tartanterrier
Is somewhere outhere.
If the US decide to attack Iran.They'll probally want to nuke'em first - lets hope it doesn't go that far :fight:
Which country will deploy nuclear warfare ?
- Thread starter alpha85
- Start date
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
I sure as hell hope no one uses a nuclear bomb. The US used atomic bombs on Japan and those are far weaker than the nuclear bombs that are availabe today :eek: . Just imagine the untold horrors those things caused in Japan, and understand that today's nuclear bombs are 50 to hundreds of times more powerful than those. I shudder anytime I think about the fact that we are in the nuclear age. We live in a dangerous world, and everyday I pray for our descendants
http://www.videotiger.com/bbcreenactmentofanuclearbombvideo.shtml
None of the above. The smart money is on a radical terrorist faction getting their hands on a former Russian republic nuke or buying one somewhere else and using it.
Also would a "dirty bomb" be classed as a nuclear attack or just "agressive radition disbursement".
It is a very real threat.
Also would a "dirty bomb" be classed as a nuclear attack or just "agressive radition disbursement".
It is a very real threat.
dave_rhino
Closed Account
Scary shit. I hope this never happens again, although i know blatently it will. Just a matter of time...
Atomic v. Hydrogen v. Dirty ...
The Soviet Union built some extremely powerful, 50+MT weapons, and regularly deployed multi-MT weapons in Europe -- also very "dirty" from a fallout standpoint for various reasons (including the fission explosion requires to create the fusion chain reaction), whereas the US built largely 15MT or smaller, and deployed sub-MT to Europe (largely designs to take out bunkers and silos).
The US weapons deployed on Japan were only about 20kT.
We'd consider those large yield "tactical nukes" these days. In fact, if they were not air-burst, they wouldn't have taken out even a block, and you'd probably be safe even a few blocks away. The key to a nuclear weapon is an air-burst and resulting concussion damage. Most tactical nukes (including newer US designs) are designed to burrow and destroy underground facilities, leaving most of the surface intact.
Now North Koreas test was somewhat of a failure, because it didn't even come close to 1KT. It was basically a "dud," enough to take out a building. The US has non-nuclear, thermabaric (aka fuel-explosive) weapons that could almost match that yield.
The danger from a "dirty bomb" is not the event itself, but the inhalation or ingestion of the leftovers.
Yes, hydrogen (commonly referred to as thermonuclear) warheads are measured in megatons -- or millions of tons of TNT equivalent. The older atomic warheads are meatured in kilotons -- or thousands of tons of TNT equivalent.
The Soviet Union built some extremely powerful, 50+MT weapons, and regularly deployed multi-MT weapons in Europe -- also very "dirty" from a fallout standpoint for various reasons (including the fission explosion requires to create the fusion chain reaction), whereas the US built largely 15MT or smaller, and deployed sub-MT to Europe (largely designs to take out bunkers and silos).
The US weapons deployed on Japan were only about 20kT.
We'd consider those large yield "tactical nukes" these days. In fact, if they were not air-burst, they wouldn't have taken out even a block, and you'd probably be safe even a few blocks away. The key to a nuclear weapon is an air-burst and resulting concussion damage. Most tactical nukes (including newer US designs) are designed to burrow and destroy underground facilities, leaving most of the surface intact.
Now North Koreas test was somewhat of a failure, because it didn't even come close to 1KT. It was basically a "dud," enough to take out a building. The US has non-nuclear, thermabaric (aka fuel-explosive) weapons that could almost match that yield.
The danger is not from countries, but from people who do not answer to a country. At least countries hold each other accountable. Rogue, stateless-entities cannot be.Just imagine the untold horrors those things caused in Japan, and understand that today's nuclear bombs are 50 to hundreds of times more powerful than those. I shudder anytime I think about the fact that we are in the nuclear age. We live in a dangerous world, and everyday I pray for our descendants
Agreed.
A "dirty bomb" isn't even a sub-critical nuclear explosion (which is used in fission power plants). It would be more like a "chemical attack" of "small proportion" and more of a longer-term issue like "lead contamination," depending on the quality of the material.
The danger from a "dirty bomb" is not the event itself, but the inhalation or ingestion of the leftovers.
god / jehovah / allah i pray that israel and iran dont have a showdown.
ps i think the west are so fucking hipporitical for letting north korea get away with their tests and threats. that in my opinion goes to show that the US only have israel as their guard dog in teh middle east for the oil.
ps i think the west are so fucking hipporitical for letting north korea get away with their tests and threats. that in my opinion goes to show that the US only have israel as their guard dog in teh middle east for the oil.
I've been reading up a lot on the 1994 agreement. I was largely involved with mid-to-late '90s threat assessment on North Korea (stuff I can't talk about), but I wanted to learn more about the early '90s. I followed a lot at the time, but hindsight is always 20-20 -- as long as you read up on the facts, not the rhetoric and analysts.
Apparently it was Jimmy Carter that originally brokered the deal, over the major objections of the Clinton administration during the entire engagement. Clinton gave in after Carter came back with the terms while Gore said it would come back to haunt us as North Korea was only stalling. I remember seeing the intelligence later in the decade and I have a newfound respect for Gore now, because much of what he predicted came true.
People forget that North Korea admitted in 2001 -- before the axis of evil speech -- that they had the technology and were violating the 1994 agreement. Since then W. has adhered to not only every single term of the original 1994 agreement (I've checked and re-checked this now), but the additional deal brokered in 2004 that gave additional appeasement to North Korea. Beyond the fact that China and the US had reached an agreement, it was one that not only pleased South Korea, but more importantly, Japan.
Unfortunately, just like the 1994 deal, North Korea didn't adhere to the 2004 deal. So I'm in completely agreement with you, we really let South Korea and, more importantly, Japan down. We really looked bad, as the pennisula is no longer nuclear free. Of course, China shares some of the blame too, as they let us, the US, down in controlling their vassal. But we, the US, let our allies in South Korea and Japan down -- after careful reading and self-recognition, that's the reality.
The difference between Iraq and the other two, North Korea and Iran, is that Iraq lost a war and agreed to terms whereas North Korea never lost a war (stalemate) and Iran hasn't invaded anyone. I always have to point that out to fellow Americans, despite all of the rhetoric and dangerous games Iran plays, they haven't invaded anyone directly -- only state-funded "non-state" activities.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
Who fuckin knows anymore? I originally said Iran, I think. But now I dunno, but I do know it's coming! Russia and the US still have nukes aimed at each other! Neither of us ever backed down after the cold war! So god forbid one should be sent loose by mistake! Both of us have enough to destroy humanity many times over! AHHH...end of world as we know it talk...I FUCKIN LOVE IT!!!!!!! :nanner:
It won't be a country. It will be an unknown group like Al-Quaeda or someone else. I also predict it will hit us (America) because of the chimp we have in office and our disasterous foreign policy--the Iraq war, etc.
MAD is over, quit reading media rhetoric and BS
The US has largely dismantled the majority of its strategic, ballistic fleet across-the-board -- air force (strategic), army (theater/tactical) and navy (all). In reality, our warheads aren't exactly perpetual, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics knows these things don't last and many are now duds if not maintained. W. is continuing the policy of the Clinton administration, reusing and recycling assets into both conventional (non-warhead GFE) and tactical (atomic/hydrogen warhead) devices.
NOTE: I've personally reused GFE assets from our nuclear arsenal for peacetime usage (military, NASA, etc...) in the '90s and as late as 5 years ago (basically when I "saw the writing on the wall" and left before my department was cut from NASA).
The last publicly released studies recommended the US maintain a minimal number of strategic assets and a new generation of tactical redeploys. I.e., as far as strategic, that meant largely those of four (4) "boomer" ballistic missile submarines (only about 100 "assets" total), with all other "boomers" being converted to conventional assets (conventional warheads, cruise missile options, special forces, etc...) for the US Navy, along with continued options of more tactical and lower yield strategic (sub-megaton) inertia (bomb) and cruise-missile delivered systems for both the US Navy and Air Force.
The last tactical weapons recommendation I saw in a public document as reported by the media placed the total at about 500 "assets" long-term. In other words, about 500 Hiroshimas aggregate over the next century. This isn't that we plan to have 500 bombs available, but we plan to maintain and secure assets so, at most, we have weapons grade material in equivalent up to 500 tactical-yield in weapons-grade material over the coming (at the time, it was the 20th) 21st century. These things don't grow on trees and have to be maintained, and as anyone with basic physics understands, come from the existing, massive number of "assets" that have (or will) be useless in their current forms.
This is a far cry from the tens of thousands of high-grade atomic (hundreds of kilotons) and hydrogen (multi-megaton) warheads we had during the cold war, as well as the Russians. According to the Freedom of Information Act and other, related, Soviet documents declassified, several "assets" (whatever those are in quality) have been "misplaced" or "unaccounted for."
MAD (mutually assured destruction) is over. Yes, the US and the Russian Federation (with the Ukrane turning over all "assets" to the Russian Federation in the '90s) still maintain enough to "make things really bad for each other." But it's hardly the "completely destroy each other" at this point. There's a huge difference between what a standard, typical free fall "tactical asset" (e.g., B61) can do and a Minute Man III (aka "Peacekeeper") ICBM "strategic asset" is capable of.
Who have you been talking to? Until just recently, the US was releasing detailed figures on its strategic and tactical nuclear assets (this is/was public knowledge, hence why I can talk about it). W. has decided to reclassify many facts that were commonly in the CIA database that were publicly made available, likely because the US is going to change those asset numbers with new deployments.
The US has largely dismantled the majority of its strategic, ballistic fleet across-the-board -- air force (strategic), army (theater/tactical) and navy (all). In reality, our warheads aren't exactly perpetual, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics knows these things don't last and many are now duds if not maintained. W. is continuing the policy of the Clinton administration, reusing and recycling assets into both conventional (non-warhead GFE) and tactical (atomic/hydrogen warhead) devices.
NOTE: I've personally reused GFE assets from our nuclear arsenal for peacetime usage (military, NASA, etc...) in the '90s and as late as 5 years ago (basically when I "saw the writing on the wall" and left before my department was cut from NASA).
The last publicly released studies recommended the US maintain a minimal number of strategic assets and a new generation of tactical redeploys. I.e., as far as strategic, that meant largely those of four (4) "boomer" ballistic missile submarines (only about 100 "assets" total), with all other "boomers" being converted to conventional assets (conventional warheads, cruise missile options, special forces, etc...) for the US Navy, along with continued options of more tactical and lower yield strategic (sub-megaton) inertia (bomb) and cruise-missile delivered systems for both the US Navy and Air Force.
The last tactical weapons recommendation I saw in a public document as reported by the media placed the total at about 500 "assets" long-term. In other words, about 500 Hiroshimas aggregate over the next century. This isn't that we plan to have 500 bombs available, but we plan to maintain and secure assets so, at most, we have weapons grade material in equivalent up to 500 tactical-yield in weapons-grade material over the coming (at the time, it was the 20th) 21st century. These things don't grow on trees and have to be maintained, and as anyone with basic physics understands, come from the existing, massive number of "assets" that have (or will) be useless in their current forms.
This is a far cry from the tens of thousands of high-grade atomic (hundreds of kilotons) and hydrogen (multi-megaton) warheads we had during the cold war, as well as the Russians. According to the Freedom of Information Act and other, related, Soviet documents declassified, several "assets" (whatever those are in quality) have been "misplaced" or "unaccounted for."
MAD (mutually assured destruction) is over. Yes, the US and the Russian Federation (with the Ukrane turning over all "assets" to the Russian Federation in the '90s) still maintain enough to "make things really bad for each other." But it's hardly the "completely destroy each other" at this point. There's a huge difference between what a standard, typical free fall "tactical asset" (e.g., B61) can do and a Minute Man III (aka "Peacekeeper") ICBM "strategic asset" is capable of.
Was it any different 6-14 years ago?
It doesn't matter what the policy is, terrorism has been and will continue to be, about attempting to disrupt the American way of life. It doesn't matter if it's our reliance on foreign strategic assets, securing them for our allies or if we actually become self-sufficient in 20 years like many EEs like myself hope to sway the ignorant American public (W. seems to have partially listened after the 2004 election, to my surprise in 2005, but he hasn't gone nearly far enough).
It goes back to well before the creation of the United States, before the British Magna Carta and before many actions we perpetuated directly, and more of what we stand for, in the minds of some people. It does matter what the geo-political climate is, some people will still use certain tactics to make some point, against whomever they believe is a threat to them for whatever reasons.
I live in a country where there are over 10 million of Islamic faith and over 8 million of Jewish faith, and we get along just dandy. No other nation on this planet has managed that. We're not perfect, we have our dark history, but in this country, most everyone is willing to look past that. The US is not the "rich'n famous" celebrities you see on TV, it's anything but.
W. is gone in 2 years. Nothing will change when it comes to the same reasons why terrorist attacks were made against the US, on US soil, during the Clinton administration. Iraq war or no Iraq war, they have happened, they will continue to happen, and in the post-Cold War, many of the US' allies (even the ones that want us to secure the same, strategic assets all over the world for them as well) no longer support us like they once did during the Cold War.
This is the New World Order, and don't you think for a moment that every other nation on this planet aren't playing their own, selfish games -- from the rhetoric to the UN Security Council. Point the fingers at the US, try to pin the current issues on the leadership as you see fit, but the circumstances and the history doesn't change -- before, during and after W.
And we didn't have terrorist attacks on US soil during the Clinton administration? Remind me to smack some history into you. I'm not defending W., and I'm not blaming Clinton, but this goes back before W.
It doesn't matter what the policy is, terrorism has been and will continue to be, about attempting to disrupt the American way of life. It doesn't matter if it's our reliance on foreign strategic assets, securing them for our allies or if we actually become self-sufficient in 20 years like many EEs like myself hope to sway the ignorant American public (W. seems to have partially listened after the 2004 election, to my surprise in 2005, but he hasn't gone nearly far enough).
It goes back to well before the creation of the United States, before the British Magna Carta and before many actions we perpetuated directly, and more of what we stand for, in the minds of some people. It does matter what the geo-political climate is, some people will still use certain tactics to make some point, against whomever they believe is a threat to them for whatever reasons.
I live in a country where there are over 10 million of Islamic faith and over 8 million of Jewish faith, and we get along just dandy. No other nation on this planet has managed that. We're not perfect, we have our dark history, but in this country, most everyone is willing to look past that. The US is not the "rich'n famous" celebrities you see on TV, it's anything but.
W. is gone in 2 years. Nothing will change when it comes to the same reasons why terrorist attacks were made against the US, on US soil, during the Clinton administration. Iraq war or no Iraq war, they have happened, they will continue to happen, and in the post-Cold War, many of the US' allies (even the ones that want us to secure the same, strategic assets all over the world for them as well) no longer support us like they once did during the Cold War.
This is the New World Order, and don't you think for a moment that every other nation on this planet aren't playing their own, selfish games -- from the rhetoric to the UN Security Council. Point the fingers at the US, try to pin the current issues on the leadership as you see fit, but the circumstances and the history doesn't change -- before, during and after W.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I agree. Although lots of radical nations might posture about using nukes, deep down everyone knows it's lights out for mankind if someone starts a nuclear war. Terrorists, on the other hand, benefit from the mass chaos and breakdown of society that a nuclear conflagration would bring. Very, very frightening and all-too-real prospective occurance.
You shouldn't have reminded people France has a bomb. Now the U.S & UK are pointing theirs at Paris :thefinger :1orglaugh
There are 30-50 nukes in the Pakistani/Afghani mountains; the exact same location where experts have predicted Osama to be. If you guys want to watch a good video on our sobering situation, watch: Nuclear Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the Bomb? on the Discovery Times Channel.
It's pretty likely after watching that video that the terrorists are going to hit us; it's not a matter of if but when.
Re: Was it any different 6-14 years ago?
I've taken Contemperary World History 1945 and up, History of World Civilizations since to 1500, and US History to 1865; I know damn well what America has done over the course of humankind. Obviously shrub isn't the sole reason that people hate us, nor is Clinton. We've gone too far and done far too many things to really recover from.
America=the new Rome. We can't even seal our fucking borders. Do you think I'm optimistic? Only the lemmings can live with themselves in the new world order. If I had my way we would march to Washingtong and put every last one of those traitors on Capital Hill on trial. After that, we seal our borders and become neutral in world conflicts. (I know you are going to say this that and the third about how it's impossible, but it could be done with the right people.)
I've taken Contemperary World History 1945 and up, History of World Civilizations since to 1500, and US History to 1865; I know damn well what America has done over the course of humankind. Obviously shrub isn't the sole reason that people hate us, nor is Clinton. We've gone too far and done far too many things to really recover from.
America=the new Rome. We can't even seal our fucking borders. Do you think I'm optimistic? Only the lemmings can live with themselves in the new world order. If I had my way we would march to Washingtong and put every last one of those traitors on Capital Hill on trial. After that, we seal our borders and become neutral in world conflicts. (I know you are going to say this that and the third about how it's impossible, but it could be done with the right people.)
Re: Was it any different 6-14 years ago?
Check it out:
Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century
Empire of Debt: Rise of an epic financial crisis
cheers,
Check it out:
Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century
Empire of Debt: Rise of an epic financial crisis
cheers,
Re: Was it any different 6-14 years ago?
They're ridin' it into the ground man. All the cats in the wealthy top (whatever percent) are driving the American gravy train in to the ground...taking it for all it's worth. Meanwhile, the lemmings are happy with their brand new 50 inch plasma they just got for Christmas. I know what's up; I'm ready for anything. Our entire economy is going to collapse. You combine that with a major terrorist attack and a natural disaster like Katrina...you got problems.
Also, our troops are spread so thin across the globe, America will be mob rule with everything coming together at the right time. We need to implement a coup and get the traitors out of office. I can't think of the exact phrase from the Decleration of Independence, but it's in black and white; we have a right to overthrow our regime if they don't honor their constituents (us). We have heard the cries from 90% of Americans that want an end to open borders and our vulnerabilities to terrorism.
They're ridin' it into the ground man. All the cats in the wealthy top (whatever percent) are driving the American gravy train in to the ground...taking it for all it's worth. Meanwhile, the lemmings are happy with their brand new 50 inch plasma they just got for Christmas. I know what's up; I'm ready for anything. Our entire economy is going to collapse. You combine that with a major terrorist attack and a natural disaster like Katrina...you got problems.
Also, our troops are spread so thin across the globe, America will be mob rule with everything coming together at the right time. We need to implement a coup and get the traitors out of office. I can't think of the exact phrase from the Decleration of Independence, but it's in black and white; we have a right to overthrow our regime if they don't honor their constituents (us). We have heard the cries from 90% of Americans that want an end to open borders and our vulnerabilities to terrorism.
It's not treason, it's legal; just look at the DOI. Fuck treason, the only treason that has been committed has been from the wealthy elite on the lower 90% of Americans. We have it too good, that's why nobody cares.
First off, I like the "revolution" the Libertarians are trying with the Free State Project. States are the best way to "push back" against the federal.
Secondly, you're facts are pretty screwed up on "10%". FYI ...
- The top 2% of Americans make $150,000/year up-ward
- The overwhelming majority of the top 1% of Americans make 6 figures/year (not 7-8, with virtually no one making more than 8 figures income/year, and 8 is pretty rare itself for most major CEOs)
- The upper half (top 50%) pay 96% of income taxes
- Annual discretionary capital for households that make $150,000/year is median around $10,000-20,000/year, as are most people who earn 6 figures (only about about 10% is discretionary spending)
- 80% of Millionaires drive a non-luxury sedan, typically Ford or Toyota
- 80% of Millionaires have a home worth less than $250,000
- 90% of Millionaires have less than $50,000 in liquid assets (majority is either a small business or real estate)
- 90% of Millionaires are first generation
Stop watching Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton.
They aren't anything like typical, American millionaires.
Similar threads
