It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No one dare use nukes.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The reason that nukes are basically redundant is purely and simply because all the developed countries have nuclear reactors. If a tactical nuclear strike was called, then anyone who launches will have gained nothing, no inhabitable land, just a poisoned chalice . With the risk of airborne radiation killing your own people. That's why all wars must be non nuclear. The arsenals look good but are pointless. So if a country fears invasion the best defence is to have as many power plants dotted around your political territory as possible. The bluff of any combatant, would always to appear insane . But the reality remains. MAD. might actually work.




posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Thanks for coming to ATS and defining mutual assured destruction. It hasn't been ingrained into our culture since the 1960s or anything..



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

I disagree

The moment United States and NATO can be 100% sure their missile shield and other gizmos can stop Russian and Chinese retaliation

They will use small tactical nukes and nuke major eastern cities as complete world takeover

There is half a world at stake and they want it !



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity
I'm not so sure that the attacker would be doing it for the land gain exactly, perhaps they just want to annihilate the enemy, the more nuclear power plants the enemy has, the easier it would be to destroy them.
They would be wise though in a scenario such as that to not nuke their neighbours, as they would be too close to escape the fallout themselves!


edit on 132015Saturday4428u28America/Chicagopm2 by solitudeandme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LotToTell2

According to whom, may I ask?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

This is the wrong forum to ask for that, I have read many who would use them in a blink of an eye.

Russia would use them for sure to take out swiftly NATO bases in Eastern Europe to give them a change of survival, and US knows it.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LotToTell2

We don't want their crap OR their people,we have the best/most land anyway so, NO WAY.
We have had superiority over them both and we left them alone.
WE aren't trying to rule the world NOR have we invaded Mexico for the same reason.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity



The reason that nukes are basically redundant is purely and simply because all the developed countries have nuclear reactors.

I don't see the connection.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The outcome of a nuclear war would be far, far worse than anyone can possibly imagine, but I'll try and explain just a little bit here.

Imagine if worldwide power and all backup generation were completely knocked out by a nuclear war, no backup services, no cleanup services, no emergency services.

Now, lets look at ONE industry - chemical manufacturing plants.

Imagine that every chemical containment field in the world were destroyed. Most storage systems ruptured and damaged beyond repair, every pipeline for chemicals and petro chemicals destroyed. Every train and truck carrying chemicals destroyed.

Now, mix even a few of those volatile chemicals together, with absolutely ZERO control systems.

The entire planet will be poisoned. And we haven't even started on fallout or ruptured nuclear power plants yet.

If you live in even a small city, there are chemical plants who's contents will be spread over a large, large area in the event of that city's destruction.

Fallout will be the LAST of survivors' problems after a nuclear war.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies



The entire planet will be poisoned. And we haven't even started on fallout or ruptured nuclear power plants yet.


You`re right, even the chemical manufacturing plants alone would be really bad, but once the nuclear plants go into meltdown it will become really horrible.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

What leads you to believe that this scenario you posit is even remotely possible?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity



The reason that nukes are basically redundant is purely and simply because all the developed countries have nuclear reactors.

I don't see the connection.


Because the Super powers are the developed countries, they have the nukes, the nuclear power plants, the chemical factories, Why would they remotely risk it?. The point of war is to impress your political views on the enemy, their would be no enemy left and no land as a reward. So what's the point?

The result would be your own countrymen actually eating each other , when the food supply stopped, politicians would be quite tasty.
edit on 28-2-2015 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity
You don't need nuclear power plants to do that.
Nuclear weapons would do the job just fine all by themselves.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: anonentity

This is the wrong forum to ask for that, I have read many who would use them in a blink of an eye.

Russia would use them for sure to take out swiftly NATO bases in Eastern Europe to give them a change of survival, and US knows it.


Really are you sure, if it was going to happen it was during the days of the Soviet Union during the Cuba crisis. It would have been stupid then, as it is now. I would suggest the focus of conflict has changed, because it had to, and has.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity
You don't need nuclear power plants to do that.
Nuclear weapons would do the job just fine all by themselves.



Think meltdown , hundreds of Fukishimas, and that wasn't even a nuke.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity
Defeat Terrorists by using humorous tactics, forget nuking them as is NOT FUNNY.


edit on 28-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity




Think meltdown , hundreds of Fukishimas, and that wasn't even a nuke.


Think hundreds of thermonuclear weapons.
How dead is dead?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Yes, conventionally Russia would lose it over time.

So Russia will take out the NATO bases (not cities) in Poland, Baltic States, Romania, etc. if NATO decides to build up huge amounts of forces and attacks Russia with them.

What would happen is that NATO will be forced to fly from Germany, France, The Netherlands, etc. and also a ground force would have to travel a long way to get to Russia, giving the time for Russia to nuke them also when on their way.

You can see how dangerous such a situation will be, but make no mistake, once Russia is backed in a corner it would choose that option.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
to me..EMP's would be worse.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity
You don't need nuclear power plants to do that.
Nuclear weapons would do the job just fine all by themselves.



No, nuclear bombs are much less devastating than meltdowns are.

The difference is in the amount of nuclear material. The Chernobyl elephant's foot is just a tangible example. Ten years later, it would kill you after only 500 seconds in its presence, and that's only 1/10th as deadly as it was right after the accident. This is just a small part of all the fuel rods that were in place and spewed their poison all over.

By contrast, a nuclear bomb has smaller amount of radioactive fuel because it serves a different purpose.

The damage of the bomb is worse, but the long term effects are going to be less severe. We'd have to drop a whole lot in order to do all the same longterm damage a bunch of nuclear power plant meltdowns would do.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join