JamesHackerMP

Do you think that removing countervalue strategy (targeting cities, etc) and replacing it with counterforce is a good thing or no?

My personal belief--without being expert on nuclear physics or international relations--is that if nuclear war starts it will be an accident or a terrorist attack mistaken for a first strike. Numerous movies/books have been filmed/written about such an event. There was a rather disturbing incident in 1995 where the launch of a Norwegian rocket was misinterpreted by Russian computers to be an American missile launch. Fortunately Yeltsin wasn't too drunk so he executed some caution and patience, thus saving the world from disaster. I don't foresee the general public in the U.S. allowing the government to deploy and pay for such weapons (neutron bombs) at this point.

Do any countries have it in their arsenals?

That's actually kind of scarier. Without a fireball and actual fallout, some countries might be more disposed, or less hesitant, to actually use the thing. Which I think might answer the OP's question about whether nuclear war is inevitable. Do the people in the target zone just drop dead of neutron radiation poisoning? Or are they burned/scarred?

Anywho, the neutron bomb. No mushroom cloud, just a burst of neutron radiation if I understand correctly?

Right, I read that. 58.6 MT, friggin huge. I still like Mighty Mouse better. Not to quibble (or get irrelevant) but the monarchy was overthrown by riots over bread prices. The Provisional Government was overthrown in a hail of bullets.

sounds better than "Tsar Bomba". Incidentally, In the Netflix show "A Very Secret Service" (or Au Service de la France), they have to drive through the Algerian desert to Reganne with the 'Green Jerboa' strapped to the roof of the car, to keep it from falling into the hands of the coup conspirators.

Ah. I had four years of French but it was a while ago.

Fun Fact: the first French nuclear test in the desert was called "Blue Gerbil".

You're right about that. Maybe that was part of what Eisenhower warned about (the "military-industrial complex and its threat to democracy"). Some defense contractors got rich off of building all those ICBMs and nuclear warheads.

I haven't read Sahara, yet. I have read a bunch of the "original" ones (the ones up to Trojan-whatever, where Cussler is writing by himself and the main character is still Dirk Pitt). If I remember correctly: Inca gold, Treasure, Deep Six, Cyclops, Raise the Titanic, Night Probe, Atlantis Found, Valhalla Rising, Flood Tide. Might have read Iceberg....or not. It was in high school I read most of them (I'm 40, now). I bought used copies of Treasure and Cyclops to re-read since it's been so long. But there are so many books I have only read partway through. Sahara was indeed a good movie. I started a good one to read while I'm reading Shogun: The Lost World of Byzantium. Always loved the Byzantines for some weird reason. (I never finished Lord Norwich's series on the same, alas.)

Apparently not enough, BC

The sad this is, it took me a few seconds to get that. I seriously had to think it through. did you read the one where the U.S. "bought" Canada, somehow? That was actually a good one, despite being implausible. I was re-reading a couple lately. Think I originally read them in late middle school/early high school days.

Phun Phact: the Oort cloud extends halfway to the nearest star system. That's huge.

Thule is a KBO, isn't it?

Have any of you read any of Clive Cussler's "Dirk Pitt" series?

OK....this has degenerated into a personality conflict. I refuse to get involved. There's plenty of other people here I can debate with. The rest of us have been acting like adults.

I don't think that was necessary. If you cannot argue like an adult, find another message board. In the mean time, I'm so terribly sorry I had the gall to disagree with you. I hope you weren't offended.

That's likely because we're the remaining global superpower. When they were a superpower the Soviets did the same thing, spending to maintain their global presence to check the United States.

That's what I was trying to tell you. The president acting contrary to the intent of the act would be abuse of power.

I just said I agreed with you about the decaying infrastructure. Not to get off topic, but yes there is waste in the defense budget (e.g., the F-35). How much would you slash the defense budget, then?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying about our checks and balances. Care to clarify?

Defense spending is 12% of the federal budget, and 4% of GDP, give or take. However, I agree with you about the infrastructure decay.

Abuse of power isn't constitutional. As you said, there's supposed to be checks and balances in the American system.

His abuse of power will be controversial. What did you think I meant??