Nuclear weapons

paul_valaru

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
so US doesn't want IRAN to have them, I am ok with that.

question is why does ANYONE have them anymore?

the cold war is over, so no more nuclear stand off, if anyone is gonna use oen today it will be someone not affiliated with a goverment to retaliate against.

why not disarm and destroy them all?
 
paul_valaru said:
so US doesn't want IRAN to have them, I am ok with that.

question is why does ANYONE have them anymore?

the cold war is over, so no more nuclear stand off, if anyone is gonna use oen today it will be someone not affiliated with a goverment to retaliate against.

why not disarm and destroy them all?
Click to expand...

So when the day comes that we blow the ever-loving hell out of those big mouthed Canadians and take their oil too!!! :swing:

I'd advise practicing your duck and cover techniques
 
I would concede that there is no longer a need for the 1000's of warheads/weapons in our nuclear arsenal... but there is still need for 200 or so as an insurance policy to keep things in check.

Insurance policy against whom? Another attempted Russian revolution like the one that happend a decade ago. Suddenly our old well armed rival could be taken over by psychotic old school despots and start slinging hash.

North Korea has an immense army and is run by a cult of personality freak show that makes the Jim Jones cult seem like a picnic. If there were no nukes, they could make a bid for gobbling up South Korea as well as Japan.

China is huge, communist, and has a huge army. Any military controlled by a one party dictatorship is always dangerous as it can make strange and bold moves threatening anything and everyone with ask permission from its citizenry first.

The Middle East... tons have been elsewhere for this. Albiet a minor threat militarily, they are still very vulnerable to coups and could go apeshit against Europe.

The Nazi angle: There are unknown future scenarios of powerful and charismatic nutcases coming up amidst world strife, collecting the power of powerful nations, and going ape on the world just like the Axis powers of WW2. There has been a clear historical malaise to responding in the military and conventional sense to great evils of the past.

It allows for smaller standing armies: As expensive and as dangerous as nukes are, they replace the need for massive standing armies to hold 'the peace' aka status quo. Its cheaper.

Existing methods, the UN and whatnot, are slow and relatively useless in a crisis. The UN may be decent in mini squabbles... but amounts to little in the big picture.
 
This post reminds me of the disarmament silliness of days of yore.

Why do the South Africans have noo-cue-lar weapons?

Sheesh Paul, why'd you type such bunk, you lose yer job er sumthin'?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
We're having problems in North Carolina? :lloyd:
Click to expand...


Im there does that count :p




Like SnP said no one wants to disarm first, and because some countries are at each other's throats. Thats why countries have them. We would be better off without such weapons but its where we are
 
For the record, the US, Russia, EU, China and Japan could all do without Nukes. It's far cheaper to launch a satelite with what amounts to a guided crowbar into orbit with a sufficient fuel supply to direct it over any point with 72 hours. 200lbs from orbital velocity. Anyone care to do the math? I figure about twice Hiroshima, with no fallout. Shockwave alone would reduce anything with a mile to shrapnel.
 
We need the fallout. What good is a simple kaboom threat if you don't get residual contamination and destruction that reaches for 80 generations down the road? Being wiped out carries a heckuva lot more weight if has a sense of forever.
 
Professur said:
For the record, the US, Russia, EU, China and Japan could all do without Nukes. It's far cheaper to launch a satelite with what amounts to a guided crowbar into orbit with a sufficient fuel supply to direct it over any point with 72 hours. 200lbs from orbital velocity. Anyone care to do the math? I figure about twice Hiroshima, with no fallout. Shockwave alone would reduce anything with a mile to shrapnel.
Click to expand...
You'd have to start out with quite a bit more than 200 lbs bcause you're going to burn away a lot of mass coming through the atmosphere at that speed. :nerd:
 
Quite true... but we have insure the destruction of the great-great-grandkids too. It makes them think twice... hopefully.

"Before we are through with them, the Japanese language will only be spoken in hell."
-Adm. William F. "Bull" Halsey quoted the day after Pearl Harbor
 
chcr said:
You'd have to start out with quite a bit more than 200 lbs bcause you're going to burn away a lot of mass coming through the atmosphere at that speed. :nerd:
Click to expand...


Not true. Hardened Tungsten, with an ablative heat shield and an aerodynamic profile. You'll lose less that 20%. Don't forget, most orbitals are designed to shed speed and create lots of friction on the way down. This wouldn't be.
 
Weren't there a piece of two of that last spaceshuttle that burned, that reached
the earth, and still weighed more that 200lbs?
 
Yeah, but that wasn't exactly aerodynamic, was it? And it wasn't doing orbital speed either. The shuttle had slowed from orbital just (what am I at? 13 I think) to start the decent. And it had already bled off a big chunk of it's speed before it blew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top