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.

 

Nuclear weapons - are you for or against?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
What's your opinion?
I'm against nuclear weapons because:
1. They harm innocent people
2. They are a waste of energy; this energy could have been used in a peaceful way for production of nuclear energy
3. They are ugly




posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
"NUKE good

KILL!! KILL!! KILL!!!
ME LIKE TO KILL

KILLING FUN
"
--so speaketh Prophet Lucifer
(Book of Rage)



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I am also against the use of nuclear weoponry. And if a single one is fired there is a chance that the fallout will eventually kill us all even if we are nowhere near the blast zone. However it is iminent that there will be a nuclear war because of the tension between many countries at the moment and as we evolve we will create bigger and deadlier weopons and as I pointed out the fallout might kill us all so using nuclear arms is practically suicide.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomix
I am also against the use of nuclear weoponry.

Do you agree with my 3 statements about nukes?
1. They harm innocent people
2. They are a waste of energy; this energy could have been used in a peaceful way for production of nuclear energy
3. They are ugly



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   
yes but I'm not sure about the energy being used for nuclear energy because thats kinda polluting isn't it?



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I dont think we should have neuclear weapons of any kind. But it is an impossible task to rid the world of EVERY neuclear bomb/warhead. The best we can hope for is for the world to stop making them. Eventually, The shelf life of these weapons will expire and they will be usless. Untill we can all agree to quit making them, there is not much that can really be done about it.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I agree that every warhead on the planet cannot be destroyed but we really should try to dismantle the majority in our stockpiles.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Im for them because they keep the peace during the cold war. But more important when a asteroid heads for our planet a nuke is going to be our only chance to stop it. It will happen its only a matter of time and if we get rid of all nukes like Japan wants what are we going to stop a planet killer with good intentions?

So everyone that thinks that all nukes should be destroyed should remember those same nukes may save all our lives.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I don't think mankind should engage in any technology at all that they do not have the means to neutralize the bi-products of within a time frame of their own generation.

That being said...., well, I guess I answered the question.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomix
I agree that every warhead on the planet cannot be destroyed but we really should try to dismantle the majority in our stockpiles.


I am in total agreement with you, but my governments stance will never allow for a dismantlement of our stockpiles. Even a small amount. USA is currently researching MORE neuclear weapons. A bunkerbuster type warhead that is designed to penitrate deep into caves and underground bunkers. Sometimes I wonder if governments are more detrimental to the people they rule, than the weapons that the governments create.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Nukes are not the ONLY answer to Asteroids. Couldn't we just build a Star Wars defence type thing that will destroy asteroids although with government secrecy and everything we propably already do.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
I don't think mankind should engage in any technology at all that they do not have the means to neutralize the bi-products of within a time frame of their own generation.

That being said...., well, I guess I answered the question.


I guess you think we shouldnt use any plastic or stryofoam then? Or any product that produces any type of toxic waste. Or even use any fossil fuels these things all produce bi-products that one generation cannot neutralize



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomix
Nukes are not the ONLY answer to Asteroids. Couldn't we just build a Star Wars defence type thing that will destroy asteroids although with government secrecy and everything we propably already do.


No laser we have now is going to stop a asteroid. People have all types of plans to stop them on paper perhaps if we had 50 years warning some of them might work. But for now and the near future a nuke is the only thing that will have a chance to stop one.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I guess you think we shouldnt use any plastic or stryofoam then? Or any product that produces any type of toxic waste. Or even use any fossil fuels these things all produce bi-products that one generation cannot neutralize


Well, I don't agree that these things are anywhere near comparable to to byproduct of nuclear energy, and it's just my opinion that this would be a good rule of thumb in implementing new technology.

Don't mind me though, I have a lot of dreams that will probably not come true.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Something like it could be under development as we speak, like I said with government secrecy .



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
1. They harm innocent people
2. They are a waste of energy; this energy could have been used in a peaceful way for production of nuclear energy
3. They are ugly


1. True all across the boards.

2. Not true. Energy is never wasted, just converted into heat, light, etc.. Setting off a nuke does not make energy unusable. I would modify this statement to say They are a waste of resources. Land, water, food, etc. Radiation, as we all know , poisons everything.

3. Not quite sure what this has to do with ANYTHING.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Relentless I agree with your goals though it would be great to get rid of all those things and find better things to use in there place. The world will be better place.


Atomix Black projects dont deal with protecting us from asteroids, Black projects are of a military nature. This would be in the realm of NASA and they wouldnt hide such a thing from the people it wouldnt make sense. There are many plans to stop a asteriod such as painting one side white, attaching rockets or sails to the asteroid. But these things could only happen if you had them ready with 50 or so years warning. And none of these things have ever been built or tested.

With the amount of people looking for these planet killers (about the staff of a Mcdonalds) we will be luck to get a few months warning. A nuclear stand off blast is going to be our best and really only chance to stop it.

The goverment does have plans to survive such a event but they dont include any of us.


[edit on 2-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I suppose what we could do if we dismantled all our nukes is keep some in reserve for asteroid occurances altough it seems very unlikely that we will ever dismantle our nukes.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Atomix]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A nuclear stand off blast is going to be our best and really only chance to stop it.


Actually, thats a little misleading. It depends on what type of asteroid it is. If its a porus, or loosley held together bundle of small astroids, the effect could be even more devistationg than if we left it whole. A stand off blast with one of these types of astroids would cause it to break into smaller pieces. So your left with one big one, or 200 volkswagon sized ones. Also, I hadnt heard about painting one side white. Could you give a link for that? I cant find anything on it.

KF

[edit on 10/2/04 by Kidfinger]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A nuclear stand off blast is going to be our best and really only chance to stop it.


Actually, thats a little misleading. It depends on what type of asteroid it is. If its a porus, or loosley held together bundle of small astroids, the effect could be even more devistationg than if we left it whole. A stand off blast with one of these types of astroids would cause it to break into smaller pieces. So your left with one big one, or 200 volkswagon sized ones. Also, I hadnt heard about painting one side white. Could you give a link for that? I cant find anything on it.

KF

[edit on 10/2/04 by Kidfinger]


I was under the impression that only a direct hit on a asteroid with a nuke would produce a "buck shot" type effect which would be worse. So the stand off blast is considered to be the best chance we have right now by many scientist.

A stand off blast does not break up the asteroid as much as it just gives the asteroid a push in one direction.


As for painting a asteroid this works under the " Yarkovsky Effect" which is a term used to describe how an asteroid's trajectory can be influenced by its heat radiation. This couls be done many ways and white paint is one of them. But we would need lots of warning time for this to work.

Painting the the asteroid's surface white. "That would make a big change to the way the object reflects sunlight. That might require a thickness of only one millimeter or so (less than a 20th of an inch) over the entire surface.

I not sure how long it would even take to design a machine that could paint something this big in space. It would be a amazing task. I have seen this concept on many shows talking about impacts. Heres a link I found about it.

www.greatdreams.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join