Nuclear Weapons - Page 3




 
--
Nuclear Weapons
 
July 10th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Nuclear Weapons
Well we needed enough missiles to not only hit targets in Russia but all of the Warsaw pact, the Russians needed the same for the United States and all of NATO. Figure in failure rates and targets that might require more than one strike like NORAD or other bunkers. Add it all up and you need a good number of missiles.
July 11th, 2005  
wolfen
 
Failure rate?
why does that phrase scare me a little when we're talking aboutf nuclear weapons?
July 11th, 2005  
Welshwarrior
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
I remember shoulder-launched nuclear missiles in the crappy movie.
Bloody neat though, especially when being attacked by a herd of very angry rabbits.
--
Nuclear Weapons
July 11th, 2005  
Welshwarrior
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
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.
And not forgetting the nuclear winter, which will really ruin your day.
July 11th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
Yea, the areas that are covered with debris and smoke would notice a large drop in temeperature. But i don't think it would be so bad as to send the planet into a cooling trend. The skies would have to be filled with debris to have a global effect, i think something like nuclear winter would happen to areas that were hit with powerful weapons.

when krakatoa (indonesia) exploded there was an unusually cold season in europe afterwards. and that was just the effect of ONE volcano. with neclear war we would be talking about thousands of nukes going of over the period of a couple of days (if not the space of hours). all throwing fallout into the upper air currents....let alone the smoke from fires.
nuclear winter is a very plausable theory
July 12th, 2005  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshwarrior

Bloody neat though, especially when being attacked by a herd of very angry rabbits.
You bet!
July 12th, 2005  
wolfen
 
I remember when mt St Hellans denetonated, and te side went so high in the air that we got dirt from Washington St here in Virginia, that was just a volcano, I can just imagine what 5 or 10 megaton would do.
July 26th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Well what you must consider that all the countries that have THE bomb want enough of them to the job properly, hence the large number of nukes