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.

 

Abstract Model of Nuclear Components

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I have posted on ATS regarding what I believe to be a media-blackout regarding nuclear war. Actually, I cannot decide if it is an organized campaign of ignorance or if people just have massive dissonance when the issue comes up. In any case, nuclear war seems like the most important subject for us to discuss and it is rarely ever discussed in the media. Why is that?

There's a guy named Ike Jeanes who wrote a book called Forecast and Solution. So far as I know, this is the only book to discuss the statistical likelihood of nuclear war and specifically the interrelated components that determine if a nation will use nukes (or if they will be used by accident). I would be curious to know if anyone here has read this book.

In the book, the author explains that there are two essential forces that keep nukes in check. There are the known forces of Deterrence and Civility which determine a people's willingness to strike with nuclear weapons (these two forces comprise the whole of what most people know about nukes) and then there are the unknown factors which if they occur, are later called "accidents". The thought in most people's minds is that, "Since civility and deterrence will prevent nuclear exchange, I have no real reason to be afraid."

In fact, as Ike Jeanes explains, the threat of accident is much greater than people realize. Nuclear weapon accidents are prevented by the so-called "C3I" structure. C3I stands for Control, Communication, Command and Intelligence. The point is, the factors of Civility and Deterrence have safeguards and checks involved, but accidents do not have those same flowcharts because that is the nature of accidents. In the case of an accidental launch, you have a finite amount of time to figure out what the heck is going on. What is your enemy thinking when he launches? Do we assume that it is always volitional?

The more I thought about Jeanes' book, the more it changed my priorities and perspectives. How can I possibly plan for a family (I'm 32) in a country which is the tip of the spear for nuclear weapons and which will probably be decimated in any exchange of such weapons? How can I tell my young children they are safe when the numbers say they are not? In any case, I am getting sidetracked...



I went into my 3D program and made this model. The objects are based on the statistical analysis method called the "Unified Theory" and which theory is methodically described within Ike Jeanes' book. I call this thing the AMONC which stands for "Abstract Model of Nuclear Components". The hammers represent the potential for accident whereas the cables from which this warhead hangs represent the aforementioned factors of Civility and Deterrence (see Jeanes' book for a detailed discussion of these terms). As you can see, the warhead will not fall so long as either of the cables remain intact. However this does not really protect the nation/owner of the AMONC because the hammers are always there, waiting to drop and cause an accidental launch.

Please realize that with nuclear proliferation, this problem increases exponentially. Every time we add another nuclear player/nation to the game, we collectively give birth to another AMONC which must be maintained by that nuclear player/nation. In a way, a nation which obtains nuclear weapons gives birth to an AMONC just like a parent bears a child. If your country's AMONC is creaky and falling apart, your nation could be the trigger for a catastrophic failure of ALL AMONC because all AMONCs are interrelated and reactive to other AMONCs. If such an accidental launch occurs, the generally accepted rule of Mutually Assured Destruction will escalate the matter quickly.

We have never travelled down the road of nuclear war but we are sure paving it daily.

I am curious to know what you all think of this model and if you have questions or comments. I sent a picture of it to Ike Jeanes and this was his reply to me via email:


"To deal directly with the subject visually, as you have, is
a stunning and important break from past imagery.
[...]
In my view, it is striking that the jpg sample you provided
for me displays the nuclear problem absent the conventional
and somewhat tiresome image of the too familiar nuclear
mushroom cloud. That cloud no longer evokes a fear response.
And even if it did, fear is not a productive motivator."

Naturally this made me feel good but I am wondering what you all think. Am I wasting my time talking about this issue here at ATS?


[edit on 11-5-2005 by smallpeeps]




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Am I wasting my time talking about this issue here at ATS?


The media blackout is corporate/govt pressure, smallpeeps. I can speak for my own silence here on ATS- many of us older types have spent a lifetime fighting this technology. When we 'won' a ban on testing under Clinton, many of us collapsed from sheer physical, mental and financial exhaustion after 50 years of protest. Many older people- such as Linus Pauling- actually died, from old age.

I am in horror of the Islamic/Korean/Bush nuclear theater.

While silent, I for one am grateful for your efforts.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Good model at first glance I didnt get it but your explanation claried it. My only complaint is the rotational movement made the labels a little hard to read.

Its all very depressing and I dont know what to say about anything anymore.
Sometimes I think as a species we've lost the war. Who exactly the enemy was is up for debate but it should be clear to all by now that we've pretty much lost.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   


many of us older types have spent a lifetime fighting this technology.
[...]
While silent, I for one am grateful for your efforts.

Thanks Chakotay. BTW, you should definately make a move on Janeway. She's hot.


Its all very depressing and I dont know what to say about anything anymore.

I wouldn't let it get you down. Death is unavoidable. What matters most is that we choose the battles in which we would be willing to die. For me, nuclear war and the contemplation of it gives a profound sense of peace. When I am lying in a park and the grass is green, I will often look up at the clouds (which are utterly magnificent where I live) and I realize that I am seeing something that will be gone at some future date. Once the nuclear situation goes south, the sky won't look the same for decades and there will be no lying on grass or cloud-watching. These 'depressing' thoughts cause me to appreciate what I am experiencing right now.

I think of myself as an astronaut here on Earth. I am just without a spaceship. If Han Solo was stranded on some planet where two nations had nukes pointed at each other, wouldn't he try to talk some sense into them? In all arrogance, that's my current self-image. I feel like I'm fighting for the 'rebellion' just by writing this. If I am going to be Earthbound, the best I can do is to act and think like a space-going person would, and then someday maybe my ancestors would be able to travel to other planets. Even after the Challenger shuttle blew up, I was determined to be an astronaut (like so many others). Dying for the privilege of going into space is a small price to pay.

In the final analysis, we'll never get far in space with nukes because we'd blow outselves up eventually. Space is a very unforgiving environment, actually, and so we wouldn't even need nukes to kill ourselves off out there. Simple knives and bullets will do.

My hope is that the AMONC model gets shown to as many people as possible because at least they'll have a tool with which to understand what's going on on planet Earth.

Whom do we trust anymore? I think that is the real question. How did we come to be delivered into this world where our children and grandchildren face the most abhorrent of deaths?

Of course, there could be a momentous transformation in the way people think. This nuclear war problem could go away overnight, particularly now that average humans have the Internet with which to discuss the issues. Will it happen?


[edit on 12-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Here's a creepy after-thought for consideeration...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Here's a creepy after-thought for consideeration...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Man, I guess I wrote that with a desire to shock people. Talk about killing a thread, eh? Sometimes a little negative imagery can shock people into thinking.

It probably won't be that bad.
...



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
It's not about nuclear war anymore, terror is the new bogeyman.

What can the news possibly report on the subject? Mainstream news reports nothing in depth, and nuclear war reports would require quite a bit of background, since until nuclear war actually breaks out, all we have are the odd tidbits of info dealing with disarmament, proliferation, testing, and sanctions, that have enough "immediacy" value to be able to make catchy headlines.

In the 80s, when nuclear war was the "bomb," so to speak, a LOT of scholarly work was done regarding the social dynamics of such, not to mention related science, tactics and strategy. I used to collect books on the topic and I can tell you any local library worth its salt should have a lot of resoruces for you to draw on (since 90% of library books seem to come from the 80s).

-koji K.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by koji_K]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
It's not about nuclear war anymore, terror is the new bogeyman.

What can the news possibly report on the subject?

Exactly. With the new threat alive and well anything can be concocted and not need proof.

Back in the MAD days there was focus and the possibility of believable denial. Now claims and innuendo, supposition and rumor direct our national focus.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

It's not about nuclear war anymore, terror is the new bogeyman.

According to whom? Doesn't the terror-war seem a little contrived? Didn't the USA begin secretly promoting Islam in order to make life more difficult for the Soviets? We created all those muja's (Osama was one of them) and so the terror war was actually a planned thing. I do not believe it is simply 'blowback' that Osama came back to us wth hatred.

Koji my friend, who convinced you that you should stop thinking about nuclear war? Who told you it was safe to do so? Just because the tv-fed masses think the threat of nuclear war has faded does not make it so. It is up to us, if we want to take the discussion in a new direction. Guys like McVeigh, Osama, Malvo --these men seem like they are engineered for their dastardly tasks. I'm not sure what's behind it but I do not fear the isolated loner as much as a I fear the collapse of a particular nation's AMONC.

Each new nuclear nation is introducing a whole new set of failure-points to the interrelated system of nuclear weapons. That's what should scare us much more than some lone nut.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Actually, I agree, to a point. I do believe the terror war is contrived (although that's not to say I don't think we need to be alert to terror threats... some terror IS very real, for example I lived in London for a long time and the IRA bombings during the 80's and early 90's were real alright, and we should be on guard against it. But I do feel we have blown the threat out of proportion.)

As for nuclear war, it is something to be feared and should be examined more closely by the media. I believe if only because as time progresses, the technology to build nuclear weapons will become increasingly available to various nations. 20-30 years from now, there will probably be at least 5-10 new nations with nuclear weapons on the planet, and who can say how many in 100 years time. I do not think because we made it through the cold war "OK" it's safe to say the nuclear war threat is over. As they say, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and soon it will be on a more or less global scale.

-koji K.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I think most of you guys are absolutely correct. This war on terrorism is a contrived 'thing', for lack of a better term.
It is the perfect foundation for what we all would like to think couldn't happen. Its potential for growth is global and astounding.
I think the thing has gone past the foundation stage and the structure is beginning to be built. The legal structure certainly is.
I think that most of America sees this but isn't willing to believe it.
I don't want to believe it either, but its hard to deny.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join