Doomsday Plane

This defies logic. Once in the air, carrying out its design task, there wouldn't be anywhere acceptable for it to land.

The whole idea of nuclear warfare defies logic but you misunderstand the point of the equipment. The premise is one of survivability of command to maintain the ability to launch a response attack. This is a deterrent to a first launch. If an enemy cannot be assured of removing capability to be annihilated in retaliation they probably will not launch in the first place. Hence the arms race.

There is a line from the movie Peacemaker that I think is extremely pertinent to the world today. The discussion is about the theft of 20 nuclear warheads. A paraphrase of the line is: It doesn't worry me what someone is going to do with 20 nuclear warheads. It terrifies me what someone is going to do with one!

That is indeed the point, I actually think it is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). There are certainly enough nukes around to destroy the earth a number of times. I was trying to recall a statement or two, by the chaps on the Manhattan Project. If memory serves they went something like this:.............

1) "On God, what have we done!!" and

2) "I don't know what the WW 3 will be fought with, but the next one will be fought with sticks and stones(possibly bow and arrows?)"

I am sure the only thing that prevented a pre-emptive strike by either the Communist Russians/ Chinese was the might of the American submarine fleet. These craft have enough armament to scare the living hell out of anyone(this of course includes myself).

Remember what a Gurkha chief said, when interviewed on Australian television (Gurkha's served with British forces for many years) when the Gurkha's were looking for a country to settle in. The aspiring reporter had obviously heard rumours about how fierce and deadly these little brown men were and made an obnoxious comment to the effect of:..."But aren't you Gurkha's very bloodthirsty?" The chief looked up at the reporter and calmly replied: " I take my Kukri (pleasant curved blade designed to cause serious injury and death) and I kill one man, you push a button and kill ten thousand, now tell me who's bloodthirsty?"

Putting the might and stealth of the American submarine fleet aside, one must always remeber that 1) The United States is to this day the only sovereign on the planet to ever use a nuclear weapon in anger and 2) not only did the Unites States use a nuclear weapon in anger, they used every nuclear weapon in their possession and were in the process of building more to be used in anger when the recipient of this wrath cried "Uncle". These two reasons alone prevented a pre-emptive strike on the United States by anyone otherwise foolish enough to tangle with good ole' Uncle Sam.

This is outside my normal range, but I can't resist:
"He who desires peace must be prepared for war" (Aristotle). I don't think that mere preparation is sufficient - the important thing is for any potential opposition to believe you are in a position make it counter-productive to attack you.

The NAOCs may be far from ideal, but better than nothing - at least when the potential adversary is a state wishing to pursue an earthly interest.

Slightly shifting ground: the same politicians in the UK who co-started the present war in Iraq are preparing to mothball the very parts of the British navy that were so crucial in defending the Falklands just a few years ago. Does this make them doubly warmongers, or just plain stupid?

Fyz

Having nuke weapons don't make anyone afraid of you unless they know you can and will use it.

MidniteFighter

When I say "be in a position to do something", that is precisely what I mean. But they can't 'know' it will be used. All you can do is ensure that your ability to respond is sufficiently robust and that the rules of engagement are sufficiently transparent and flexible. That way, potential aggressors have reason to believe that it is not worth taking the risk that you will retaliate. In practice, the nuclear option needs to be reserved for where the alternative is worse - it's no substitute for 'conventional' readiness.

Fyz

Why don't they launch off on the shuttle, take in the views from the space station, and return when the **** on the fan dries.

Oops, no one to tell the to return. Houston, are you there?

Houston: "ISS, we have a ..." [static]

if they can't land, they will continue to do their job until it falls out of the sky. they know they are expendable

All this sabre rattling reeks of madness....

All it takes is ONE mistake...

And who here has never made a mistake?

John.

I thought I did once but I was wrong!

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

I thought I knew a little about the Command Center but after reading what some of the folks were writing I was getting a little scared! I went and read the article (nothing more than what was above) and figured that some folks may be reading a little more into this than there really is.

I don't know where they got "Doomsday Plane" but I think it is hardly that. It is nothing more than what it is - a Command Post with a lot of communications gear that allows a skeleton staff to stay in touch with the rest of the military apparatus should bad things happen to the Pentagon or elsewhere in D.C. The Command Post cannot launch any nuclear weapons, though I am sure they can be in touch with the appropriate people if the need arose.

Here is a link that talks about the plane a little more. It is obviously not just for nuclear war but that is one of the reasons. The authority to launch must come from the President (or whoever is in command) which is why the "football" is always in close proximity to him. The personnel on the plane can certainly coordinate the communications for that purpose and is launched with more than a skeleton crew in the event of a high DEFCON alert. The details of all that I don't know but that is the basics.

Whoops! forgot to paste the link!

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/e-4b.htm