OT: Satellite killing weapons.

[progguitar]

If it's uninhabitable, how do you know how many nukes it will take to destroy the Earth? I don't mean to disagree with you, because we certainly need to be vigilant about security. But to imply that we are disarming simply because we don't spend $400B on a nuke upgrade is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think?

there isn't enought energy in the atomic weapons to disrupt the gravitational forces that hold our planet together. I read that if the sun went supernova, it would take 9 minutes for the earth to burn up. I don't think most people realize just how much nuclear energy that is. Mankind will not produce 1% of 1% of 1% of that much energy, weapon or not, in it's existence.

I am in favor of NOT disarming. I want every {censored}hole country in the world to realize that in the end, they lose. They can never, ever win.

[starsnuffer]

It's possible to make a nuke big enough to be a doomsday device, but sheer quantity won't do it. You need to create a reaction that is capable of causing fission within the atmosphere, basically causing our air to go nuclear and burn up. Sure, the planet would still be there, but without an atmosphere, it will never be inhabitable by organic life.

 

Russia came close to building a bomb big enough. The TU90 was the largest ever detonated. 4x larger yield then anything the US ever made, and that's after they made it half the size they orginally intended because they were afraid it would combust the atmosphere. Here's a link to the half-sized bomb they actually set off

 

Of course, the Russians were prone to their own propaganda. They signed the SALT1 treaty because they thought all the above ground nuke testing they were doing caused severe droughts that they were having, blaming the nuke testing on the jet stream changing positions. . . something that has no scientific backing.

 

But then, who cares. Nukes are a bad idea. Biological warfare is the way to go. Kill the humans, and only the humans, and there will be peace on earth.

 

-W

[rememberduane]

If it's uninhabitable, how do you know how many nukes it will take to destroy the Earth? I don't mean to disagree with you, because we certainly need to be vigilant about security. But to imply that we are disarming simply because we don't spend $400B on a nuke upgrade is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think?

We should be disarming (and destroying) our nuclear arsenal until we have enough to maintain a dominant authority -- enough to show we can still blow a country to bits if they ever even think about using a nuclear bomb -- but nowhere near the amount we have now. The problem with our nuclear arsenal (and Russia's, and the other nuclear states) is that there is always the possibility of a rogue or espionage/sabotage or hijacking. If you have fewer they are #1 cheaper to defend/maintain for the tax-payer, #2 less likely to be {censored}ed with.


Allin my opinion.

[hal9000]

We should be disarming (and destroying) our nuclear arsenal until we have enough to maintain a dominant authority -- enough to show we can still blow a country to bits if they ever even think about using a nuclear bomb -- but nowhere near the amount we have now. The problem with our nuclear arsenal (and Russia's, and the other nuclear states) is that there is always the possibility of a rogue or espionage/sabotage or hijacking. If you have fewer they are #1 cheaper to defend/maintain for the tax-payer, #2 less likely to be {censored}ed with. Allin my opinion.

I don't agree with you on a whole list of issues, but I'm with you all the way on this one.

[Elric]

 

Never saw it. I figured this was coming, but didn't think they'd publicly test it. It's {censored}ty that so many advances are being made in warfare and not so many in humanitarian fields.

 

 

Actually, there are tons of advances being made in humanitarian fields. They simply seldom receive anywhere near as much press because those advances tend to not make {censored} blow up in a really cool way.

[exafro]

We are upgrading because the other ones are getting old which is causing a decrease in readiness. Its not proliferation if the old ones are destroyed as new ones are made. Russia is designing new nukes as well, one's that will make the missile defense system useless. BTW, the reason we have so many is that if there was ever a first strike against us, no matter what was destroyed, we'd be able to send off a volley of our own.

[rememberduane]

We are upgrading because the other ones are getting old which is causing a decrease in readiness. Its not proliferation if the old ones are destroyed as new ones are made. Russia is designing new nukes as well, one's that will make the missile defense system useless. BTW, the reason we have so many is that if there was ever a first strike against us, no matter what was destroyed, we'd be able to send off a volley of our own.

So we need like 27,000 to do that?

[exafro]

So we need like 27,000 to do that?

Don't give me that {censored}. I'm not defending it, just saying what their logic is.

[starsnuffer]

IMHO, as much as I hate the idea of nukes, I think that we need enough to blow up the world in order for it to be a deterrant. I know we have this much alone in the nuclear sub fleet, but you can't trust bubbleheads to defend the country.

 

If we only had enough to blow up a single country, then a terrorist could do someting like launch a nuke from China, we'd respond by blowing up China, when in reality, it was a terrorist state like Canada that was responsible for the attack.

 

We need enough so that there will be no life left on earth should anyone launch a nuke at anything else. Sad, really, but hey, life will go on. There have been other disasters in history that have wiped nearly all life out on earth, only to see it evolve again from the deepest ocean.

 

Maybe next-time, intelligent life will be the result.

 

-W

[rememberduane]

IMHO, as much as I hate the idea of nukes, I think that we need enough to blow up the world in order for it to be a deterrant. I know we have this much alone in the nuclear sub fleet, but you can't trust bubbleheads to defend the country. If we only had enough to blow up a single country, then a terrorist could do someting like launch a nuke from China, we'd respond by blowing up China, when in reality, it was a terrorist state like Canada that was responsible for the attack. We need enough so that there will be no life left on earth should anyone launch a nuke at anything else. Sad, really, but hey, life will go on. There have been other disasters in history that have wiped nearly all life out on earth, only to see it evolve again from the deepest ocean. Maybe next-time, intelligent life will be the result. -W

Did you just call Canada a terrorist state?

[rememberduane]

Don't give me that {censored}. I'm not defending it, just saying what their logic is.

 

 

What {censored}? I was genuinely curious. Do you really think that THEY think we need 27,000 or whatever to do that?

[17 Tubes]

Who's disarming? IIRC we have enough nukes on one ballistic nuclear sub to destroy the Earth many times over.

 

 

I think he means we simply have to keep up the technology.

 

 

And yeah, I thinkn remduanne and HAL are SPOT on!

 

 

I think we should just funnel all weapons funding to humanitarian purposes. We'll send the memo to the global community, specially China, N Korea, Iran.

 

 

(I aidmit AT THE MOMENT China has no interest in any kind of "takeover". Until we've given all of our manufacturer capability to them, all of our customer service to India, and we can;t afford their goods anymore.)

[buntaluffigus]

I love explosives.

 

I wonder when someone will take control of one of these and start pointing it around and asking for cash. Seems like a decent business opportunity to me.

[exafro]

What {censored}? I was genuinely curious. Do you really think that THEY think we need 27,000 or whatever to do that?

[rememberduane]

I'm sorry.

[psychodave]

Why not just send up a bomb to scatter small particles in the earths orbit. When a satellite passes buy it, the particles will tear it up.

[rememberduane]

 

I think he means we simply have to keep up the technology. And yeah, I thinkn remduanne and HAL are SPOT on! I think we should just funnel all weapons funding to humanitarian purposes. We'll send the memo to the global community, specially China, N Korea, Iran. (I aidmit AT THE MOMENT China has no interest in any kind of "takeover". Until we've given all of our manufacturer capability to them, all of our customer service to India, and we can;t afford their goods anymore.)

 

 

No one said all weapons funding -- but be damn sure there is no need for the profane number of nukes we have or the profane military expenditures we make every year. Our weapons contractors are in no way dealt with in a capitalistic sense -- hence no-bid contracts. Our government hands out a ton of cash to companies like Haliburton even if other companies can make better products at a lower price. Efficiency and realizing that several thousand nukes are unnecessary would certainly give our government a {censored}load more money to send kids to school, stop cutting music programs in public schools, get those willing to work jobs, researching alternative energy sources working towards independence, etc. If you honestly want to argue with that, you're a waste of time.

 

And your views on China and India are very confused. Their governments had/have nothing to do with the outsourcing you see -- that comes from American businesses that are fed up with American policies and unions that would bankrupt them if they kept the jobs on American soil. Nor is globalization a bad thing for the American or world economy. I suggest researching. I read about this every day, constantly, in things like The Economist, Foreign Affairs, American Interest, Foreign Policy, and several academic journals. Maybe all of the experts in those publications are wrong, but I doubt you know more than them.

[oryan]

You should see the movie based on the posts you make. I think you would appreciate the content and humor. Plus, Val Kilmer is actually funny. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/ I also agree about the lack of funding for humanitarian advances. Of course, China isn't exactly known for their humanitarian pursuits.

+1

Val Kilmer rules in that movie.....oh and Communist China sucks too.

[exafro]

Why not just send up a bomb to scatter small particles in the earths orbit. When a satellite passes buy it, the particles will tear it up.

 

That wouldn't be accurate enough. What if our satellites are orbiting in the same pattern? Also the target sats could be maneuvered out of the way if the debris field isn't large enough.

[17 Tubes]

No one said all weapons funding -- but be damn sure there is no need for the profane number of nukes we have or the profane military expenditures we make every year. Our weapons contractors are in no way dealt with in a capitalistic sense -- hence no-bid contracts. Our government hands out a ton of cash to companies like Haliburton even if other companies can make better products at a lower price. Efficiency and realizing that several thousand nukes are unnecessary would certainly give our government a {censored}load more money to send kids to school, stop cutting music programs in public schools, get those willing to work jobs, researching alternative energy sources working towards independence, etc. If you honestly want to argue with that, you're a waste of time. And your views on China and India are very confused. Their governments had/have nothing to do with the outsourcing you see -- that comes from American businesses that are fed up with American policies and unions that would bankrupt them if they kept the jobs on American soil. Nor is globalization a bad thing for the American or world economy. I suggest researching. I read about this every day, constantly, in things like The Economist, Foreign Affairs, American Interest, Foreign Policy, and several academic journals. Maybe all of the experts in those publications are wrong, but I doubt you know more than them.

 

 

 

Ah....I never said China's government is stealing our industry, now did I?

 

Please show me the quote where I said that.

 

 

I did say China IS taking our manufacturing jobs!

 

 

Your penchant for being argumentative is screwing with your reading comprehension. You reading into things I never said.

 

 

 

And the reason we have lots of nukes is because the technology changes. But we still hold on to all the old weaponry. We simply HAVE to keep the weapons updated, as counterdefenses are designed, and new techologies are brought on-line.

 

 

I agree RD, it is a shame, but we're stuck in the downward spiral. You CAN'T simply stay even. You have to make sure you can CRUSH...."them". We become more vulnerable every day, as the other madmen in the world catch up to ours. (I kid...sort of. We are ALL madmen, in our own way.)

[17 Tubes]

No one said all weapons funding -- but be damn sure there is no need for the profane number of nukes we have or the profane military expenditures we make every year. Our weapons contractors are in no way dealt with in a capitalistic sense -- hence no-bid contracts. Our government hands out a ton of cash to companies like Haliburton even if other companies can make better products at a lower price. Efficiency and realizing that several thousand nukes are unnecessary would certainly give our government a {censored}load more money to send kids to school, stop cutting music programs in public schools, get those willing to work jobs, researching alternative energy sources working towards independence, etc. If you honestly want to argue with that, you're a waste of time.

 

 

Hey wait just a {censored}ing minute here.

 

What the {censored}ing hell is your problem man?

 

 

Why are you trying to argyue and be so hostile? Where did I argue that we SHOULDN'T do exactly what you said. There you go again, telling me what I never said.

 

 

Jeez the never dude. Asshole ,more like.

 

More money for education and jobs YES! Public saftey and defense! YES! Whatever that takes, they know more than you and me about it.

 

There are MANY other ways to fund education.

[rememberduane]

I apologize:

 

"I think we should just funnel all weapons funding to humanitarian purposes. We'll send the memo to the global community, specially China, N Korea, Iran."

 

I thought because of the second sentence that you were being sarcastic. I see now you weren't, and I was being an asshole. I'm sorry.

[Elric]

And yeah, I thinkn remduanne and HAL are SPOT on! I think we should just funnel all weapons funding to humanitarian purposes. We'll send the memo to the global community, specially China, N Korea, Iran.

 

No way. We're not in a position to dictate terms to anyone any more.

 

If we piss China off, they'll revoke our credit and everyone will have to pay their Mastercard off. You ready to make the sacrifice? The vast majority of Americans, aren't.

 

If we piss the Middle East off, there goes our oil and then the H2 stays parked in the garage for who knows how long.

 

And those're just a couple of the reasons we're already riding on a one way train to becoming a "former-superpower" (last passenger? The USSR, who had just as many nukes and nearly as much military might as we do). Military stuff is grossly overrated in the modern geopolitical landscape.

 

I suspect Texas will secede first.... Anyway, that's beside the point, our nuts are already in the vise. Our grand children are already going to be spitting on our graves, so the most reasonable thing we can do is try to ingratiate ourselves with our new masters.

 

Welcome to the New World Odor.

[GnR102385]

Your thread title made me think of "Real Genius." Did you ever see that?

Haha that movie ruled!

[code_blue]

$399,999,999,999

Just look at those numbers...

That is enough to design a laser powerful enough to slice off a section of our earth.

Or you could simply buy a bunch of bottles of water and drown the enemy.

Or just send a few hundred nuclear robotic crafts that drop large rocks on the enemy for several days.