US Supreme Court soon to decide on whether or not Assault Weapon Bans are Constitutional
146 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;48920883]Tell that to the Mujahideen and they'll laugh you out of their country just like they did to the Soviets and the Coalition.
A civilian militia ready to lead a guerilla war with even pea shooters against an invading force (or a home brewed threat) is much better than nothing. You can't say other nations aren't afraid of the thought of invading the US even though most of us just have rifles.[/QUOTE]
Except gunships tore ass through them till the US handed them anti air capabilites with stingers and the like. The chance that a us citizen has a fucking stinger lying around is almost zero.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48925495][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents[/url]
And these are just the ones we've heard about. No doubt that things are much worse than we've been led to believe when you can find dirty bombs on the Bulgarian black market.[/QUOTE]
Read through your link. Very few people killed, almost none of them due to actual radioactive material.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;48928524]Except gunships tore ass through them till the US handed them anti air capabilites with stingers and the like. The chance that a us citizen has a fucking stinger lying around is almost zero.[/QUOTE]
You say that like the US Military is gonna call CAS on a major metropolitan area and blow the shit out of peoples' homes. I doubt that will sit well with the pilots.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;48928524]Except gunships tore ass through them till the US handed them anti air capabilites with stingers and the like. The chance that a us citizen has a fucking stinger lying around is almost zero.[/QUOTE]
Chances are that a national guard or military armory does, chances are some people in the military will side with certain people.
You also seem to forget that the military in general is made up of VERY conservative people, most of whom love guns.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48928545]Read through your link. Very few people killed, almost none of them due to actual radioactive material.[/QUOTE]
Several nuclear submarines on that list sank with major loss of life:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-8[/url]
Also the massive number of near-misses and accidents (there are like dozens of accidents on that page where a bomb hasn't exploded by the narrowest of margins) leads me to suspect that incompetence and carelessness is unacceptable high among the people who maintain nuclear bombs.
I mean the United States today even, I wouldn't trust any branch of the armed forces with nuclear bombs. None of them can handle them.
Nuclear bombs were barely handled correctly by the scientists who invented them, what hopes does a random guy in the airforce who gets drunk and cheat on his exams have when something goes tits up?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48929193]Several nuclear submarines on that list sank with major loss of life:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-8[/url]
Also the massive number of near-misses and accidents (there are like dozens of accidents on that page where a bomb hasn't exploded by the narrowest of margins) leads me to suspect that incompetence and carelessness is unacceptable high among the people who maintain nuclear bombs.
I mean the United States today even, I wouldn't trust any branch of the armed forces with nuclear bombs. None of them can handle them.
Nuclear bombs were barely handled correctly by the scientists who invented them, what hopes does a random guy in the airforce who gets drunk and cheat on his exams have when something goes tits up?[/QUOTE]
Except the Navy fields ballistic missile submarines with the highest levels of competence one could imagine. There hasn't been a human-error sinking of an American submarine since *maybe* the Scorpion (nobody is really sure what went wrong there). The Thresher was due to a mechanical failure, ice forming during an emergency blow because standards weren't as high back then. Sparked the creation of SUBSAFE which carefully inspects literally every single aspect involving the creation of a submarine, down to tracking the raw ore materials from the second they leave the mines.
It's ridiculous that you think the guys involved with this stuff are just drunk losers who cheat on their exams. You clearly don't understand the level of security clearance required to get those jobs. Missile Techs have investigators go to their hometowns and stop random traffic to ask them about so-and-so and his character. A buddy of mine who went MT said investigators went as far as to go talk to his elementary school teachers.
Nobody is perfect. You stare at a computer screen or log the same gauges for hours and hours and hours day after day after day. It is difficult for any human, no matter how dedicated, to maintain a high level of alertness in those conditions. But that's why there's a bunch of failsafes, the very reason why you're talking about near-misses and accidents and not accidental detonations. The military also considers anything remotely negligent to be an extremely near-miss as far as nuclear weapons go. A guy I know who works at a minuteman missile silo in the middle of bumfuck nowhere told me merely dropping a wrench down the silo would cause them to file a report claiming it was an accident that brought them on the verge of nuclear mishap. That's how stringent the procedures on these things are, just because it says things were close to detonation doesn't mean they actually were. One measure failing is a severe mishap even if there's 9 other failsafes preventing it.
Basically, you're assuming things are a certain way when they really aren't. You see isolated cases like that one silo where the whole security team and whatnot shit the bed and you think that represents everyone who does that job. You can't even begin to understand how much exactly goes into doing those things, how safe they are, how difficult it would be to fuck up so bad something terrible happens. The military's handling of nuclear weapons and material is second to none.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48929540]Except the Navy fields ballistic missile submarines with the highest levels of competence one could imagine. There hasn't been a human-error sinking of an American submarine since *maybe* the Scorpion (nobody is really sure what went wrong there). The Thresher was due to a mechanical failure, ice forming during an emergency blow because standards weren't as high back then. Sparked the creation of SUBSAFE which carefully inspects literally every single aspect involving the creation of a submarine, down to tracking the raw ore materials from the second they leave the mines.
It's ridiculous that you think the guys involved with this stuff are just drunk losers who cheat on their exams. You clearly don't understand the level of security clearance required to get those jobs. Missile Techs have investigators go to their hometowns and stop random traffic to ask them about so-and-so and his character. A buddy of mine who went MT said investigators went as far as to go talk to his elementary school teachers.
Nobody is perfect. You stare at a computer screen or log the same gauges for hours and hours and hours day after day after day. It is difficult for any human, no matter how dedicated, to maintain a high level of alertness in those conditions. But that's why there's a bunch of failsafes, the very reason why you're talking about near-misses and accidents and not accidental detonations. The military also considers anything remotely negligent to be an extremely near-miss as far as nuclear weapons go. A guy I know who works at a minuteman missile silo in the middle of bumfuck nowhere told me merely dropping a wrench down the silo would cause them to file a report claiming it was an accident that brought them on the verge of nuclear mishap. That's how stringent the procedures on these things are, just because it says things were close to detonation doesn't mean they actually were. One measure failing is a severe mishap even if there's 9 other failsafes preventing it.
Basically, you're assuming things are a certain way when they really aren't. You see isolated cases like that one silo where the whole security team and whatnot shit the bed and you think that represents everyone who does that job. You can't even begin to understand how much exactly goes into doing those things, how safe they are, how difficult it would be to fuck up so bad something terrible happens. The military's handling of nuclear weapons and material is second to none.[/QUOTE]
Nevermind the numerous scandals which plague the force (increasingly so after the cold war ended).
[url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nukes-cost-20141109-story.html#page=1[/url]
[quote]Critics sharply dispute that assertion, saying the department's capacity is beyond its needs, its vast complex is a political pork barrel, and its operations are hindered by mismanagement.
Profits paid to the contractors that run the system have tripled since 2006 to $312 million, The Times found.
The eight major nuclear weapon labs and production sites are run by a network of joint ventures and private companies, including the University of California, Bechtel Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., Honeywell International Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp.
The increases came after a series of embarrassing security lapses at Los Alamos National Laboratory while it was managed by the University of California. The lapses led to a movement to pay more and demand far stricter security.
Cook said the agency knew it would have to pay more to attract top-tier defense contractors. "Part of the deal was profit," he said.
As a result, profits paid to the new consortium hired to run the Los Alamos lab jumped tenfold to $59 million in 2013. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is now run by the University of California and San Francisco-based Bechtel, among others, profits grew from $4 million to $41 million.
Costs for security at the labs since 2003 have doubled to $665 million annually in the last decade, a response to Sept. 11. The department also spends more than $100 million a year on cyber security.[/quote]
If they have the highest levels of competence one could image, then how in the hell did some ordinary civilians just casually walk in:
[quote]In the predawn hours of July 28, 2012, Rice, Boertje-Obed and Walli walked under the cover of darkness through the woods and up a hillside, approaching a chain-link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge nuclear facility.
Armed with flashlights and a bolt cutter, they cut their way through the fence, fully expecting to be arrested on the spot.
Instead, they walked nearly a mile, cutting through four fences in all, breaching what was supposed to be the most tightly secured uranium processing and storage facility in the country.....
...."This was a very serious incident because they penetrated the protected area, and that's when there was supposed to be an immediate security response," said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with Global Security Program, a watchdog group that monitors the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"If they had been trained, the kind of paramilitary group that the Department of Energy is supposed to be ensuring they can protect against, with hand-carried explosives, other breaching tools, physical access to the building structure ... the guards would have already lost."
Lyman said the breach was not an isolated incident.
"It was a result of this reduced central oversight, giving contractors more responsibility for supervising themselves, and that's an invitation of corner-cutting and complacency to set in," he said.
The incident not only broke the public's trust that the government is "exercising good oversight" of its nuclear weapons facilities, according to Lyman, but he said it also has "global implications."
"If we can't even control our own nuclear weapons material, it shows what a major challenge it is around the world ... that have comparably dangerous materials but are even less protected.
And, Lyman pointed out, if the United States appears to have vulnerabilities in protecting its nuclear weapons material, "then that not only reduces our authority to criticize other countries, it raising questions about the integrity of our own security."[/quote]
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/07/justice/nun-nuclear-breach-charges/[/url]
Not to mention failed inspection checks: [url]https://www.rt.com/usa/nuke-inspection-us-fail-456/[/url]
A guy with a gambling addiction who got fired: [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/us-nuclear-commander-tim-giardina-fired-amid-gambling-investigation[/url]
Not to mention cheating in the exams: [url]https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-navys-nuclear-cheating-scandal-is-worse-than-you-think-d0557a91f13[/url]
The levels of competence from these guys I wouldn't accept if I were preparing agar plates for a biological lab. The fact we have complete retards in charge of weaponry capable of annihilating civilization makes me worry a lot.
These aren't isolated cases either. The fact that cheating on exams can go on for years, or that facilities are left to decay due to not getting funding, etc are more systematic rather than being the fault of an individual.
[editline]18th October 2015[/editline]
Also: [url]https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/stockpile-stewardship/[/url]
34 sailors out of thousands that get pushed through a pipeline is an isolated case. You're falling prey to sensationalism, 20-something students out of the countless number of people thrown at the nuclear pipeline and suddenly it's a massive scandal the whole program is corrupt yadda yadda yadda. Who woulda thunk compiling the brightest minds the military has access to would eventually yield a group of them who devised a way to cheat.
Some civilians get through some fences and suddenly it's like they could have easily had access to our material if they were commandos or some shit. I could cut a fence and get halfway through "Area 51," doesn't mean I got anywhere near close enough to see secret shit.
A failed inspection. On a nuclear site. Like I said, the nuclear program has the highest expectations possible. Some lint resting on a warhead would be grounds for failure.
So an officer got into gambling, that's one man, one man is not enough to fire a missile or cause a large mishap.
Like I said, you're letting sensationalism get ahold of you. The military reacts very harshly to violations of procedure or lapses of judgement. They react so harshly, it would make you think something very wrong was happening. But to the military, falling alseep on watch means a major security violation and the whole compound was vulnerable to secret squirrel commandos getting ahold of all our secrets. In reality, it isn't that serious. Getting through some fences means fuck all. A silo guy not knowing some tiny meaningless specific number about a specific system causing a failed inspection (yep, that's how it is for nukes), means fuck all. A commander using some fake chips (I like how him getting caught using fake chips jumps straight to, "gambling addiction") at a casino means fuck all. Nothing was put at risk, nothing was on the verge of going horribly wrong.
I'm speaking to you as someone from the submarine community who has firsthand interaction with the people involved with this kind of stuff. The articles you're getting your information from are blowing things way out of proportion, they are attempting to mix the military standard with the civilian perception. You see, "failed inspection," and think of a restaurant and how shitty it has to be to fail. You don't understand just how little leeway the military has with nuclear material, how what could be a horribly failed abysmal inspection could still operate as a completely capable system. Just the military doesn't find completely capable acceptable, it demands absolute perfection in the nuclear field, hence why they mass-fire the fuck out of people when any one thing goes wrong.
Lmao Sobotnik arguing with someone who actually works on Subs; dont worry bubblehead I got your back. Also posting examples of the US Thresher as if it's a relevant example in today's world; the US Thresher is exactly why we have the SUBSAFE program now.
Plus, the Thresher can't really be considered a nuclear mishap because the reactor was perfectly fine. It's shielded pretty well and is either sitting at the bottom of the ocean still encased in lead or didn't break apart until it got so deep the radioactive impact on the ocean is zero.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48929193]Several nuclear submarines on that list sank with major loss of life:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-8[/url]
Also the massive number of near-misses and accidents (there are like dozens of accidents on that page where a bomb hasn't exploded by the narrowest of margins) leads me to suspect that incompetence and carelessness is unacceptable high among the people who maintain nuclear bombs.
I mean the United States today even, I wouldn't trust any branch of the armed forces with nuclear bombs. None of them can handle them.
Nuclear bombs were barely handled correctly by the scientists who invented them, what hopes does a random guy in the airforce who gets drunk and cheat on his exams have when something goes tits up?[/QUOTE]
idk how this got onto nuclear weapons, but you didn't have to be a drunk airforce guy who cheated on his exam to handle nuclear weapons, the army, airforce, and navy all faught against safeguards for decades, the core issue was sealed-pit nuclear warheads which were used in many tactical launchers, missiles, and bombs were live all the time, and handling and storage of these weapons were very critical for safety. there were plenty of instances where a weapon system was rushed into service without any safety tests, the warhead was assumed safe, and the servicemen were just told to handle it like any normal munitions, and they accidentally dropped one or more bombs on the ground.
the b-52 had an infamous case where an entire rotory rack of agm-86 missiles litterally fell out of the bomber while being loaded in and smashed into the ground, or another time when a whole formation of nuclear armed b-52s and their tankers caught on fire sitting on a runway, only yards away from the storage shed that contained even more nuclear warheads, and the fire burned uncontrollably for hours
theres another case where a b-52 caught on fire because a crewmember put one too many seat cushions on his chair, it blocked a heating vent and the whole bomber filled up with burning plastic smoke and crashed into the ground exploding the warheads, burning the plane, and spreading radioactive plutonium bits around for a good mile
my favorite though, a technician changing a lightbulb in a minuteman missile silo crossed a circuit in a fuse box and ejected the re-entry vehicle off the top of one of the missiles
thankfully most of these weapons have been pulled out of service today, and we are much much safer than before, and the weapons we do have are now handled much better, but in the past you didn't have to be trained to handle nuclear weapons to be able to handle nuclear weapons, or cause accidents related to nuclear weapons
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48929798]So you're a sailor? Let me tell you how everything you know about the navy is wrong, because I've read THESE from CNN and Russia Today[/QUOTE]
Be honest for once, you're just a satire account and all your posts in SH across the years were just for shits, right?
Please say yes, at this point I'm actually worried about your mental health and your perception of the world around you. I don't recall ever seeing a post by you in this section that wasn't objectively wrong, and/or frighteningly divorced from reality.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48931655]idk how this got onto nuclear weapons, but you didn't have to be a drunk airforce guy who cheated on his exam to handle nuclear weapons, the army, airforce, and navy all faught against safeguards for decades, the core issue was sealed-pit nuclear warheads which were used in many tactical launchers, missiles, and bombs were live all the time, and handling and storage of these weapons were very critical for safety. there were plenty of instances where a weapon system was rushed into service without any safety tests, the warhead was assumed safe, and the servicemen were just told to handle it like any normal munitions, and they accidentally dropped one or more bombs on the ground.
the b-52 had an infamous case where an entire rotory rack of agm-86 missiles litterally fell out of the bomber while being loaded in and smashed into the ground, or another time when a whole formation of nuclear armed b-52s and their tankers caught on fire sitting on a runway, only yards away from the storage shed that contained even more nuclear warheads, and the fire burned uncontrollably for hours
theres another case where a b-52 caught on fire because a crewmember put one too many seat cushions on his chair, it blocked a heating vent and the whole bomber filled up with burning plastic smoke and crashed into the ground exploding the warheads, burning the plane, and spreading radioactive plutonium bits around for a good mile
my favorite though, a technician changing a lightbulb in a minuteman missile silo crossed a circuit in a fuse box and ejected the re-entry vehicle off the top of one of the missiles
thankfully most of these weapons have been pulled out of service today, and we are much much safer than before, and the weapons we do have are now handled much better, but in the past you didn't have to be trained to handle nuclear weapons to be able to handle nuclear weapons, or cause accidents related to nuclear weapons[/QUOTE]
Fortunately nuclear weapons don't function like conventional weapons. They aren't susceptible to going off when dropped or on fire. The spread of radioactive compounds is a risk, sure, but very specific conditions need to met before one will actually detonate. There's a big difference between "live" and "armed." I doubt any of the weapons in the stories you've heard were armed, therefore they were just expensive tubes of metal with radioactive bits inside. I feel like some of those stories were exagerrated for the sake of making a point. Exploded the warheads? I highly doubt a B-52 filled with nuclear warheads crashed and detonated all of them causing a radioactive shitstorm. People most likely just saw an explosion from the fuel and primers and thought, "omfg nukes went off."
Good thing I already have my "Assault Weapon" AR-15, gotta love grandfather exemptions.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48932828]Fortunately nuclear weapons don't function like conventional weapons. They aren't susceptible to going off when dropped or on fire. The spread of radioactive compounds is a risk, sure, but very specific conditions need to met before one will actually detonate. There's a big difference between "live" and "armed." I doubt any of the weapons in the stories you've heard were armed, therefore they were just expensive tubes of metal with radioactive bits inside. I feel like some of those stories were exagerrated for the sake of making a point. Exploded the warheads? [B]I highly doubt a B-52 filled with nuclear warheads crashed and detonated all of them causing a radioactive shitstorm. [/B] People most likely just saw an explosion from the fuel and primers and thought, "omfg nukes went off."[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Savage_Mountain_B-52_crash[/url]
thule, a b-52 slammed into a glacier and burned uncontrolably for days before crews were able to locate it and do anything, palomares two of the bombs smashed into the ground, the explosives went off and sent out a cloud of plutonium as well as all the burning debris falling to the ground, goldsboro, a nuclear bomb slammed into the ground, exploded into a massive crater, spreading radioactive plutonium everywhere, savage mountain, b-52 crashes, explosives don't detonate because they landed in a massive snow-drift
a lot of the nuclear weapons we used to use were made with lots of impact sensitive explosives, also there were many many documented events where nuclear weapons were armed by a crossed circuit and crews only discovered that they were armed after unloading the weapons
[QUOTE=Sableye;48933073][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Savage_Mountain_B-52_crash[/URL]
thule, a b-52 slammed into a glacier and burned uncontrolably for days before crews were able to locate it and do anything, palomares two of the bombs smashed into the ground, the explosives went off and sent out a cloud of plutonium as well as all the burning debris falling to the ground, goldsboro, a nuclear bomb slammed into the ground, exploded into a massive crater, spreading radioactive plutonium everywhere, savage mountain, b-52 crashes, explosives don't detonate because they landed in a massive snow-drift
a lot of the nuclear weapons we used to use were made with lots of impact sensitive explosives, also there were many many documented events where nuclear weapons were armed by a crossed circuit and crews only discovered that they were armed after unloading the weapons[/QUOTE]
Um, did you even read the first paragraphs of those links?
Thule, the conventional explosives onboard detonated, not the nukes. The radioactive material was spread but the nukes did not detonate (IE: nuclear explosion).
Palomares, same thing. Non-nuclear weapons went off, the nukes did not.
Goldsboro, they say early on it didn't explode, the parachute attached to the bomb allowed it to land safely. No massive crater or plutonium everywhere. Those types of nukes are set to go off at altitude, it wasn't an impact explosive in the slightest.
Savage Mountain showed what happens when nukes just hit the ground. They don't blow up.
So no, you're wrong. None of those weapons were impact sensitive and none of them detonated. The material inside of them was spread when the conventional bombs next to them went off, but nowhere near on the scale of an actual nuclear detonation.
I'd like to see these documented events where bombs were on the verge of going off that aren't some Sobotnik-tier sensationalist article. With nuclear material, only a very few people are in the need-to-know and most individuals involved have no idea what the fuck is going on. This isn't operational blunder, it's keeping secrets. So just because some dumbfuck AO who looked at the inside of a missile once sees some nuke wiring and thinks it's armed doesn't mean it was actually armed. However, since all potential risks are treated with extreme prejudice, even if Seaman Timmy says he thinks the bomb is ticking because he's a retard the military is going to treat it like a fully armed nuke. Then reporters are gonna ask what all the fuss is and some dipshit is going to tell them, "I dunno, something about a nuke being armed or some shit." Ta-da suddenly it was a huge military fuckup with cross circuit armed nukes being tossed around like in goddamn Hot Shots.
"Guys look what I found on wikileaks holy shit our military lets fuckasses handle nukes!"
[IMG]https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/tjPXgsNyfIzdswtLpzQWVw--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MjQwO3E9OTU7dz0zMjA-/http://gifs.gifbin.com/042011/1302782132_hot-shots-bomb-bumping.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48929904]I'm speaking to you as someone from the submarine community who has firsthand interaction with the people involved with this kind of stuff. The articles you're getting your information from are blowing things way out of proportion, they are attempting to mix the military standard with the civilian perception. You see, "failed inspection," and think of a restaurant and how shitty it has to be to fail. You don't understand just how little leeway the military has with nuclear material, how what could be a horribly failed abysmal inspection could still operate as a completely capable system. Just the military doesn't find completely capable acceptable, it demands absolute perfection in the nuclear field, hence why they mass-fire the fuck out of people when any one thing goes wrong.[/QUOTE]
Alright, if you work in subs then I assume u know more about how its going than I do with regards to safety and maintenance. Can you explain the issues with funding, testing, etc and all?
I mean the costs for maintaining these bombs has been rising for years, many of these bombs are really old, and tests haven't been done in decades. Do these bombs even still work? I mean you can do simulations, but those only get you so far.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48933214]
[IMG]https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/tjPXgsNyfIzdswtLpzQWVw--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MjQwO3E9OTU7dz0zMjA-/http://gifs.gifbin.com/042011/1302782132_hot-shots-bomb-bumping.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
This is Aviation Ordnance in a nut shell. For whatever reason the military gives the ASVAB waivers the task of loading and arming munitions.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;48932754]Be honest for once, you're just a satire account and all your posts in SH across the years were just for shits, right?
Please say yes, at this point I'm actually worried about your mental health and your perception of the world around you. I don't recall ever seeing a post by you in this section that wasn't objectively wrong, and/or frighteningly divorced from reality.[/QUOTE]
That's a good portion of SH posters in the first place
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48933856]Alright, if you work in subs then I assume u know more about how its going than I do with regards to safety and maintenance. Can you explain the issues with funding, testing, etc and all?
I mean the costs for maintaining these bombs has been rising for years, many of these bombs are really old, and tests haven't been done in decades. Do these bombs even still work? I mean you can do simulations, but those only get you so far.[/QUOTE]
Military tech is always old and outdated. However, it is extremely rugged. Our computers might be old as shit and struggle to run Windows Vista but you could take out outside and beat it with a hammer, it'll probably still work afterward. Our silos have equipment that still runs off of tape drives, but tape drives aren't really susceptible to malfunction when preventative maintenance is done every single day.
If we can have subs made in the 70's still be fully operational today despite facing the rigors of the ocean on a daily basis, then some warheads that have been sitting in a highly controlled environment with daily preventive maintenance are highly likely to still be capable of fucking shit up despite being ancient.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48914037]Given that the second amendment blatantly exists to protect the private ownership of firearms for killing members of the militia, the answer is yes, it is unconstitutional.
The supreme court is weird though, so I'm sure we'll get a pretty nasty split.[/QUOTE]
Well regulated militia is the key phrase. Shame we lost that battle a long time ago.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48935329]Military tech is always old and outdated. However, it is extremely rugged. Our computers might be old as shit and struggle to run Windows Vista but you could take out outside and beat it with a hammer, it'll probably still work afterward. Our silos have equipment that still runs off of tape drives, but tape drives aren't really susceptible to malfunction when preventative maintenance is done every single day.
If we can have subs made in the 70's still be fully operational today despite facing the rigors of the ocean on a daily basis, then some warheads that have been sitting in a highly controlled environment with daily preventive maintenance are highly likely to still be capable of fucking shit up despite being ancient.[/QUOTE]
How much longer do you think their lifetimes can be extended with the knowledge that things like underground testing and making new nukes being effectively banned, in addition to modernization being delayed and the costs of maintaining existing bomb steadily rising?
I think new nukes are going to be made regardless and just kept secret. But I don't know, it's way above my pay grade and security clearance. Nobody who actually works in those silos would tell you if they did replace them with new warheads because they know they'd be sent to Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks for the rest of time if they so much as had a passing thought about telling you.
Things don't really work quite the way you'd want them to. There's a lot of things the military does that would start World War 3 if they were discovered. This is not an exaggeration. We sign treaties and agreements here and there, which do nothing but tell us we need to be more discreet about what is being done.
You should check out a book called "Blind Man's Bluff," it's about the crazy secret shit our submarines did during the Cold War. Except the Cold War never ended. Sure, the wall went down and as far as the public is concerned it was all over a long time ago. But none of what the military was doing ever slowed down, we're still doing shit we aren't supposed to do in places we aren't supposed to be. Like I said, I have no idea what the fuck is going on as far as nukes go, but don't be so quick to believe nothing shady is happening and we are totally abiding by all of those international treaties.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48938036]I think new nukes are going to be made regardless and just kept secret. But I don't know, it's way above my pay grade and security clearance. Nobody who actually works in those silos would tell you if they did replace them with new warheads because they know they'd be sent to Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks for the rest of time if they so much as had a passing thought about telling you.
Things don't really work quite the way you'd want them to. There's a lot of things the military does that would start World War 3 if they were discovered. This is not an exaggeration. We sign treaties and agreements here and there, which do nothing but tell us we need to be more discreet about what is being done.
You should check out a book called "Blind Man's Bluff," it's about the crazy secret shit our submarines did during the Cold War. Except the Cold War never ended. Sure, the wall went down and as far as the public is concerned it was all over a long time ago. But none of what the military was doing ever slowed down, we're still doing shit we aren't supposed to do in places we aren't supposed to be. Like I said, I have no idea what the fuck is going on as far as nukes go, but don't be so quick to believe nothing shady is happening and we are totally abiding by all of those international treaties.[/QUOTE]
I assume it would be rather difficult to make new ones (especially since it would become a major political scandal if news was leaked). With the cold war over, I'd find it strange as to who would allocate funding towards new nukes and why, especially when they cost shitloads these days and there aren't any targets I can immediately think of.
Also since it's basically impossible to test nuclear bombs, I'm starting to wonder as to what will be done once bombs start reaching say 60 or 80 years of age and nobody knows what exactly they will do since tests have been banned for decades.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48916092]Did the militias give a shit when Reagan was in power, doing all his super corrupt shit?[/QUOTE]
If Reagan is seriously the first person you name in regards to corruption then you should probably do more research on your presidents
[quote]Also, since when is a mob rule with a bunch of right wing nutjobs with guns a good thing? However crappy our government is, giving all the most radical elements of the right wing in our country the power to take control over the government would be WAY worse.[/quote]
Well who's to say that the far left couldn't do this either? Isn't it the radical left that always calls for "revolution"? The law doesn't discriminate against them. Any eligible citizen can get a gun, and eligibility is not dependent on party alignment. Did you know that Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-gun politicians ever, used to carry a handgun?
[editline]19th October 2015[/editline]
Uh how did this thread turn from small arms to weapons of mass destruction
[QUOTE=DropDeadTed;48938760]If Reagan is seriously the first person you name in regards to corruption then you should probably do more research on your presidents
Well who's to say that the far left couldn't do this either? Isn't it the radical left that always calls for "revolution"? The law doesn't discriminate against them. Any eligible citizen can get a gun, and eligibility is not dependent on party alignment. Did you know that Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-gun politicians ever, used to carry a handgun?
[editline]19th October 2015[/editline]
Uh how did this thread turn from small arms to weapons of mass destruction[/QUOTE]
By comparing the necessary evil of maintaining WMD's to the reason why people maintain firearm ownership.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48938415]I assume it would be rather difficult to make new ones (especially since it would become a major political scandal if news was leaked). With the cold war over, I'd find it strange as to who would allocate funding towards new nukes and why, especially when they cost shitloads these days and [B]there aren't any targets I can immediately think of[/B].
Also since it's basically impossible to test nuclear bombs, I'm starting to wonder as to what will be done once bombs start reaching say 60 or 80 years of age and nobody knows what exactly they will do since tests have been banned for decades.[/QUOTE]
Buddy we got our nukes trained on specific targets 24/7. Our boomers in the ocean have very specific orders on where to hit if things pop off, those missiles are dialed in and ready to go at a moment's notice. Why would the government spend all that money on ballistic missile subs just to let the missiles themselves rot? Convert them to GNs and they can still be loaded with nuclear tomahawk missiles (yes, they're a thing). 124 of them to be exact.
Nuclear deterrence is a primary role of the military, there's no way they'd skimp out on funding for something so crucial. There might not be much funding pouring directly into the program, but once again, the modern environment prompts secrecy. For example, an air force guy I know who works at a silo is officially designated as a drone operator. So money going to his division is technically money for drones. But do you think it really ends up being used on drones? Who knows.
The military and government operate with much more secrecy than you think, but it's done precisely for the reasons you mentioned, it would blow lids off places if it got out. That's why they are so freakishly hardcore about everything they do, taking every possible step toward making sure it never gets out. Once again, the Cold War never ended, it was just in the best interest of everyone involved to let the people think it ended. We're still very much at an arms race and rolling around flexing our muscles every chance we get.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.