Nukes (your opinion wanted)

Nukes can be replaced, but not anywhere in the near future. Lasers and microwave weapons will change a lot of things in the next generation of warfare, but there aren't many things that can be kept safe in the heart of your country like nukes. Laser sats can be shot down by ground-based lasers. Nukes are going to be complimented by Electro-magnetic weapons designed to cripple infrastructure without destroying the city, and it will be possible to incapacitate everyone in a large area using microwaves, without necessarily even killing them. Kenetic energy weapons will be able to deliver immense devastation beyond conventional explosives without nukes. The ability to create a hole in the ozone, manipulate weather, or cause earthquakes is also very real. The Russians once proposed a treaty to specifically ban technology designed to eat holes in the ozone layer.


America, Russia, England, France, Pakistan, India, North Korea, China, Israel. That's 9. Iran is a maybe. Germany, Japan, and Australia can have them any time they like. I seem to remember hearing that Australia actually declined an offer from the USA. Actually, i'm not even sure that Germany doesn't have them.

Israel, Pakistan and North Korea would use them against conventional forces.
India would launch a first strike.
Russia and America would retailate for a 3rd party.
England, France, China would use them only if attacked with nukes.

If America gets rid of its nukes, America also has to withdraw many of its conventional forces to its own borders. France could kick us out of Iraq if they felt strongly enough. North Korea could invade the South and keep us out of the fight. No nukes = no authority.

Will we lose them? It's not impossible, but it's unlikely. (I hope).

no nukes= no authority? wrong . you do not need nukes to fight a war WMD's are last ditch efforts proven so in ww2 the USA deployed them because they would rather bomb a city than lose millions more men in the stupid battles over small islands.
nukes are used only for fear. fear of civilian casualties,fear of all out nuke war and of nuclear winter
secondly im afraid all your points are theories no 1 can control the weather ,the weather controls u, and also no really has a laser powerful enough to reach space and youd have to pretty acurate with those targets
thirdly DO NOT CALL THE UNITED KINDOM ,UK, ONE OF THE COUNTRIES IT IS MADE UP OF. its like me calling u a red kneck texan (no offense to texans ust proving a point)

What the hell is this thread about anyway?

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?

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.

these questions read the first page not just the last page

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

If so, what do you think it will be?
Lasers, particle weapons or something not yet conceived

How many countries actually own nukes and would use them?
Most countries have the capability to manufacture or purchase nukes.
However I see no reason why this consideration should be limited to to just countries. Any organization or religion can potentially obtain nuclear capabilities. The only country that we have evidence that would actually use nukes is the U.S.

Do you think that if the U.S got rid of its nukes others would follow?
No

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

The pandoras box has been opened and the great nuclear secret can never be put back in the box, so we are stuck with nukes.

It is also a fallacy to believe that a country with just a single nuke is impotent against the likes of the russians or the U.S. A single nuke delivered on one of the polar caps would likely result in a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario. ICBMs are not necessary, just one suicide bomber with a suitcase on small plane or boat would be sufficient.

Nukes will eventually be replaced by antimatter weaponry, at which point, if we're not careful, we'll destroy the earth (a single gram of anti-matter exposed to air has the explosive force of a Hiroshima bomb.) The great thing is, anti-matter can only be created within extremely expensive particle-accelerators, so unless a way of safely containing and transporting it is developed, it can't be exploited by terrorists like plutonium can.

Of course, since we already have enough nukes to destroy the earth a bajillion times over, and yet we haven't even used them in almost 60 years, the question must be raised: do we really NEED to build something more powerful?

Originally posted by Don Armageddon
Nukes will eventually be replaced by antimatter weaponry, at which point, if we're not careful, we'll destroy the earth (a single gram of anti-matter exposed to air has the explosive force of a Hiroshima bomb.) The great thing is, anti-matter can only be created within extremely expensive particle-accelerators, so unless a way of safely containing and transporting it is developed, it can't be exploited by terrorists like plutonium can.

Of course, since we already have enough nukes to destroy the earth a bajillion times over, and yet we haven't even used them in almost 60 years, the question must be raised: do we really NEED to build something more powerful?

You are not giving Anti-Matter the good enough credit...
If an Anti-Matter bomb can be created, it will be powerful enough to wipe out the entire solar system, and probably even damage the next systems over.

Another problem with it is that Matter can be created nor destroyed, so how can Anti-Matter be harvested so that it can be harnesed into a single mechanism?

Plus the amount of energy required to just get the particles accelerated(as you say) would be extrememly illogical to even try to create.

Also, your theory of 'blowing' up the earth abijillion times is quite impossible, abijillion isn't even a word. However America does have the nuclear capability(according to the thousand nuke theory) to decimate the Earth approximetly 10 times if I did my math correctly(which I think I did).

Shattered OUT...

In a full scale nuclear war between the US and Russia only North America, Europe, and Northern Asia would be destroyed. Everything else would have it's climate affected but not severely so.

Originally posted by John McCarthy
In know-it-alls previous post he/she points to the fact that his major IS political science and he/she IS studying nuclear topics. Well, well. We have a student who believes everything thing he/she reads or is told by his learned professors. How Quaint! See post previous to this one to observe "slam dunking" of baseless theory's and uncorroborated innuendo.

Seems that way doesn't it? Fact is, I know more about this subject than you do regardless of how far along I am in this subject matter.

I think anyone can tell, that someone who is out of school saying 2+2=5 calling even an elementary student who is telling him that 2+2=4 is too inexperienced is stupid.

The fact remains I know more about this than you do and you're wrong.

About Depleted Uranium, it is not just like Uranium, it is "depleted" (Oh my god what a surprise.) This means it is so minutely radio-active that you better not go out in sunlight if you're afraid of DU.

However you'll notice, because I know so much more than any of you about this subject, that somewhere back there I mentioned aerosolization of DU occurs immediately after impact and thus can be a health hazard and this ALSO has been shown by the same following examples:

I quickly moved on to mention friendly-fires that had been hit with shards of DU, and they still have the DU in them. They are fine.

But those were mainly cases where the DU penetrated lightly armored vehicles.

In cases where it hit another tank if they were not wearing NBC suits (and many weren't because of how hot tanks are with out using their NBC systems which is a problem in the desert heat.) did receive health problems from DU.

This is because they inhaled a heavy metal, it would be the same if they breathed in aerosolized lead or such. Lead is not banned as a material for combat use.

No one ever complains about the aerosolization because this happens all the time with many conventional weapons.

DU will settle and then be harmless.

The only concern is by the unknowledged like yourself John where you claim that DU is radio-active, or that other guy I did not even bother to learn his name.

I have great diplomatic skills as you put it, what I don't have is great patience for people who simply won't bother to listen to someone who knows more than them.

I'm probably half your age possibly even a third, but this is my area, I don't know what your area is, but someday I'm sure I'll meet it and there is where the tables can turn.

But for here...well I don't want you to go away empty handed, you posted something about DU facts, here's a simple military site I found with a quick Yahoo search that you can read.

www.gulflink.osd.mil...

I don't believe I've ever said DU is not harmful in anyway, after all it's used to kill people, but I know that I have attacked the assertion it is radioactive or linked to radioactive illnesses.

If you want to say it only causes health problems that are symptomatic of heavy metal poisoning then that is another thing.

www.who.int...

This is even better, nearly the same thing only by the "WHO" so it's a trustworthy source for those of you who don't like the Military propping their own materials.

Though you'll note that DU is also used as counter-weights in planes and as ironically, radiation shielding in medicine.

Has anyone ever heard of a molecular-exchange bomb?...a lady I know said her father was working on one for the government...its been a while but all this talk about bombs...I cant find any info...yet....

There is no substitute for experience. Obviously, freemasoon has none and won't with his "i know more than you do" attitude.

Shards of DU are not near as dangerous as DU radiation gas with the minute particles mentioned above. Another reason they are left in place is to determine by urinalysis if the physical presence of the metal is a health risk. This is called nuclear experimentation, outlawed by the Nuremberg Code. But that was before your time, freebee, so it doesn't count, right?

I had to rate a subordinate once and found myself placing the following statement in his efficiency report. Sort of reminds me of you and your ATTITUDE!

"This officer constantly fails to meet the low standards he sets for himself".

Grow up.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by John McCarthy]

hey
let the man have his view and his opinion . its his right
if he wants to have a "i am superior" let him it might screw him up but he may be right in his view

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?

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.

1. NO
2. NOrth Korea, Iran and they might actually use them
3. The only way the US would get rid of our nukes is that if everyone got rid of theirs first.
4. Im pretty sure that we will never get rid of ours.

That new metal storm thingy could replace nukes...

Originally posted by devilwasp
no nukes= no authority? wrong . you do not need nukes to fight a war WMD's are last ditch efforts proven so in ww2

depends on who your fighting, bub.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You are not giving Anti-Matter the good enough credit...
If an Anti-Matter bomb can be created, it will be powerful enough to wipe out the entire solar system

Another problem with it is that Matter can be created nor destroyed, so how can Anti-Matter be harvested so that it can be harnesed into a single mechanism?

Actually it's energy which can't be destroyed. (matter and energy are different sides of "same coin"/matter is just one form of energy)

Anti-matter is created by colliding particles at speeds near c.
Collision of particles creates huge energy densities (only in very small area) where some of that energy converts to anti-matter particles
After that there's one huge problem, how to prevent anti-matter particle combining with matter which annihilates both particles.


And anti-matter isn't so allmighty that it could destroy solar system easily.

Fusion of hydrogen "loses" about 0.7% of mass which is converted to energy.
When anti-matter "combines" with matter it annihilates itself completely (100%) and also same amount of matter (other 100%).

Even biggest multi-staged thermonuclear bombs can do only very small "hole to earth.
You would still have to create huge bomb to destroy even small part of Earth.

For scale sun converts 4 million tons of matter to energy every second.
observe.arc.nasa.gov...