UPDATE 1-U.S. nuclear bomb facility shut after security breach

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not sure if this is true or not but I would think that one acceptable use of nuclear weapons would be in “bunker buster” type bombs that were used to blow up caves and such in Afghanistan where they thought bin Laden was hiding. I thought I read once that they do have nuclear bunker buster bombs. They’re supposed to be more effective than conventional bunker buster bombs.
 
Holly3278 said:
I am not sure if this is true or not but I would think that one acceptable use of nuclear weapons would be in “bunker buster” type bombs that were used to blow up caves and such in Afghanistan where they thought bin Laden was hiding. I thought I read once that they do have nuclear bunker buster bombs. They’re supposed to be more effective than conventional bunker buster bombs.
Click to expand...
That actually is the function of many, if not most, of the nukes in the U.S. arsenal (obviously, I don’t know the number since that would be classified). They would be the counter-force weapons designed to go after the very hardened Soviet missile silos. The idea that the U.S. nukes are meant primarily to go after soft targets like cities is a mis-conception.
 
DaveBj said:
That actually is the function of many, if not most, of the nukes in the U.S. arsenal (obviously, I don’t know the number since that would be classified). They would be the counter-force weapons designed to go after the very hardened Soviet missile silos. The idea that the U.S. nukes are meant primarily to go after soft targets like cities is a mis-conception.
Click to expand...
If it is a misconception it comes from the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, the weapons have become much more powerful; more powerful than necessary to take out a ‘bunker’ or ‘silo’.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
If it is a misconception it comes from the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, the weapons have become much more powerful; more powerful than necessary to take out a ‘bunker’ or ‘silo’.
Click to expand...
The Hiroshima and Nagasake bombs were fairly small for nukes, in the 13 to 20 kiloton range, if I recall. A great deal more tonnage of non-nuclear bombs had already been dropped on Tokyo.

Since then, nukes got larger–there were 1 to 10 megaton warheads made, and the USSR had larger. But then they got smaller as missile accuracy improved. Now it would be rare for a warhead to be in the 1 megaton range.

But for comparative purposes–if the Russians wanted to target, say, a remote launch facility in North Dakota (and they are all remote), it would take a direct hit with a 1 megaton warhead to take it out. They are very well hardened. The same would apply if a U.S. missile wanted to target a single launch facility in a remote area of the Russian federation–and they are all remote as well. (Note that in both cases, launch facilities are unmanned.)
 
If Sister Mary Rose Reddy doesn’t feel that the LCWR represents the views of her congregation, she can withdraw from the organization. Honestly, I doubt very much that her views represent the majority view of the congregations that are part of the LCWR.
 
If Sister Mary Rose Reddy doesn’t feel that the LCWR represents the views of her congregation, she can withdraw from the organization. Honestly, I doubt very much that her views represent the majority view of the congregations that are part of the LCWR.
Click to expand...
May God help us if that’s true.
 
Alan55 said:
I doubt very much that her views represent the majority view of the congregations that are part of the LCWR.
Click to expand...
Evidence? (Or, logical supposition?)

Rather, I believe the better way to frame it, is:

~The LCWR may indeed represent majority viewpoints of their various congregations. Hoewver, the particular pronouncements of some of the LCWR leadership – from time to time-- can be challenged as to how well those radical-sounding statements represent the member congregations.

While the member congregations do vote on specific proposals, they do not vote on whether Sister X or Y should say something which sounds, especially without further explanation, controversial and even heterodox to the Church at large & to the public.
 
Makes me wonder if the crack-down was brought about partially by complaints of members to the Holy See.
 
While LCWR does “represent” a majority of women religious in this country, their numbers are dying. They are not the only group representing women religious, and the more traditional orders unaffiliated with LCWR are seeing a considerable uptick in vocations. Thank the Lord.

God bless.

-Paul
 
lux said:
May God help us if that’s true.
Click to expand...
Amen, lux, I agree with you. May God give us more like dear Sister Mary Rose! She’s also one of the “Running Nuns” who care for neglected or abused children and who sponsor special running events. Their website is so inspiring and so is she.
 
Alan55 said:
If Sister Mary Rose Reddy doesn’t feel that the LCWR represents the views of her congregation, she can withdraw from the organization. Honestly, I doubt very much that her views represent the majority view of the congregations that are part of the LCWR.
Click to expand...
That’s really a very negative view of religious sisters. I am sure that, like many of us, the majority of the sisters are busy with their everyday lives and duties which don’t include monitoring every major superior’s staements.
 
Alan55 said:
If Sister Mary Rose Reddy doesn’t feel that the LCWR represents the views of her congregation, she can withdraw from the organization.
Click to expand...
Sr. Rose Mary Reddy is one of the four founding members of Daughters of Mary Mother of Healing Love. However, I don’t believe they have a superior since they describe themselves as “a private association of Roman Catholic women.” I think their decision making, at this point, is by consensus of the members.

I mention this because I don’t think they are eligible for membership in the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, the organization to which the LCWR is often contrasted.
Alan55 said:
Honestly, I doubt very much that her views represent the majority view of the congregations that are part of the LCWR.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know. Cardinal Dolan recently cautioned against erroneous rhetoric and characterizations regarding this topic. He pointed out that such is occurring on both sides of this issue.

The LCWR seems to be conducting a careful examination of the views of their membership. We should know the results soon. At this point, I think it is good to pray for them and give them the opportunity to make the right choices.
 
Kathryn_Ann said:
In the news:
One Sister states her opinion on the current LCWR issues.

courageouspriest.com/nun-reveals-truth-lcwr-assessment
Click to expand...
Is her group even in the LCWR?

It’s not a religious order. I’m not even sure it’s a congregation. It’s pretty new. Maybe it’s a private or public association of the faithful?

I mean, I understand that people want to hear good news for emotional reasons, and have their ideas confirmed, but um, yeah. I doubt that this group is in the LCWR but I could certainly be wrong.
 
Holly3278 said:
in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/usa-security-nuclear-idINL2E8J2I0Q20120802

I find it quite shocking that a nun was involved in this. Here we are in the United States and persecution against Catholics is already occurring and a nun goes and pulls this stunt! What was she thinking???
Click to expand...
I wonder how much this cost the American public in terms of security, services, time lost, materials that had to be repaired or replaced, cost to the police in surrounding towns etc etc???

And I wonder if there was ever any physical danger to any of us over this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top