Obama wants to cut US and Russian nukes by 'up to a third'
68 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SexualShark;41104305]The remote triggering on the explosive that sets the reaction into motion.[/QUOTE]
You mean the part that can easily done a mechanical way, and most likely is?
[QUOTE=SexualShark;41104305]The remote triggering on the explosive that sets the reaction into motion.[/QUOTE]
What part of a [B]nuclear reaction[/B] involves electronics
nukes are one of the best peacekeepers. It sounds dumb, but MAD is a huge thing. no country would nuke eachother because they would also get nuked
[QUOTE=Magra55;41103383]Wouldn't an EMP pulse render a nuke unresponsive? Just throw every nuke we own into a nice big pile somewhere and EMP pulse them all at once before someone finds the pile and sets them all off.[/QUOTE]
isn't one of the primary methods of creating a large emp pulse brought by detonating a nuclear device high in the atmosphere?
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41104457]isn't one of the primary methods of creating a large emp pulse brought by detonating a nuclear device high in the atmosphere?[/QUOTE]
yes
Even if they get rid of both the states and russia's nukes by 1/3, they still have enough power to blow up the world twice over. whats the difference how many nukes you have? get rid of all of them.
I wonder, how exactly do they get rid of the leftover P239 and tritium? I don't think they'd vent the tritium into the atmosphere, and i'm not sure if it's viable to burn the P239 in a reactor, since nearly all of them run on U235.
Better Idea:
Everyone pitches in to Nuke one of Jupiter's Moons in order to melt it.
Never bought the nuclear disarmament thing for a second.
Ofcourse even when they officially snip the last nuke, they will still have massive secret stores of nukes ready for deployment.
the nukes aren't destroyed as most people think, none of the actual non proliferation treaties involve destruction of nuclear material, they're merely dismantled or "shelved", they're still there, they're just not active. the US and russia have nearly 4000 active nukes combined, but have well over 3/4ths of the world's total supply of nuclear weapons in store (about 20000 weapons).
so what this is doing is actually reducing is the amount of active nukes at any given time, AKA the amount of nukes you can launch as a first or as a retaliatory strike. nuclear war is not contemplated beyond that.
I think it's worth noting that international conflict deaths were rising exponentially before the introduction of nuclear weapons. Whether or not we should remain armed today is a tricky question, especially when taking nations like North Korea into consideration.
[img]http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/international-war-battle-deaths.png?w=596&h=427[/img]
No one except extremists (were they to ever get their hands on nuclear technology) would dare drop a nuke if they wanted to survive the prompt retaliation. North Korea wants to dominate, not get wiped off the face of the Earth. Nukes are more like bargaining tools in the end, anyway, rather than actual weaponry since everyone still fears their power to their day, so I doubt we'll ever get rid of all of them and lose an 'advantage' considering how the U.S. government can be.
[QUOTE=Magra55;41103383]Wouldn't an EMP pulse render a nuke unresponsive? Just throw every nuke we own into a nice big pile somewhere and EMP pulse them all at once before someone finds the pile and sets them all off.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about modern nukes, but the first nukes used conventional explosives to start a chain reaction of unstable elements (uranium, etc). EMPs only mess with electronics, so nuclear weapons would be in no way affected.
[QUOTE=Baboo00;41106452]I don't know about modern nukes, but the first nukes used conventional explosives to start a chain reaction of unstable elements (uranium, etc). EMPs only mess with electronics, so nuclear weapons would be in no way affected.[/QUOTE]
The only thing that could be fried is the circuit in charge of initiating the conventional explosive that gets the nuke going. Other than that, they're fine as you said.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;41102890]How exactly do we get rid of them? Just blow them up in a desert or something?[/QUOTE]
Worlds best firework show, free radiation for everyone!
Has nobody seen the first two episodes of the Justice League. Clearly we need nukes to battle aliens since we don't have super heroes.
[QUOTE=skullorz;41102854]If you ask me we should just get rid of nukes in general.[/QUOTE]
I think this can only occur once all countries agree on this, which wont be any time soon. I remember hearing before that it puts everyone in a stalemate in the sense that no one fires a nuke unless they want to be nuked themselves.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;41102890]How exactly do we get rid of them? Just blow them up in a desert or something?[/QUOTE]
Detonate them over Tucson, Arizona. The place already is a craphole
(sorry Tucsoners, U of A is the only thing going for you)
We should fire all decommissioned nukes at the moon just to see how much damage we could do to it.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;41102890]How exactly do we get rid of them? Just blow them up in a desert or something?[/QUOTE]
Put them out in the middle of nowhere, then let people pay to detonate them
I'd pay for a chance to set off a nuke
[QUOTE=kaze4159;41107511]Put them out in the middle of nowhere, then let people pay to detonate them
I'd pay for a chance to set off a nuke[/QUOTE]
US and Russian financial crisis solved.
[QUOTE=Evilan;41107519]US and Russian financial crisis solved.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear winter would be awesome.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41103609]I was hoping you would have something a little more specific.[/QUOTE]
well, if nukes didn't exist, there would've been no reason not to go to war after the cuban missl
oh
[QUOTE=cardfan212;41102890]How exactly do we get rid of them? Just blow them up in a desert or something?[/QUOTE]
I say we drop them in the desert, but all in the same spot one after the other and try to dig a hole to the center of the earth.
:usa:
[QUOTE=skullorz;41102854]If you ask me we should just get rid of nukes in general.[/QUOTE]
While that would be good/bad, depending on how you look at it, I think there should be a very small amount of active nuclear missiles. For an obvious reason, deflecting an asteroid, it would probably be a last resort(or first) and might not work, but what else do we have currently? Nuclear weapons have prevented world wars after the second, if we didn't have develop nukes or simply decided not to use them, there most likely would have been a third world war, and the casualties from that would most likely be horrific. Yes, there's always a chance that with having nukes, a nuclear war could occur, but in today's time it wouldn't no one wants to risk turning the key and dooming most of the world.
Overall, they've had a positive effect as a deterrent and prevent huge conventional wars from taking place. I still think reducing them is a good, idea, maybe just keeping them in reserve storage.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41105340]Better Idea:
Everyone pitches in to Nuke one of Jupiter's Moons in order to melt it.[/QUOTE]Yeah; instead of the ball of ice that Europa currently is, it'll be a very slightly thawed and heavily radioactive ball of ice.
That's some tactic Obama, talk about NUKES OH MY GOD WE NEED TO GET RID OF NUKES OUR CHILDREN THE FUTURE WAAH to take the focus off of the fact that you're at the helm of a much more dangerous and imposing operation
^ is that a tinfoil hat I see?
Throw all the nukes into Jupiter.
[QUOTE=Falubii;41106127]I think it's worth noting that international conflict deaths were rising exponentially before the introduction of nuclear weapons. Whether or not we should remain armed today is a tricky question, especially when taking nations like North Korea into consideration.
[img]http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/international-war-battle-deaths.png?w=596&h=427[/img][/QUOTE]
Battle deaths (as a proportion of population) have actually been going down for centuries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.