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.

 

What about them' nukes??

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
waht does anyone here know about the new nuke technology that the russians have developed?? .. from waht i ehard its a missile that breakes into 5seperate missiles that can practically devestate the world...

this is a big deal because the russians are allowed to have a certian number of nukes(i cant remember how many) but with this new weapon, they do not break any of the nuke-restricting regulations, even though the nuke is more powerfull (its 5 nukes in 1) ....

does anyone else know aobut this??




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Satan?
It is just a MIRV.
No, it can't decimate the world, even "practically" decimate it.

Curious, though, what threat do they perceive?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
but i think it could decimate the world..... send two of those taward the US and yhat do you have?? no more world superpower.... no wonder the US is trying to restore good relations with the russians.

and to back up my statement about how 2 nukes could take on america.. think about it... (it would hit the major military centers, etc etc..) 9/11 times 1000



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
It would take a hell of a lot more then two of those things to take out the US. Not to mention we would retaliate and destroy whoever sent them. That would be ten nukes max from those missles, during the cold war the US had hundreds of Nuke pointed at them and those wouldn't have stopped the US from anialating the Russians (We wouldn't be around to celebrate though). The US has more then ten nuclear missle silos in country, more throughout the world and plenty of subs in the seas. Just because there is some new multi nuke out there doesn't mean MAD goes out the window.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
but if the nukes took out the major pints .... simply 2 could temporarily cripple america.. just look at what 9/11 did to america...



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   
They wouldn't cripple us because while in air we would retaliate. So our birds would be gone before those hit. That is why first strikes don't work in nuclear war, and that is why (like I said earlier) we have M.A.D. Also there are major military centers that wouldn't be effective by nuclear weapons that would assess the situation.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
mad? mothers againt drunk drinving??

if the nuklier strike was iminante, ther is nothing america could do to stop it.. they would be caught off gaurd. totally obliviated. just look at bust.. took him 20 minutes to tell children that trere was a NATIONAL emergency.. who knows next terror attack, maybe it will take him only 10 minutes to say.. "hey.. thay building just dissapeared.. hmm odd.. i dont remember seeing all that smoke"..

sorry, i am only talking of my own well being.. the is a nuklear silo in or near seatle if i am not mistaken..... if one nuke namds there.. vancouver (across the border in canada) would also be obliviated...



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
MAD = mutually assured destruction


There is a strategic weapons facility and SSBN base in Bangor Washington. So Seattle would at the very least get large amounts of fallout.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
well i jsut find it suspicious.. russia builds nuke.. > america crawls to become friends.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Maybe we would just like to leave on good terms?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
i dunno.. seems really fishy to me



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
if russia launched right now - the usa couldn`t respond with its bombers/ silo`s in time the bases would get destroyed before the bombers launched / the missiles were shot off - all that would be left would be subs.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
exactly.. central power of america destroyed... war practically over.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Look, Ivan, Satan is not a new system, and neither is the concept of MIRV, and no, only two of those systems would not take down the U.S. or even halt its ability to defend itself.

And, you may take this as coming from some arrogant SOB who played with nukes for too many years, but the word is "nuclear", not nuklier! Congratulations, you have iritated me in the same way that Bush has many times during speeches. Same word, just a different perversion of it.

I am so sensitive to that, my ex-wife got me a T-shirt for Christmas that reads, "It's New-Clear, not New-Kew-Lar!"



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Just to wrap this lunacy up in quick fashion, do you also think that Vicente Fox is pointing nuclear weapons at us? Bush kisses his butt more than Vladimer's. As a matter of fact, Russo-American relations have been strained lately.
As far as your concept that we would lose CnC if the Russians struck first, I assure you, we would not. I also assure you that even if our birds, both rockets and planes, were taken out by a first strike, our Navy would ensure that the Russians would enjoy no taste of success. This is why nuclear warfare by the Russians against us, no matter how large a MIRV they might create, would not be worth it.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
if russia launched right now - the usa couldn`t respond with its bombers/ silo`s in time the bases would get destroyed before the bombers launched / the missiles were shot off - all that would be left would be subs.


First, our ICBM's could easily be launched before a russian attack hit the US. We have an extensive network of sattelites/radar facilities which can detect Russian ICBM launches in seconds (their flight time would be over 30 minutes), giving our ICBM's plenty of time to launch.

Also, the US and Russia have been building a better relationship for the last 15 years, during which time both countries have dramatically reduced their nuclear stockpile. The whole argument of ivanglam simply makes no sense....



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I think you people fail to realize that if Russia decides to nuke the U.S. they will not send just a couple of nukes. They would use enough nukes to ensure victory and completely anialate the U.S. before they can use MAD. Remember Russia still has enough nukes to destroy the world. I said this in another post but I will say it again. Russia had enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times during the cold war. They U.S. had 32,000 nukes and Russia had 43,000 thats a big difference and they also had enough chemical and biological weapons to do the same thing. And take in to concideration that they have the biggest nuclear sub in the world that can hold 24 balistic missiles with 16 nukes each(it could be the other way around).



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
2 ICBMs from Russia would not destroy America nor disable it's ability to defend itself. A single ICBM severely affect an area of about 50 miles with direct explosion damage. Depending on the amount of groundburst and wind conditions, fallout would kill most living things about 300 miles downwind.

This is by far the best site I have ever seen on the subject of nuclear weapons. It describes in detail what would happen if a single ICBM hit the US and if there was full scale nuclear war between all powers on Earth.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killak420
I think you people fail to realize that if Russia decides to nuke the U.S. they will not send just a couple of nukes. They would use enough nukes to ensure victory and completely anialate the U.S. before they can use MAD. Remember Russia still has enough nukes to destroy the world. I said this in another post but I will say it again. Russia had enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times during the cold war. They U.S. had 32,000 nukes and Russia had 43,000 thats a big difference and they also had enough chemical and biological weapons to do the same thing. And take in to concideration that they have the biggest nuclear sub in the world that can hold 24 balistic missiles with 16 nukes each(it could be the other way around).


It's interesting to note that all of your references are in the past tense. Today, the stockpiles are virtually identical - with the US having much more reliable delivery systems. Russia is so broke they can't even afford to keep their ballistic missile subs on alert anymore.

The bottom line is that both countries have retain the capibility to destroy each other - with the US having the definite advantage in detection/reaction time. Besides, neither country would benefit or consider doing anything of the sort.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Look, Ivan, Satan is not a new system, and neither is the concept of MIRV, and no, only two of those systems would not take down the U.S. or even halt its ability to defend itself.


Yep.

Missiles with multiple warheads aren't new and last I heard was in regards to some having as many as ten warheads in one missile.


if russia launched right now - the usa couldn`t respond with its bombers/ silo`s in time the bases would get destroyed before the bombers launched / the missiles were shot off - all that would be left would be subs.


Are you kidding? I'd strongly suggest looking into:
1. the time it takes for an ICBM from Russia to reach it's target
2. the time it takes from detection, to launch a counterstrike, it's minutes if it has to be....

or vice-versa.

This is the REASON MAD works...because even if one does an all out first strike, the birds would be in the air before the nest was destroyed. About the only advantage the first strike aggressor would have, is less enemy bombers would be airborne... The silos, ships, and subs though, would all be able to fire before being destroyed.

Most think that maybe humans will hesitate to flip the switch. Well, something you should know about this. They do drills all the time. Most of the time, they don't know whether it's a drill or not (until they wake up the next morning and realize they're still there, and everything's ok). They likely won't even know the real thing from a drill (because they won't be told), and they'll do just what they've been trained to do, day in and day out.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Gazrok]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join