of 1998, the Monitor's belief was confirmed when Russia publicly admitted to officially deploying ten Topol-M SS-27 missiles.

In addition, according to excepts from the Monitor, during the past two years Russia has:

commissioned a new aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

commissioned the largest ballistic missile cruiser in the history of the world called Peter the Great. According to Pravda the ship has an unsurpassed "missile and artillery system and radar optical target tracking system."

begun construction of the fifth generation Borei class of ballistic missile submarines, beginning with the Yuri Dolgoruki, which has an ultramodern hull.

built a new submarine-based ballistic missile.

continued production of the Akula-II class nuclear attack submarine.

begun construction of the new Severodvinsk class of nuclear attack submarines.

refitted all Typhoon ballistic missile submarines to launch an upgrade of the SS-N-24/6 ballistic missile.

introduced a new generation of nuclear warheads.

modernized its Bear and Backfire strategic bombers, with the ability to carry updated cruise missiles.

developed a new stealth bomber.

begun development of a new strategic bomber.

continued development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

[snip]

Previous Russian spending has paid off. In February of 1996, The Times of London reported that Britain's Royal Navy was concerned about "Russian nuclear hunter-killer submarines" stalking British Trident submarines operating off Britain's coasts.

The British Navy described these submarines as "larger, quieter and more deadly than anything Western navies can put to sea."

The Times also disclosed that Russia had deployed a new "Akula-class" submarine that carries SS-21 nuclear missiles aimed at American targets. The head of US Naval Intelligence, Admiral Mike Cramer, said the new submarine "has demonstrated a capability that has never been demonstrated before to us ..."

Both British and US military experts have been astounded by new Russian, super-silent technology that allows their new submarines to avoid American sensors and early warning systems. Gone are the days of the big, noisy Russian subs.

If Russia is "falling apart," how have they been able to do all of this? How will America know if Russia subs move close to the US if our detectors are useless against this new Russian technology?

Care to retract your statements, Poole?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), May 28, 1999.

Game over.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 28, 1999.

Don't hold your breath Nabi,

notice how poole CrETin has slunk away from this thread he started - no rejoinders to back up his lame-ass know-nothing as-per- usual "opinion" whatsoever

let's not mince words here

POOLE YOU ARE A MORONIC JERK

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 29, 1999.