ignorant11 06.04.10, 00:54 Sława! www.polskatimes.pl/aktualnosci/240791,usa-oglosza-nowa-strategie-nuklearna,id,t.html Forum Słowiańskie gg 1728585 Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś czytaj wygodnie posty
ignorant11 Re: Nowa strategia nuklearna USA 06.04.10, 00:55 Sława! Juz jutro sie dowiemy, ale czyzby Obama chciał sie calkowicie rozbroic nulearnie??? Forum Słowiańskie gg 1728585 Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
browiec1 Re: Nowa strategia nuklearna USA 06.04.10, 16:57 jakby mial taki pomysl proponuje go przywiazac do jakiegos Minutemana i przeprowadzic test owej rakiety;) Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
browiec1 Re: To zwykly oszolom 06.04.10, 21:15 wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80277,7737735,USA_oglosily_ograniczenia_w_uzyciu_broni_nuklearnej.html Jak to rozumiec "Zgodnie dokumentem, USA rezygnują z produkcji nowych rodzajów broni jądrowej." Czyli nie beda robic nowych glowic,czy tylko jednak "rodzajow" czyli odmian broni jadrowej? Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Re: To zwykly oszolom 06.04.10, 21:36 browiec1 napisał: > wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80277,7737735,USA_oglosily_ograniczenia_w_uzyciu_broni_nuklearnej.html > Jak to rozumiec > "Zgodnie dokumentem, USA rezygnują z produkcji nowych rodzajów broni > jądrowej." Czyli nie beda robic nowych glowic,czy tylko > jednak "rodzajow" czyli odmian broni jadrowej? Z tego moim zdaniem wynika ze nie beda pracowac nad nowymi wzorami, czyli nad RRW na prxzyklad. Zobacze co bedzie dzisiaj w amerykanskich mediach Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
browiec1 Re: To zwykly oszolom 06.04.10, 21:45 No czyli na dobra sprawe nie beda powstawac w ogole nowe glowice? Pytam bo pamirtam nasza dyskusje jakis czas temu o arsenale jadrowym USA i problemach z obecnymi glowicami. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Re: To zwykly oszolom 06.04.10, 21:47 browiec1 napisał: > No czyli na dobra sprawe nie beda powstawac w ogole nowe glowice? > Pytam bo pamirtam nasza dyskusje jakis czas temu o arsenale jadrowym > USA i problemach z obecnymi glowicami. Wiem dlaczwego pytasz. Na to wyglada z relacji wybiórczej Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
browiec1 Re: To zwykly oszolom 06.04.10, 21:53 No to dziwna strategia.A co z tymi miniaturowymi glowicami o ktorych bylo tak glosno gdy chinole podprowadzili ich projekt? Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Re: To zwykly oszolom 06.04.10, 22:11 browiec1 napisał: > No to dziwna strategia.A co z tymi miniaturowymi glowicami o ktorych > bylo tak glosno gdy chinole podprowadzili ich projekt? Nic o tym nie wiem Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
ignorant11 wielka strategia wielkiego prezydenta 06.04.10, 23:54 Sława! Bron jadrowa to moralny poziom ludozerstwa. To dobrze ze WIELKI PREZYDENT WIELKIEGO KRAJU mówi to otwarcie... Nie on pierwszy zreszta. bo swiat bez niuków był marzeniem WIELKIEGO Ronalda Reagana Ale dopiero dzisiaj nadchodzi swiat w którym jest technicznie mozliwe. Dopiero dzisiaj dzieki geniuszowi amerykańskich technologi nie musimy równac całych miast... NB aby uwolnic swiat od ( zabic:))) liliputina nie musimy mordowac calych 10 mln Moskwiczan.. Forum Słowiańskie gg 1728585 Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Taki kwiatek z Washingotn Post 07.04.10, 00:36 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040601369.html?hpid=topnews The new policy, contained in a document known as the Nuclear Posture Review, rules out creating a new warhead to replace the aging weapons in the arsenal, a step that Gates championed in the past. Controversy has swirled around whether to build new types of bombs, with many Democrats and arms-control advocates opposed to anything that would give the impression the United States is enhancing its nuclear power. tlumacze: Nowa polityka wskazana w Nuclear Posture Review wyklucza tworzenie nowej glowicy lda zastapinia starych w dotychczasowym arsenale - co wspierał Gates dotychczas. Dotychczas istnialy kontrowersje czy USA powinny tworzyc nowe modele broj jadrowj, gdyz demkraci i zwolennicy kotnroli zbrojen sprzeciwlai sie wszystkiemu co mogloby spraswiac wrazenie ze USA zwiakszaja swa siłę atomową I co Wy na to? Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
o333 Re: Taki kwiatek z Washingotn Post 07.04.10, 03:15 my na to że złe tłumaczenie ale sens w miarę zachowałeś Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
o333 Re: Taki kwiatek z Washingotn Post 07.04.10, 03:24 mam pytanie matrek, jak na washington post to wyważony artykuł o co tobie chodzi? Cry me a river? Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Re: Taki kwiatek z Washingotn Post 07.04.10, 05:17 o333 napisał: > mam pytanie matrek, jak na washington post to wyważony artykuł o co tobie > chodzi? Cry me a river? Nie wiem w czym Ci sie nie podoba tlumaczenie. Chyba ze oczekiwales slowo w slowo, ale w takim razie powinienes uzyc google translate :) "jak na washinton post". Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
browiec1 Re: Taki kwiatek z Washingotn Post 07.04.10, 03:29 Ze to glupota?I mozna miec jedynie nadzieje ze splynie do sciekow razem z Obama splukanym przez wyborcow?Albo ze nawet ktos w tej ekipie otrzezwieje i/lub bedzie prowadzil prace bocznymi torami(choc to nigdy sie dobrze nie konczy,a przynajmniej nie tak dobrze jakby moglo to byc w sytuacji "normalnej") Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Re: Taki kwiatek z Washingotn Post 07.04.10, 05:21 browiec1 napisał: > Ze to glupota?I mozna miec jedynie nadzieje ze splynie do sciekow > razem z Obama splukanym przez wyborcow?Albo ze nawet ktos w tej > ekipie otrzezwieje i/lub bedzie prowadzil prace bocznymi torami(choc > to nigdy sie dobrze nie konczy,a przynajmniej nie tak dobrze jakby > moglo to byc w sytuacji "normalnej") Bodajze w lutym Gates zapowiadal wlaczenie do projektu budzetu 2010/2011 zwiekszosnych srodkow na osrodki nuklearne, a Obama publicznie mowil ze one "byly zaniedbane przez lata, ale teraz to sie zmieni" Sam jestem bardzo ciekawy skąd taka wolta... Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Nowa strategia w pigułce 09.04.10, 14:37 1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism; 2. Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy; 3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels; 4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and 5. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. Tak, bo nie chce mi sie tlumaczyc. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Objasnienie cz. 1 09.04.10, 14:46 Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons The role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security and U.S. military strategy has been reduced significantly in recent decades, but further steps can and should be taken at this time. The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners. [...] Since the end of the Cold War, the strategic situation has changed in fundamental ways. With the advent of U.S. conventional military preeminence and continued improvements in U.S. missile defenses and capabilities to counter and mitigate the effects of CBW, the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks – conventional, biological, or chemical – has declined significantly. The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. [...] Accordingly, among the key conclusions of the NPR: • The United States will continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. • The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. • The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Maintaining Strategic Deterrence and Stability at Reduced Nuclear Force Levels Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have reduced operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons by about 75 percent, but both still retain many more nuclear weapons than they need for deterrence. The Administration is committed to working with Russia to preserve stability at significantly reduced force levels. New START. The next step in this process is to replace the now-expired 1991 START I Treaty with another verifiable agreement, New START. An early task for the NPR was to develop U.S. positions for the New START negotiations and to consider how U.S. forces could be structured in light of the reductions required by the new agreement. The NPR reached the following conclusions: • Stable deterrence can be maintained while reducing U.S. strategic delivery vehicles – intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-capable heavy bombers – by approximately 50 percent from the START I level, and reducing accountable strategic warheads by approximately 30 percent from the Moscow Treaty level. • Building on NPR analysis, the United States agreed with Russia to New START limits of 1,550 accountable strategic warheads, 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles, and a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers. • The U.S. nuclear Triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers will be maintained under New START. • All U.S. ICBMs will be “de-MIRVed” to a single warhead each to increase stability. • Contributions by non-nuclear systems to U.S. regional deterrence and reassurance goals will be preserved by avoiding limitations on missile defenses and preserving options for using heavy bombers and long-range missile systems in conventional roles. Maximizing Presidential decision time. The NPR concluded that the current alert posture of U.S. strategic forces – with heavy bombers off full-time alert, nearly all ICBMs on alert, and a significant number of SSBNs at sea at any given time – should be maintained for the present. [...] Key steps include: • Continuing the practice of “open-ocean targeting” of all ICBMs and SLBMs so that, in the highly unlikely event of an unauthorized or accidental launch, the missile would land in the open ocean, and asking Russia to re-confirm its commitment to this practice. • Further strengthening the U.S. command and control system to maximize Presidential decision time in a nuclear crisis. • Exploring new modes of ICBM basing that enhance survivability and further reduce any incentives for prompt launch. Reinforcing strategic stability. Given that Russia and China are currently modernizing their nuclear capabilities – and that both are claiming U.S. missile defense and conventionally-armed missile programs are destabilizing – maintaining strategic stability with the two countries will be an important challenge in the years ahead. [...] A strategic dialogue with Russia will allow the United States to explain that our missile defences and any future U.S. conventionally-armed long-range ballistic missile systems are designed to address newly emerging regional threats, and are not intended to affect the strategic balance with Russia. For its part, Russia could explain its modernization programs, clarify its current military doctrine (especially the extent to which it places importance on nuclear weapons), and discuss steps it could take to allay concerns in the West about its non-strategic nuclear arsenal, such as further consolidating its non-strategic systems in a small number of secure facilities deep within Russia. With China, the purpose of a dialogue on strategic stability is to provide a venue and mechanism for each side to communicate its views about the other’s strategies, policies, and programs on nuclear weapons and other strategic capabilities. The goal of such a dialogue is to enhance confidence, improve transparency, and reduce mistrust. As stated in the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, “maintaining strategic stability in the U.S.-China relationship is as important to this Administration as maintaining strategic stability with other major powers.” [...] Strengthening Regional Deterrence and Reassuring U.S. Allies and Partners The United States is fully committed to strengthening bilateral and regional security ties and working with allies and partners to adapt these relationships to 21st century challenges. Such security relationships are critical in deterring potential threats, and can also serve our non-proliferation goals – by demonstrating to neighboring states that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will only undermine their goal of achieving military or political advantages, and by reassuring non-nuclear U.S. allies and partners that their security interests can be protected without their own nuclear deterrent capabilities. [...] In Europe, forward-deployed U.S. nuclear weapons have been reduced dramatically since the end of the Cold War, but a small number of U.S. nuclear weapons remain. Although the risk of nuclear attack against NATO members is at an historic low, the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons – combined with NATO’s unique nuclear sharing arrangements under which non-nuclear members participate in nuclear planning and possess specially configured aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons – contribute to Alliance cohesion and provide reassurance to allies and partners who feel exposed to regional threats. [...] In Asia and the Middle East – where there are no multilateral alliance structures analogous to NATO – the United States has maintained extended deterrence through bilateral alliances and security relationships and through its forward military presence and security guarantees. When the Cold War ended, the United States withdrew its forward deployed nuclear weapons from the Pacific region, including removing nuclear weapons from naval surface vessels and general purpose Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Objasnienie cz. 2 09.04.10, 14:47 Although nuclear weapons have proved to be a key component of U.S. assurances to allies and partners, the United States has relied increasingly on non-nuclear elements to strengthen regional security architectures, including a forward U.S. conventional presence and effective theatre ballistic missile defenses. As the role of nuclear weapons is reduced in U.S. national security strategy, these non-nuclear elements will take on a greater share of the deterrence burden. [...] Non-strategic nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced non-strategic (or “tactical”) nuclear weapons dramatically since the end of the Cold War. Today, it keeps only a limited number of forward deployed nuclear weapons in Europe, plus a small number of nuclear weapons stored in the United States for possible overseas deployment in support of extended deterrence to allies and partners worldwide. Russia maintains a much larger force of non-strategic nuclear weapons, a significant number of which are deployed near the territories of several North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries. The NPR concluded that the United States will: • Retain the capability to forward-deploy U.S. nuclear weapons on tactical fighter-bombers and heavy bombers, and proceed with full scope life extension for the B-61 bomb including enhancing safety, security, and use control. • Retire the nuclear-equipped sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N). • Continue to maintain and develop long-range strike capabilities that supplement U.S. forward military presence and strengthen regional deterrence. • Continue and, where appropriate, expand consultations with allies and partners to address how to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the U.S. extended deterrent. No changes in U.S. extended deterrence capabilities will be made without close consultations with our allies and partners. [...] Looking Ahead: Toward a World without Nuclear Weapons Pursuing the recommendations of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review will strengthen the security of the United States and its allies and partners and bring us significant steps closer to the President’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The conditions that would ultimately permit the United States and others to give up their nuclear weapons without risking greater international instability and insecurity are very demanding. Among those conditions are success in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, much greater transparency into the programs and capabilities of key countries of concern, verification methods and technologies capable of detecting violations of disarmament obligations, enforcement measures strong and credible enough to deter such violations, and ultimately the resolution of regional disputes that can motivate rival states to acquire and maintain nuclear weapons. Clearly, such conditions do not exist today. But we can – and must – work actively to create those conditions. We can take the practical steps identified in the 2010 NPR that will not only move us toward the ultimate goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons worldwide but will, in their own right, reinvigorate the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, erect higher barriers to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials by terrorist groups, and strengthen U.S. and international security. Pełny raport na temat nowego Nuclear Posture Review do jakiego udalo mi sie dotrzec ma 72 strony, a to jest tylko streszczenie. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
bmc3i Systemy obrony antybalistycznej 09.04.10, 14:53 Zwracam uwage na ten fragment: Contributions by non-nuclear systems to U.S. regional deterrence and reassurance goals will be preserved by avoiding limitations on missile defenses and preserving options for using heavy bombers and long-range missile systems in conventional roles. Pozwole sobie przetlumaczyc: Wzrost roli amerykanskich systemow nienuklearnych w regionalnym odstraszaniu i zabezpieczaniu bedzie umozliwoiny przez zniesienie ograniczen w systemach obrony antyrakietowej i zachowaniu opcji uzycia ciezkich bombowców i nienuklearnych pociskow rakietowych dalekiego zasiegu. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
numerian "Noblowska" strategia USA - cyrk dla naiwnych! 10.04.10, 00:55 Po prostu potwierdza się to co tutaj niedawno napisałem. USA nie muszą rozwijać teraz zupełnie nowych głowic gdyż ich technologia nuklearna jest na tyle zaawansowana od dekad a posiadane głowice tak dobrej jakości, ze ich konserwacja i modernizacja wystarczą jeszcze spokojnie na 20 lat. W ten sposób tysiące głowic zamontowanych na nosicielach lub aktualnie przebywających w magazynach mogą bez końca służyć jako kij i marchewka na Ruskich! USA mogą za zaoszczędzone pieniądze finansować za to utylizację zardzewiałych ruskich głowic jądrowych na co "mocarstwowego" Kremla nie stać. :) USA rozpoczną produkcję nowych głowic ale dopiero dla zupełnie nowych nosicieli a wiec gdy pojawią się następcy Minutemanów III oraz Tridentów II. Natomiast pozostałe "pacyfistyczne" zapisy "doktryny Obamy" to zwykły cyrk i kit propagandowy, który nic w "doktrynie Busha" tak naprawdę nie zmienia: - wyrzeczenie się użycia broni jądrowej jako odwet za atak bronią chemiczną i biologiczną nie obejmuje jedynych realnych przeciwników USA, czyli jest de facto pustym gestem. - program Prompt Global Strike zostanie nawet przyspieszony w porównaniu z czasami Busha - tarcza antyrakietowa będzie dalej ewoluować w tej dekadzie w kierunku obrony przeciwko ICBM Jak więc widać pokojowy Nobel to jedno a dbanie o hegemonię militarną USA to drugie! :) Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś