By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Interesting article. I suspect sufficient hostile weapons systems would survive to destroy the planet so mutual deterrence is alive and well. It’s what has kept the atomic/armageddon peace since 1945.
I don’t think these delivery systems make the risk of the unthinkable any greater. New ways of doing things are invented all the time. Just look at drone technology which is in its infancy at the moment but has and will change the face of war.
0
What do the resident geo-politics bods make of this? on 09:10 - Sep 5 with 1234 views
I think the article is making a bit of a leap of faith in assuming that two professors from SOAS are privy to all Russian and Chinese military secrets. Has anyone found out yet whether North Korea, Israel and Iran actually have full nuclear capability ?
From reading the Bulletin article, it sounds like wild extrapolation of a relatively limited-use new capability.
The idea of using large, slow transport aircraft to penetrate heavily defended airspace so they can push munitions out the back on pallets is alarming more for the aircrew than the targets. Fine for asymmetric situations, such as fighting ISIS in Syria, when it will save using more specialist and expensive-to-operate planes.
It's not even that new. MOAB has been in service (tho rarely used) for years. The Russians do already have something similar to MOAB which is likely also transport-aircraft delivered.
Interesting thoughts fellas. I wish I could debate the points you make, but it would be like a chimp arguing with Einstein about the theory of relativity.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
What do the resident geo-politics bods make of this? on 12:14 - Sep 5 by giant_stow
Interesting thoughts fellas. I wish I could debate the points you make, but it would be like a chimp arguing with Einstein about the theory of relativity.
What do the resident geo-politics bods make of this? on 08:56 - Sep 5 by Churchman
Interesting article. I suspect sufficient hostile weapons systems would survive to destroy the planet so mutual deterrence is alive and well. It’s what has kept the atomic/armageddon peace since 1945.
I don’t think these delivery systems make the risk of the unthinkable any greater. New ways of doing things are invented all the time. Just look at drone technology which is in its infancy at the moment but has and will change the face of war.
Russia and I'm sure China too, like NATO maintain a Nuclear Triad of land, air and sea-based delivery systems. Would be impossible to take out everything with a pre-emptive strike. Even if just the SLBMs were left, there'd be enough left to still wipe out their opponent.
What do the resident geo-politics bods make of this? on 12:14 - Sep 5 by giant_stow
Interesting thoughts fellas. I wish I could debate the points you make, but it would be like a chimp arguing with Einstein about the theory of relativity.
Oh don’t put yourself down, you are definitely up there with the Orangutans.
1
What do the resident geo-politics bods make of this? on 20:18 - Sep 5 with 722 views
Seems hyperbolic reporting about being able to knock out nukes. A pre-emptive strike to knock out all an enemies nukes is suicidal, because one single facility surviving is a critical failure as most countries would view an attack on it's nuclear defence as equivalent to an actual nuke attack and lead to MAD. It also requires there to be no early warning as if China or Russia spotted a few of the attacks (and there's likely hundreds to spot), then they'll potentially look to immediately launch while they can.
As others have said, the dragon system isn't really a game changer.
What do the resident geo-politics bods make of this? on 13:56 - Sep 5 by blueasfook
Russia and I'm sure China too, like NATO maintain a Nuclear Triad of land, air and sea-based delivery systems. Would be impossible to take out everything with a pre-emptive strike. Even if just the SLBMs were left, there'd be enough left to still wipe out their opponent.
I saw an article a while back which suggested that Russian SLBM capacity was a bluff and that they had long since lost the technical ability to achieve this.
If you look at the general state of their military, and navy in particular, I find this plausible.
Not sure I'd bet the future of humanity on it though...
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
