Support for nuclear weapons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brendan_64
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
None of us here, unless on active duty, are in the loop. We will not be consulted. The facts are not about emotions unless anyone thinks dropping or launching a nuclear weapon is no big deal. I’ve read a number of scenarios, none of them worth repeating. Getting a body part blown off due to a conventional or improvised device is a big deal. Wiping out millions of people, or even a million, is a big deal. Unlike a conventional bomb, there’s a lot of other effects that are horrific, and for any survivors, painful and/or or leading to death.

Cold, hard facts is not a useful term. Instant death is a useful term.
 
Last edited:
Makes my point. All of your rant is emotional. That’s fine, you have a right to be that way and I accept it, but that will not solve any problems.
 
  1. We need to get armed with the facts. We can’t get classified stuff, but we can get enough. We certainly can’t ignore the facts and keep making emotional arguments if we want change. there are so many myths about nuclear war and we can’t wage a campaign against myths.
  2. We need to run realistic scenarios and deicide what makes sense for minimizing nuclear war, because it is so horrible. But we have to take into account that unilateral disarmament can actually lead to war, so there has to be a balance. There is no way to get rid of nukes, but we don’t need as many as we have. Some kind of gradual build-down makes sense, but we have to come up with details.
  3. We need to create some public consensus around the resulting proposed solution and lobby Congress and the president to make it so in the US and we have to get activists in other countries to do the same.
Easy? No. Quick? No. But we didn’t get in this mess easily or quickly and we won’t get out of it that way. Right now, no credible group is doing what I just said, which is why there is no progress. You just have the people who feel we need them and the people who feel we don’t launching invectives at each other.

I think the solution would look something like this:
  1. We need to get all the countries in the world in line with the current UN policies and international treaties on nukes. That is going to take a consensus of the international community on sanctions for non-compliance.
  2. We need to minimize the potential for imminent nuclear war so we can survive until a solution is in place.
  3. Then, we can begin to develop a plan for gradual disarmament. We set yearly build-down goals, with mutual monitoring.
  4. Then we begin that negotiated process.
For anyone who thinks this is impossible, we have achieved international regulated processes in the area of nuclear power, which involves more countries and has economic impact as well as military. I can tell you from working in the nuclear power industry, the cooperation among those countries is unprecedented. The only countries that are not signed up are Iran and N. Korea, so they are accidents waiting to happen, as well as nuclear wars waiting to happen.

No one wants another Chernobyl or Fukushima. so they cooperate. We need to put that kind of pressure on the weapons side and it won’t be easy. But we have to try.
 
Last edited:
The idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament can lead to a global nuclear war is not correct. Russia and the USA each have ten times the nukes and ICBMs as any other country. It is a nuclear war between these two that threatens the world. If one of these countries stands down and dismantles its nuclear weapons then a nuclear war between these two is no longer possible. One of them would become the world’s predominate player in nuclear weapons and might even be able to force the nuclear disarment of the remaining nuclear armed countries, especially if supported in this endevour by the former major nuclear power.

A negotiated mutual nuclear disarmament is not going to happen. There is too much mistrust. The USA brought these monstrousities into the world and should take the lead in getting rid of them. Russia is not a traditional enemy of the USA, and that country does not want to destroy or even dominate the USA. We should trust our Creator, follow His commandments, and do the right thing. Our failure to accomplish this WILL lead to a global nuclear war, and that’s caved in stone, my friends. As I mentioned before, the dead will be scattered across the whole world with no one left to bury them (Jeremiah 25:33.)
 
Last edited:
All I can say is the Department of Defense of the most powerful country on earth and de facto ‘world policeman’ will present the cold, hard facts. I will only add this: we have the capability, right now, to effectively destroy the military infrastructure of North Korea and Iran. And without using nuclear weapons.

Oh, we got into this mess very quickly. How long did it take between German discussion of developing an atomic bomb and using one? During the time period, getting a new, operational aircraft from start to finish took 5 years on average.

The nuclear power industry is on the verge of collapse.
 
So what’s your workable solution then? Unilateral disarmament will not happen, so it is not workable.
 
undead_rat said:
A negotiated mutual nuclear disarmament is not going to happen. There is too much mistrust. The USA brought these monstrousities into the world and should take the lead in getting rid of them.
Click to expand...
That’s not going to happen either. So given that, what is your solution?
 
Nuclear weapons in unknown quantity will remain in the stockpiles of the major powers. Advanced technology is slowly making them obsolete, so they are less likely to be used in the future. Certain delivery methods, like missiles, are already too vulnerable to various countermeasures. They will get hit on their pads/ground launchers or upon entering boost phase, with multiple attempts if need be, probably two.
 
I tried this site some months back. I targeted Moscow, Kansas with a 1 megaton bomb. The results showed only about 6 casualties, if I recall correctly. Not many people in Moscow KS.

But most of our Minuteman III ICBM silos are located in even more remote areas. There used to be one near Fortuna, MO, which I passed by regularly. But those Missouri silos have all been deactivated. At one point the US had over 1,000 Minuteman ICBM’s on alert. Now there are only 450, due to various treaties. Who says negotiated reduction is not possible?
 
I think you are making a generalization based solely on ICBMs. They are only one part of the nuclear trident. Air launched, ground launched and ship launched nuclear cruise missiles are very viable. Ballistic missiles launched from subs are still very viable.

And what “advanced technology” is making nukes obsolete? It seems to me advanced technology is only creating more viable, accurate and surgical nukes, but not making the concept obsolete.
 
I covered the ground. Air, ship and sub-launched missiles, including cruise missiles, will also be vulnerable to advanced countermeasures which will be multiplied against individual targets depending on the launch platform. They will not reach their targets.
 
Last edited:
Explain to me an effective countermeasure against a mass attack using TLAMs. I have been trained on them and I don’t know of an effective one.

Explain to me an effective countermeasure against a Trident II’s.

For that matter, explain to me an effective countermeasure against any MIRV’ed reentry warheads.
 
jfz178 said:
40.png
undead_rat:
A negotiated mutual nuclear disarmament is not going to happen. There is too much mistrust. The USA brought these monstrousities into the world and should take the lead in getting rid of them.
Click to expand...
That’s not going to happen either. So given that, what is your solution?
Click to expand...
The USA is a democracy. There are political candidates who favor unilateral nuclear disarmament. If they were to be elected in sufficient numbers, then it could happen. It is up to us the people. Other than that, there is no solution aside from global nuclear war.
 
The USA is a republic.

BIG difference … huge difference … between a republic and a democracy.
 
So say you. Worry about that if you want. I am completely unconvinced of your position.
 
I remember back in the (80’s) Reagan Presidency that he initiated a “star wars” program whereby the US would have satellites in space using lasers to shoot down any ICBM’s heading our way…was this program put into effect…was this the reason the US and Russia agreed to lower their ICBM nuclear arsenal because it was made obsolete by space technology…and what secret space technology do we now have…any one got any (name removed by moderator)ut…or updates on this
 
The Democrat party has fought tooth and nail against spending on missile defense.
 
That’s because they want that money to buy votes through handouts. I don’t see them campaigning to get rid of the ones we have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top