| Author | Message | ||
     Maximum |
Not looking to start a debate (although it probably will). I am just trying to help my daughter, who was assigned this topic for a class (11th grade) english paper. Any points and references (if available) would be greatly appreciated. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Pandora's box, the genie is out of the bottle, the technology can't be unlearned so we have to keep it. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to guarantee that they won't be used against you. That said, a missile launch from an unknown attacker sitting 35 miles off the coast of California makes that principle tougher to enforce quickly. The real question isn't why not to abolish nukes. The real question is why did they scrap the missile shield program? Without it our ONLY viable response to an enemy nuclear strike is a nuclear strike. Once the mushroom cloud is hovering over a major city, there's not much else to be said. | ||
| Aesquire |
Although developed as a weapon that ended WW2 and saved millions of lives, "nukes" have very real peacetime uses, such as diverting asteroids headed for Earthly Apocalypse, or creating big holes underground. Nukes have been used to stop runaway natural gas fires, and have other uses such as propulsion for Orion drive spaceships. In the real real world, the guys on the high ground, and with weapons, rule those who do not. Giving up space & nukes, as this admin. wishes, means we will be ruled by others, and soon. If you should learn Russian or Chinese is a good question. ( betting Chinese ) MAD was a crazy thing that only works when your enemy is sane, and has his own peoples well being ahead of his ambitions to conquer. Not so effective against Jihad, or crazy people. Also limited in value against regimes like China or N.Korea, where the leaders think losing a few million people is not even a problem. Since we did NOT establish a Pax Atomica on the world in 1945, because we were weary of war, and had no desire to rule the world, the reality is that more than one nation has nukes, the technology to make them is fairly simple, ( now that the hard work is done ) and the genie can't be put back in the bottle. | ||
| Drfudd |
War prevention is a reason. The only reason World War III didn't happen is because both sides have nukes. When you have weapons that capable there is only two options, peace or "Mutually Assured Destruction" Although Peace is a subjective term, a cold war in my opinion is peace because it's better than a real one because people still live. Even both Us and Russia are decreasing our nuclear stock pile there will still be enough to destroy the entire planet. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ft, the refusal to go with defense re: ABM, is either the greatest case of treason the world has ever seen, or ideological blindness to the very idea of evil and defending yourself. Actually now that I think about it, both. Of course no missile defense system, no matter how expensive or complex, can defend a nation against every attack. It'a meant to make it harder to get through, and save lives. Many of us think that's worth something. Others do not. Ask them why. You want to nuke NYC? Ryder rent a truck. It's been, until sept. 2001, the most effective & cheapest delivery system. ( the 9/11 attacks cost the price of tickets + labor & per diem. ) Airborne Laser intercept systems won't help with that. They Will help with missiles launched from bad guys countries at us. But they are not friendly to the cause of international collectivist kumbaya.... that's why Russia has ABM & we don't. | ||
| Pkforbes87 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACAMO "They" know we're out there flying around. they just don't know where, or when, or how. I love the idea that if the bad guys shoot first, they will be obliterated. No questions asked, there's no getting around the fact that initiating a nuclear attack on US soil will ensure the attacker's doom. TACAMO - if we have a bad day, you won't see tomorrow. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
A missile defense system isn't meant to defend against an onslaught of thousands of missiles. That threat is covered under MAD. A missile defense system is meant to protect against a launch just off shore by an enemy with a couple of missiles in their arsenal. (See Iran) | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
The closer to zero you reduce the nuclear stockpile the more apt they will be used because the nukes go from being a strategic (MAD) weapon to a tactical one. A country can survive 10 nuke strikes but it can't 1000. | ||
| Iamarchangel |
Reconcile the missile defence with the mystery launch last week… still confident? A country can't survive one hit, who are you trying to kid. The answer to your question was in the first two posts: Pandora's box and MAD deterrent. There is a slim hope that war tech has some peace time uses but the government has to release it and budget it. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
A country can't survive one hit, who are you trying to kid. Sure it can. It may not come out the other side as the America we all know but life will go on. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
the next nuke wont be missile launched, it will be man packed bought or stolen from one of the new entrants to the nuke family, or from a disbanded, disgrundled CIS nation. (you should be very interested that Georgia (ossetia) is E Europes caches for storage and 'disposal' is rife with ethnic power struggle and a shoddy military hierarchy protecting a bank of small tactical nukes) That is all you get open source. Now is a time that I have been ever more vigilent and antsy, the cold war was a nice divorce stalemate; now we have the Tiger Woods conglomerate; and they all have a weapon, or means to make one. and who/what/where are you going to launch against when Johnny Jihad lights one off? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The destruction of a single nuclear strike is mainly economic. When folks are afraid to go out, to travel, to spend money, when hoarding is the SOP, a country collapses. Level LA and the nation would collapse in less than a month. IF the mystery launch isn't us, God help us. We've got nothing to stop that kind of launch. Without a formal declaration of war, it would take us at least a month to figure out who hit us. By that time, the damage is done. | ||
| Iamarchangel |
A country can't survive one hit, who are you trying to kid. Sure it can. It may not come out the other side as the America we all know but life will go on. If it isn't the same America, then America didn't survive. Sheesh, logic. (btw: re: meteor strike - only in the movies. No atmosphere, no effect.) | ||
| Buellkowski |
Abolishment would be impractical because it's ultimately unverifiable. If you suspect your adversary is hiding a few warheads, you're apt to hide some, too. | ||
| Aesquire |
Mostly agree with the above. Remember, this isn't magic. One city set on fire doesn't destroy a country, even D.C. or NYC. Hiroshima didn't stop the war, nor did Dresden or the fire storms of Tokyo. Nagasaki, a second a-bomb, + an invasion fleet off the coast ( My Uncle Rusty was on one of those thousands of ships ) a devastated industrial economy, being cut off from raw material by Submarine warfare, and losing most of the Army in distant lands with no way to feed or retrieve them.... that ended the war. ( doesn't count the European theatre, at all ) As the Prez. has been bitched at for saying, we can absorb some damage. Not too much, but a lot. As to the effects, we are not the same place as 2000, either. re: asteroid strike- it works by vaporizing asteroid material, producing thrust. A big laser we don't have would also work, but an Orion drive ship is the best and probably only practical answer. Besides use on people, ( a bad thing I think we can all agree ) Nukes also are last resort sterilizers. See Racoon City. ( I didn't say it worked out well ) | ||
| Iamarchangel |
re: asteroid strike- it works by vaporizing asteroid material, producing thrust. Thrust? Against what? There's no atmo. For original post: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=n asas-flimsy-argument-for-nuclear-weapons&page=2 Japan of 1940 is not the same as Japan of 1945: same name, different animal. The bombs were not necessary to finish off Japan for most of the reasons mentioned. What was needed was speed and the bombs gave the US that.} | ||
| Aesquire |
Thrust? Against what? There's no atmo. Oh, you don't understand rockets at all. Look up Newton. Japan did not surrender until the A-bomb showed it worked on troops at Nagasaki. The Generals in charge said so. ( plus the whole getting butt kicked back to the Home Islands ) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I guess those astronauts really DIDN'T land on the moon since rockets don't work in space. | ||
| Jssport |
Supposedly a secret but from what I've heard,.... They routinly tested the underground nuke crews unknowingly to those crews and found about 1/2 half refused to launch. there is hope for mankind | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Nah, we know that removed all the crews and replaced them with the WOPR. "Would you like to play a game?" | ||
| Jlnance |
Jssport - From what I hear, they run those tests all the time. It's part of the training. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
If it isn't the same America, then America didn't survive. Sheesh, logic. Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of the people and the government. There would be casualties but confined to a relatively small geographic area. As FT. pointed out, the real impact would be economic. The political structure would stay intact, although we would probably lose many of our freedoms, if not temporarily than permanently. | ||
| Sifo |
Thrust? Against what? There's no atmo. Michael, this is another example of what I pointed out earlier to you. You make statements that are simply wrong, and you tell me it's simply a matter of a difference of opinion. That happens, but you frequently have the verifiable facts dead wrong. | ||
| Iamarchangel |
Problem with internet, you say something brief, people jump all over you: Nukes in space - no atmo, no boom; little atmo, little boom; our atmo, big boom. Physics are different than on earth as article link pointed out. Ferris: I think we're saying the same thing except that I would see a Mad Max type ending. Heck, couple of other threads in this section are promoting civil war and separation and no nuke has been dropped. Jssport: don't hold out that hope too far. Nazis found camp workers from a "decent" population. Lot's of other nasty people in the world. Please protect, guard and use your constitutional right to participation and representation. | ||
| Sifo |
The problem may be with Scientific American. Unfortunately they keep their articles behind the green curtain so I can't say for certain what they claim. From the comments on the article it sounds like it is simply anti-nuke political bias veiled in "scientific fact". SA has a long history of this on the global warming front. Usually misstating the arguments of the other side so that they can make a point. I can assure you that Newton's laws work very well, even in the vacuum of space. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ah! you think I want to move big rock with boom! Physics are different than on earth as article link pointed out. Then the article is wrong. Physics same, conditions different. ( no, haven't read article, the conclusion is based on fantasy, so I doubt the rest is any good ) Thrust comes from vaporizing asteroid. Heat rock ( one side only ) to boil, boiling rock gas moves, rock moves. That's how you move a rock with a nuke. IN SPACE!!! Orion works in vacuum too. You build your thrust units with a fission bomb & a ejectant mass, ( I'd order them from General Atomic, if they have time between Predators, they already know how to build shaped charge nukes. After all, they invented them ) and the high speed gasses push the thrust plate. No air needed. In fact it's more efficient in vacuum. That's why they planned to use solid boosters to launch. You don't want to be close to one of those babies taking off on direct nuke thrust. Think Hiroshima several times a minute, rising. Nicely described in Niven & Pournell's "Footfall". http://www.amazon.com/Footfall-Larry-Niven/dp/0345 418425/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289869446&s r=1-1 Why do I think the article you cite is fantasy? 1. the promise of intercept technology....when we are in the process of abandoning space. Of course, the Chinese may save us. 2. As a result, the decision to move toward the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons can be made strictly on the basis of human threats to global security. Um, yeah. Ok, are the authors proposing a Pax Americana? Will we rule & dominate the world with an iron fist to stop the threat of nukes? Didn't happen in 1945. Won't happen now. The Russians might. We won't. Read "Solution Unsatisfactory" by R. Heinlein. If you haven't already, you are missing a big piece of the reason why the Scienterriffic American guys are wrong, wrong, wrong. Pity, it used to be a real good magazine. It's been going downhill for years, My subscription got canceled when they went political past the usual "war bad" attitude. ( oh, and war IS bad. It's the second worst thing. ) | ||
| Blake |
>>> Problem with internet, you say something brief, people jump all over you: Nukes in space - no atmo, no boom; little atmo, little boom; our atmo, big boom. Physics are different than on earth as article link pointed out. You should have paid better attention in high school physics. | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Supposedly a secret but from what I've heard,.... They routinly tested the underground nuke crews unknowingly to those crews and found about 1/2 half refused to launch. there is hope for mankind Total BS my friend. rest assured they are trained and tested. The Triad is maintained by the best folks out there. | ||
| Iamarchangel |
You should have paid better attention in high school physics. Picky, picky. I'm not writing a paper here. Okay, physics stay the same, Newton is right. Atmo is different. Reaction/effect will be different than on earth. |
