Obama wants to cut US and Russian nukes by 'up to a third'
68 replies, posted
But...but we need those nukes to fight off the blood sucking alien invasion that might happen some time soon.
[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]
starfish prime, a nuclear test to see if a sub-orbital detonation could effectively put up a shield of high energy radiation.
conclusion: no, while it makes a very large van allen belt, the nukes don't travel in it long enough to be taken down, alternatively though detonating a nuke at geosyncronus orbit would make a belt that would destroy GPS satalites within a few years
anyway russia has already said they won't adress nuclear disarmament unless other powers besides the U.S. are present
[QUOTE=Sableye;41112292]starfish prime, a nuclear test to see if a sub-orbital detonation could effectively put up a shield of high energy radiation.
conclusion: no, while it makes a very large van allen belt, the nukes don't travel in it long enough to be taken down, alternatively though detonating a nuke at geosyncronus orbit would make a belt that would destroy GPS satalites within a few years
anyway russia has already said they won't adress nuclear disarmament unless other powers besides the U.S. are present[/QUOTE]
uh what starfish prime tested that high altitude nuclear explosions create EMP bursts that can be actually used offensively.
a nuke won't be taken down by an EMP burst it has countermeasures for that kind of stuff, the warhead itself is largely mechanical. either way there are several measures you can take to avoid interception, MIRVs being possibly one of the most effective.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;41102890]How exactly do we get rid of them? Just blow them up in a desert or something?[/QUOTE]
Nuke the martian scum
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41112002]Battle deaths (as a proportion of population) have actually been going down for centuries.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a source for that?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41112002]Battle deaths (as a proportion of population) have actually been going down for centuries.[/QUOTE]
Can you read? It says per 100,000 population. The proportion was rising exponentially until 1945.
This isnt going to happen.
Total nuclear disarmament is never going to happen. The genie is out of the bottle and someone somewhere will make them for one reason or another (just like Fatty Kim). I'm waiting for the day when privately built nukes happen.
The reason the US and Russia keep such large stockpiles of active weapons is so that some survive an initial attack to be used in retaliation. The MAD doctrine only applies if retaliation is assured.
North Korea is using their nukes (however primitive) as a bargaining chip. Their economy is tanked and they're trying to use it to get other nations to keep them in power. North Korea's use of a nuke against anyone would result in their prompt destruction either by retaliatory nukes or by a massive fucking army. If they did use a nuke it wouldn't surprise me if China were to invade North Korea to avoid it becoming a nuclear wasteland at their doorstep.
[QUOTE=Savyetski79;41109484]^ is that a tinfoil hat I see?[/QUOTE]
Yeah to theorise that a politician would talk about issues he knows will stir shit up and make people forget his latest fuck up is to be a conspiracy theorist
[editline]21st June 2013[/editline]
Are you also trying to insinuate that the NSA scandal isn't serious??
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.