• Obama to reduce numbers of nuclear weapons
    73 replies, posted
[QUOTE=massn7;20582339]Never say never.[/QUOTE] Never as in we would never use them for an offensive attack. The only questionably acceptable use for a nuclear weapon would be on a train-wreak nation trying to harm the greater population of the world with large amounts of Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons.(within days or hours of inevitable attack, no preemptive shit(see: Iraq)) Say if Russia collapsed and somehow came under the leadership of a man with the same mentality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The other questionably acceptable use of a Nuclear weapon would be in all out nuclear war where multiple warheads have already been launched and detonated. I guess it's a "When in rome! v:v:v" type tactic.
[QUOTE=OvB;20582332]Nuclear weapons are a thing of the past. We only need them as a dick waving device. We will [I]never, I say, NEVER[/I] use them again unless we are put in the most dire of circumstances, none of which seem likely in the near future. We really don't need as much as we have, Getting rid of a few won't hurt. Getting rid of all of them at once wouldn't be a wise decision though.[/QUOTE] Every time a cruise missile is launched, people in both Russia and America monitor it constantly to make sure it's not a nuke. Hell, they even monitor satellite launches in case they're nukes. Plus, what's the point of killing thousands or millions by dropping nukes everywhere?
[QUOTE=Eluveitie;20582495]Every time a cruise missile is launched, people in both Russia and America monitor it constantly to make sure it's not a nuke. Hell, they even monitor satellite launches in case they're nukes. [B]Plus, what's the point of killing thousands or millions by dropping nukes everywhere?[/B][/QUOTE] When did I ever say or suggest that?
[QUOTE=OvB;20582505]When did I ever say or suggest that?[/QUOTE] I really should've stated that wasn't directed at you. Woops.
[QUOTE=Eluveitie;20582775]I really should've stated that wasn't directed at you. Woops.[/QUOTE] Understandable. It happens.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20581197] [URL]http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20581938]Okay then. We'd still need over 300,000 of those nukes.[/QUOTE] That chart is for instant Annihilation dummy, it's the amount of nukes required to kill everyone on the planet at the exact same time in nuclear blasts. With radiation and catastrophic global climate change factored in, it's much, much less than that. I mean jesus man. If you're going to make as terrible claim as "nuclear war wouldn't be that bad", at least make sure your sources support you.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;20581118]We already have enough to destroy the entire world several times over. I think being able to destroy the entire world only once is enough.[/QUOTE] That's not the point. Yeah, a small fraction of the current amount is definitely more than enough, but other countries will see it as a sign of weakness, and that isn't good for the US.
[QUOTE=CivilProtection;20583091]That's not the point. Yeah, a small fraction of the current amount is definitely more than enough, but other countries will see it as a sign of weakness, and that isn't good for the US.[/QUOTE] No one is going to attack the U.S., that's retarded.
[QUOTE=Elexar;20581693]that includes water. Like what, 70% of the earth is water?[/QUOTE] Plus, it only takes a few nukes to wipe out all the major cities and infrastructure.
Nuclear war is slowly becoming obsolete, plus like most of you have said, we don't really have a use for them other that defense.
:downsbravo:
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20583062]That chart is for instant Annihilation dummy, it's the amount of nukes required to kill everyone on the planet at the exact same time in nuclear blasts. With radiation and catastrophic global climate change factored in, it's much, much less than that. I mean jesus man. If you're going to make as terrible claim as "nuclear war wouldn't be that bad", at least make sure your sources support you.[/QUOTE] I never said nuclear war was good. I was merely pointing out that we could not destroy the world several times over with our supply of nukes, as some comments suggested.
[QUOTE=CivilProtection;20583091]That's not the point. Yeah, a small fraction of the current amount is definitely more than enough, but other countries will see it as a sign of weakness, and that isn't good for the US.[/QUOTE] No, they'll see it as a sign that the US is going to stop being a fucking prick.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20583211]I never said nuclear war was good. I was merely pointing out that we could not destroy the world several times over with our supply of nukes, as some comments suggested.[/QUOTE] Actually if America nukes Russia it'll trigger the Deadhand and that'll bring the total nukes in the air to, what? 10,000? I'm pretty sure at that point everyone else would said fuck it and launch theirs.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20583211]I never said nuclear war was good. I was merely pointing out that we could not destroy the world several times over with our supply of nukes, as some comments suggested.[/QUOTE] But we could. That chart only displays how many nukes would be required to kill every person on earth in the immediate blast. The blast is only part of what makes nuclear weapons deadly, there's also the radiation, and large numbers of them would cause catastrophic climate change.
The thing is we need nukes stationed at different parts of the country and on subs. If we only say had a few then only a few areas of the country would be protected. We need a large arsenal to man our subs and borders.
[QUOTE=cheeseman52;20583808]The thing is we need nukes stationed at different parts of the country and on subs. If we only say had a few then only a few areas of the country would be protected. We need a large arsenal to man our subs and borders.[/QUOTE] We already have Ohio class nuclear subs swimming around in extreme secrecy around the world. Only person on earth who truely knows where the sub is at a given moment is the Captain of said sub. Each sub has 24 nuclear ICBM's on board (each 100-475KT of TNT depending on armament) We could carry on a nuclear war even if our government, land based sites, and all our capital cities were destroyed. [img]http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/8492/tridentiimissileimagea.jpg[/img]
I don't see the reasoning behind stockpiling enough nukes to kill everyone half a dozen times. It just makes keeping track of them harder.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;20581876]We need to construct more nuclear weapons, that way, neither UK, Russia, Germany, Australia, or anyone else can doubt the military superiority of the USA. besides, if we can destroy the whole world, that's more incentives for other country to fear us.[/QUOTE] And guys like you, is why everyone hates us.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20581197] [URL]http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/[/URL][/QUOTE] Glad someone posted it before me. Get fed up of people saying the world would end in a nuclear attack. Humans might all die off, but not the world. [editline]04:38AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20583288]But we could. That chart only displays how many nukes would be required to kill every person on earth in the immediate blast. The blast is only part of what makes nuclear weapons deadly, there's also the radiation, and large numbers of them would cause catastrophic climate change.[/QUOTE] Human race is very good at surviving disasters, a nuclear fallout/radiation effect will not wipe us out.
[QUOTE=Vasili;20584372]Glad someone posted it before me. Get fed up of people saying the world would end in a nuclear attack. Humans might all die off, but not the world.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it doesn't really matter if the world survives if all the humans are dead bro. That's what people mean when they say that. [QUOTE=Vasili;20584372]Human race is very good at surviving disasters, a nuclear fallout/radiation effect will not wipe us out.[/QUOTE] It will still kill the vast majority of the World's population. That's not any better. It's a fucking terrible thing and there's no reason to have enough nuclear weapons to kill off most of the world's population.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20584744]Yeah but it doesn't really matter if the world survives if all the humans are dead bro. That's what people mean when they say that. It will still kill the vast majority of the World's population. That's not any better. It's a fucking terrible thing and there's no reason to have enough nuclear weapons to kill off most of the world's population.[/QUOTE] Don't forget about the years of genetic mutations for people just inside the fallout zone.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20584744] It will still kill the vast majority of the World's population. That's not any better. It's a fucking terrible thing and there's no reason to have enough nuclear weapons to kill off most of the world's population.[/QUOTE] Not saying if having a lot of nuclear weapons is a good thing, just mentioning it will not kill off humans, we may [U]develop[/U] genetic diseases from it but if humans can survive a [U]ice age[/U], then they can survive a fallout.
[QUOTE=OvB;20584762]Don't forget about the years of genetic mutations for people just inside the fallout zone.[/QUOTE] And genetic mutations don't mean superpowers. They mean having kids with cancer or 3 arms, none of which work or are formed properly. [editline]10:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Vasili;20584782]Not saying if having a lot of nuclear weapons is a good thing, just mentioning it will not kill off humans, we may [U]develop[/U] genetic diseases from it but if humans can survive a [U]ice age[/U], then they can survive a fallout.[/QUOTE] but that's beside the point
What the hell why did it underline develop and ice age
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20581197][img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/[/url][/QUOTE] Apparently nukes just destroy everything within a certain radius and then go away harmlessly.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;20585144]Apparently nukes just destroy everything within a certain radius and then go away harmlessly.[/QUOTE] It's a chart displaying how many nukes would need to go off simultaneously in order to instantly eradicate the earth's population.
Hooray for not reading the thread
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;20585629]This is stupid, this picture assumes that to 'destroy' humanity means vaporize every being on earth. It would take much, much less, considering the radioactive fallout would annihilate societies.[/QUOTE] Read the post above you.
[QUOTE=Skyhawk;20581808]Actually, that's the 12.5% of land that's populated. 148,940,000 km² * 0.125 = 18,617,500 km² (Numbers from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth"]Wikipedia[/URL] and the percentage from that post.) So yeah, that's accurate. [editline]5:36[/editline] In fact, to hit the entire surface area of the planet, we'd need: 510,072,000 km² / 14.9 km² = 34,233,020.134228187919463087248322 Over 34 million nukes. [editline]5:37[/editline] That's a lot.[/QUOTE] Maybe bad reading on my part, but are those numerical factors taking into account nuclear fallout?Nuclear fallout is really what would be doing the brute work of wiping out humanity. That all being said, it doesn't matter if you can cover the entire surface o0f the earth or not. If you get into a nuclear war, it doesn't really matter if you have 30 or 4000 nukes. Both countries are going to get fucked up beyond all recognition, and having more nukes won't give you an upper hand. For example: If Pakistan was to fire 15 nukes at major US cities, the US would basically be crippled beyond repair. Like what, 70% of people live in major cities? It's not hard to wipe out the world population when most of the people are corrugated in small areas. Those cities and almost everybody in them would be wiped out, and nation-wide water supplies would be contaminated with radiation. Genetic structures of many, many people would take damage, causing many horrific birth mutations down the line for a large percentage of the country. [editline]07:58AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Vasili;20584782]Not saying if having a lot of nuclear weapons is a good thing, just mentioning it will not kill off humans, we may [U]develop[/U] genetic diseases from it but if humans can survive a [U]ice age[/U], then they can survive a fallout.[/QUOTE] Cold and Radiation are different. Cold does not give you cancer. Cold does not make your babies look like [URL="http://uruknet.com/pic.php?f=image-display.jpg"]this[/URL]. A bad nuclear fallout will be far worse than an ice age.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.