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 back in nuke production ?!?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 02:26 PM
link   
B.T. I think if anyone needs to do research it is you. If you can't tell the difference between a Thermo-Nuclear explosion and an anti-tank round then I guess you would agree that EVERY conflict since the advent of the firearm was chemical warfare since one ~might~ get lead poisoning from the bullets used.

Stretch it too far and it will break




posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 02:48 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
B.T. I think if anyone needs to do research it is you. If you can't tell the difference between a Thermo-Nuclear explosion and an anti-tank round then I guess you would agree that EVERY conflict since the advent of the firearm was chemical warfare since one ~might~ get lead poisoning from the bullets used.

Stretch it too far and it will break


Not the distinction I was making: Radioactive, scorched earth, contaminated ground water & radiation poisioning present in all animals up through man in the food change. Look to Puerto Rico & Southern Iraq for these documented effects, along with off the chart levels in the increase of cancer. 12 & 13 year old girls in southern Iraq have breast cancer....something not tested for in most areas till a woman's mid 30's.



posted on Apr, 24 2003 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Not sure if you're aware of a little theory called MAD.
Mutually Assured Destruction. This is the deterrent that keeps the US mainland at peace. The premise being that if anyone messes with us, they'll be annihilated (and we may be too, in the case of say Russia, or China), so because of such mutually assured destruction, it keeps the peace. To propose the total disbanding, would be eliminating that counter threat, and ensure our destruction at the hands of our enemies, for they certainly aren't going to get rid of theirs anytime soon either....


dom

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Although in the 80s the Russians did offer total nuclear disarmament if the US would follow suit. Reagen saw a better way to go and ignored the offer.

Well, in the long term it means that the US won the Cold War, but both sides are still sitting there with thousands of warheads. MAD only requires that you have enough firepower to destroy your opponent, the current level of nuclear arms is just a case of "mine's bigger than yours".

TC - had you just not read the whole thread? How can you possibly expect us to take your opinion seriously if you're so clearly biased against any non-US-government media?



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Not sure if you're aware of a little theory called MAD.
Mutually Assured Destruction. This is the deterrent that keeps the US mainland at peace. The premise being that if anyone messes with us, they'll be annihilated (and we may be too, in the case of say Russia, or China), so because of such mutually assured destruction, it keeps the peace. To propose the total disbanding, would be eliminating that counter threat, and ensure our destruction at the hands of our enemies, for they certainly aren't going to get rid of theirs anytime soon either....


Exactly, that's why I said it won't happen anytime soon. No major country is going to disband their only lind of defense against another major country. It'd be nice though... We wouldn't have to use them if people had some sense.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 11:52 AM
link   
That kind of global cooperation just simply isn't likely to EVER happen...unless of course, a threat from off the Earth were to deem otherwise.... Short of aliens saying "disarm the nukes or else", it simply won't happen (and even then, we'd likely shoot them all at the aliens!
)



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I see what you mean. I can't see America, nor any other major country giving up nukes. So what better solution is there? We don't want to end up in another arms race, eventhough we've out-distanced all the other runners by about 1,000 miles.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I think we should just disarm totally, nukes, conventional and all. I'm sure we can trust the rest of the world to not rush in and imprison us all in tyranny. Once we do that, we can all join hands and sing. I'm all for it...once I brush up on my Chinese, Russian, and whatever the heck the Arabs speak.

Reagan should have trusted Russia, after all they never lie and we could have just disarmed and they would have too. We could have forged ahead knowing that if the US didn't possess any means to defend itself, the rest of the world would not feel threatened enough to arm themselves as thats the reason for tyrannical regimes, not power-madness and lust for world domination like we have been brainwashed into believing. I'm getting it now. If we lay down what the US stands for, the rest of the world falls suddenly into peace and harmony.

..and they all live happily ever after. The End.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
I think we should just disarm totally, nukes, conventional and all. I'm sure we can trust the rest of the world to not rush in and imprison us all in tyranny. Once we do that, we can all join hands and sing. I'm all for it...once I brush up on my Chinese, Russian, and whatever the heck the Arabs speak.

Reagan should have trusted Russia, after all they never lie and we could have just disarmed and they would have too. We could have forged ahead knowing that if the US didn't possess any means to defend itself, the rest of the world would not feel threatened enough to arm themselves as thats the reason for tyrannical regimes, not power-madness and lust for world domination like we have been brainwashed into believing. I'm getting it now. If we lay down what the US stands for, the rest of the world falls suddenly into peace and harmony.

..and they all live happily ever after. The End.


if only...

Nope, that won't ever happen. All US hating countries would rush in and claim 'squatter rights' or some # like that.

By the way Arabs speak Arabic.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner

Originally posted by astrocreep
I think we should just disarm totally, nukes, conventional and all. I'm sure we can trust the rest of the world to not rush in and imprison us all in tyranny. Once we do that, we can all join hands and sing. I'm all for it...once I brush up on my Chinese, Russian, and whatever the heck the Arabs speak.

Reagan should have trusted Russia, after all they never lie and we could have just disarmed and they would have too. We could have forged ahead knowing that if the US didn't possess any means to defend itself, the rest of the world would not feel threatened enough to arm themselves as thats the reason for tyrannical regimes, not power-madness and lust for world domination like we have been brainwashed into believing. I'm getting it now. If we lay down what the US stands for, the rest of the world falls suddenly into peace and harmony.

..and they all live happily ever after. The End.


if only...

Nope, that won't ever happen. All US hating countries would rush in and claim 'squatter rights' or some # like that.

By the way Arabs speak Arabic.


Well, now thats not what most people on here say. If we listen to them, once we disarm, all is right with the world and we'll all live in peace and harmony. America is supposedly the only thing wrong in the world and the reason for all things evil. I say, if thats the case, lets just close up shop and join in the happyness it will bring!! Hurray!!



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Can you imagine? The world's babysitter just quits and storms out of the house. The kids will go nuts, some might even get hurt. There will be toilet paper all over the house, the furniture will be knocked over, and countless smudges all over the walls. Just wait to Mommy and Daddy come home...



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The reason those nukes are so small is because they are designed to fit into an anti-ballistic missile system.

When an ICBM is fired an AABM (Atomic anti-ballistic missile) can be launched in intercept it. All it needs to do is get in front and detonate, the ICBM ends up in the fireball and for all intent and purpose is atomized.

To me it is interesting that the US is announcing it is working on such technology at this point in time.

As far as I know we have been (the US) developing such technology for about three years.










[Edited on 27-4-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Read this :

www.digitalf8.com...



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The article says that the department of engergy made such an announcement last week. Why is it that I cannot find any such mention in the press releases for the department of energy? Can someone post a link qouting the department of energy please? Where is this announcement? The link posted originally is from a website that has no credibility whatsoever (a joke if you ask me), so it would be more helpful to have the actual press statement from the DOE. I can't find it on their site, but maybe I missed it.



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Anyone?


dom

posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 07:07 AM
link   
>Why is it that I cannot find any such mention in the
> press releases for the department of energy?

Because it's bad PR? Perhaps? Do you think?

So I guess you're claiming that this simply didn't happen, and the LATimes made it all up... hmm...

And similarly this BBC article about a leaked document is made-up
news.bbc.co.uk...
"A leaked document suggests that Washington is beginning detailed planning for a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons. "

As is this one...
seattletimes.nwsource.com...
"Demonstrating a significant shift in America's nuclear strategy, the Bush administration intends to produce not just research a thermonuclear bunker-busting bomb to destroy hardened, deeply buried targets, the Pentagon has acknowledged for the first time. "

I doubt that the original story is made up, it fits.



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Toltec wrote: "The reason those nukes are so small is because they are designed to fit into an anti-ballistic missile system.

When an ICBM is fired an AABM (Atomic anti-ballistic missile) can be launched in intercept it. All it needs to do is get in front and detonate, the ICBM ends up in the fireball and for all intent and purpose is atomized.

To me it is interesting that the US is announcing it is working on such technology at this point in time.

As far as I know we have been (the US) developing such technology for about three years. "


Yes, because it takes a smaller nuclear explosion to start a thermonuclear explosion and if the missle was simply knocked down, it would still have the capabiltiy to detonate over population. So, it bad of the US to try and stop that? Big bad US picking on poor little terrorist and destroying their missles which they have worked so hard on in space without giving them a chance to hit their target!! Shame on us. That kinda makes it unfair because without the ability to hit us with Nukes, what are they gonna use to threaten us into being totally frightened 24/7?









dom

posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Don't be a retard Astrocreep. Which terrorist group is going to be able to acquire an ICBM?!?



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Thanks for resorting to name calling. BTW, really shows the sensitivelty to the mentally challenged but I guess you think they wouldn't know how to use the internet so there would be no chance of offending them by comparing them to the likes of me huh? have a nice day.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join