Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » AMERICA'S WMD
|
|
|
|
 AMERICA'S WMD [message #16973] |
Fri, 25 April 2003 02:25   |
 |
Commando no. 448
Messages: 229
Registered: February 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Infront...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons. They claim the the threat of MAD is the reason. But what would happen if so revolutionary party took power and didn't care about MAD in acheiving it's goals. Imagine the situation they would cause. You say that wouldn't happen in your country but it can. They can ride to power on some campain promises and if they slip in with majority and have their party all vote for a certain bill.
Your mind is weaker-Einsteinb (WOL, WWEXP forums, Generally everywhere I don't need a different name)
We invented statistics for people who can't keep bullets out of their head-Commando no. 448
 |
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #17007] |
Fri, 25 April 2003 05:28 |
|
|
| Commando no. 448 |
Countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons. They claim the the threat of MAD is the reason. But what would happen if so revolutionary party took power and didn't care about MAD in acheiving it's goals. Imagine the situation they would cause. You say that wouldn't happen in your country but it can. They can ride to power on some campain promises and if they slip in with majority and have their party all vote for a certain bill.
|
MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does keep all of the nuclear powers (like America, Russia, etc.) from blowing each other up. Both sides know that if they launch missiles our way, we'll launch ours at them. What keeps the smaller countries from attacking with nukes? The assurance that they will be completely wiped out by the powers if they do, and that most of them don't have weapons that could reach us.
"You say that wouldn't happen in your country but it can." Well, actually it can't happen in my country, because the President cannot declare war, that's Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #17057] |
Fri, 25 April 2003 12:48 |
|
Commando no. 448
Messages: 229
Registered: February 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Infront...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I said if a party took majority. What if the party's congress members stood united in their stance and declared the use of them. The controllers are trained to obey the order to launch if the order seems authentic. They don't have much say in the matter. Even if but 2 controllers in one facilty deem the order valid and decide to go through with it then MAD is almost assured. Only 1 missile would have the world freaking out. Then when retaliatory strikes begin then the other controllers are pretty much forced to follow a MAD order.
Your mind is weaker-Einsteinb (WOL, WWEXP forums, Generally everywhere I don't need a different name)
We invented statistics for people who can't keep bullets out of their head-Commando no. 448
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #17219] |
Fri, 25 April 2003 19:35 |
|
|
| Commando no. 448 |
I said if a party took majority. What if the party's congress members stood united in their stance and declared the use of them. The controllers are trained to obey the order to launch if the order seems authentic. They don't have much say in the matter. Even if but 2 controllers in one facilty deem the order valid and decide to go through with it then MAD is almost assured. Only 1 missile would have the world freaking out. Then when retaliatory strikes begin then the other controllers are pretty much forced to follow a MAD order.
|
Looks like someone has no clue what the hell they're talking about.
There are several people in completely different locations that have to authorize it before the two inside of the control room can launch the ICBM from a silo (which both have individual keys that have to be turned on opposite sides of the room)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #17974] |
Thu, 01 May 2003 05:59 |
|
|
| -Tech- |
Actually, all it would involve is interrupting the periodic burst-transmissions that are sent to the Ohio-class Trident subs when they come close enough to the surface. If they don't recieive that critical transmission, they dive, try one more time, then fire off half of the U.S. nuclear arsenal at whatever target they want.
Feel safe? :twisted:
|
1. They wouldn't risk the end of the world like that, they wouldn't just launch their weapons if they didn't receive a radio signal every so often.
2. One sub doesn't carry "half of the U.S. nuclear arsenal". They carry about 20 or so nuclear missiles in their vertical tubes, and probably some more in storage or as torpedo launched cruise missiles.
(Even if you're talking about all of the U.S's subs collectively (somewhere around 10-15 or so), there isn't enough nuclear weapons there to come close to equaling half of the U.S's arsenal.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #18175] |
Fri, 02 May 2003 09:33 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Anything over once is excessive............
Deleted
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #18436] |
Sat, 03 May 2003 14:34 |
anort893
Messages: 23
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Well,
In development are new "battlefeild" nukes, small and concentrated enough to destroy a underground bunker without affecting the surface. You are right, larger weapons are not of much use now, and the ability to destroy the world 7 times over is not nessesary anymore.
The one, the only
-Anort893
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #18702] |
Mon, 05 May 2003 05:53 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| anort893 |
Well,
In development are new "battlefeild" nukes, small and concentrated enough to destroy a underground bunker without affecting the surface. You are right, larger weapons are not of much use now, and the ability to destroy the world 7 times over is not nessesary anymore.
|
It never was.
And battlefield nukes already exist.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #18785] |
Mon, 05 May 2003 14:29 |
|
|
| anort893 |
Well,
In development are new "battlefeild" nukes, small and concentrated enough to destroy a underground bunker without affecting the surface. You are right, larger weapons are not of much use now, and the ability to destroy the world 7 times over is not nessesary anymore.
|
You're about 20-30 years late. Small nuclear weapons have been around for quite some time.
And what do you mean 'anymore'? The ability to destroy the world any times over was never necessary.
And nuclear weapons of any size would effect the surface if detonated underground, the EMP sent out by the blast would damage electronics, and the radioactive crap would eventually make it's way to the surface.
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #18847] |
Mon, 05 May 2003 17:01 |
 |
Wild1
Messages: 319
Registered: May 2003
Location: Southern California
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The last time we used a WMD was to end probably the gretest war we will ever see. That was used against the Epire of Japan. I dobt we will ever see WWIII in our lifetime. Even then WMD's would be our last resort as was with WWII.
WOL: wild10ne
PADI Open Water Diver
 |
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #18857] |
Mon, 05 May 2003 17:36 |
anort893
Messages: 23
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The ability to destroy the world several times over was a nessesity, because of the fear that about 90% of our nukes would get destroyed by the other side before they could get launched. The idea was that we could still launch a counterattack if most of our nukes got wiped out by a Soviet first stike.
Yes, battlefeild nukes are not new, but 5- kiloton ones that can takes out a bunker and leave most of the surface intact are. Current "battlefield" nukes are 20 kilotons, the size of the Hiroshima bomb, and in reality too lagre for tactical use.[/i]
The one, the only
-Anort893
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #18946] |
Tue, 06 May 2003 05:44 |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
| Wild1 |
The last time we used a WMD was to end probably the gretest war we will ever see. That was used against the Epire of Japan. I dobt we will ever see WWIII in our lifetime. Even then WMD's would be our last resort as was with WWII.
|
bombing Hiroshima was not a "last resort" which is why it remains a contraversial subject to this day. Japan was already near surrendering, not to mention the Red Army was gonna land in Japan a few days later and the US would have been a few months later.
I personally think we shouldn't have attacked Hiroshima which had a large civilian population...but it doesn't matter. The fact that we dropped the bomb was basically to show Russia that the US was a force to be reckoned with...and in doing so we probably saved thousands more lives by averting a war between the US and Russia...but dispite all these things...it still wasn't a last resort...
|
There was two choices to end the war with Japan... Using a huge invasion force to invade Japan, or drop the bomb.
Invading Japan would have killed more then just dropping the bomb. If the Japanese fought so hard and viciously for Midway and Okanowa(sp?), what would they fight like to defend their home?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #19020] |
Tue, 06 May 2003 12:49 |
|
Commando no. 448
Messages: 229
Registered: February 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Infront...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
And there is still the point that you (US) could have used the bombs on military targets rather then civilian massed ones. Why not bomb one of their heavily fortified island bases? I am sure it still would have scared the crap out of them. We argued the same points about the bombing of Japan before in a topic titled eggmac the pacifist (which might I say was in all a disgusting witch hunt).
Your mind is weaker-Einsteinb (WOL, WWEXP forums, Generally everywhere I don't need a different name)
We invented statistics for people who can't keep bullets out of their head-Commando no. 448
|
|
|
|
| AMERICA'S WMD [message #19085] |
Tue, 06 May 2003 17:35 |
anort893
Messages: 23
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Hirosima was as military target. It was one huge factory town dedicated to making war material. Same for Nagasaki. These were not innocent little residential targets, they were part of the Japanese war machine.
The one, the only
-Anort893
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 18 06:32:32 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01384 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
