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.

 

Nukes (your opinion wanted)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I have a series of questions that I want to ask everyone their opinion on:

Do you think nukes can be replace by some other weapon?

If so, what do you think it will be?

How many countries actually own nukes and would use them?

Do you think that if the U.S got rid of its nukes others would follow?

Do you think the U.S will ever get rid of its nukes?

You don't have to answer all of them, I was just wondering what other people thought of these.




posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Well I think nukes are going to be the weapon that will cause the global destruction...



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Do you think nukes can be replace by some other weapon?

If so, what do you think it will be? I don't see how they can be replaced as far as total devastation goes.

How many countries actually own nukes and would use them? I don't know off hand how many countries have them and don't know which would want to be the first to start a global nuclear war.

Do you think that if the U.S got rid of its nukes others would follow? Absolutely not. I think we would be attacked right away without them as a defense. And of course nobody will ever get rid of them all even if they say they have.

Do you think the U.S will ever get rid of its nukes? NO

You don't have to answer all of them, I was just wondering what other people thought of these.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
As bombs and missiles have become extremly accurate it has obviated the need to use a sledgehammer when a stilletto will do - so yes there is an alternative.

Don't know exactly how many have them but I can think of three off hand that would use them, Iran, North Korea and Israel. Lets not forget Al Qaida either.

No it would encourage others to use them, if we got rid of them all - blackmail comes to mind.

I don't see them going away in the near future.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I know it sounds stupid but so far it has been a good tool, C&C Generals has alot of the same weapons that are in development now.

In that game, the U.S is the only country that uses a superweapon that leaves no toxins behind, the particle beam.

With all the research going into lasers I was wondering if this sort of weapon was feasible.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
How many countries actually have nukes and would use them?
The link below should give you a good idea.

Nuclear Countries



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
Do you think nukes can be replace by some other weapon?

If so, what do you think it will be?

How many countries actually own nukes and would use them?

Do you think that if the U.S got rid of its nukes others would follow?

Do you think the U.S will ever get rid of its nukes?


1. Yes, I think Nuclear weapons can be replaced by Nanotech Weapons. As an example, the smallest insect is about 200 microns; this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking and injecting toxin into unprotected humans. The human lethal dose of botulism toxin is about 100 nanograms, or about 1/100 the volume of the weapon. As many as 50 billion toxin-carrying devices—theoretically enough to kill every human on earth—could be packed into a single suitcase. These nanotech weapons could create the same wide-scale effect as Nuclear weapoons, without all of the extremely dangerous after-effects such as radiation. Also, Nukes act as a stabilizing weapon, it probably has prevented major wars, another reason they will be replaced with these nanotech weapons. Since noone has really "used" nukes, people will look for weapons just as strong without their after-effects.

2. I don't know how many countries have them, but any country could get them if they wanted. i think any country would use them if they had to, which would probably end to our destruction as so many have said.

3. Just because Iraq and stuff set up terrorist camps and abuse their citizens, doesn't mean other countries will follow. smae with Nuclear weapons... Just because we get rid of ours, does not mean that others will get rid of theirs. If we did, we'd get nuked or attacked so damn fast.

4. There is no way that the U.S. will ever get rid of it's nukes, unless every nation in the world came together and usd humans became a peaceful race... yeah... like that will ever happen. In order for us to be on top, we must make other countries fear us, and by using nukes, we can do that.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
According to this article:

www.prop1.org...

The Official stats are as following, readely deployable nukes:

U.S.: 9,000(numbers up to and over 12k total at some time)
Russia: 7,900(numbers up to and over 28k total at some time)
France: 525
China: 300-450
Britain: 250-300
Israel: 100-200(undeclaired)
India: capable of up to 25
Pakistan: up to 15
Ukraine: Known to have capability and in storage due to stuff left behind by the USSR , yet no clear number available.
Belarus: Known to have capability and in storage due to stuff left behind by the USSR , yet no clear number available.
Kazakhstan: Known to have capability and in storage due to stuff left behind by the USSR , yet no clear number available.

Now, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Japan, Australia, South Afrika, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea and Taiwan also have Nuclear programs and unknown status on capability.

Although Iran, Australia and North Korea in my opinion have high propability to have deployable weapons.


[Edited on 29-5-2004 by thematrix]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
1)not in the short term.They serve there purpose.

2)All of them would use in extreme cases.

3)No

4)No,why would they want to.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The problem with nukes is they make such a damned mess. And all you are going to do is make someone real mad, who is then going to retaliate.

All the massive bombing in WW2, or even in Vietnam or Iraq did not end the war. Pearl Harbor did not make the US give up.............

The way to destroy a country these days is economically, and that can be done in a variety of ways. It can also be done in such a way that the victim cannot either blame someone directly, or retaliate.

The USSR was not beaten militarily, nor was ancient Rome. The US will be beaten the same way eventually, it is happening now.

As far as better weapons go, how about weather modification ? How about HAARP and those Tesla Scalar weapons that supposed to induce earthquakes and massive exploding fireballs without radiation afterwards? and how about EMP weapons that destroy electrical systems ?

An ancient doctrine of warfare is that you never contaminate ground you intend to occupy yourself later. Nuclear and biological weapons are weapons of last resort when you can retreat no further. That is a situation you try to keep well away from.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Do you think nukes can be replace by some other weapon?
Yes...

If so, what do you think it will be?
...but I dont know what. Mabye something like anti-matter or something sci-fi like that.

How many countries actually own nukes and would use them?
Jeese, I don't know, mabye 2 or 3?

Do you think that if the U.S got rid of its nukes others would follow?
Probablly

Do you think the U.S will ever get rid of its nukes?
It depends. How long will it take for those things to decay in storage?



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
So what you are saying, warpspeed, is that even if we got rid of our nukes and had superweapons without aftereffects, would countries be more inclined to attack using the superweapons. Could infantry and ground units be a thing of the past?



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
It depends why you wanted to attack someone, What is the purpose ?

History has shown air power will win a battle, but never a war. The enemy just hides in holes in the ground and becomes ever more determined. Decisive battles are fought by infantry and armour taking and holding ground. You have to actually occupy the ground.

You also need some sort of end plan to bring about peace afterwards. Endless slaughter for its own sake is no answer. The only real way to succeed in a military campaign is to have the enemy glad that hostilities are finally over and let them surrender with a little pride and dignity.

War atrocities just mean you have already lost the moral war, and can never achieve a good end result. Nobody surrenders if they expect they are going to be tortured and murdered, they just fight harder. Read Sun Tzu the art of warfare. This wisdom has been around for thousands of years but has been totally forgotten by the heroes in the Pentagon..

There have been a lot of foreigners captured in Iraq and held by Muslims, and eventually released. NONE complain of torture or gross physical or mental abuse. I am afraid America has lost that war and is very fast becoming the most hated country in the world because of the way it has been conducted.

Push button and satellite warfare is not going to win any wars only kill a whole lot of people.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
I have a series of questions that I want to ask everyone their opinion on:

Do you think nukes can be replace by some other weapon?

If so, what do you think it will be?


No and Yes, I think the nuclear weapon is the epitomy of weapons but that other weapon systems can inhance or negate their effects and can make it more difficult to use them, such as an SDI system.


Originally posted by MrJinglesHow many countries actually own nukes and would use them?


USA, Russia, Britian, France, China, India and Pakistan are all known to have Strategical Nuclear capabilities of varrying amounts. Israel is suspected to have Tactical Nuclear Weapons and North Korea is suspected to have Nuclear Bombs, China has about 30 Strategic Nuclear Weapons so they are still no threat at all to the United States, only Russia is a threat, America without Russia, could take over the world and no one could do anything about it. As things are currently.


Originally posted by MrJinglesDo you think that if the U.S got rid of its nukes others would follow?


No, I'm reading a book right now called "Understanding International Conflict" and one of the first concepts it discusses is the "Prisoner Delimia".

Briefly, if you have two prisoners and you don't let them communicate with eachother, but you want to prove that both of them did the crime, you give them three options and play a game. 1) Rat on the other, he goes to jail for the full crime for 25 years, you walk free. 2) Don't say anything. Number 2 if chosen by the other as well, you both go to jail for 1 year. If he rats on you you go to jail for 25 years, if you both rat on eachother you go to jail for 10 years.

This works for politics as well, and this also is why we are moving towards an "NWO" I'll get to that in another post some day.

Basically, the prisoners each say to themselves, "If I trust him we will go to jail for a year, he won't do that, he'll sucker me out and walk free and I'll go to jail for 25 years. So I will rat him out, and if he trusts me, I'll walk free, but if he doesn't, at least we both get just 10 years."

No one will get rid of their Nukes because whoever does is a sucker, and the other nation will take advantage. Russia won't get rid of their nukes because they think, then America will take everything over. America won't get rid of our Nukes because then we think we'll lose everything by others who will take advantage of that. So forth...blah blah blah.

Now the NWO is a natural process. The longer the same nations play the same game "Prisoner Delima" the more they begin to trust eachother and thus the more they'll understand "we can both get 1 year and then back to our business, rather than selling eachother out we'll cooperate."

So it's a natural move of things that with Nuclear Weapons, to maintain governments as they are, the "great powers". This way they'll trust eachother and rather than World Wars, we simply have disagreements resolved through poker-like deals. Much like we saw in the Cold War.

That's one theory ... the only other way we'll have stability is a one world Government. No one wants that so that will fail. So either we will have instability which will result in the rise and fall of world powers...or we will find stability through keeping of things as they are, so that we play with the same "dealers" each time.


Originally posted by MrJinglesDo you think the U.S will ever get rid of its nukes?


No and for the reasons stated above primarily for the "Prisoner Delima" reason.


Originally posted by MrJinglesYou don't have to answer all of them, I was just wondering what other people thought of these.


I think Nuclear Weapons are a God-Send...before you never knew if the "Stability" would last, because some nut could always say, "Our people may be inferior technologically, but we have more people and a warrior spirit so we can win a war."

In Nuclear War, you know to whom will go the victory or you know that there is a possibility they will win or you will win. But that either of those possibilities are less favorable than working out a diplomatic approach.

For instance, war between USA and China right now, who will win? USA, we can Nuke them off the face of the earth and have enough to threaten any other challengers.

War with Russia or USA who will win? Not sure, both are nearly equal powers, but whoever does win will rule the world unchallenged. They'll have a lot of rebuilding and clean-up (not in cities, Nuclear Powers can not waste time nuking cities or they will lose), but they will be undisputed rulers.

Anyways, there's my informed views of Nuclear Weapons


The teacher I had for Defense Policy was awesome, as he said, "I'm the only one along with my friend who will be replacing me as the next year's teacher, in this political science department, that I know of as believing you can win a Nuclear War."

Well after that I told him, "Well you sure converted me
"

I believe you can win a Nuclear War, and that preparing to win is what allows you leverage in modern global politics.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
The problem with nukes is they make such a damned mess. And all you are going to do is make someone real mad, who is then going to retaliate.

All the massive bombing in WW2, or even in Vietnam or Iraq did not end the war. Pearl Harbor did not make the US give up.............

The way to destroy a country these days is economically, and that can be done in a variety of ways. It can also be done in such a way that the victim cannot either blame someone directly, or retaliate.

The USSR was not beaten militarily, nor was ancient Rome. The US will be beaten the same way eventually, it is happening now.

As far as better weapons go, how about weather modification ? How about HAARP and those Tesla Scalar weapons that supposed to induce earthquakes and massive exploding fireballs without radiation afterwards? and how about EMP weapons that destroy electrical systems ?

An ancient doctrine of warfare is that you never contaminate ground you intend to occupy yourself later. Nuclear and biological weapons are weapons of last resort when you can retreat no further. That is a situation you try to keep well away from.



Ok well I know that many are misunderstanding of Nuclear War, this is a classic example.

First, Nuclear War is not a war between cities. There are two strategies I'll explain first to give you the lessons why.

Counter-Value and Counter-Costs.

Counter-Cost is what we'd use on China...or China on us.

Counter-Value is what we'd use on Russia, or Russia on us.

The reasons are as follows.

Counter-Value is a war between two nations who have so much Nuclear Power, that they can not only take out your Nuclear capabilities, but have enough left over to destroy your people's way of life.

Therefore, your ONLY GOAL, is to take out your enemy's Nuclear capabilities. If you do that you have won, there is no reason to kill their people they must submit to you or die...

Counter-Costs is when a nation has so little in the way of Strategic Targets, all you could do is blow-up their people...armies, civilians, whatever. A nation with a few Nukes will employ this as a deterrent from Nuclear Attack. "Yes you can conquer us, but we will make it difficult for you. Are you willing to pay the price?"

The Soviet Union in 1980 released a new "Strategic Warfare Doctrine" that stated they lost 20 million people in World War 2, we believe we will not lose more than that in a Nuclear War with America so we are willing to pay the price for a victory in a Nuclear War.

This is a primary reason Regan's SDI got pushed through to becoming a practical threat to all Russian Strategic Capabilities. Because Russia might be willing to lose 20 million, Americans certainly weren't.

Also, Nuclear War can conquer anyone.

I really don't care about the resources of Iraq, if I were a nation like the Soviet Union, and the undisputed ruler of the World, I'd simply Nuke baghdad and say "any other takers?"

Then return to continue an occupation.

It is this difference between the Soviet Union and the United States, that people don't understand, and it is because of this difference that the US is the good-guys and the rest of the world is either the bad-guys or ignorant. The ignorant don't realize that there are people who would solve internal problems with nuclear weapons if it didn't mean US would retaliate, and the bad-guys are the people who would use such weapons to solve internal problems.

See Nuclear Weapons mean total destruction...bombs do not.

If an air-raid occurs maybe my house will be hit, maybe it won't.

Let's compare it to tornadoes.

People live in tornado alley because most will live.

Do you really think people would live in Kansas if every year the entire top soil was sucked off and blasted 30,000 feet in the air, trees and rocks weighing up to 500 lbs being blasted no less than 15,000 feet in the air, and foundations and root cellars being shattered or blasted at least 1,000 feet in the air.

No, no one will ever live in a place like that.

Nuclear Weapons give us the ability to make a region like that, so those people, will not say to themselves, "Maybe I'll get through this."

They will say to themselves only this, "Will they do it?"

And a few examples will set a lasting image for future possible rebels or enemies and so forth.

It is the fact that both America and Russia knew that we'd do it, that we didn't use our Nuclear Weapons. We knew the others would retaliate and had the capability to try.

Anyways, I can make a whole post on this, and probably should, understanding Nuclear Weapons helps you to understand current global politics of today.

Nuclear Weapons are why despite Europe joining in a Union, they will never be a global power because all they can do is request the US or Russia to do things their way.

Both the US and Russia can demand Europe to do things their way, the only balance is EU can appeal to the other when one of these two great powers tries to force their way.

Without America, or Russia, Europe would be owned by the other. The difference is America has no territorial interests, Russia does.

If China becomes a Strategic Power, that's introduces a whole new part of the game.


Q

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
"Big" nukes are the ultimate sledgehammer. There just isn't anything anyone can leverage that's going to top them, short of complete global eradication. Sure, you can loose a billion nanites on us...but will that make it any better for you when your country is a lump of radioactive slag for the next couple million years? It's not just the initial destruction, but the promise of permanent scorched earth that works just as well.

1-Not replaced, per se. There will be others, but big nukes are pretty much the ultimate 'big stick'.
2-See #1
3-Lots of them...if they thought they could get away with it.
4-Others would definitely follow...getting rid of theirs by launching them at us. This would create conditions conductive to #3.
5-No chance in hell. See #'s 1-4



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
First off all the Nuclear weapons in the world can't destroy all or even most human life.

There are at most some 20,000 opperational Strategic Nukes and that's even exagerating most likely.

Most of these nukes are between 300kt - 750kt. Which means they can not even devestate a full 1 mile radius from the area hit.

The largest Nuke made by the Russians which is 25 megatons could only devestate about 12 miles of area, after that it lost a lot of power fast.

The fall-out from a 1 megaton nuke in 45 mile an hour winds is 250 miles, where the fall out about 100 miles away on to 250 is non-lethal unless you make snow-angels in it (I used a "nuclear fall-out calculator" it was probably reliable since I tested it on raw data from smaller yields to see if it could predict them accurately.)

The only people who ever said Nuclear War may destroy human life on earth were a few scientists who proposed the idea of "nuclear winter" which consisted of nuking the entire world evenly. Even then it was stretching it and who is going to Nuke kenya or Antarctica or Argentina?

Nukes because they are generally small (compared to what we're capable of USA can make 9 Megaton nukes) are usually much safer than conventional weapons.

Remember almost 10 million people were killed in WW2 to conventional bombs.

Nukes are used against hardened Strategic Weapons facilities and therefore not against populated areas, fall-out can be avoided and cleaned. And when the war's over, it's over, there is no resistence left because all strategic forces of one of them is completely whiped out.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The rest of the world is very afraid of us because we are the only country in the world that has dropped nuclear weapons, on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, both civilian targets.

That was a during Democratic administration.

Now we have a Republican administration employing a preemptive attack, with questionable justification, and if you combine the two, nukes and preemption, you can get the picture of how the rest of the world views us.

Of course, we have thousands of nukes that could be used in a retaliatory mode. That in itself is a safety factor, unless a given administration creates the justification for preemptive use.

The alternative to massive nulear devastation is already in our arsenal.

The explanation for this lies in Meteor Crater in Arizona. It is one mile across and a bit over 1100 feet deep. It was created by a 500 pound rock traveling at about 40,000 MPH.

The US has developed a missile launch-able from most of the fighters and bombers in the Air Force inventory, which has NO warhead, weighs in around 2000 pounds and when fired, travels into outer-space, gains speed to about 40K MPH and then returns to a programmed target on earth resulting in destruction exponentially greater than that causing Meteor Crater, without radiation contamination, unless you count the Depleted Uranium used to harden the missle to withstand reentry.

The justification for the use of such a weapon would be the same as that offered for the nuclear weapons dropped on civilian targets in Japan.

Talk about collateral damage.....

John McCarthy
Chairman of The Board of VERPA
Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy.
www.verpa.org...
Blog://www.jenmartinez.com/vetsturn/
Email: jmac@earthlink.net

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by John McCarthy]

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by John McCarthy]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
So, John McCarthy, what you're saying is that we haven't used nukes because we have been under a Republican administration?

Do you think we would use nukes if they didn't have fallout and radiation? Our justification that it was a really big bomb?

What exactly is it that makes everyone fear and hate nukes? The environmental factors after it has been dropped?



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Nuclear war is not a risk between superpowers, because it is mutually assured destruction. But between rogue states, very likely and very possible.

peace out



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join