Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Suspicion over Nuclear Disarmament

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Now, does anyone really trust the two sides of the arms race saying, "Oh, sure. We'll lower the number of arms we have..."

I don't.
I was wondering the other day, who is it that is conducting missile research in this day and age? Anyone know? Space-X, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, something like that, one of those military contractors.

I think we are developing modern nuclear weapons. Sure, the warhead count may be decreasing numerically, but the plutonium and uranium has to go somewhere. Dismantle the warhead, and you can just increase the load in another missile. Though I am not a missile technician, so I may be wrong.

This could all be post cold-war hysteria, but my gut tells me not to trust these fools and liars. The current bunch of politicians is a den of snakes. Nuclear treaties were meant to be broken. Ask the native americans what the white man does with treaties... Break them!




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
There's a lot true to what you said, but also a lot that's false.

It's true that we do still produce nuclear weapons, as technology advances and the hardware ages it becomes necessary to create new ones in order to maintain the stockpile. Disarmament however is enforced through spy satellites, or that's how it was done during the cold war. Each nation would take apart their nukes and destroy the components, and then leave them visible to satellites so that opposing nations could verify they were dismantled.

Where this runs into issues in modern day is submarine and space based weapons which cannot be verified through the same methods.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I sometimes wonder about our nuclear capabilities in regards to asteroids. Surely the government has looked into those things. And I'm sure that the guise of said research would be very useful in developing offensive space based weapons.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aazadan
There's a lot true to what you said, but also a lot that's false.

It's true that we do still produce nuclear weapons, as technology advances and the hardware ages it becomes necessary to create new ones in order to maintain the stockpile.


I don't know what you mean by 'new ones' but no new nuclear weapons are being manufactured in the USA and haven't been since the early 90's. Replacement parts for certain components of old ones may be replaced.

Much of the enriched uranium from weapons has been refined chemically and downblended into reactor fuel.

The plutonium is encapsulated and stored.
edit on 11-8-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter42
I sometimes wonder about our nuclear capabilities in regards to asteroids. Surely the government has looked into those things. And I'm sure that the guise of said research would be very useful in developing offensive space based weapons.


1) Yes it has been, by NASA and academic scientists. It's generally considered better to impart a controlled force, say with a solar sail or land an ion engine to impart thrust continuously for months to have predictable effects.

2) Not really as far as the weapons. We already have offensive "space based weapons" called ICBM's. Possibly large scale infrared search telescopes would be useful, but they're useful for all sorts of reasons like finding space debris.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I don't believe for a second that nuclear missile development has completed stagnated. The center doesn't hold. Those old nukes we've had since the 80s are made of metal. Metal rusts. Gotta have new ones, or atleast new casings and war head designs. We'll hear about them when they're declassified, or when the big one hits.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


The biggest problem with nuclear weapons is the radiation given off by the core affects the electronics, so they have to be replaced every so often. Even if the case did start to rust, it's simply a matter of pulling out the "guts" and placing them into a new case. Replacing the weapon because of rust is like saying "Well, I see a little corrosion on my 747. Time to go buy a new one."

A new case does not equal a new nuclear weapon. The last new nuclear weapon was built about 10 years ago. There would be more newer ones, but the FBI and EPA raided their production facility and shut them down.
edit on 8/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Anyone know the exact point at which they stopped then? I bet they atleast had tentative plans for new ones. Then the wall fell, and the military industrial complex began to suffer for cash.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


There's a design program that was ongoing since 2004, to replace the oldest warheads, but nothing new has been built for quite awhile now. The replacement program was defunded in 2008, and cancelled in 2009.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Maybe that's what they want you to think. I bet you someone's developing new missiles somewhere.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


Why? There is no need for new missiles, the ones we have have more than enough power to wipe out life as we know it.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


That's the line they're feeding the public. I think they're not dismantling as many warheads as they say they are.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


What evidence do you have that they aren't? A feeling? The US alone has over 1600 strategic nuclear warheads on ICBMs, and another 2800 non-deployed strategic warheads, with 500 tactical warheads. That's plenty more than we need if we want to end life as we know it. That's not counting the 1400+ deployed Russian warheads, the 1000 non-deployed, and 2000 tactical warheads.

So please, what possible reason is there to keep almost 10 thousand warheads between those two countries alone.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. They got their suspicions Iraq's delevoping nuclear weapons, I got mine that they're STILL manufacturing their own. Some crazy new next generation nuke.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


At least in Iraq there was something that could be used as evidence. A feeling doesn't prove anything except you think they're developing something, despite evidence that they're reducing stockpiles.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Nuclear weapons are yesterdays technology.

Id be more concerned about the wonders that get unleashed should the next "real" war eventuate.

Not these small military endeavours that we've been seeing the last 15 years.

Its whats hidden up the militarys sleeves thats concerning.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


I guess I have my suspicions because I don't trust the government. All we have to go on are their figures. They could lie if they wanted.

Alright. What do you think they're developing instead of nukes? If movies have taught me anything, the Empire has to have some sort of dooms day device.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I beleive theres multiple satellite based railguns.

We know railguns are operating as theres been a couple vids of the US Navy testing them and also rumours of a tank based railgun being used in GulfWar2 that metled a vehicle and its occupants into a pool of metal on the road.


I dont kow what the devastation would be like of a railgun impacting a building from space, dont know enough about it I admit, but can you imagine a strategic strike on several locations at the same time? with no radiactive fallout?

You wouldnt see it coming.

What good are nukes seriously? you cannot overtake the land as it is devasted and useless.....

Nukes are like gasoline engines.....very outdated and inefficient IMO.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter42
 


Hopefully, I can bring some peace to your concerns. The questions you ask have verifiable answers.

There have been no "new" nuclear weapons developed since the late 1980's/early 90's. the reduction in overall warheads you mention are physically counted and accounted for by members of the opposing government. That is US counters and Russan counters physically count & witness the other governments weapons being dismantled and destroyed. The provisions for oversight is established in the START1 treaty.

As others have explained, the fissle material is either made inert, or decommissioned into civilian use.

I appreciate and understand your concerns. I think the evidence of actual reductions is overwhelming. On this particular concern, I think you can rest easy knowing that we got this one right.

START 1
edit on 16-8-2013 by SlightlyAbovePar because: Edit for clarity & link



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
I beleive theres multiple satellite based railguns.

We know railguns are operating as theres been a couple vids of the US Navy testing them and also rumours of a tank based railgun being used in GulfWar2 that metled a vehicle and its occupants into a pool of metal on the road.


I dont kow what the devastation would be like of a railgun impacting a building from space, dont know enough about it I admit, but can you imagine a strategic strike on several locations at the same time? with no radiactive fallout?

You wouldnt see it coming.

What good are nukes seriously? you cannot overtake the land as it is devasted and useless.....

Nukes are like gasoline engines.....very outdated and inefficient IMO.


Railguns take an absolutely massive amount of electricity, the ones the US Navy has are mounted on nuclear powered destroyers, and they take a very large portion of the energy the reactor puts out. We don't have that type of technology deployed in space currently. Railguns and nukes have different purposes. Railguns excel at taking out buildings and larger objects like ships, however are quite bad against people, at best they're very long distance artillery. Nukes however poison the land, cause massive devastation, have a psychological component, and are extremely effective against opposing troops.

Also, if space based railguns existed, they're pretty effective as a first strike assuming atmospheric friction doesn't destroy the slug, but railguns have a very limited number of shots they can fire. The problem is that the electricity which circulates through the rails melts and degrades them. It has been a couple years since I looked at it but rails were typically only good for two shots in university level railguns, and three shots in very low power ones. I imagine the naval railguns are only good for one shot. So any satellite put in the sky would have this same firing restriction. That would be a lot of space based weapons to covertly deploy if one were actually interested in satellite railguns.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join