scorch
Legalize Pot
maybe if all the money currently being spent on war, is spent on education, everyone in the world wouldn't be stupid enough to think that having wars are a good idea.
Nuclear Ordnance
- Thread starter History_Buff
- Start date
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Idealistic sillyness, as you will find out as YOU progress in your education. Simply will never, ever happen, and shows simplistic reasoning as to the causes of war. Read and learn, scorch, and you will understand how, quite unfortunately, what you propose is dreamy dust in the wind.
SKILORD
Insurgent
cute, maybe if wee just had asked nice enough in WW2 Hitler would have stopped torturing jews and stop taking lands that wern't his and stop violating treaties. no..... wait.... didn't they try to do that? at least with the land + treatis
Let me take the other opinion...
If they had spent mony on education insted of building an army noone would have voted for Hitler... perhaps.
If we had spent the $ that have been spent on wepons for the say last 20 year on evening the social and economic gaps in the world there would not be anyone willing to fight -- cuz there would not be anything to fight for(religous people not included).
But... there could be one problem with this idee... considering the efort mankind have spent on finding out resons to kill one another I guess we would only come up with new ones - like you have a 60' TV and I only hav a 50' or that you dress in red when I belive we should dress in blue.
If there where only one man left on earth he would probobly shoot himself in an argument
If they had spent mony on education insted of building an army noone would have voted for Hitler... perhaps.
If we had spent the $ that have been spent on wepons for the say last 20 year on evening the social and economic gaps in the world there would not be anyone willing to fight -- cuz there would not be anything to fight for(religous people not included).
But... there could be one problem with this idee... considering the efort mankind have spent on finding out resons to kill one another I guess we would only come up with new ones - like you have a 60' TV and I only hav a 50' or that you dress in red when I belive we should dress in blue.
If there where only one man left on earth he would probobly shoot himself in an argument
Tortured?
He killed 6 million of them!
Anyway I really dont see a point holding 2000 nukes.
200 are enough to practically destroy the world
A bit related, this is a shocking scenario:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1.shtml
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Thank you IceBlaze, that was my point. Sure its good to have some nukes for deterent, but there no point having excessive amouts, especially since someone will probably invent a way to shoot them down soon anyway.
santo67
Huitzilopochtli
Ahh, but you forget... Those aren't just 24 nukes; those are 24 Trident missles containing six nuclear warheads apiece. That's 144 nuclear warheads on one sub. Something goes wrong... BOOM! And that thing takes a sizeable chunk of the planet with it.
Or maybe that's the Los Angeles class...
Take my word for it, (or not, but I DO know whereof I speak) these things are SAFE. If a disaster similar to the Kusrk happened to an Ohio class, at worst, you would have some broken missiles on the seafloor. No BOOM!
allhailIndia
Deity
We need nukes, the more the better, because if all our nukes are destroyed by a strike of haf the enemy's arsenal, we would be in big trouble
Greadius
:yeah:
Actually, there is a reason underwater nuclear tests are frequent: it absorbs much of the blast
Unless you mean if they accidentally LAUNCH, which is a great arguement for National Missile defense.
Actually, those whole thread is...
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
And yes, nuclear missiles are very safe, unless you accidently launch them, which is almost immpossable, they fall into the wrong hands which is again unlikely, or if you spill the rocket fuel, which is not nuclear. The nukes temselves will almost never detonate.
As for the last few points, I guess it would be good to spread them out, but hows putting 4-8 on most ships, and large, but still reduced loads on carriers.
As for the last few points, I guess it would be good to spread them out, but hows putting 4-8 on most ships, and large, but still reduced loads on carriers.
santo67
Huitzilopochtli
I mean if the sub is close enough to the seafloor, which isn't really likely, but you never know. 144 nuclear blasts in one spot is likely to do something.Originally posted by Greadius
Actually, there is a reason underwater nuclear tests are frequent: it absorbs much of the blast
Unless you mean if they accidentally LAUNCH, which is a great arguement for National Missile defense.
Actually, those whole thread is...
And nuclear testing was done underwater, but not for a while. The Test-Ban treaty stopped all testing except underground.
scorch
Legalize Pot
so because theres some *******s in the world, its excuse to have millions of nukes?
most of the wars in the world have not been nessecary, eg vietnam, that one when america invaded canada, WWI
most of the wars in the world have not been nessecary, eg vietnam, that one when america invaded canada, WWI
Wars happen, thats not the point here.
The point here its enough to have 40 silos each with 5 nuclear weapons to assure you will always have detterance and means to destroy the enemy.
Now, please tell me whats the point in holdint over 2000 nukes? in one ****ing country.
The point here its enough to have 40 silos each with 5 nuclear weapons to assure you will always have detterance and means to destroy the enemy.
Now, please tell me whats the point in holdint over 2000 nukes? in one ****ing country.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
My dear santo67 ,I am most aware of the multiplyer effect of MIRVs. But you do get the numbers a bit low.
Britain loads 6 warheads per Trident II D-5, for your 128 figure, in their Vanguard class SSBNs.
The US, on the other hand, currently loads 8 MIRVs per missile, and they are capable of carrying 12. So, the figure is more like 192 per Ohio SSBN, and a maximum capacity of 288.
So, per missile: 8 x Mk 5 MIRV, W-76/-88 100 KT (W-76) 300-475 KT (W-88)
And as Padma, who knows what he is talking about, says, the warheads would not explode just by themselves. There are extensive safeguards in place to prevent this type of occurence. If an Ohio was hit by a conventional torpedo, there would be no big BOOM in a nuclear sense, and the planet would remain quite intact.
This little quote outlines the future state of the US strategic arsenal.
"The START II Treaty, slated for entry into force in 2003, will limit the strategic arsenal to 3,500 deployed warheads. This will consist of 14 Ohio-class submarines, each carrying 24 Trident II missiles, 500 Minuteman III missiles with a single warhead, 66 B-52Hs carrying nor more than 1,000 air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), and advanced cruise missiles (ACM), and 20 B-2's carrying up to 16 gravity bombs each. But there will be also be 950 tactical weapons (largely gravity bombs and sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs)), and 2,500 reserve weapons and 2,500 warheads in inactive reserve. These could easily be uploaded onto the START II delivery systems to provide rapid "breakout" capability."
and
"Strategic Nuclear Weapons: 7,300
Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons: 4,700-11,700
Total Nuclear Weapons: 12,000-19,000"
Now that is deterrence. And that is its purpose, as well as warfighting against the foe.
And my dear scorch, your latest contribution is yet more idealism, and contains some very amusing generalizations and judgements. The world is not a nice happy place, and will not suddenly become that way. By all means aim for it with your jolly teenage communist dalliance, but try and learn something of reality.
Britain loads 6 warheads per Trident II D-5, for your 128 figure, in their Vanguard class SSBNs.
The US, on the other hand, currently loads 8 MIRVs per missile, and they are capable of carrying 12. So, the figure is more like 192 per Ohio SSBN, and a maximum capacity of 288.
So, per missile: 8 x Mk 5 MIRV, W-76/-88 100 KT (W-76) 300-475 KT (W-88)
And as Padma, who knows what he is talking about, says, the warheads would not explode just by themselves. There are extensive safeguards in place to prevent this type of occurence. If an Ohio was hit by a conventional torpedo, there would be no big BOOM in a nuclear sense, and the planet would remain quite intact.
This little quote outlines the future state of the US strategic arsenal.
"The START II Treaty, slated for entry into force in 2003, will limit the strategic arsenal to 3,500 deployed warheads. This will consist of 14 Ohio-class submarines, each carrying 24 Trident II missiles, 500 Minuteman III missiles with a single warhead, 66 B-52Hs carrying nor more than 1,000 air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), and advanced cruise missiles (ACM), and 20 B-2's carrying up to 16 gravity bombs each. But there will be also be 950 tactical weapons (largely gravity bombs and sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs)), and 2,500 reserve weapons and 2,500 warheads in inactive reserve. These could easily be uploaded onto the START II delivery systems to provide rapid "breakout" capability."
and
"Strategic Nuclear Weapons: 7,300
Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons: 4,700-11,700
Total Nuclear Weapons: 12,000-19,000"
Now that is deterrence. And that is its purpose, as well as warfighting against the foe.
And my dear scorch, your latest contribution is yet more idealism, and contains some very amusing generalizations and judgements. The world is not a nice happy place, and will not suddenly become that way. By all means aim for it with your jolly teenage communist dalliance, but try and learn something of reality.
There was a nice article in Newsweek about the possible effect of a full lunch of 144 warheads from a sub. This to explain the enormous amount of weapons that the US has.
They would have taken out around 50 million of the population in Russia and most of the military installations in the west of Russia.
In the same article they had also talked to an former general who had been in charge and who had tried to taken out from the database unnecessary targets(like several missiles pointed at an small radar dish) but after he left there were still more targets in the database. Cuz fore every new weapon system that were built they had to motivate it with at target no matter how pointless it was.
They would have taken out around 50 million of the population in Russia and most of the military installations in the west of Russia.
In the same article they had also talked to an former general who had been in charge and who had tried to taken out from the database unnecessary targets(like several missiles pointed at an small radar dish) but after he left there were still more targets in the database. Cuz fore every new weapon system that were built they had to motivate it with at target no matter how pointless it was.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Not necessarily. There were new targets, and targets that required different attention, and new weapons systems did replace the older ones in active deployment and use. The SIOP was not a huge plan that kept getting added to without subtraction; it was subject to change.
And in "nook-u-lar combat", matters are complicated as to what is pointless or not. C-4s, D-5s and Minutemen II were not aimed at "suspected truck parks" or the Krasnovodsk Komsomol barracks.
allhailIndia
Deity
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
And in "nook-u-lar combat", matters are complicated as to what is pointless or not. C-4s, D-5s and Minutemen II were not aimed at "suspected truck parks" or the Krasnovodsk Komsomol barracks.
I wonder where Dubya has pointed them
.Let's hope the Minutemen and Tomahawks(these are modern weapons and still that fix with old weaponry hmph
)are pointed towards Iraq and not any place covered in desert if you know what I mean
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Originally posted by allhailIndia
I wonder where Dubya has pointed them
Let's hope the Minutemen and Tomahawks(these are modern weapons and still that fix with old weaponry hmph
are pointed towards Iraq and not any place covered in desert if you know what I mean
The Minutemen III is not the most modern ICBM in the current arsenal; the MX Peacekeeper is, but it is due for removal under START II.
The Tomahawks are not strategic weapons, and those in deployment had their nuclear warheads removed in 1991 under Bush the First.
They can take a nuclear warhead, but have a range of only 1500 or so.
" On 27 September 1991 President Bush announced a number of initiatives affecting the entire spectrum of US nuclear weapons. The United States removed all tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles, from its surface ships and attack submarines. The nuclear equiped UGM-109A TLAM-N Tomahawk was withdrawn from service in 1992, though conventional versions remain operational."
The President does not create the SIOP himself, so he is not in charge of "pointing" the missiles.
If they did decide to use nuclear weapons against an Iraqi target, it would probably be a gravity bomb delivered by a B-2, or a D-5 SLBM, rather than ICBMs launched from CONUS. And these weapons are accurate, to less than 100 metres, so the risk of them hitting the wrong country is comparatively minor.
