 |
| |
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iamlod
Because, if they carry out plans to create 'mini nukes', it'll be that much easier for our enemies (or terrosists) to steal them and use them against others.
Can you imagine a nuclear suitcase bomb?
It's also just a waste of money... I can see the use of earth penetrating bombs, but I think mini-nukes are pretty useless. Why not use the money to make modern nuclear weapons produce less fallout? Or maybe cure a few deseases? It's been a while since we cured anything (I think polio was the last one, but I'm not sure). |
No one has stolen any nuclear weapons form the US yet. ANd I assume that the same security they use for regular nukes would be used for these. But these nukes would be so small that I dont think it is as bad as you say. They only be one kiloton of power in them. A truck bomb could or an airplane filled with jet fuel would be just as powerfull and easier to get.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
the bunkers reside in the cities. because they know our weaknesses.
and I support dope bombs. |
but they would blow up under the ground though. Besides I think they would use them rarely if at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
No, an exploding Saturn V would be just about as powerful.
Unless dug to a significant depth, presumably penetration into the ground from air or space would destroy the missile, and if successful, not penetrate far, certainly not far enough to negate explosive, let alone radioactive damage.
Besides, way to piss people off!
Hiroshima was 15 kilotons IIRC, but hey close enough! |
Well I bet a airplane crashing into a high rise building full of people could kill more people than one of their mini nukes. If I were a terrorist I would look for things I could get easly that could cause mass destruction. If the World Trade center was full of people and they hit the building latter in the day more people would have died, some say around 20,000.
Nukes I think already piss people off, but I think its better to have mini nukes instead of 500 kiloton warheads armed on ICBMs aimed at all major cities.
Sorry you are right about the 1 kiloton thing, my bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
This is Bush we're talking about here! |
Oh please give me a break. YOu guys give to much power to our president. Congress has to one etheir declare war or aprove of any millitary action that is taken. They can also cut the funding for troops in the feild. And Bush is not as horrible as you think, and with 150,000 troops in Iraq it makes it really hard to invade anther country when you have so much man power tied up in one country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Well I bet a airplane crashing into a high rise building full of people could kill more people than one of their mini nukes
|
It could, but like for like, a small nuclear device in the middle of Wall Street would have killed far more people than 9/11 given a couple more hours.
In terms of what provides a more powerful explosive, its nukes every time.
quote:
I think its better to have mini nukes instead of 500 kiloton warheads armed on ICBMs aimed at all major cities
|
A fair statement, however I will be contravercial and say that I would prefer having megaton warheads aimed at major cities like in the cold war, than one or all sides having mini nukes. The reason is that because of fear of MAD, no-one will use them, yet in this latter scenario, they are more inclined to use smaller devices for more localised uses.
Less people die in the first scenario, it does threaten the survival of the human race if it cocks up unlike the second, but that threat was enough of a kick in the ass to keep us alive in the cold war. Again with Dr Strangelove. In a sense, game theory shows that we were destined to survive the cold war given only massive nukes.
Also consider that one would have small nukes and large nukes. In a superpower conflict (USA, Britain, Russia, China), use of small nukes could escalate into use of larger lumps. That would, quite categorically; suck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sickntired
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Because it means nukes are more likely to be used |
Hmm. The United States has assembled thousands of nuclear devices since WWII and not used a single one. What evidence prompts this statement?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Hmm. The United States has assembled thousands of nuclear devices since WWII and not used a single one. What evidence prompts this statement?
|
As I said previously, MAD. This means "Mutually Assured Destruction". This means that if America fired a nuke, USSR would fire back, and all would be dust. Its a sort of equilibrium, like an arm-wrestle where both sides can't get the decisive edge to prevent MAD.
Now, compare a rocket launcher to a beretta when you want to take out someone's kneecap. This is the key difference, smaller weapons are more tactically useful at completing tasks due to smaller yield, so more likely to be used. However of course many of the traditional problems of nukes remain, not least the threat of retaliation if a superpower is involved. Most likely in that case a small nuke would be used on a third world state, under the protection of someone like China etc. Its effectively in that case a back door to global annihilation.
Game theory is an economic idea, assuming all people are rational (no-one fires first without provocation), it shows that in a situation, like the cuban missile crisis for example, no-one would fire, and in the larger cold war, we would emerge without use of nukes.
Incidentally, MAD was the reason McArthurs desire for the use of nukes in the Korean war was rejected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Mini-nukes will give the US a more diverse and effective deterrent in this post Cold War and post 9-11 era. Right now, all we really have a city busters which will be completely useless against a terror attack with WMDs. If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, we can't retaliate with a 20 Mt city buster. Who would we target since the terrorists are probably not linked to any nation or state? It would be a completely inappropriate response against that sort of attack. A mini-nuke however would be more appropriate in certain cases. It is very low yield, and low fallout. And it could target specific underground and deeply buried facilities where terrorists are mostly likely to hide, and that conventional weapons can't reach. |
I still think that its bad press... it doesn't really matter whether or not they do as much damage, they still conjure up images of radioactive death, and for people who are already sitting on the fence with us, that's exactly the sort of imagery we DON'T need. And how exactly are we going to tell such and such country "Oh, we're going to drop a nuke in your backyard if you don't mind..." That'll go over well, I'm sure.
Nevermind the fact of what if something goes wrong... if we know exactly where these bunkers are, we could get to them with enough persistence.... what we wouldn't want is the air force getting the Okay to use these things and then decide to go hunting and pecking for the bunkers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sickntired
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iamlod
it'll be that much easier for our enemies (or terrosists) to steal them |
I would assume, perhaps mistakenly so, that security around a military facility housing nuclear weapons would be rather tight. Perhaps unparalleled. Could you describe a couple of the most blatant security breeches at these facilities? Perhaps this is a real concern?
quote:
Originally posted by iamlod
Can you imagine a nuclear suitcase bomb? |
Yes, actually, as a matter of fact I can, considering the United States developed a 48 pound nuclear device called the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead in 1958. Does this come as a surprise 45 years later?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
A 1 kiloton blast is enough to be a city buster. The application of these devices, not to mention the fact that THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE has not been thought out. IMO it would appear to be another attempt to appear strong armed to the voters. God im cynical (and right  ).
quote:
If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, we can't retaliate with a 20 Mt city buster
|
You don't have any 20 megaton nukes. If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, you should arrest and try them for mass murder/genocide etc. Like I said, any useful tactical application simply does not exist, of if so, is not enough to logically justify this proposed weapon. It may make sense at first glace, but it doesn't work like that.
quote:
It is very low yield, and low fallout
|
Lowest possible yield would be in the area of 5 kilotons (Hiroshima was 15 tons, 1kiloton, while massive, is out of the question). This is a big yield, easily enough to destroy much of New York or inner London, wipe out my town of ~200'000 certainly (10% death rate easily here). The fallout would be comparable to Hiroshima, which was devastating in its own right.
quote:
It is highly unlikely that we would ever use them. I certainly hope we never do. But we need the diverse deterrence.
|
ITS NOT A DETERRENT!!! Its more useful in a tactical capacity, not to give the shits to the enemy!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
As I said previously, MAD. This means "Mutually Assured Destruction". This means that if America fired a nuke, USSR would fire back, and all would be dust. Its a sort of equilibrium, like an arm-wrestle where both sides can't get the decisive edge to prevent MAD. |
This is precisely why we need mini-nukes. The world has changed. We don't face an enemy of large cities and long range intercontinental missiles. Now, we face an enemy of small covert terror groups, extremelly difficult to detect, who can inflitrate in and out of any country, and who would not hesitate to slaughter thousands with WMD if possible with no regard for the consequences.
MAD only worked with the USSR because they too cared about their lives. MAD won't work against terrorists because they don't care about their own lives. Bin Laden and the likes, won't care one bit if they start a nuclear war.
Our current detterent of 20Mt intercontinental missiles are obsolete against this new threat. We need a new deterrence, something smaller that can threaten the terrorists even in the deepest underground hide-outs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
I thought about this, if they are going to create an explosive reaction, they need nuke material at or above critical mass for a chain reaction.
Most nukes have no control over that, for maximum explosive force, however I figure if they use boron rods like in a normal reactor, they can control the reaction, reducing the yield for the same mass of uranium/plutonium. In that sense, you could probably get a yield of a few dozen tons of TNT.
That is still devastating of course, but greater usability and making it even more likely to be used. Fallout will become more acute, localised and concentrated, and if some gets into atmosphere, you have a problem - even more so if more of these things are used. We're deep in the **** if these things are created!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
This is precisely why we need mini-nukes. The world has changed. We don't face an enemy of large cities and long range intercontinental missiles
|
Hello China. Not to mention North Korea, Pakistan (expect them to have much better missile tech in a decade or two). Terrorism is little tactical threat a thorn in the side at best, you're real problem are emerging nuclear powers. In this case, MAD applies.
As you just stated very finely, terrorism is a civil issue, an intelligence matter, nukes are of no use in this respect. Munitions are more likely to be scattered, and training camps, or concentrations of munitions can be easily dispatched using current airborne hardware, as we saw with incredible success in Afghanistan.
Terrorist orgs probably wont have nukes, or rather, won't develop them, if they are sold them, that is a matter for intelligence. That eventuality is likely with N.Korea.
Also, the idea of retaliating with nukes if attacked in kind by terrorists is idiotic. Who would you target? Tactically it makes no sense, although it does politically. I assume that governments are run on rationality, and not petty revenge.
quote:
Our current detterent of 20Mt intercontinental missiles are obsolete against this new threat. We need a new deterrence, something smaller that can threaten the terrorists even in the deepest underground hide-outs
|
You have 15 megaton lumps IIRC, and those are biggest which are being phased out in favour of smaller 200ish kiloton units fired from subs.
As you quite rightly put it, terrorists are quite happy to die, and are not feeling threatened by the USA, Al Qaeda is as much of a threat as ever even after Afghanistan and Iraq have fallen, so what makes you think they will be intimidated into pacification by nukes that are of limited effectiveness against them?
EDIT: I'm not 100% sure about 15 megaton lumps being the most powerful in use by USA. In any case, you don't want to be too close to either if they go off...
Last edited by Whaleboy on 06-08-2003 at 07:46
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2003 06:40
Makes sense in light of recent events I suppose.
|