DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Because?

[youtube oQO9xk7bxNk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQO9xk7bxNk youtube]

I think that settles it then, doesn't it?

I posted a humorous reply, but I see the censors have no sensayuma . . . :'(

lol

I think America, Russia, and China are the three worlds Super powers.

Why Russia?

I can think of about 3 or 4 countries that either are already more powerful (economically especially, but also militarily) or soon will be to them.

I consider a large country such as Russia a super power because they are one of the few countries that pose a challenge in nuclear weapons…or were.

"were" is not the same as "is". Britain used to be a global hegemon, it isn't now. That status can be revoked.

Well Russia might still be the only Major threat to America right now. They might still have a seceret stash of nuclear weapons. And so might America.

Russia and the US have open stashes of nuclear weapons. They are not "secret". There are other countries which possess nuclear arsenals (say Israel or Pakistan) which are not considered superpowers, and I would argue that mere nuclear weapon possessing status doesn't make a country a great power.

Russia also isn't pursuing geopolitical power in the way that it used to when it was constituted as the Soviet Union, ie in a way that constituted a threat to long-term American security or safety. The most that can be said is that Russia is pursuing annoying geopolitical strategies globally (modest support for Iran for example) and pursuing local interests very vigorously (ie, intervening in Belarus or Georgia or Chechnya).

China, by this logic of geopolitical power projection, is a more likely threat. It has a larger military, a larger economy, and interacts far more broadly and with less friendly governments (DPRK, Myanmar, Venezuela, Iran, Sudan, etc), than does Russia. India or Brazil or even Turkey are far more involved globally and each possesses far more growth potential, considerable military strength, regional power status, and in India's case, nuclear arms. All of these countries therefore look pretty much like present-day Russia. Other than India, none is considered even a possible superpower.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!?

OPEN STASHES?

Do you know what you’re talking about?
How can you use two words that contradict each other in the same sentence and words side by side?
It’s like saying the rescue crew picked up only the healthy dead ones.’
Sheeeeeesh

If you were to drive out to North Dakota, you would find places you could not go without security clearances rather easily. This is not a secret.

It is not a secret that America and Russia have nuclear weapons. Hence it is very silly to say that they have "secret stashes". "We" actually know where those weapons are (in the sense that the American military and intelligence services know, and so do the Russians know where ours are). These weapons are, in a very real sense, openly stashed away. The only countries which have "secret stashes" are places like the DPRK (which we think might have a couple bombs) and Israel, which isn't a signatory to the NPT and has probably a couple hundred warheads but won't declare openly and officially that it has them (because they would then have to abide by the NPT to disarm and destroy their weapons). Even Pakistan's nuclear weapons are well-known, openly declared by their government, and we know where they are.

I suppose you could say these stashes are secured, and not just anyone can wander into them, but they're also not secret was the problem with jcd's statement.

I’m a 115 yrs old – what does that tell you?

A lot….thanks.

115 yrs old in response to “Our Lifetime”

And response to SunTzu; We? as in who? You? dont go plural, – don’t speak for the masses.
The US is dumb but do you think they would actually allow the public to know where the REAL warheads are!?
I had a top secret clearance working at a satellite tracking station……..we tracked NFL’s ( New Foreign Launches) as it happened. Why? Because we need to trace the origin of launch telemetry, trajectory with available data, and means available.
Why because when the time comes and that launch was not on the friendly launch list we need to track that target vehicle launch a kill vehicle and hopefully destroy it. That missle and warhead were hidden!………….You will find yourself barking up the wrong tree every time you go looking for one……..so don’t go plural and include me….I only piss on trees not bark at them.

I’m not a 115 yrs old person.
I’m refering to the “in our lifetime” part of the question.
Sooooooooooooo, the answer would be NO for the bedridden about to die people.
The questions here are not to well written.
There cant be in our lifetime, near future, real soon questions. Be definite like “In Ten Years, 5yrs, 2012,
The Friday after next.

P.S. When I say US I mean the US Government……….just to be clear.

If anybody here understand “Dark Sentences” I would really like to know how you came to understand.
The Executive Branch uses it often…..even on live telecast.
It would really help put my puzzle together.

"We" was used in scare quotes for a reason. I even detailed who "we" was referring to.

You and PD apparently need to attend the same reading comprehension class.

I don’t understanding what you’re saying because you don’t know what you’re saying.
Babble!
When I took the AVSFAB test right outta high school I had a 12.9 – that’s High School + 9 months of collage that I did not attend at the time.
You try to speak eloquently but it just ends up as babble.

I say that you need reading comprehension because you (both) ignore often crucial portions of text in your haste to put down someone who you disagree with (or think that you do). Whether or not you've scored a supposedly advanced score on a test doesn't impress me. Actual performance does.

You at least did me the credit of actually producing evidence in your retort (something many people here do not do). But that evidence did not actually contradict what I had said because it was in fact what I said in the first place (ie, US intelligence services and military know these things, as I said, I used "we" that way for a reason, and had proceeded to outline that reason).

Many of the launch sites are fixed installation silos and have been openly known in the press for decades as well, making it possible, if you could get past the guards, to go out and see, that yes, there's a nuclear missile or ICBM sitting right there. Our missile submarine bases are well known. As are the air force or naval bases with nuclear bombs stashed away. The rough number of warheads is also known as a portion of our treaty agreements. If you're disputing any of these factors, let me know. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your problem is.

I believe you’re right about not really listening about what you’re saying or just skimming over your writ and saying babble………..now why is that I say to my self.

Anyway, Silos are way 1960′s, If it’s still there then its the cardboard target.

Everthing is mobile now have been for years.

If it’s not hidden in plain sight then you’re looking at decoys.

But then all this would be on a need to know basis.

Do you really Know? or is it Conjecture.

Why is a good question…. I’m not seeing a good reason to suggest that you know anything I don’t either here. Most of this information is “need-to-know” but it’s been known for decades and there are annual reports released to the public on such things.

Silos are indeed 1960s technology, that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t still have some of them in use. The ballistic missiles involved were billions of dollars of investment and we had thousands of them. It takes a while to phase all of them out.

Mobile missiles are either nuclear tipped cruise missiles launched from bombers and other aircraft (which have to have an air base somewhere, or at worst a naval aircraft carrier) or are deployed on ballistic missile submarines, which also have naval bases. There is no technology in the US for launching these missiles from land on mobile platforms simply because the launchers would have to be enormous to hold any ICBM, elevate it, and launch it.

More to the point, it would be a waste of money because it would require mobile security unless they were sited in places like Minot where there’s already a base, and already a target, defeating the purpose of mobility. It’s a helluva lot cheaper to station these on submarines anyway, or on pre-deployed land-based ICBMs. The reason being that the security of nuclear materials comes not from mobility but from guards and secure launch codes. We gain some additional security from having trident missiles on mobile sub platforms, but the missiles themselves still have to be secured when the subs aren’t deployed on patrols on military bases. Bangor, Washington for instance.

NASA spent millions in the late 50′s trying to engineer a ball point pen that would write in zero gravity.

Guess what Russia did?

They used a fucking pencil!

I got this post from LiveLeak I didn’t want to alter it. I apologize if any are offended. But if you’re still here thanks for manning up.

Ok…… what now, ICBM?

ICBM = outdated.

You think those missiles are accurate? they couldn’t hit the side of the moon much more explode in thier silos.

Why would you launch from your own country anyway? and old idea!

Would’nt placing interceptors on coastal areas and launch using other platforms be a better idea…..Of Course!

Now why would you place missiles inland?

Not strategically smart.

You’re reading outdated technology.

And even all is not exposed in what you read, what is released is only so other countries get the impact of whats being said.

EXMP.=On a more extreme scale……North Korea was allowed to monitor the interceptions that took place over the Pacific Basin.

Scenario:

Target vehicle launched from Barking sands beach Kauai.

Kill vehicle launched from Vandenberg air force base.

“We”(woooooooo…the scary we) could have scrambled the signal and frequency but allowed North Korea to watch.

But you know what?…Those fools didn’t get the point. lol. I mean they launched thier own Taepodong-2 months afterwards.

Yet even now what I described is outdated.

Trident Missiles….90′s

How ever they just kept the name around a whole new design.

Tomahawks = lighter, faster

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah,

Toa!!!!!! heeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp I am a fool because of the multitude of my words.

Heeeeeeeeeelp!!!

LOL.

No NASA didn't spend millions of dollar to develop a zero-g pen.
It was developed in 1967by Paul C. Fisher COMPLETELY independent of NASA funding.
NASA AND RUSSIA purchased these pens after development in 67.
Before the pen was completed BOTH space programs used pencils.
Not just the crafty cheaper Russians.

An ICBM is ballistic missile technology, which is all a Trident 2 is (just with a different acronym because of the submarine launch platform instead of continental basis). The accuracy of ballistic missiles doesn't matter very much how old they are. You're dealing with the same physics no matter what decade it is and newer computer guidance systems more so than the vehicles that carry them. But I suppose then those submarines are just going to blow themselves up since obviously the missiles must not be accurate enough.

Tomahawks aren't that new either by the way. That's 1970s technology and it's a cruise missile (not ballistic launch vehicle). They also received better guidance chips and different armament packages, just like the ballistics. But they're hardly an upgrade. I suppose if you're launching from right off the coast, it wouldn't matter very much that they don't have the same range (and they should be harder to shoot down to compensate). But the point is that these are two different missile types and they are both in use (and I mentioned the cruise missile warheads deployed from bombers, or subs, about two messages ago, thanks for noticing….)

Phhhhhhhhhh……pens and missiles thats all you guys got?
from the internet much less.
lololololo

That's all you mentioned poot.

Did we miss something? That seems to be pretty much all you got too.

As far as strategy, it's true that having launch sites outward would make sense, but it would also make strategic sense to have secure launch sites with multiple layers of defense around them. For example, having ABMs, SAMs, and ground forces protecting them. Our missiles are no less secure by doing this as opposed to having mobile submarines or stealth bombers launch them closer to our enemies. It's possible that some target country would have the technology to shoot them down, but do you really expect, let's say Iran or North Korea to have that? Or that it would even be necessary to actually deploy a nuke on either of them to defeat them militarily in a full scale war?

Ok you guys got me……………..I’m a charlatan………..I dont do my homework, I have only conjectures, and I take everybodys word for it.
WAIT…………………how many people here did I just describe?……………..oh………..one…….just me huh.

Im not worried about China or Russia attacking America and winning because there are so many Americans that have a liscense to own a weapon its not even funny, My dad has a safe full of them and even several bows and arrows. Some of those Americans love the 2nd amendment so much that they have it tatooed to their own butt. They buy big guns and small guns and the red necks that own them wont surrender to the chinese or Russians without a fight, The spirit of the fighting American is still in most of us who live here. There have been a few battles in history of small armies winning the battle against the enemy such as the 300 and the persians…..until they became surrounded.

A PENCIL???? HAHAHA LOL!!!!!! THATS HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not even necessary to go that far to consider redneck resistance movements. US military budget is roughly equal to the entire rest of the planet combined. BOTH Russia and China could try to attack the US at the same time and would probably lose before they even landed any troops.