Nuclear Weapons




 
--
Boots
 
June 4th, 2005  
ninjafreak89
 

Topic: Nuclear Weapons


I start this topic today to see if someone can answer my question and to see what people think. I have heard that the entire world has enough nuclear bombs to blow up the world seven times over. Why do we continue to build such weapons when we can only blow the world up once? Tax payers money is being spend on weapons that will lead to end of the world when actually nuclear weapons should be limited to the bare minimum or not at all. What does humankind gain from building bombs that can kill every single being on the planet and that end up being stored away?

(This may be an overrated topic and/ or over used but please reply any thoughts you may have. Thank you.)
June 4th, 2005  
hicks
 
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downgrading the number of Nuclear weapins we have, and the only reason to build a new warhead would be to replace and outdated warhead already in service.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.
June 4th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
wrong!

the US military seems to be convinced that buildiong small "useful" nukes is the way to go, with russia now following.

i have been having a similar conversation in another forum and this topic was disscussed at some length,

http://www.chatarea.com/BdGTactical.m3007620-1
--
Boots
June 4th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Russia follows US in small nukes plan. 03/10/2003. ABC News Online


Russia Follows US in Small Nukes Plan - Kyodo News


Russia has announced it will consider the restricted use of small nuclear weapons to deal with regional conflicts and international terrorism in the future.

Russia's Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, has submitted a revised doctrine to President Vladimir Putin, outlining the plans for modernising the country's military force.

Observers say the Russian plan to use small nuclear arms mirrors the United States' declared strategy of being prepared to deploy its own low-yield nuclear weapons in a restricted way.

Since the September 11 attacks, the US has been conducting research and development of so-called mini-nukes, aimed at destroying underground facilities of terrorist groups.

A Russian military doctrine announced in 2000 also spelled out Moscow's assumed right to the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.

--Kyodo


Quote:
Comment on article: Russia follows US in small nukes plan

by Steven Starr, October 3, 2003


This is another significant step towards nuclear proliferation and nuclear war, with the US again leading the way.

The Bush administration has attempted to portray the so-called mini-nukes as a quasi-conventional weapon that can be used without the danger of massive radioactive fallout. This is a deliberate lie, because even a 0.1 kT weapon must be detonated several hundred feet below ground to contain the blast. There is simply no way to do this; the warhead will detonate less than 100 feet below the surface of the target and create a very radioactive cloud which will kill anything that it comes in contact with.

Yet the US Congress and media have gone along with the development of these weapons, and have chosen to ignore the reality of what they are creating. The few "objective" stories I have seen about mini-nukes have uniformly failed to mention that the new generation of smaller ("usable") nuclear weapons will be dirty nuclear weapons. The evidence for this criticism is based upon the results of US nuclear tests conducted in Nevada -- it is not theoretical. These tests were in fact done to precisely calculate the depths needed to contain nuclear explosions. Mini-nukes will create surface blasts which contaminate large areas with deadly radioactive fallout.

Not only does this violate the letter and spirit of the NPT, but it also brings us closer to a time when the distinction between nuclear and conventional forces will be distinctly blurred. The apparent willingness to deploy nuclear munitions on a "pre-emptive" basis will only have the effect of speeding up the proliferation process

Although the enemies against which a "nuclear bunker-buster" might be used would probably not have a nuclear arsenal
with which to respond, it is not a given that nuclear war could be ruled out in the event other NWS would choose to side with the nation receiving the strike. Beyond that, it would certainly invite a nuclear retaliation of some sort, whether it be a suitcase bomb or a huge device planted in a hold of a ship.

Steven Starr
http://www.chatarea.com/BdGTactical.m3013664

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.

[/quote]
June 5th, 2005  
Warwick
 
Smaller nukes????? Geez, something you wouldn't want to leave in an unsecured area.
Almost like the bombs used in starship troopers. The novel not the crappy movie!
June 5th, 2005  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
I remember shoulder-launched nuclear missiles in the crappy movie.
June 5th, 2005  
hicks
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
I remember shoulder-launched nuclear missiles in the crappy movie.
Starship Troopers
June 5th, 2005  
Redleg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
the US military seems to be convinced that buildiong small "useful" nukes is the way to go, with russia now following.
Nuclear Artillery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/N/N...-artillery.htm

http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/n/nuclear-artillery.html

"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  
Missileer
 
 

Topic: Re: Nuclear Weapons


Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjafreak89
I start this topic today to see if someone can answer my question and to see what people think. I have heard that the entire world has enough nuclear bombs to blow up the world seven times over. Why do we continue to build such weapons when we can only blow the world up once? Tax payers money is being spend on weapons that will lead to end of the world when actually nuclear weapons should be limited to the bare minimum or not at all. What does humankind gain from building bombs that can kill every single being on the planet and that end up being stored away?

(This may be an overrated topic and/ or over used but please reply any thoughts you may have. Thank you.)
Well, it's just the gift that keeps on giving. Everyone wants to catch up to the "first kid on the block to own one". I served in the middle of the Cold War and was stationed on Nike Hercules bases which were converted to nuclear warheads in 1963. I can tell you that the planet won't be destroyed by a "blast" from a nuke. Most delivery systems are designed to burst at an altitude which will disperse as much of the heat and radioactive particles as possible over a targeted country or even continent. This assures that the jet stream and other atmospheric conditions will kill every living organism on earth, land, and sea. I guess Humankind doesn't want to think of the consequences because the thoughts are too horrible to dwell on. Given that scenario, tactical nukes are looking better all the time.
June 6th, 2005  
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.