Obama Plans to Take Off America's Pants

Originally posted by tigpoppa

 

Then we get to eliminate an inferior culture ...

You've gotta be kiddin me!

Where's my dang fly-swatter!

I think it's a good idea.

Keep smaller nukes for tactical strikes and to defend ourselves but we don't the giant ones from WW2 era.

reply to post by zenser


1. If you use nuclear weapons for pants, your testicles will glow in the dark... which will make them easy to find when they shrivel up and fall off.

2. No number of missiles can give a nation the ability to "absorb a first strike". A nuclear exchange will do crippling damage to both sides in virtually any scenario, regardless of who gets to say "gotcha last".

3. Having an excessively large stockpile of missiles means that it takes an excessively large first strike to disarm you. Since a first strike of any size is destined to be answered, and a nuclear exchange of any size is destined to be unacceptably messy, we can safely assume that a first strike is most likely to be viewed by the aggressor as the only available option. Therefore it is questionable whether a larger stockpile is any greater deterrent than a small one, but certain that a larger stockpile results in more harm if deterrence should fail.

4. A reduced nuclear arsenal does not reduce us to launch on warning. We didn't keep a bomber force around just to train airline captains, and we didn't deploy missiles on submarines as a first strike weapon. We can still pause at Defcon 2 with our bombers in the air and our subs ready to launch and see what's really coming at us.

5. Perhaps Obama hates human life because living humans have been the culprits in every single known case where an attempt to avert nuclear holocaust was opposed for political reasons.

[

Why does Obama hate human life?

Baraq really doesn't hate human life. Just Americans, white Americans. Christian Americans. Oh, he says he is Christian, but only if Christian does not mean Christ like, or assuming Christ hated white people, too. And calling him Obama is a small sign of respect. I don't call him Mr President, or even Obama. He was born Soetoro and is just going by Obama, but it was never officially changed. And he is not the president, is not my president, and legally can never be the president. He is a despot, and a fraud. Don't hate the guy, he is not doing his own thing, but his masters agenda. He is a nobody that they chose to put out on the stage with their other marionettes. Just a puppet. When they are done, they will crumple him up and throw him in the trash. I really hope he is never assassinated, as that would instantly make a martyr out of him, and squelch all opposition to his Marxism. I want him exposed for all the world to see.

Originally posted by Level
I think it's a good idea.

Keep smaller nukes for tactical strikes and to defend ourselves but we don't the giant ones from WW2 era.

The World War II era bombs were, well quite used up in World War II actually, but the early-generation fission weapons were long ago replaced in the American arsenal. All of them today that the United States stocks are fusion bombs and are much easier to handle and deliver than Fat Man and Little Boy.

It's also not the case that the United States is keeping a large tactical stockpile. Nobody has ever used a tactical nuclear weapon in anger, and with advances in conventional weapons, it's looking less and less likely that anyone ever will.

The strategic weapons include the full nuclear triad, bombers, subs and ICBMs, and it is what the United States uses for deterrence, those are the "big" bombs of today, and those are the ones that are still going to be in service.

Originally posted by zenser

It's amusing you accuse me of being a "warmonger" when you're supporting actions - unilateral disarmament - that would require the US to adopt a "launch on warning" policy, one of the most dangerous and reckless scenarios imaginable.

exactly, people need to think about the implications before posting, imho.

every potential hit will reduce your precious 2nd strike capability in a way you cannot afford when you are already at the minimum level, therefore you are forced to launch when you still have the chance and your window of opportunity is narrow, in the range from 5-15 minutes if everything works as designed.

nevermind that you cannot recall nukes, nevermind that you now have only a couple of minutes to find out who to hit and your decision under stress will most certainly be less reliable than the same decision a day later. of course someone who is willing to destroy us will drool at the prospect of nuke powers obliterating one another in error, because they jumped the gun and had no time to know any better, so any plan based on nuclear annihilation will likely take this scenario into account, at the very least.

all in all, the minimum number of nuclear warheads (and individual carrier systems) may not be cast in stone but fewer isn't better and the notion that nukes will never be used is misguided. someone will sooner or later manage to do it, hopefully an isolated incident, but the cat is out of the bag and there is no real reason to fear it any more than tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. even if all nations abandoned nukes today (unlikely) the first one who then clandestinely builds a dozen H bombs would hold the entire world hostage. i'm not a fan of 'overkill', but a certain redundancy is required in all vital issues, you wouldn't want to have fly by wire using a single link either, would you? are nukes somehow unimportant now? all i can sense is wishful and misguided thinking.


PS: to all who wrote about SLBMs and how these render all others obsolete: ground based ICBMs are definitely NOT obsolete. they have their drawbacks, but many advantages, most important being distribution. SLBMs mean putting a lot of eggs in one basket and they are susceptible to conventional attack and very vulnerable if their positions were revealed. furthermore, all of these missiles are mirv based and a waste against single targets, as well as being much more alarming to other nuclear powers, while launching from land will give onlookers more time to decide and plot the course, de-escalating the situation tremendously. silos are nearly impervious to conventional attack, and so on, i think you get the idea.

The only need for nukes is china and Russia and there is no longer a need to bomb them end to end hitting there cities.

A small number of EMP burst over there countries would knock out there infrastructure then a few nuke perpetrators to take out C3 control and leadership.

For Iran and north Korea we would not need to retaliate with nukes even of they fired nukes at us.

We have the bombers and the conventional cruse missiles along with anti ship missiles to destroy there fleets, C3, and leadership ability to do anything that would affect us again.

There is no real need to target there populations or cities with nukes.

Likely for Iran they would also target Israel with nukes at the same time as the US and we could just let Israel nuke Iran and be done with it.

I still believe that the US has a new weapons system that makes nuke obsolete.
en.wikipedia.org...

I believe the "rods from god" weapons system is the blackest of black projects and has been online for a couple years.
And i believe the work in the last few years at Area 51 has been the support and launch site for the rods carrier/launch craft.(Hangar 25)

I also believe that area 51 is the operational base for this unit. do to the fact they don't want to have the secret of a rods unit leaking out until/unless it is needed.
Then it still may be hard for a country hit by one or more to ever prove just what hit them.

There is also what i have heard (rumor, i live outside the leading navy research base so i hear a lot of rumors ) is a advanced rods weapon.
This is a rod with a core of a hydrogen bomb secondary with no nuclear primary.
Without a nuclear primary it would not be a true nuclear weapon.

The intense impact of the rod would be create enough pressure and temperature to cause the lithium deuteride in a rod to undergo nuclear fusion.
en.wikipedia.org...

If they can do this without using any fission chain reaction material like U235, plutonium-239 or any radioactive nuclear fuel it would be super-clean.with no radioactive fallout to identify it as a hydrogen weapon.

If the US never admitted ever having a weapon like that even if they used one who could "prove" it.

The US could just claim it was a 20+ foot long by 3+ foot diameter tungsten rod from god.
When what it really was is a 5 foot long by 1 foot diameter lithium deuteride boosted tungsten rod from god weapon.(a lot lighter)

This would make it very hard for any other country to build there own and get it to work because they would have to build a system to launch the bigger and a lot heaver tungsten telephone pole.not knowing we were using a lighter boosted rod.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by ANNED]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Those boats are invisible when deployed.

Our boats are completely invisible, other nations boats are basically invisible as well. All the technology in the world will not find a US SSBN that does not want to be tracked.

Totally invisible? Even to scalar EM waves? I highly doubt this. If something exists, it can be measured somehow.

www.angelfire.com...

I also believe scalar EM technology brings the nuclear age to an end. If you can detect and destroy a missile as it leaves the silo, then what use is 1000 nukes if you can simply destroy them at various stages of flight, or inside the bunker, or destroy the command and control circuitry. Or you can simply use a scalar shield system to protect your entire country from any non-scalar conventional attack.

[edit on 2/3/10 by GhostR1der]

What are they going to do with all the materials they made the bombs with? It would be a terrible waste of resources to bury it in the ground. They should down-blend it with depleted uranium, and burn up the vast energy deposits that still remain. Imagine that, nuclear energy turning former nuclear weapons into electrical energy to run our hospitals and heat our homes. Apparently one out of every ten light bulbs in America is now being lit by a former Soviet weapon...! if you live in the US, turn on a light, and think about that.

We could be invaded and taken over in literally half an hour or less, here in Oz. All it would require would be to seize control of water, electricity and communications

You're dreaming.

[edit on 2/3/2010 by C0bzz]

Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil IMO. They serve as a good deterrent for anyone who is thinking about doing something stupid.

Why do you think NK hasn't dropped any yet? They aren't that stupid maybe?

My point...

reply to post by iamsupermanv2

There are 2 schools of thought on this one.
Ever heard of MAD ?
Back before the advent of nuclear weapons, it would have been better
for the genie to remain in the bottle. But now that it's out, it would be best if nukes stayed in the hands of the more responsible nations.
IMO, WWIII would have already occured if not for nukes.

reply to post by GhostR1der


They are totally invisible.

Of course, the need to have nuclear weapons at all diminishes significantly if we stopped running around poking a stick in everyone else's eye.

The US isn't even supposed to have a standing army, let alone have military bases in damn near every country on the planet.

Our foreign policy is a joke that is going to bankrupt us and bring about more war.

Think the Swiss are overly concerned about being attacked any time soon?

When you stay out of peoples business, they leave you alone.