Can we morally defend the existence of Nuclear Bombs?

[GEddie]

I say we can.

I firmly believe that their presence in the world is all that has kept WW3, and likely 4 and 5, having been fought by now.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bradski]

Quite topical for me as I’m currently reading Command and Control by Eric Schlosser about America’s nuclear arsenal: amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788.

I was a very young lad when Cuba Crisis occurred. But old enough to realise that my parents were very worried. I remember asking my dad about it and he said that everyone was worried about there being a war. I also remember lying in bed that night looking out my window watching for aircraft.

There were very many of Kennedy’s advisers that were urging him to ‘retaliate first’ and hit the USSR with everything that they had. They determined that it was the best course of action. And as the Soviets had minimal long range missiles compared to the US, the damage to America would be minimal. However, the Soviets were well stocked with intermediate range missiles which they would undoubtedly have unleased on Europe and specifically the UK where a lot of US missiles were stationed.

As we know, Kennedy decided to eyeball Khruschev instead and Nikita blinked first. Although it turned out that his threats were more bluster than honest threats. So the risk I was at was purely from the Americans rather than the Russians.

Its very scary. North Korea, if we believe the horror stories of how crazy the leader is, might use a nuclear bomb.

It’s not just the Koreans and their crazy leader I’m worried about. Trump is not a man I would want in charge of a pointy stick, let alone the greatest arsenal of destruction the world has ever seen.

The leaders of NK like being alive and enjoying the fruits of their regime. They understand that using a nuke ends them and what they care about.

That’s not the biggest worry. It’s the fact that it only needs a few people whispering ‘first strike’ into Trumps ear and he can literally take the decision to launch missiles himself. There are no contraints. He needs no-ones permission and I’m a long way from being convinced that he is not mentally unstable.

I think we’ll be OK down here and the US will be fine. But millions will die.

 

[IWantGod]

Quite topical for me as I’m currently reading Command and Control by Eric Schlosser about America’s nuclear arsenal: amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788.

I was a very young lad when Cuba Crisis occurred. But old enough to realise that my parents were very worried. I remember asking my dad about it and he said that everyone was worried about there being a war. I also remember lying in bed that night looking out my window watching for aircraft.

There were very many of Kennedy’s advisers that were urging him to ‘retaliate first’ and hit the USSR with everything that they had. They determined that it was the best course of action. And as the Soviets had minimal long range missiles compared to the US, the damage to America would be minimal. However, the Soviets were well stocked with intermediate range missiles which they would undoubtedly have unleased on Europe and specifically the UK where a lot of US missiles were stationed.

As we know, Kennedy decided to eyeball Khruschev instead and Nikita blinked first. Although it turned out that his threats were more bluster than honest threats. So the risk I was at was purely from the Americans rather than the Russians…

Thanks for the History.

It’s not just the Koreans and their crazy leader I’m worried about. Trump is not a man I would want in charge of a pointy stick, let alone the greatest arsenal of destruction the world has ever seen…

I agree. I don’t know why trump is president but apparently he is the lesser of two evils.

That’s not the biggest worry. It’s the fact that it only needs a few people whispering ‘first strike’ into Trumps ear and he can literally take the decision to launch missiles himself. There are no contraints. He needs no-ones permission and I’m a long way from being convinced that he is not mentally unstable. .

lol

I think we’ll be OK down here and the US will be fine. But millions will die.

If a nuclear war happened what are my chances of survival.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

If a nuclear war happened what are my chances of survival.

Define survival. The world after the bombs may be quiet different. I’ve already wondered, would I want to survive.

 

[Bradski]

If a nuclear war happened what are my chances of survival.

Depends where you live. If it’s South Korea I’d be looking to move. Actually, my wife and I planned to visit North Korea earlier this year. You can only go on organised trips from China and you only get to see what they want you to see. But we figured it would be fascinating to see the place from the inside.

Obviously, eventually deciding not to go was a no-brainer.

And in passing, President Roosevelt called civilian bombing "Inhuman barbarism’ in 1939. Yet the Tokyo firebombing, specifically targeting old men, women and children, killed more than were obliterated at Nagasaki.

‘Major General Curtis LeMay groused on March 6. So he loaded more than 300 B-29 Superfortress bombers with napalm incendiaries and, on the evening of March 9, ordered them emptied over central Tokyo. LeMay made no attempt to focus on military targets, nor could he have done so with napalm, whose effect that windy night was to burn wooden Japanese dwellings with spectacular efficiency. The victims were “scorched and boiled and baked to death,” LeMay later said. Over the next few months the United States dealt with more than sixty smaller Japanese cities in like fashion.’ theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/firebombs-over-tokyo/302547/

I think I would have preferred being instantly vaporised by a nuclear strike rather than ‘scorched, boiled and baked to death’.

Most aspects of was are difficult to justify.

 

[IWantGod]

Depends where you live. If it’s South Korea I’d be looking to move. Actually, my wife and I planned to visit North Korea earlier this year. You can only go on organised trips from China and you only get to see what they want you to see. But we figured it would be fascinating to see the place from the inside.

Obviously, eventually deciding not to go was a no-brainer.

And in passing, President Roosevelt called civilian bombing "Inhuman barbarism’ in 1939. Yet the Tokyo firebombing, specifically targeting old men, women and children, killed more than were obliterated at Nagasaki.

‘Major General Curtis LeMay groused on March 6. So he loaded more than 300 B-29 Superfortress bombers with napalm incendiaries and, on the evening of March 9, ordered them emptied over central Tokyo. LeMay made no attempt to focus on military targets, nor could he have done so with napalm, whose effect that windy night was to burn wooden Japanese dwellings with spectacular efficiency. The victims were “scorched and boiled and baked to death,” LeMay later said. Over the next few months the United States dealt with more than sixty smaller Japanese cities in like fashion.’ theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/firebombs-over-tokyo/302547/

I think I would have preferred being instantly vaporised by a nuclear strike rather than ‘scorched, boiled and baked to death’.

Most aspects of was are difficult to justify.

Thats terrible. War is hell.

Yes i think instant vaporization would be preferable in that case.

I found this video.
Could You Survive a Fallout?

youtube.com/watch?v=YvGlBFjxvgY

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Thats terrible. War is hell.

Yes i think instant vaporization would be preferable in that case.

Perhaps nuclear weapons are achieving what other weapons couldn’t. A manner of war so horrible it would prevent war.

 

[Vonsalza]

Can we morally defend the existence of Nuclear Bombs?

youtube.com/watch?v=P2eqNB6zy9k

Nuclear weapons… new Documentary BBC 2017

youtube.com/watch?v=hrvgsk8eX24

I’ve been to Hiroshima and seen the melted faces of little schoolgirls that looked like a bowl of cornflakes with teeth in the lower middle. I’ve seen the roof tiles and china sets that got so hot they fused together…

A nuclear bomb is not a weapon against an army or the leadership of a warring country. It is a weapon against an entire community. It kills everyone under it’s radioactive gaze; soldiers and children alike. Of course, conventional weapons can be argued to do the same-
But on nowhere NEAR the same satanic scale.

No. There is no moral justification for the existence of nuclear weapons.

 

[Bradski]

Perhaps nuclear weapons are achieving what other weapons couldn’t. A manner of war so horrible it would prevent war.

There was a comment from the Sec of Defence, McNamara, just after the Missile Crisis in Cuba when he was told that the Soviets had hardened all their missile silos so that they could survive a US strike: ‘Thank God’.

That sounds quite odd. But his reasoning was that if the Russians thought that their weapons could be taken out by a US first strike, then they would be tempted to strike first themselves. As they now couldn’t, the US was actually safer.

It raises the possibility of an extraordinary situation whereby the US might have even surreptitiously informed the Soviets that their missiles were at risk.

 

[GEddie]

There was a comment from the Sec of Defence, McNamara, just after the Missile Crisis in Cuba when he was told that the Soviets had hardened all their missile silos so that they could survive a US strike: ‘Thank God’.

That sounds quite odd. But his reasoning was that if the Russians thought that their weapons could be taken out by a US first strike, then they would be tempted to strike first themselves. As they now couldn’t, the US was actually safer.

It raises the possibility of an extraordinary situation whereby the US might have even surreptitiously informed the Soviets that their missiles were at risk.

I doubt that very much, as it might well have led to the Soviet first strike our side feared.

ICXC NIKA

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I doubt that very much, as it might well have led to the Soviet first strike our side feared.

ICXC NIKA

Well, They did have their nuclear torpedo.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the History.

I agree. I don’t know why trump is president but apparently he is the lesser of two evils.

lol

If a nuclear war happened what are my chances of survival.

Your chances of survival are zero. Those in deeply buried installations will be fine.

Ed

 

[Vonsalza]

I did want to comment on your odds of survival,

I forget where I read it, but most nuclear weapons are designed mostly with materials whose products have relatively short half-lives. The report went on to say that if you have a place, even above ground, that you can shelter in-place for about two weeks that can have the air-circulation with the outside somewhat sealed, then you’ll probably live long enough to deal with the nightmare that is your new reality.

Naturally, this assumes that your shelter isn’t within the blast radius and you’re just trying to “hide” from fall-out.

 

[edwest2]

I also think that one day we will have a moral use for Nuclear Weapons in space. The protection of our planet from comets and killer asteroids.

On Friday, a 2.7 mile wide asteroid will pass us. On average, asteroids the size of football fields hit the earth every 2000 years and case massive damage. I don’t know about you, but we might be due for one of those soon.

And an asteroid the size of the one that is going to pass us on Friday would be an extinction level event. On average, they hit the earth every few million years… we are due for one of those too.

So one day, a nuke(s) MIGHT save our planet and the human race.

God created the universe. There must be something good this technology can be eventually good for (besides nuclear power, which has a major waste problem).

m.phys.org/news/2017-08-largest-asteroid-century-whiz-sept.html

God Bless

The former Soviet Union was testing a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System which it abandoned. However, the Russians currently have the RS-28 Sarmat which is FOBS capable. That means it could also be used against a threat from space. There is no reason to believe the US does not already have a missile with the same capability since the US is well aware of potential threats from space.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

The members of the nuclear club all know that if anyone launches a nuke, they are done for. If someone launched a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea, they know North Korea would have time to launch one in return to one of their cities.

The only way North Korea would use a nuke is if they think we would respond with a MOAB instead of a nuke. While a MOAB would leave their cities in ruin, they could rebuild because of the lack of radiation. But a nuclear response assures North Korea that rebuilding isn’t possible for at least 100 years.

Today’s bombs have far more radiation than during world war 2

Honestly though, I’m not afraid of North Korea launching a nuke at us. What scares me more is them creating an EMP, which would distroy us.

Most Americans have no idea how to hunt and farm, and do all the things that people in the 1800s could do. If we lost electricity, it would set us back a thousand years, not simply back to the 19th century.

For military installations, the EMP problem has been solved. Contingency plans are in place for the rest of the country. The military is well aware of this issue.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

The members of the nuclear club all know that if anyone launches a nuke, they are done for. If someone launched a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea, they know North Korea would have time to launch one in return to one of their cities.

The only way North Korea would use a nuke is if they think we would respond with a MOAB instead of a nuke. While a MOAB would leave their cities in ruin, they could rebuild because of the lack of radiation. But a nuclear response assures North Korea that rebuilding isn’t possible for at least 100 years.

Today’s bombs have far more radiation than during world war 2

Honestly though, I’m not afraid of North Korea launching a nuke at us. What scares me more is them creating an EMP, which would distroy us.

Most Americans have no idea how to hunt and farm, and do all the things that people in the 1800s could do. If we lost electricity, it would set us back a thousand years, not simply back to the 19th century.

A preemptive strike on North Korea would leave them with zero time to launch even one missile in return. Dedicated satellites would immediately spot the travel of a missile from its hiding place to a launch platform in real time. If it wasn’t destroyed then, it would certainly be destroyed a few minutes after the infrared signature of its engines firing was detected. They have no chance.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Quite topical for me as I’m currently reading Command and Control by Eric Schlosser about America’s nuclear arsenal: amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788.

I was a very young lad when Cuba Crisis occurred. But old enough to realise that my parents were very worried. I remember asking my dad about it and he said that everyone was worried about there being a war. I also remember lying in bed that night looking out my window watching for aircraft.

There were very many of Kennedy’s advisers that were urging him to ‘retaliate first’ and hit the USSR with everything that they had. They determined that it was the best course of action. And as the Soviets had minimal long range missiles compared to the US, the damage to America would be minimal. However, the Soviets were well stocked with intermediate range missiles which they would undoubtedly have unleased on Europe and specifically the UK where a lot of US missiles were stationed.

As we know, Kennedy decided to eyeball Khruschev instead and Nikita blinked first. Although it turned out that his threats were more bluster than honest threats. So the risk I was at was purely from the Americans rather than the Russians.

It’s not just the Koreans and their crazy leader I’m worried about. Trump is not a man I would want in charge of a pointy stick, let alone the greatest arsenal of destruction the world has ever seen.

That’s not the biggest worry. It’s the fact that it only needs a few people whispering ‘first strike’ into Trumps ear and he can literally take the decision to launch missiles himself. There are no contraints. He needs no-ones permission and I’m a long way from being convinced that he is not mentally unstable.

I think we’ll be OK down here and the US will be fine. But millions will die.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was more complicated than that. After all, they were a Communist satellite country and a CIA sponsored group tried to invade Cuba in April 1961. So, is it any wonder that in October 1962 that their Ally, the Soviet Union, stationed IRBMs there? The goal of the Bay of Pigs operation was to take the country away from Castro. What was he supposed to think? It was an act of war.

The Joint Chiefs were rabid about destroying the Soviet Union. After all, why not wipe them out now and spend money on other things? The Soviet’s ICBMs and IRBMs were not the only threat. They had bombers that were more than capable of attacking us as well. Kennedy made a deal with Krustschev. We will remove our Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy if you remove your IRBMs from Cuba.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I did want to comment on your odds of survival,

I forget where I read it, but most nuclear weapons are designed mostly with materials whose products have relatively short half-lives. The report went on to say that if you have a place, even above ground, that you can shelter in-place for about two weeks that can have the air-circulation with the outside somewhat sealed, then you’ll probably live long enough to deal with the nightmare that is your new reality.

Naturally, this assumes that your shelter isn’t within the blast radius and you’re just trying to “hide” from fall-out.

The blast radius is not the only problem. I have a book titled How to Survive an Atomic Bomb that was published in 1950, and is by Richard Gerstell, Consultant, Civil Defense Office. At the top of the cover, it reads: “If there’s ATOMIC WARFARE this book may save your life!”

But reading the book, the reader finds out about ‘other things.’ In regards to fallout: “This can happen fifty or a hundred miles from the scene of the explosion, and it can happen a day or two later. It is not like having hot sparks drop on you. The animals – or you, for that matter – wouldn’t know about it until the ‘burns’ began to be felt a little time later. You can protect yourself by always being completely covered when you go outdoors and by showering frequently. But you won’t know about your animals until the ‘burns’ appear.”

The book goes on to explain how 50 cows were exposed to fallout from an atomic test in New Mexico. They all recovered “Except for flecks of gray hair on their hide…” And 49 of the 50 gave birth to calves which were “perfectly normal.”

Depending on the warhead type, the blast could be limited to a few miles. It is unknown what kinds of warheads are in the hands of “madmen.” Odds are, certain warheads will have a much larger blast radius.

Ed

 

[frobert]

If a nuclear war happened what are my chances of survival.

Between zero and none. For those of us who don’t die directly from a bomb blast or the immediate radiation we still have to worry about the radiation from several hundred tons of waste from spent pools.

About Spent Waste Pools

If a malfunction, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack causes the water to leak from the pool or the cooling system to stop working, the rods will begin to heat the remaining water in the pool, eventually causing it to boil and evaporate. If the water that leaks or boils away cannot be replenished quickly enough, the water level will drop, exposing the fuel rods.

Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as cesium-137, into the environment. This would start in more recently discharged spent fuel, which is hotter than fuel that has been in the pool for a longer time. A typical spent fuel pool in the United States holds several hundred tons of fuel, so if a fire were to propagate from the hotter to the colder fuel a radioactive release could be very large.

Source…

The 23 nuclear reactors in Asia’s fourth-biggest economy [South Korea] add a total of 750 tonnes of spent fuel every year to the 13,300 tonnes that filled 71 percent of its wet and dry storage capacity as of last year, according to reactor operator Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co Ltd, owned by state-run Korea Electric Power Corp.

Source…