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.

 

Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Then you just have the subs to worry about, that you hope the missile shield will take care off.


There goes the "assured destruction of the enemy"!

The missile shield in most cases relies on early warning. You likely won't have it in the sub launch case.

In addition... I hear the Russians desomissioned their rail-based launch platforms under Gorbachev, but I'd be very surprised if they completely dismantled such capability. Maybe they even recently refurbished it. And now you have it, a huge country with enough rail to go to Mars, and a few dozen boxcars somewhere... ready for a launch.




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

Certainly a nuclear strike preemptive or otherwise isn't good for anyone anywhere but allowing further world-growth of a potential WMD be it: Nuclear, Biological or Chemical based, is worse.

Subs. Missiles and I'll add Mach 9 atmospheric delivery vehicles have little advantage over stealth ground delivery and Missile defense systems won't save the target Nation either. Where did it come from? Answer: We don't know as it was detonated here!!

Now how many crazies in the world would be happy to take their own lives to hand-deliver and detonate a nuclear device IN the Country it was made for? Seems to me once a Country that supports terrorist factions is in the nuclear business, while claiming peaceful use, they are exposing themselves to dual uses and as a result -- their own preemptive targeting too.

Dallas



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


There was no comment made about indescriminate use of nukes, so please stop with the disengenous commentary. You like to use sensationalism and rhetoric, but are a little light on the facts.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


Moloch must be very pleased..



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SectionEight
Thank the liberals for all the fallout and human loss of life.


This is a disingenious comment. Maybe we should blame the Wolofowitz/Rove/Cheney gang for squandering our conventional power in Iraq?

One can hardly blame the proliferation to the brink of WW 3 on liberal ideals, although it may be left to liberal diplomacy to terminate this insanity once and for all, as the neo - cons have made a right mess of the situation. We ALL lose in this scenario, and no one has discussed alternatives, only placing blame and retaliation / pre-emptive strikes. The corporation of the United States of Amerika is surely headed for bankruptcy, with these Nazis at the helm as the "deciders", assuring the world that they will take us all with them, on their fast track to hell on earth! The squandering has been for private profit in more areas than the Iraq fiasco. Stop the polarization of political agendas and accept the responsibility, while at least offering a viable solution.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Sasaki
Call me crazy, but screw North Korea and screw Iran. I say, bomb the[Mod Edit] out of them. Why should they be allowed to, time and time again, flip us the bird without any action from us or NATO?

[Mod Edit: Please see ABOUT ATS: Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors Thank you - Jak

[edit on 22/1/08 by JAK]


YOU ARE CRAZY!



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

...reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



I hated to do it, but I had to add you to my foe list. I always agree with what you post so I needed the little red bar to remind that you are a hypocrite in the future. You can be seen on the above linked thread defending Russia's muscle flexing but are outraged when the US and NATO respond in kind?...



Aren't you confusing the policies of the old Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Since Yeltsin, if not Gorby, things had changed (at least supposedly).

So this new Russian policy may be considered new. The difference is that at least we should know better.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
I get the feeling that we, as the Western Civilisation are getting to a point, like a cross roads in human evolution where we feel that we will soon have to completely eliminate any potential current and future threat from the face of the earth, to enable western society to survive and prosper like it is now.

Yes, its harsh, and cruel, but necessary and in a way it is the law of the jungle. He who is stronger, or more technically or militarilly evolved shall take out all opposition now for a future of peace...



Also the road to stagnation and collapse, ironically. We came to a fork in the previous road and chose the wrong one.

Many will disagree with this point of view, but the truth ain't always lacking in nuance and convenient. Expecting otherwise shows Western civilization has been devolving for some time.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SectionEight
they could have cared less for Castro.



Originally posted by SectionEight
rouge nation


Sorry, quick grammar lesson here.

Firstly, the saying is couldn't have cared less, not could have and secondly, it's spelt rogue, not rouge, as that is a colour.

Sorry for the off topic post, but it's bad enough watching this guy turn this into some partisan bear baiting, let alone also witnessing the mutilation of my mother tongue.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Seems to me once a Country that supports terrorist factions is in the nuclear business, while claiming peaceful use, they are exposing themselves to dual uses and as a result -- their own preemptive targeting too.

Dallas


I do find it funny when someone conveniently ignores the fact that just about every country in the world that's ever been an international player, has at some point, or still continues to support 'terrorist factions'. Is it really still unknown to some ATS members that the US is the absolute leader in this dubious field.

So countries that support terrorist factions have been in the nuclear business for quite some time. In fact one of these countries has even used nukes as a preemptive option.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 




Very true.

The US has supported anti-Castro terrorists, the Contras, Guatemalan death squads, and is apparently currently supporting the MEK and other terrorist groups in Iran, just off the top of my head.

And most of the US's allies and adversaries have their fingers in the same kind of pies. The US is just more profligate than most.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

The fundamental question here if this is to be an air blast or surface explosion. It's night and day.

I doubt that the West will move to destroy any population centers in the ME. That's unnecessary and unpopular to the highest degree. So the clean air blast ain't gonna happen.

Hence, we come back to the "nuclear penetrator" scenario (since it is to be used against hardened military targets) and that can well lead to large amounts of activated soil to be ejected into the atmosphere. And that stuff is nasty.




Exactly, we are so eager to sing the tune "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran," yet launching an Orion-type ship is out of the question. Never mind the facts:


For the full article:
The Case For Orion
Wayne Smith for NuclearSpace.com
www.spacedaily.com... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.spacedaily.com...


[Note: The following has been heavily snipped and rearranged, link provided above.]



Hundreds of atomic devices were detonated back in the 50's and 60's which would make Orion pulses look like xmas crackers by comparison.

They were used without any attempt to minimise fallout whatsoever.

It was discovered that ablation (erosion) of the surface of a pusher plate could also be reduced by coating it with graphite. Coating the launch pad in similar fashion would minimise ablation of the surface and therefore create very little fallout indeed.

Further reduction of fallout can be achieved by using more state of the art pulse units than those proposed back in the 60's. Over 80% of the atmosphere lies within the first 16km from the ground. Its almost completely gone at around 50km. Lessening the concern of bomb schrapnel as a source of residual fallout would make airbursts cleaner still. Casings could be composed of something less amenable to absorbing blast radiation for a start.

The bigger the better. Efficiency just keeps going up. Instead of several launches we would be best served by constructing very large Orions to lift more payload in fewer missions. Instead of small fission devices we could then use small hydrogen bombs which are about a thousand times cleaner relative to energy yield.

We seem more than prepared to use big dirty nuclear weapons such as 'bunker busters' for war so why not small and relatively cleaner ones for peace?



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SectionEight

We already had a 300kiloton penetrating nuke and the liberals cut funding for testing lower yield but higher penetration nukes in the 2kiloton range. The deeper the penetration the less fallout. So our only choice at this time is to up the explosive power when we could have funded projects to deepen the penetration and lower the explosive power for the same effect.



A nuclear bomb wastes most of its juice in the center. Clean bunker busters are needed, not just "cleaner" ones, which by definition is impossible. If you want to discuss a clean Orion-type launch to settle space and get energy there, instead of Middle East oil that will be glowing in the dark, that is another matter. See a previous post of mine in this thread for more.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Really, while not condoning their use, nuclear penetrators pose little threat to the surrounding populations and should be viewed in a different light than their surface and air blast cousins.


Now you have me gun-ho for huge Orions powered by small fusion bombs lauched from 50 km (carbon fiber or PBO fiber) towers. Any danger should be so far from slight as to be essentially none. See another post of mine above for more.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia

What would be the possibility of say, the US aiming each nuke they have at every possible adversaries capital cities aswell as their enemies launch pads whether they be fixed or mobile that they know off all at the same time, and the unknown ones that slip through the net be taken out by the missile shield...


If I were Putin or his successor I'd lauch nukes without warning before National Corporatist AmeriKKKa gets a chance. Such a Fourth Reich policy will do even more destablization.

The country I grew up in obviously isn't the America I grew up believing in. That isolationist country with rapid innovation never really existed.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join