All
← Back to Squawk list
B-52s will return to a ready-to-fly posture not seen since the Cold War
"That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. " (www.defenseone.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
What about the IDIOT in RNK, don't he scare the bejesus out of you? At least our folks are sane and are prepping for just such an event in order to put a pause in his thinking, I really don't think he wants to commit suicide.
I wouldn’t bet on sanity at our end either. This is a quite distressing situation IMHO.
Alan that is a bold statement about our military leaders that have much more information than are being shared. One note; those same B52 that were the major part of SAC in the 50's kept russia in check for years, thus the renewal of the statement walk softly but carry a big stick by President Roosevelt.
My concern isn't about deterrence, it's about the US launching an unprovoked nuclear strike. The fact that even Republican Senators have expressed concern about this is very worrying.
Indeed I see your point now. I was not aware of those senator's disquiet. But let us go back to aviation and the B52s. A pre-emptive strike, or a strike (whether provoked or unprovoked, which is a fluid notion especially in an age when wars are no longer declared ie with a clear causation from an act of aggression to a response sanctioned in international law, a casus belli) has to be preceded by a demonstration of force. Ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads can be launched from submarines. But submarines, and it is their very function are invisible. B52s are not. Their visibility, their "majesty" as Scott8733 says, together with a chain of commands that plays on time leading to a full alert (which takes time and can be rolled back, and moved forward again, thus enhancing strategic suspense), is part of the equation. B52s show the possibility of force like no sub can (and should, by doctrine).
Just out of curiousity, have any of you ever read the English transcripts of Sadam Hussein? Like most paranoid dictators, he kept extensive recordings of his thoughts (as many of our presidents have also done). An interesting point related to this topic: SH only ever wanted a nuke so that the USA would leave Iraq alone. Does anyone think it's possible that KJU wants a nuke for the same reason? After all, the USA is not most respectful country of foreign democratic processes or sovereignty.
Hi Brin. No I have not read the transcripts, yet one would have to go back to their Arabic original version to make sure there is no distortion. One example: Hussein's term to qualify Israel was "the State of War, " thus giving a new meaning to the standard Islamic distinction between the "region converted to Islam" and the "region where conversion has to take place by force". Just an example how complex it is to move from a culture to another especially when we deal with war. Now, regarding KJU I would personally go back to Mao and his writings on war to understand KJU mindset - we tend to brush aside marxist philosophy (which is in essence a dialectics of violence) as failed. Yet it is taught at Chinese universities (in separate institutes often attended by the next military elite) and, surely, it structures education in North Korea. So nukes: yes, part of this dialectics of violence by which a conflict is not solved by compromise (ie: you say A, I say B, and we compromise mid-way - a Western standard) but by finding a radical other way to handle (not solve: just handle) the issue. Sorry about this lecture ...
Hey Philippe. Out of pure curiosity, what is your profession? You seem very knowledgeable about this topic. Still, you don't actually answer my question. You start by targeting the credibility of translation, then provide an unrelated example (which I actually see from the other side as Israel is an aggressive country in the Middle East, something the USA encourages as Israel gets most of their weapons from the USA). War is war in any culture that currently exists on the planet except for the Eskimos and their analogues (however, your point that different cultures go to war for different reasons/justifications is true). Now, the China/RNK relationship is not something I know much about. I'm sure you're right that there are similarities of education techniques and power hierarchies. However, the revolution in China only wears the mask of Communism/Marxism. Looked at historically, you see that it aligns cyclically with other dynastic changes in Chinese history. In reality, the Chinese Communist revolution was just another dynasty change. That said, I don't believe the leadership of either country subscribes to a doctrine of Marxist violence. But both China and RNK believe that military strength is necessary as a deterrent (which the USA also believes) and I think they beleive this because of their historic suffering at the hands of foreign powers. That is why I ask again, is it possible KJU only wants a nuke because he wants RNK be left alone?
Quite right. The statement itself matters very much. Deterrence is about expressing will while showing the kinetic means to implement will, if need be. Used to be called the "balance of terror." It has guaranteed us homeland peace since 1945.
But I'd much rather see them at an airshow than a big gang of them re-equipped with nukes. Scares the bejesus out of me.