Thread replies: 30
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
Anonymous
LRSO Is Under Fire, What Could Replace It? 2016-10-01 06:19:06 Post No. 31519332
[Report] Image search: [Google]
LRSO Is Under Fire, What Could Replace It? 2016-10-01 06:19:06 Post No. 31519332
[Report] Image search: [Google]
So Hillary Clinton has told donors that she opposes the LRSO, which would replace the current nuclear cruise, the ALCM. This would leave us without a nuclear cruise missile. How could the US Air Force deal with this major capability gap?
The B-21 Raider is meant to carry the LRSO, which the Air Force is insistent is necessary for the B-21 to threaten every inch of the globe through the 2050s or more. Does the Air Force push for the rumored 2037 Heavy Bomber to be hypersonic?
Not having a nuclear cruise missile is a big deal. That would limit the B-21 Raider to dropping conventional nuclear weapons. It is also not clear if Clinton opposes the entire LRSO program, which will produce a vitally needed conventional cruise missile too, or just the nuclear warhead armed cruise missiles.
I am very opposed to cancelling the LRSO. The US decreased its strategic arsenal in the 90s in the hope that Russia would follow suit and it has done the opposite. China is also without a doubt developing similar capabilities.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-privately-opposed-nuclear-upgrade/
>>
>>31519332
i'm not unconvinced hillary isn't secretly funded by the chinese.
>>
File: Desire_to_know_morale_patch.png (98KB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
98KB, 500x500px
>>31519411
Pretty sure she got donations from party connected businessmen by way of the clinton foundation.... soooo.. that's not inaccurate.
>>31519332
honestly, not sure what the ultimate implication of this becomes especially considering the modernization of various arsenals around the world and the aging arsenal in the us....
PAGING OPPENHEIMER! ....I kinda want to know his opinion on this one.
>>
>>31519431
Why the fuck are politicians and ex-politicians even allowed to go near anything chinese?
Shits treasonous.
>>
>>31519411
There's nothing secret about it. Bill was getting chink money when he was President, but we just laughed it off.
This shit ain't funny any more.
>>
>>31519431
Oppn is a ghost. Didnt you see his farewell?
>>
>>31519599
He left again? Or are you talking about that time some asshat dox him again to try and prove a point an only proved his credentials.
>>
>>31519431
>>31519599
>>31519608
He hasn't left, he's stopped using a trip. There have been anon posts since then that have been blatantly from him.
>>
>>31519451
Do you know a way off Mr.Bones Wild Ride?
>>
>>31519411
hasn't been secret for like 25 years
Shes basically medically incompetent, so you would a black woman and a muslim woman calling the shots in the US if shes elected
>>
File: 1318562278001.jpg (10KB, 193x245px) Image search:
[Google]
10KB, 193x245px
Say goodbye to that then, because Hilldog is going to be the next president.
>>
>>31519634
uh no Trump leads as of now
and it'll just get worse because clinton is a fucking disaster
She would have lost to Bernie if there wasn't mass electronic vote fraud(which is 100% legal in the primaries btw)
>>
>>31519641
What are you talking about even fucking Fox News has Clinton ahead.
>>
>>31519649
fox news has always been against Trump..
Not like some 1000 person phone poll means anything
>>
>>31519649
For now.
Trump will win in November. Bet on it.
>>
>>31519332
Congress tells her it doesn't care what she thinks. Vetoed. Next.
>>
File: 1684102_-_main.jpg (44KB, 752x423px) Image search:
[Google]
44KB, 752x423px
Lockheed proposed a JASSM-XR variant, which would stretch it out to the length of a AGM-86 and double the range of even the JASSM-ER. Swap out the heavy conventional warhead with a nice light W80-4, replace the IIR seeker with whatever you want (unless the USAF feels the need for sub 10 meter nuclear accuracy) and you've got a missile that while not as good as a dedicated new cruise missile, could be funded under a Clinton administration unless she's totally opposed to new nuclear programs (hopefully Carter stays on for a few years to dissuade her).
>>
>>31519678
>>31519682
This is the exact same bullshit reasoning that was going on in the republican primaries. Polls aren't always a sure thing but they sure as shit show trends and right now most of them have Clinton ahead. But if you don't want to count polls you don't agree with then sure, trump might have the lead now.
>>
>>31519608
wait, someone tried to dox him? how did that go? As far as i can tell he doesnt exactly give away a lot of personal stuff in his posts
>>
>>31519687
I believe she is totally opposed to a replacement of the ALCM, meaning that the US would have no nuclear cruise missile.
>>
>>31519761
Crikey
The bitch better have a heart attack or stroke asap.
>>
>>31519754
He basically said some things that narrowed down where he worked to like one place. I don't really know all the fallout of that though.
>>
>>31519641
>Trump leads
>According to Breitbart
Kek no, It's close but Clinton is winning, she won the HPOP polls following the debate
>>
Without a next generation cruise missile, the gap between the US and China/Russia is drastically smaller. The LRSO is also supposed to develop the next generation of conventional cruise missiles.
>>31519781
>>31519641
>>31519649
>>31519682
Read these threads if you want to make your blood boil: >>>/pol/90931500
>>>/pol/90948334
>>
>>31519332
>Not having a nuclear cruise missile is a big deal. That would limit the B-21 Raider to dropping conventional nuclear weapons.
Is this really a big deal though?
Do we have sufficient other delivery options to continue the threat of mutual annihilation with out this capability? Because nuclear seems pretty binary to me. The funds could go to something else that might actually get to kill people, and the clintons love killing people.
>>
>>31519739
polls don't matter if Trump wins by electoral college, like all republicans have to since the dems have hordes of welfare voters & illegals.
>>
>>31519823
>Do we have sufficient other delivery options to continue the threat of mutual annihilation with out this capability?
They're all getting pretty long in the tooth.
Even nuclear missiles need replacing once they get old
>>
>>31519825
All presidents wine by electoral college, the popular vote is just for show, through the individual state popular votes usually determine who get the electorial votes. And voter fraud is pretty rare, certainly not common enough to sway an election.
>>
>>31519823
It could be. It depends on how air defenses advance. There are at least three scenarios where not having nuclear cruise missiles is a very big deal.
1. Advanced air defenses are exported to countries like Iran and North Korea. One of them uses a nuke against the military of an ally. We want to respond, but not with total annihilation. We are left with either not responding with nukes or genociding them with one of our ballistic missiles.
2. We are in a limited nuclear exchange. The enemy is using nukes only against our troops and we don't want to wipe out their entire nation (like 1). Not having a nuclear cruise missile means we are severely limited in what targets we can hit with nukes.
3. We want to hit a heavily defended target with a tactical nuke (say an enrichment facility or something of that nature). Again, we either have to use a much stronger ballistic missiles or abandon our plan.
>>
>trump opposes F-35
>trump has confirmed links to russian interests
"nah guys stil le god emporer xDDD
>hillary might possibly maybe oppose LRSO
>some guy on a Thai ceramics board thinks she's funded by China
"HillDOG is such a BITCH XDDDD"
Thread posts: 30
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4