Nuclear weapons - are you for or against?

Isn't this about nukes not asteroids? let's get back to that.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Atomix]

Sorry if I got this thread off topic, but I just wanted to show that nukes can do more then just kill people. The same weapons that many people think will end the world may just save it.

Hate to go against what I just said but I just thought of something. Say we got a last minute warning of an asteroid and we fired a nuke at it when it was to close to our atmosphere, what type of effect would that have on the earths atmosphere, would there be a fallout?

Originally posted by AtheiX
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

1. They have kept the peace for decades. Were it not for the U.S. having them, the face of Europe would be much different than it is today. They put an end to war war that would have taken thousands upon thousands more lives had we not used them. The Japanese population would have been all but wiped out. All war harms innocent people. Only in recent years has war been fought with so few noncombatant casualties. America, take a bow.

2. What? Do you think were it not for nuclear weapons, the little uranium used for them would cause a dramatic increase in power?

3. They're ugly? Been around a bunch of them, huh? As it so happens, I have, too, and I never thought of them as ugly. They've protected my loved ones from evil that wants America dead, and I find that beautiful. Some of my best friends are ugly. People who have me as a friend can say the same thing. That doesn't mean one should get rid of us. But if it will make you feel better, I'll make a couple phone calls and see if someone can paint them happy, beautiful colors.

They are some good points but do we really need all those nukes that are in the stockpiles?

I believe the majority of the nuclear weapons should be dismantled but keep a fraction of it under the control of UN and in case we get a asteroid, the UN would be using the warheads to actually destroy the planet killer not use it on other human beings.

But I don't think the present nuclear weapons will do any devastating damage to a asteroid because our nuclear weapons are designed to wipe out what is ON it like the civilians, not split the ground or destroy it. UN should take the nuclear weapon designers in the world and come up with a warhead that can DRILL into the asteroid then blast it to pieces.

Originally posted by Atomix
Hate to go against what I just said but I just thought of something. Say we got a last minute warning of an asteroid and we fired a nuke at it when it was to close to our atmosphere, what type of effect would that have on the earths atmosphere, would there be a fallout?

Firing an ICBM ant an asteroid coming towards us at, lets say, 40K mph is not going to have any affect whatso ever on the asteroid. If nuclear weopons are used in this manner to stop killer asteroids, then they must be parked in geo-sync orbits.

Nuclear detonation in the upper atmosphere will have little detrimental affects on the world. But still, trying to stop an asteroid in the atsmosphere with a nuclear weapon is like trying to stop a car speeding towards you with a 20lb sledgehammer. It won't slow an asteroid, the size of Toutatis, down or change it's trajectory one bit. In the event that astronomers do find an asteroid headed for an impact with Earth, we haven't got anything in place to stop this cataclysmic event from happening. We're just lucky that Toutatis missed us by a million miles, or we'd be seeing spectacular sunsets like we've never seen, and drops in temperatures worldwide that would affect the world's food supply.

Back to the topic of the thread. We need nuclear weapons as deterant. It's just sad now that so many countries, that aren't exactly stable IMO, has nuclear capability.

I must agree that nuclear weapons, like conventional weapons, has the potential to kill many innocent people. It would be nice to think that we could live in an Utopia-like world, but sadly, there are elements that will not permit that to happen.

They're ugly? Really... ugly???

I wish nuclear weapons did not exist. To now, I have not really considered their aesthetic value, but ok. Whatever.

Originally posted by IAF101
"NUKE good

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

KILLING FUN

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

Well, yes, the nuke sure is good for that job but it wouldn't be fun when you are the one getting killed by radiation or just burned to ashes.

As Humans evolve our weopons will become more dangerous and kill more people. We have no control over what happens that is up to the Government (Illuminati) We can't do anything but wait until Mankind has destroyed itself.

ShadowXIX,

Thanks for the link. Some of the things mentioned, I wansnt aware of. Thanks agian. I was watching something on the discovery science channel about a week or two ago that had to do with astroids hitting the earth. They were saying that a stand off blast on a closly clumped astroid would possibly cause it to break up. A direct hit was explained to cause the astroid to break up, but for some reason, gravity would pull all the pieces back together. This guy then took a rifle and shot at 3 different rocks that represented different types of astroids. ! big piece of sandstone, 2 smaller pieces of sandstone, then a small pile of sandstone rubble. The single rock was decimated, The 2 rocks were blown away from each other leaving a small pile of dust, and the pile barely scattered. Either way, I wouldnt want to be anywhere an impact was, be it small or large.

Originally posted by Kidfinger

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.

Have you forgoten about russia who is still making new warheads with new missiles, Im for them if others break treaties on disarnament to augment the numbers of their weapons.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by blacman2k6]

I have to go with it in this order:
3. Ugly
1. They kill innocent people

Originally posted by LL1
I have to go with it in this order:
3. Ugly
1. They kill innocent people

Ugly yeah get rid of your entire arsenal and some other country who cheated the disarnament treaty will kill your innocent people turning your country in to a glowing waste land at the same time.

Link


From a high of aprox 32,000 in the sixties and seventies, the current US stockpile is aprox 10,350. Almost 1/3 of the high. Seems like pretty good progress to me. You will never achieve total disarmament. And with some of the crazies in the world today some type of deterrant is still needed.

Nuclear weapons do have a shelf life, and must be replaced with new warheads. For this reason if nothing else, new nuclear weapons will continue to be made. New designs for the weapons might increase thier safety as far as storage, etc. Also according to the above link, total explosive power is less than 1/10th what it was in the late 20th century. This leads me to believe that new weapons tend to be less powerful than the old ones.

Since new weapons seem to be smaller, and one would assume safer I guess I would have to say development isn't always a bad thing.

I was surprised to find that according to the FAS nuclear watch site, Russia has aproximately TWICE the number of warheads as the US!

What's up with that?

Originally posted by Atomix
yes but I'm not sure about the energy being used for nuclear energy because thats kinda polluting isn't it?

No. Nuclear plants don't pollute enviroment. The only problem is the duty to keep the reactor safe at all times; failure to keep the coolant system running perfectly will result in catastrophes like Chernobyl.

You know, this pinko-crap reminds me of several years ago when I was in Germany, and I picked up a couple of German hippy hitch hikers. They asked me where I was stationed, and when I told them, they told me that they were there a couple of weeks earlier protesting (They were there during Easter, a traditional pinko protestor time at U.S. special weapons sites. I asked them the obvious question, "We are here to protectr your sorry butts; why don't you go and protest Russian nuclear capabilities?"

The answer was an equally obvious, and logical to only a stupid pinko-liberal coward - "Because they would shoot us!"

Shut your stupid mouths and be glad we have nukes, as the opposing sides would shoot you for running your yap. Disarm them and then come tell me something, huh?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
"We are here to protectr your sorry butts"

That's no excuse for harmig civilians, wasting the energy and polluting the large area for many years. Nukes have to be retired
We appreciate the protection if you use conventional methods of protection

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Shut your stupid mouths and be glad we have nukes, as the opposing sides would shoot you for running your yap. Disarm them and then come tell me something, huh?

Im sure there are some people here that are quite offended by your remarks. I know that I have been repremanded for making post similar to this. This is no way for a Mod to reply. Where is your professionalism here? How about deducting some of your own points Mr. Crown

Well, since the original question was about the existence of nukes in general, and not just about whether or not the US should have them, the "stop other countries from having them, then come talk to me" argument is sort of irrelevant.

If given a choice: to get rid of ALL the nukes in every country in the world, or to give a nuke to every country in the world (just to be fair), which option would you choose?

Personally, I see no legitimate reason for nuclear weapons to exist AT ALL! Why in the hell, do we need a weapon that has the potential to destroy all life on Earth, by causing a nuclear winter? Why do we need a weapon that can, literally, cremate hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings at the push of a button?

People are so damn stupid that they really believe this has more to do with "protecting the homeland from the evil men of the world" than with a bunch of men (with too much power) having a pissing contest to see who can build the most destructive and powerful means of killing one another!

If a bigger and better killing machine is the most significant use that our "superior" intellect can come up with, for something which has so much potential to be a benefit to mankind, like atomic energy does, it's probably in the universe's best interests that we hurry up and become extinct.