newfangle
hates you.
Yes we need them. What if an asteroid of the perfect size and composition for a nuclear strike decides to threaten our planet?
Do we need nuclear weapons?
- Thread starter CannoedGerbil
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
North King said:
Seriously, somewhere I read about the US plans for a nuclear war against USSR. They seriously considered keeping about third of their arsenal just for case some other nation would attack them then
US Government concluded we would need a rocket with 20x the entire world's nuclear arsenal. Such a device would be more a risk to Earth than an asteroid.newfangle said:
Additionally, if you want to use scare-mongering as the excuse: Comets are the most dangerous.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Can you ellaborate?stormbind said:
We should keep nukes for the following three reasons
1) Asteroids
2) Alien Invasion
3) Anything else we need it for that dopesn't necessarily mean global oblivion
How many times in movies do they get rid of nukes and then something happens where they need them?
1) Asteroids
2) Alien Invasion
3) Anything else we need it for that dopesn't necessarily mean global oblivion
How many times in movies do they get rid of nukes and then something happens where they need them?
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
Unless an alien invasion or asteroid threatens Earth I see no need for them. But world leaders don't think like me 
On the other hand there is a more specific question: Is it better to leave them all into the hands of one power (as some *cough*consies*cough* want)? If Mutually Assured Destruction worked, could we say it's MAD (aka "sanity"
) that saved the world from reckless warmongers?
On the other hand there is a more specific question: Is it better to leave them all into the hands of one power (as some *cough*consies*cough* want)? If Mutually Assured Destruction worked, could we say it's MAD (aka "sanity"
) that saved the world from reckless warmongers?GeneralZed
look around...
What would you do if the aliens had unpenetrable laser barriers?
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
GeneralZed said:
The Americans will think of something! Like uploading a virus into the mother ship to disable the shields via a recovered alien fighter from the Roswell crash. And then blow up the mother ship with one nuke!
Anyway thats what they did in this documentry I saw a few years ago.
Godwynn said:
The strongest weapon that has been made by any one is a US made 15MT thermo nuclear device which could destroy a couple of square miles, so if dropped on say NEw York it would not only take out the city but the outlying suburbs.
As for the orginal question, Yes we need nukes simply because any type of Nuclear defense, ie Missle shield cannont be devolped for a long time due to a number of cold war era treaties preventing any militarisation of space which is what is requried for alot the missle shield concepts, also remember that there is a specific treaty banning any type of missle defense.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
I'm afraid unless cruise missiles can be mass produced at the cost of a handgun, have the same range as an ICBM and the accuracy of hitting within a meter with the armor piercing potential of a bunker buster, nuclear missiles are here to stay. An ICBM would destroy everything in its wake but a swarm of highly advanced cruise missiles with the range of an ICBM would select targets and destroy them without civilian collateral and without the fallout, rendering the ICBM in terms of cost and public opinion an ancient dinosaur that's only fit to exist in a museum. It's all in the Third Millenium, A History of the World: AD 2000-3000 by Brian Stableford and David Langford.
Hmmm, somehow I'm afraid that "safer" wars would lead to more wars.leonel said:I'm afraid unless cruise missiles can be mass produced at the cost of a handgun, have the same range as an ICBM and the accuracy of hitting within a meter with the armor piercing potential of a bunker buster, nuclear missiles are here to stay. An ICBM would destroy everything in its wake but a swarm of highly advanced cruise missiles with the range of an ICBM would select targets and destroy them without civilian collateral and without the fallout, rendering the ICBM in terms of cost and public opinion an ancient dinosaur that's only fit to exist in a museum. It's all in the Third Millenium, A History of the World: AD 2000-3000 by Brian Stableford and David Langford.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
We do, you don't.
RegentMan
Deity
Or in the movie Independence Day...Bugfatty300 said:
Evil Tyrant said:Although if I was in charge, lets just say Mecca would be the holiest pile of ruins in the world.
How sad
As for nukes, first of all the 'nukes as a tool' argument is not very good. If you nuke an asteroid you end up littering the world with radioactive rocks. As for the aliens argument thats just speculation. Maybe we should keep smallpox around incase they are allergic. Who knows
Nukes are a catch22. If, for example, the US disarms then Russia becomes more powerful. This is not what the US wants.
As for nukes becoming obsolete, this is a possibility if the Star Wars programme comes into being.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
There is the prevalent idea that asteroid-destructive nukes will have to be fired from the near vicinity of Earth (I blame ArmagedonTruronian said:
). If the detection is early (years, decades) it takes a significantly less blast material to nudge a big rock out of it's long term course.There is certainly a will for that to happend. Just as I will to levitate. But the Force is not strong in me
downwithgravity
Zen Rocker
Evil Tyrant said:Iraq and Afganistan didn't invade us, we invaded them. Although if I was in charge, lets just say Mecca would be the holiest pile of ruins in the world.
For the purpose of pissing off a billion people with no real effect?
King Alexander
Universe explorer
Either all nations should agree to, gradually, destroy their nuclear weapons OR just shut up accusing nations wanting to develop nuclear weapons to calm down their fears.
Double speak has no support by me.
btw: there're powerful weapons out there that aren't nuclear, so still, strong nations could easily defeat other weaker nations.
Double speak has no support by me.
btw: there're powerful weapons out there that aren't nuclear, so still, strong nations could easily defeat other weaker nations.
Similar threads
