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.

 

US Moves From Nuclear Arms to Conventional Missiles With Global Reach

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
globalresearch.ca...


While President Barack Obama speaks overseas of his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, his military commanders at home are quietly accelerating a programme to develop and deploy a new class of conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles which will have the capacity to strike targets anywhere in the world within an hour.




This move doesn't make the world, or the US, more safe; it makes the world more dangerous, particularly if these weapons cannot be distinguished from nuclear weapons by other countries.



Once someone (or a country) has gained power they dont let it go.

I dont see a world without nuclear weapons any time soon or even far away. If the US and Russia were to "get rid" of their arms. Some other country would just get them to be all "Zomg! We have nukes and you dont! We are better than you! You cant attack us now!!"

Long range missles doesnt fix the issue either. More likely makes it worse.




posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tentickles
I dont see a world without nuclear weapons any time soon or even far away.


We might not see the end to nukes, but we may soon see the future of weaponry more powerful and using non-nuclear technology.

For instance:

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb or MOAB sometimes titles the 'Mother of All Bombs developed by the United States Military.

MOAB on Future Weapons:



The Russian military claim of a bomb that is 5 times more powerfull than the MOAB, they call 'The Father of All Bombs' a thermobaric vacuum bomb. en.wikipedia.org...

These weapons may open doors to a vast future of heavy non-nuclear arms.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by groomlake9
 

US Minuteman III Payload capacity: 1,150kg
US D-5 Trident II: Payload capacity: 2,800kg

MOAB weight: 8,200kg

Them missiles are going to have to get a whole lot bigger if they're going to carry one of them suckers.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I agree, but the MOAB is designed in both shape and detination to be released from air.

Missiles are designed to hit a target in a compressed area upon impact. The MOAB is designed to detonate above ground and using it's intense shock wave as its 'kill point'.

However, if we managed to mount and fire a MOAB in the same way as a LGM-30 Minuteman, it would make the job a lot easier.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
It was a LONG time ago(maybe the first yearon ATS) I was sitting here saying "The only way they will get rid of Nukes is if they found another weapon of equal killing proportions that we wont need nukes anymore".

'Nukes? Hah!, thats so 90s'



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 


It is indeed unrealistic and Im sure the Obama administration is smart enough to realize this fact. To me this is just politics and pandering as usual, wishy washy to appeal to the audience and nothing more. Its much like Reagan when he advocated the move to eliminating nuclear arms, he sure as heck knew that was unrealistic but said it to pander politically none the less. Bush as well and his views on a move to the end of poverty in africa, its unrealistic in this lifetime.

We should all realize by now that presidents or politicians in general will say they want to see many things, but will know their views are unrealistic.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


The idea of some defence against nuclear weapons to make them obsolete is something that may eventually put forward a strong possibility of ending their existence. There was the star wars programme but that as of now is still expensive and is not 100% effective.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by groomlake9
 


Good post, I like your thinking. The MOAB is just some of the most awesome and incredible raw power from a conventional munition that I have ever seen (though not in person obviously).

I remember something on National Geographic I believe a few years ago that highlighted this bomb for 10 minutes or so. The concussion, blast, just watching the ripple come off that beast is awesome.

Too bad we can't just develop these kinds of things out of curiosity and good nature (like lighting off firecrackers as a kid). But I guess all things have their purpose.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by Shark VA84]

[edit on 10-4-2010 by Shark VA84]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
ICBMs tipped with Rods from God are as effective against hardened targets as Nuclear weapons.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.popsci.com...

Then there is the theoretical Super Rod from God.
these don't have to be 20 foot telephone poles but much smaller crowbars.

Its a hollow tungsten rod filled with a mix of tritium, deuterium, or lithium deuteride.

The speed of impact of the rod is high enough to get the temperatures and pressures of a fission primary like is use in a H-bomb.
But without using a fission primary.
This means that the rod is clean without radioactive fallout.

I believe the new hanger at area 51 is the building for hiding a reusable space plane to put "rods from god" in high orbit.




posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The only problem is the new revised Nuke Rules state that
The United States if attacked first, will not retaliate until it has been verified that whoever madee the attack is actual Iran. (err i mean some Evil Axis nation). So if I was an American city id be a little scared tonight because he basically served them up one on a silver platter.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


I also believe a different view could be applied to this administration's revision of nuclear weapons deployment policies.

A lot of people around ATS seem to "resonate" with the fact that a false flag nuclear attack on United States soil would be used to instigate a full on war with Iran (and thus much if not a majority of the Arab world).

Could this revision in policy not be viewed as positive in that light?
This particular revision should cool some of the false flag nuke theorists off since apparently we would need absolute proof before launching any sort of counter-attack....then again, many would believe that we already have staged evidence that Iran is responsible........the cycle never ends!!!!!


Here's to hoping that none of us ever have to witness the day nuclear attacks are carried out.
Worst case, here's to hoping that as many people as possible are outside of the blast/fallout radius as possible if it does.

On that note I'm going to get some fresh air while it is all still good in the hood...


*ps*
I'm not arguing against your statement, just letting some thoughts spill onto the text box.




top topics



 
3

log in

join