Still think WW3 will use nukes?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
think about this, we the are have dismantled one of the big ones! Why no use for it, so you still think WW3 will be by nukes news.yahoo.com... from the link

US's most powerful nuclear bomb being dismantled AMARILLO, Texas (AP) — The last of the nation's most powerful nuclear bombs — a weapon hundreds of times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima — is being disassembled nearly half a century after it was put into service at the height of the Cold War.

The final components of the B53 bomb will be broken down Tuesday at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, the nation's only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. The completion of the dismantling program is a year ahead of schedule, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, and aligns with President Barack Obama's goal of reducing the number of nuclear weapons.
For there is no need we are in WW3 get use to it.




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Who needs plane dropped bombs, when you have Intercontinental missiles.. The bombs are out dated !!



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I think they may be used in a ww3 scenerio yes. Or the elusive neurtron bomb
. But maybe they are ramping down due to OUTSIDE influences* input on the weapons program here on Earth...
edit on 10/25/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 
Nukes as a direct-effect weapon don't seem to make a lot of sense to me anyway - best to use them for EMP effects and just neutralize vast swaths of (or entire) nations, use biologicals that may be tailored to specific targets, neutron bombs that leave infrastructure intact, and so forth.

Nukes have too much splash damage with fallout spreading in addition to outright destruction and rendering areas useless to some degree. Good for shock and awe at some point if used sparingly, but any widespread battle would likely involve better toys, in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


What about other countries that aren't disassembling their nukes? It seems people in America think America is the only country with nuclear weapons which is very far from the truth, China would make America glow if a Nuclear World War III was to happen.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 
,No one will use nukes,they need that land to be habitable,with radiation is useless for hundreds of years!



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Now if the rest of the WORLD will comply you will get credit , although I kinda doubt it . On the other hand how many types of nuclear weapons are there this is only ONE type. Wish people could stop thinking about genocide and evil but it seems they will not....



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
They wear talking about the big ones. If a nucular war broke out I would hope they would use the small ones.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by bekod
 
,No one will use nukes,they need that land to be habitable,with radiation is useless for hundreds of years!



You can nuke some areas and leave others intact.

Japan is proof it doesn't take hundreds of years to become habitable again.

It's likely at least a few nukes will be used in the beginning or the end.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 

More than hundreds of years..pretty much thousands of years.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to use nukes if resources and land acquisition is your goal.

As a 'MAD' weapon, it's been fairly effective for the last 50 or so years.

But as other posters have said, nukes are and have been old hat for decades, there are weapons that are far 'cleaner' and carry a much higher 'kill potential' than nukes do, even the big ones.

Genetic specific viruses are the future of warfare, target a whole race without destroying a single building is what is coming next.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I think that its being dismantled because we really don't need an individual weapon that powerful. We can drop numerous bombs in a much faster fashion over a larger area and do as much, if not more, damage.

This is one of those practices that looks good on paper but nothing more. Once you start to think about the fact that the only reason they would dismantle it is because we have something better, it kind of makes it irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
These older huge weapons are being dismantled for many reasons; newer generation weapons use newer, safer components.
Newer weapons use a newer less sensitive high explosive.Its safer to handlethe bomb. They are huge/heavy.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 





Why no use for it, so you still think WW3 will be by nukes


nukes dropped from planes is so 1982. We have intercontinental ballistic missiles, dial a yield nuclear weapons, small yield tactical nukes, and small yield bunker buster nukes. i'm not sure of the US, but I know the Russians have MIRV capabilities which means a single missile goes up, but multiple warheads aiming at multiple targets, come back down.

The military has the equipment to survive in a fallout ridden area, and actually, STRIVE in it, so nuking the crap out of a few countries made mostly of sand and brown people isn't off the table at all.

The old MAD, mutually assured destruction, scenario doesn't really play out anymore either, so I wouldn't call a nuclear war off the table.

It would be a last strike scenario at best, but it's still entirely possible. Actually, more so now than ever before as NATO and russia/china get into posturing positions.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 





Japan is proof it doesn't take hundreds of years to become habitable again.


ahhh, no, plenty of areas around that nuclear plant will be unsafe for hundreds of years, thousands in the case of areas with plutonium contamination. The fact that the Japanese government is doing it's best to minimize the reporting of the true scale, those areas are lost.

The ground will be contaminated as well as the ground water, over the next 15 years you will see the true effects on the environment, much like Chernobyl.

anyways, you guys are stuck in WW2 mode. If the Us is going to nuke some country, they don't intend to go live here after. They can easily send in teams to keep the oil production going, and rape the natural resources. Actually it would be much easier for them to nuke a major city to get the people out and go in unattended and unwatched to do their deeds.

As well, our weather mapping technology is quite a bit more advanced than back in ww2 (lick your thumb and hold it in the air) so we can, for the most part, accurately map out radiation release and fallout areas a head of time. We can monitor weather in real time to plan the perfect strike causing "minimal" collateral damage.

If this war goes Nuclear, the only way it will "work" is if the US and allies strike ALL potential targets in unison. All of them. Anyone who might be a problem down the road must be dealt with. Because once a single nuclear attack is confirmed, they all go up in the air. So the only viable nuclear war scenario the US can "win" is if they preemptively strike all potential targets and completely decimate their forces.

This, of course, ignores conventional deliver via bombers and subs, so a retaliatory strike would surely follow, and the US missile defense system has failed every test.

In the end though, there is only one solution.

The only way to win a nuclear war is to not play.

Care for a nice game of chess?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The article says that these old bombs are being dismantled...but what about new bombs? They are building those, no doubt, even if smaller. A series of small nuclear devices can be more efficient at the destruction of a target than a huge nuclear device.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Did this article mean largest nuke in size or in destructive capability? It was no doubt huge in size!

Who else is dismantling nukes besides the US and Russia? I know Great Britain has pared their force down to where where Israel now has a larger arsenal than them but i dont know if GB is still paring it down. I think France is pretty much at a status quo and not increasing the size of their arsenal. China, Pakistan, India and Israel dont appear to be dismantling any and if anything are increasing the size of their arsenals.

Why does the US and Russia dismantle but no one else?

Oh by the way, just because countries are "dismantling" nukes doesnt mean a lot. In many instances they are just dis-assembled. They could be recontrcuted in short order if need be.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


The reason they're dismantling these larger ones is because they are inefficient. In the last couple of decades, the US and other major nuclear powers have realized that several smaller warheads can do more damage than one big one of equivalent yield.





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join