Pope condemns possession of nuclear weapons

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Be that as it may, things are improving. The US and the USSR/Russian Federation have removed nuclear weapons from their arsenals. They were dangerous to handle and without going into any detail, required maintenance. Now that lasers and other beam weapons are being deployed, on land and on naval ships, it appears to me that a new stage of conventional warfare has been reached. It appears some nuclear weapons will remain but there will be far less risk of destroying the planet or killing everyone.

To put things in some perspective, the military leadership of the US and USSR both tested hydrogen bombs and realized that a single device could obliterate large areas with an explosive force of millions of tons of TNT. That was unacceptable and since 1945, no nuclear weapons have been used.

I agree with the Pope. But it appears military planners in all countries with nuclear weapons are slowly coming to see that waging war with such weapons is not possible for an increasing number of reasons. Though war is never desirable, it appears that new technology can replace nuclear weapons, or at least, the majority of them.
 
It is true that the number of actively deployed nuclear bombs has been greatly reduced.
However, the number remaining still has the potential to render the northern hemisphere uninhabitable. As you surely know, the USA has committed about one trillion dollars to the modernization of its nuclear weapons over the next ten years. Nuclear weapons are not obsolete and remain a deadly threat to mankind.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
 
Last edited:
For the US, the goal is deterrence as opposed to use. This standoff with the Russians will continue because the Russians are developing, among other things, missiles traveling at Mach 5 or over 3,800 mph. Reports indicate that both Russia and China have this. This requires a response and the US is currently testing a similar system.

Whatever can be started can be stopped. I’ve read about a lot of weapon systems that were proposed in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s that were either never developed or aside from testing some pre-production examples, never deployed. A manned sub-orbital bomber given the designation X-20 was ready to go but it was cancelled shortly after ICBMs were deployed in 1959. If better technology comes along, and I am seeing it being deployed or in final testing, then nuclear weapons will not be the first weapon of choice.

Also keep in mind that all of the major players know what will happen to every human being affected by a nuclear attack. They don’t want to incinerate and irradiate large areas of land.
 
Increased radiation in the environment from nuclear accidents has cause increased amounts of cancer around the world. This is a fact. I know it is inconvenient. But it is a fact nonetheless.
 
This, of course, is the MAD protocol, but it is becoming destabilized by the continued development of nuclear “first-strike” capabilities. And as these capabilities become more refined, one country, suspecting that another is about to launch a nuclear first-strike, will be motivated to launch its own first strike. When the minor players begin to use nuclear weapons in their regional conflicts, the major players may feel that they are forced to act.

Therefore, the coming nuclear war will see the antagonists initially attacking each other’s nuclear weapons platforms. But, as in WW II, the attacks will eventually involve cites.
 
Last edited:
People should try to be specific when discussing radiation problems. The United States tested nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, at ground level and at sea. The result was that radioactive fallout drifted with the wind and came down as rain. I’ve seen maps for dispersal in the US. Another problem is the use of depleted uranium ammunition to knock out tanks. Iraq is seeing the effects of stray rounds in the soil that were fired by the American A-10 aircraft. Clean-up is possible but then where would it go?
 
Feel free to buy property near one of these nuclear dump sites. Build a house there. It is your life.
Just don’t ask the rest of use to reside anywhere near your new house. 😆
 
Without going into great detail, here is the past compared to today. In the past, a great many response scenarios were developed by the US, including knocking down incoming warheads from ICBMs. It was described as using a bullet to hit another bullet. The very recent deployment of laser weapons, for example, means that multiple sensors will spot the incoming warhead and destroy it far from the mainland. Ultimately, lasers could be used to destroy a missile during its ‘boost phase,’ meaning it will blow up above or near its launch point. Knowing such technology is available and deployed, should give any potential aggressor further pause.

As far as regional conflicts, one has to know what kinds of nuclear weapons all of the minor players have and plan ahead. That also includes warning them about what we will or will not do if a regional conflict occurs. I’m sure North Korea will not launch against the South or Japan without realizing that it can be leveled in less than a few hours. I’m sure the US and China, along with the Russian Federation, are concerned about such a possibility. The major players know the stakes.
 
I understand your point, and it is logical. However, in the end, it puts the future of mankind into the hands of the N. Korean dictator and the Ayatollah of Iran. Neither of these should be trusted to act in a rational way. In the end, if they cannot achieve aims, they may opt for nuclear war. This is known about the boy dictator and the N. Korean way of thinking.

I have mentioned the predictions of Scripture, and, if it were not for these, I would say that you are right.
 
Last edited:
All eyes are on Iran and North Korea. Various governments and government agencies are prepared. I know what Scripture says, but a lot of what is going on right now is classified.
 
He’s right. Does not matter, now it’s the problem who gives them up first. The others might take advantage and strike.
No one who ever owned them ever gave them up to begin with. Ever since they were built.
Dark force?
 
Understand, though, that shooting down a nuclear missile does not cause a nuclear explosion. The process of detonating a nuclear weapon is extremely intricate, and not something that an explosion can cause by accident, nor could you build an interceptor to set off the warhead by design.
 
Quite true. The goal would be to destroy the booster at best or damage the warhead. A hypersonic missile would detonate near the warhead, which would knock it off course. This attack would occur as early as possible after launch. The level of surveillance is now at an all-time high.
 
edwest211 said:
Quite true. The goal would be to destroy the booster at best or damage the warhead. A hypersonic missile would detonate near the warhead, which would knock it off course. This attack would occur as early as possible after launch. The level of surveillance is now at an all-time high.
Click to expand...
Russia has developed a nuclear armed stealth cruise missile. I do not believe that any type of “surveillance” exists which could detect either the launch or the flight of such a missile.
Russia’s Kilo-class non-nuclear subs can stay underwater for up to thirty days. The US Navy calls them the “black-hole” subs because they just disappear off of their sonar and into the depths. These subs are capable of carrying the stealth cruise missile. In sufficient numbers they could launch an undetectable nuclear attack on US ICBM sites. If the Russians find a way to track US SSBNs then they might have a credible pre-emptive nuclear first-strike capability.

The MAD protocol depends on neither adversary having this ability. Once either one or both obtain it the MAD protocol no longer exists.
 
Last edited:
That is the info that I have. A cruise missile is powered by a fan-jet and does not leave a heat trail that would be detectable by satellite. Its launching boosters are not comparable in heat plume to an ICBM lift-off and, in any case, could be replaced by a catapult system. Of course stealth enabled means that the missile would not be picked up on radar. It seems to me that the first indication of a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike by this means would be when the bombs detonate on US ICBM silos and B-52 bases.


 
Last edited:
The state of surveillance technology in the US is something I’d rather not discuss. The Americans are well aware of the issues with stealth and submarine launched ballistic missiles and are doing everything they can, in real time.
 
And here you are again. Wrong, in the accustomed fashion.

Though the “Truman promised amnesty” is new.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top