About Nuclear Weapons
|June 4th, 2005||#1|
| || |
Nuclear Weapons info
(This may be an overrated topic and/ or over used but please reply any thoughts you may have. Thank you.)
|June 4th, 2005||#2|
| || |
I'm pretty sure the United States is not building any more nuclear weapons and haven't been for awhile. The US is actually downgrading the number of Nuclear weapins we have, and the only reason to build a new warhead would be to replace and outdated warhead already in service.
In theory though, we are able to build 1 bomb that would destroy the entire planet because of the amount of force plus fallout leading to nuclear winters.... but nobody has done it yet.
\"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.\" - George Orwell
|June 4th, 2005||#4|
| || |
In one example, the scientists discuss the blast needed to destroy a shallowly buried enemy bunker.
A typical weapon in the current U.S. arsenal can be accurately delivered within about 300 feet of its target. To destroy such a bunker, that requires a blast equivalent to about 15 kilotons of TNT.
The scientists say that would spread deadly radiation over a five-mile radius.
By delivering the weapon more accurately - within 30 feet - they say a blast of only one-half kiloton would be enough to destroy the bunker. The radiation zone would be reduced to a little more than a mile.
The question today is whether such new highly accurate low-yield weapons can be achieved with modifications to existing weapons or by designing entirely new ones.
|June 5th, 2005||#8|
| || |
"In 1991 the US withdrew its nuclear artillery shells from service, the USSR responded in kind in 1992"
So small "useful" nukes isn't a new idea.
|June 5th, 2005||#9|
| || |
Re: Nuclear Weapons info
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
—John Stuart Mill
|June 6th, 2005||#10|
| || |
You cannot wipe out the planet with nuclear weapons, there just aren't enough. You can do significant damage if you send enough in one area, but consider how large the surface of the planet is and how many nukes we have now, it wouldn't work out. Take the cold war scenario where if the soviets and nato were to nuke each other. All the beligerent countries involved would collapse as well as any country they supported. With all the UN security council members nuked, the dictators of the world are free to go crazy on each other. There would be a huge impact on the global economy with mass famine virtually everywhere. And all those volatile areas of the world like pakistan and the mid east would fall into anarchy. You see, the threat isn't so much the damage of the weapons which would kill over a half a billion at least if this occured, but the resulting vacuum of power that would leave much of the developing world in chaos. Why would anyone target a nuke at new zealand, the weapons were meant to be used on the other nuclear powers, not nuclear free states.