Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
toastywombel

Obama: No Nukes- Even in Self Defense

Recommended Posts

Can you provide a link to verify this? I'm somewhat skeptical as this sounds like a political talking point or a catch phrase.

 

And, what is meant by "destroy"? Does that mean return of society back to the 1800's due to no more electricity? Or does it mean a return to the stone age due to no more metals? Or does it mean the death of 95% of the population (which might be the same thing as a return to the stone age)?

 

Well, there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#2007_study_on_global_nuclear_war

A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.

 

I think the "destroy the population several times" estimates were simply based on the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and some multiplication, but as the Wikipedia article above shows, there are at least enough nukes around to cause global catastrophe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this even relevant? Obama simply stated he wouldn't use nukes on countries without nukes. Rather than giving up a valuable tool, he has brilliantly maneuvered the US into a strong but compassionate stance. In a single stroke, he not only lets much of the world breathe a sigh of relief, he also warns smaller countries not to pursue nuclear weapon technology.

 

Oh, I'm not particularly criticising Obama's decision, you have pointed out the upside. Others have already pointed out the downside. I am actually neutral on this change as I don't think it will have either the desired positive affect or the feared negative ramifications.

 

However, I think it is important to understand that massive destruction on the level of, or even exceeding atomic weapons, can be obtained without the use of nuclear weapons. And that our only response in kind (if that would be an appropriate response) would be nukes as say we do not have a chemical or biological arsenal. I don't think everyone here understand this (or believes this, hey I could be wrong here but I think I am correct) which colors their judgement regarding this action. As such, the upside of this action is less than it is being claimed while the downside is greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I think it is important to understand that massive destruction on the level of, or even exceeding atomic weapons, can be obtained without the use of nuclear weapons. And that our only response in kind (if that would be an appropriate response) would be nukes as say we do not have a chemical or biological arsenal. I don't think everyone here understand this (or believes this, hey I could be wrong here but I think I am correct) which colors their judgement regarding this action. As such, the upside of this action is less than it is being claimed while the downside is greater.
Part of the problem is lumping chemicals like sarin gas in with nukes and calling them all WMDs. Sarin, and most area-denial agents like it, are only lethal if you can use it on a contained population with no ventilation or means of egress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is important to understand that massive destruction on the level of, or even exceeding atomic weapons, can be obtained without the use of nuclear weapons.

 

And my point is this sort of argument exists entirely in the realm of hypotheticals. If you're talking about practical means of wreaking mass destruction, all the way to the level of annihilating the entire human population of earth, nuclear weapons would far and away be #1 on my list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And my point is this sort of argument exists entirely in the realm of hypotheticals. If you're talking about practical means of wreaking mass destruction, all the way to the level of annihilating the entire human population of earth, nuclear weapons would far and away be #1 on my list.

 

 

Well, we know nuclear weapons work, and that they do have the capability to essentially destroy humanity (thanks Cap'n Refsmmat!). I'll grant these are more developed and "proven" as a weapon. And that this potential DOES currently exist in the form of a nuclear winter.

 

We also know infectious disease can essentially destroy humanity (as smallpox, the black palgue, etc. showed is possible). However, you are very correct that weaponizing such is hypothetical and less "proven" as a weapon.

 

As such, I'll conceed it is entirely valid to consider nukes as more of a threat than bio-weapons. My point is to not understimate the potential dangers of biological and chemical weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, chemical weapons generally have a much more localized impact than nuclear (if considering the radiation, fallout, etc.). Biological weapons are, as already mentioned, much less proven. There are a number of issues for effective bioweapons. Just consider the anthrax affair a while back. The main reason why bioweapons are feared are the (either perceived or real) lack of control over them once released.

Bioweapons are more likely to be a greater threat to underdeveloped countries with little access to health care. Considering that, the most effective way to deploy them in a developed country is first to ruin the health care system (or make it so expensive that only a small elite can afford it) so that once a disease appears it spreads around. Also inciting fear of vaccines may help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think It's more than a little disingenuous to try and say the detonation of one nuke or even several in response to a WMD attack would result in every nuke on the planet being used. Nor would such a limited strike take out most of the planet via fallout since we already detonated a large number of much dirtier nukes back in the 50's and 60's in the atmosphere and it did not kill us all.

 

Modern nuclear weapons are designed to make far less fallout than the type of weapons used on japan in WW2. This would not make being nuked any better but I honestly cannot see a reason to nuke a population center much less several population centers unless the same was done to us.

 

Even during the cold war most nukes were targeted toward military complexes, not directly at population centers. It is simply not true that thermonuclear weapons were meant to be used against population centers, back in the days of the cold war this made very little difference. Twenty megaton war heads and or bombs that were not very accurate to start with would destroy any target many times over. Trying to destroy a sub base on the out skirts of a city pretty much meant the city was gone too.

 

Now days nukes are much smaller, far more accurate, accurate to the point that they are really not needed to destroy most targets. most war heads in the US arsenal are less than 1 megaton, (475 kilotons I think) to destroy a huge population center like for instance New York city would require more than one probably several to really level the city.

 

(does anyone know which major US city had two multi megaton nuclear weapons dropped on it in the early 1960's?)

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread389946/pg1

 

 

They are small enough and accurate enough to make a precision strike against a bio-weapons facility that had been hardened against nuclear attack and or other military targets with far less collateral damage than was done to European cities during WW2 when trying to take out military targets.

 

The human mindset now days would not tolerate the same sort of wholesale killing of civilians as we did during WW2, I doubt anyone would want to nuke a city but military centers being used by an adversary to launch WMD's against let's say French targets should expect to be nuked. I say French because it is highly dishonest to keep saying Americans will be doing the nuking, there many countries quite capable of nuking an adversary in the modern world and most of them would be more likely to do so because they do not possess the same military advantage countries like the US do.

 

Is using nukes a good idea? I'd say unequivocally NO! Would a government who had nukes be crazy not to use nukes if confronted with overwhelming military attack from an adversary? YES!

 

I think a small country like France or England would be far more likely to use nukes in response to a WMD attack than the USA. The USA would be likely to use nukes if confronted by WMD's on the battle field but in retaliation we would be more likely to use conventional weapons to destroy small targets from a long distance or use over whelming military force on an adversary than simply nuke em!

 

A nuke is a last ditch type of weapon in modern times not a hair trigger use them or loose them weapon like they were in the cold war.

 

http://www.gizmag.com/nuclear-bomb-damage-map-nuke/12097/

 

I think most people who think on these unthinkable things seem to think a real nuclear exchange on population centers is most likely between Pakistan and India.

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think It's more than a little disingenuous to try and say the detonation of one nuke or even several in response to a WMD attack would result in every nuke on the planet being used. Nor would such a limited strike take out most of the planet via fallout since we already detonated a large number of much dirtier nukes back in the 50's and 60's in the atmosphere and it did not kill us all.

 

Modern nuclear weapons are designed to make far less fallout than the type of weapons used on japan in WW2. This would not make being nuked any better but I honestly cannot see a reason to nuke a population center much less several population centers unless the same was done to us.

 

Even during the cold war most nukes were targeted toward military complexes, not directly at population centers. It is simply not true that thermonuclear weapons were meant to be used against population centers, back in the days of the cold war this made very little difference. Twenty megaton war heads and or bombs that were not very accurate to start with would destroy any target many times over. Trying to destroy a sub base on the out skirts of a city pretty much meant the city was gone too.

 

Now days nukes are much smaller, far more accurate, accurate to the point that they are really not needed to destroy most targets. most war heads in the US arsenal are less than 1 megaton, (475 kilotons I think) to destroy a huge population center like for instance New York city would require more than one probably several to really level the city.

 

(does anyone know which major US city had two multi megaton nuclear weapons dropped on it in the early 1960's?)

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread389946/pg1

 

 

They are small enough and accurate enough to make a precision strike against a bio-weapons facility that had been hardened against nuclear attack and or other military targets with far less collateral damage than was done to European cities during WW2 when trying to take out military targets.

 

The human mindset now days would not tolerate the same sort of wholesale killing of civilians as we did during WW2, I doubt anyone would want to nuke a city but military centers being used by an adversary to launch WMD's against let's say French targets should expect to be nuked. I say French because it is highly dishonest to keep saying Americans will be doing the nuking, there many countries quite capable of nuking an adversary in the modern world and most of them would be more likely to do so because they do not possess the same military advantage countries like the US do.

 

Is using nukes a good idea? I'd say unequivocally NO! Would a government who had nukes be crazy not to use nukes if confronted with overwhelming military attack from an adversary? YES!

 

I think a small country like France or England would be far more likely to use nukes in response to a WMD attack than the USA. The USA would be likely to use nukes if confronted by WMD's on the battle field but in retaliation we would be more likely to use conventional weapons to destroy small targets from a long distance or use over whelming military force on an adversary than simply nuke em!

 

A nuke is a last ditch type of weapon in modern times not a hair trigger use them or loose them weapon like they were in the cold war.

 

http://www.gizmag.com/nuclear-bomb-damage-map-nuke/12097/

 

I think most people who think on these unthinkable things seem to think a real nuclear exchange on population centers is most likely between Pakistan and India.

 

Well lets ignore the fact that you seem to not know that lack of fallout from a nuclear explosion as opposed to a fission explosion is the result of the energy being released primarily by the blast and shot up into the atmosphere. And that 45% of the blast itself, which is about 50% of the energy released, is caused by thermo-radiation. So while we may not have fallout we face nuclear winter. It is also good to point out modern nuclear warheads range can yield 20 megatons to 100 megatons. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20-21 kilotons. So while the percentage of energy converted into nuclear fallout decreases with modern nuclear weapons, they are much stronger.

 

Do you think that nuclear weapons should be used as a response to a massive biological attack?

 

Also let me pose this hypothetical. Say for some reason Mexico designed released chemical/biological agents into London. Disease spread and it had a 50%-60% fatality rate after the first few months. Would it be okay with you, if you were a resident of Los Angeles, if the UK had dropped a thermonuclear bomb on Northern Mexico as a response?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Another fallacy, but you have picked at a rather nasty modern problem. Modern technology, and particularly modern biological technology, has wielded WMD capabilities to small nations and even smaller groups. That only a small group of people are all it takes to murder millions is something that should scare you much, much more than do nukes. It scares the bejesus out of policy wonks, and that is policy wonks of all flavors. It takes a fairly large country to make a nuke. It takes a village to make a killer bug.

 

It wasn't a fallacy, it was a question. Yes, that could happen, and a disease may spread, but again a nuclear weapon could destroy a city in twenty minutes from launch right here right now.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also I would like to add this,

 

"A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[4][5]"

 

"A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation."

 

"A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Edited by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think It's more than a little disingenuous to try and say the detonation of one nuke or even several in response to a WMD attack would result in every nuke on the planet being used.

 

I try to not bust this out indiscriminately, but...

 

strawman.jpg

 

I feel it's warranted here. Who the crap was ever saying that every nuke on earth would be detonated in a realistic scenario? All that talk was about total hypothetical yields, compared to hypothetical scenarios about weaponized viruses.

 

Modern nuclear weapons are designed to make far less fallout than the type of weapons used on japan in WW2.

 

I ALSO try to not bust this out indiscriminately, but...

 

picard_facepalm.jpg

 

Modern nuclear weapons are thermonuclear. The weapons dropped on Japan during WW2 were fission bombs. Thermonuclear bombs utilize nuclear fusion. The total yield of modern devices is several orders of magnitude more than the weapons dropped on Japan. In absolutely no way does this make the fallout safer. It only increases the total quantity of fallout produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that nuclear weapons should be used as a response to a massive biological attack?

 

No. And yes. And maybe. Context is much needed here. That's why we call them "options" - as in options on the table. Options have been removed and then proclaimed for the world to hear. That's seems stupid. But Obama isn't stupid, so thinking deeper, I suspect he may have even used this as a way to reiterate, sideways, that Iran and North Korea will face nuclear retaliation. It may have been a threat buried under the wrapping paper of a policy change.

 

So, it depends on how many are killed and injured with their WMD. If several million people were slaughtered, then nuclear becomes an option to me. That option depends on and flexes with a list of responsible priorities. Among those will be our responsibility to other nations in the area. By retaliating with WMD, we risk initiating war with other countries if they suffer casualties or damage in that process.

 

Also let me pose this hypothetical. Say for some reason Mexico designed released chemical/biological agents into London. Disease spread and it had a 50%-60% fatality rate after the first few months. Would it be okay with you, if you were a resident of Los Angeles, if the UK had dropped a thermonuclear bomb on Northern Mexico as a response?

 

 

A policy of retaliation doesn't imply ignoring any of the responsibilities to other nations. Those responsibilities to other nations could very well keep us from retaliating with nuclear at all. The policy says nothing about the detail and there's no reason to assume this detail wouldn't be considered by those advocating the option. It's an emotional appeal to suggest otherwise.

 

Personally, I still think we should claim nuclear WMD as an option in retaliation to biological or chemical WMD's. Even if we never intend to actually use the option, it should be announced anyway. Options don't suggest a promise, just an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, but I'd rather we have that set to maximum protection. To one extreme, if we have "You can kill half our citizens and we won't retaliate in the least" would be an extremely poor policy, even (and especially) if it happens to be a lie. On the other extreme, if we have "If you kill a few of our citizens we'll nuke you to kingdom come" then we can expect terrorists to enjoy yanking our chain with that policy. The best policy is the one that is uncertain, so no one can try to manipulate us with our strategy, and/or a threat, so people back off due to it.

 

Then the question becomes whether you can have a proportional response using conventional weapons. And I think the answer to that is yes.

 

Something I have seen discussed only in passing is that this is probably moot, because it is not a nation that will be using the bio- or chemical WMD. So how do you retaliate with nukes (or any other WMD) against an organization that lacks a well-defined geographical base?

 

What are the nations, not on the "excepted" list, that might use WMDs against the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the question becomes whether you can have a proportional response using conventional weapons. And I think the answer to that is yes.

 

Something I have seen discussed only in passing is that this is probably moot, because it is not a nation that will be using the bio- or chemical WMD. So how do you retaliate with nukes (or any other WMD) against an organization that lacks a well-defined geographical base?

 

What are the nations, not on the "excepted" list, that might use WMDs against the US?

 

These are all decent gee wiz questions, but I'm not sure what it has to do with an "option" of nuclear retaliation. Again, it's an option, not a promise. And it carries obvious responsibilities to the rest of the globe. It's all going to be dependent on the scenario - which is why it seems silly to apply blanket conclusions. I think that's why they use the word option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I try to not bust this out indiscriminately, but...

 

strawman.jpg

 

I feel it's warranted here. Who the crap was ever saying that every nuke on earth would be detonated in a realistic scenario? All that talk was about total hypothetical yields, compared to hypothetical scenarios about weaponized viruses.

 

Very funny, but this has been brought up more than once in this conversation. Nice to make me look small when I am offering real information instead of fear mongering.

 

 

I ALSO try to not bust this out indiscriminately, but...

 

picard_facepalm.jpg

 

Modern nuclear weapons are thermonuclear. The weapons dropped on Japan during WW2 were fission bombs. Thermonuclear bombs utilize nuclear fusion. The total yield of modern devices is several orders of magnitude more than the weapons dropped on Japan. In absolutely no way does this make the fallout safer. It only increases the total quantity of fallout produced.

 

I never said it made the fallout safer or the bomb safer but modern nukes do indeed put out less fall out per kiloton or how ever you want to put it. They are made so more of the nuclear material is used up and less is left over they are far more efficient than the old nukes were. As I said this doesn't make being nuked better but it does show nukes are different now than they were even a couple of decades ago.

 

It is also good to point out modern nuclear warheads range can yield 20 megatons to 100 megatons.

 

No, there are no 100 megaton nuclear weapons, never have been, the largest yield ever was Tsar bomba at 60 megatons. it was a very old very dirty very inefficient weapon that was designed to be 100 megatons only one was made but it's yield was much less due to design problems and most the plutonium was wasted in fallout. modern nuclear weapons are not in the multimegaton range. the ones fielded by the USA are less than one megaton in almost all cases, the old 20 megaton bombs have not been fielded sine the late 60 or early 70's.

 

Modern nuclear weapons would be about 20 times the yield of what was dropped on japan, this yield is out of much less nuclear materials that are used up instead of being spread out as fall out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah seriously... people are actually complaining that Obama has said he will not threaten nations without nukes with nukes? Is there something wrong with you? Do you really think that's a bad thing? If so, I think you either don't understand the effects of nuclear weapons, or you're morally deficient in some manner.

 

Are you saying I'm morally deficient because I posted US policy regarding nukes and non-nuclear nations or the people complaining about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, there are no 100 megaton nuclear weapons, never have been, the largest yield ever was Tsar bomba at 60 megatons. it was a very old very dirty very inefficient weapon that was designed to be 100 megatons only one was made but it's yield was much less due to design problems and most the plutonium was wasted in fallout. modern nuclear weapons are not in the multimegaton range. the ones fielded by the USA are less than one megaton in almost all cases, the old 20 megaton bombs have not been fielded sine the late 60 or early 70's.

 

Modern nuclear weapons would be about 20 times the yield of what was dropped on japan, this yield is out of much less nuclear materials that are used up instead of being spread out as fall out.

 

Okay, well it seems you refuse to accept the facts that I cited above. The Tsar bomba was actually 50 megatons, not sixty, and it was originally designed to yield 100 megatons, the test bomb was downgraded.

 

The Tsar Bomba was also not a very old inefficient weapon. It is the most powerful piece of weaponry ever designed and it operates the same exact way that modern nuclear bombs do.

 

Also again you seem to not understand, the point of a nuclear bomb is to create radiation, that is how the blast is created. As I stated above 45% of the blast is caused by thermal radiation. And again, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about 20 kilotons. Modern Nuclear weapons are in the range of several hundred kilotons to megatons. Check out the following chart,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying I'm morally deficient because I posted US policy regarding nukes and non-nuclear nations or the people complaining about that?

 

Whoops, sorry how that was phrased, that was not directed at you but rather it was directed at the people you were responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What harm would it do though, if humanity is doomed anyways? What if a biochemical weapon turns out to be more deadly/infectious than its creator anticipated? Why should we tell them that we won't nuke them even if they wipe out our country? Best to discourage them from trying."

 

If it would do no harm, then why send the nuke? I'm sorry but I don't attest to the ideology, if I am going to die, then everyone is going to die.

 

Also, If someone is creating a biochemical weapon of that magnitude, I doubt that telling them we will nuke you is much a deterrent. If they have the capability of making such a weapon, I would guess they have the mental capability of knowing it would destroy humanity as we know it. And, if it were by chance an accident like you were saying, I still don't see how nuking them would accomplish anything but decrease the chances for humanity to survive.

 

 

I mean you guys are saying a nuclear bomb free world is not practical, the only reason it is not practical because people with similar mindsets keep saying it is not practical.

 

You apparently are still underestimating the sheer magnitude of Biological and chemical agents.

Lets say we have an equivalent sized mass of Nuclear and biological agent. about 10grams each. lets say that the choice spreader/exploder mechanism is also the same. Both are going to be aerial bust.

The 10 grams of Biological agent has been manufactured to take 1 month to incubate. so the burst happens over a city like Chicago and people don't notice it for whatever reason. In that 1 month period the biological agent has now spread:

1.) everyone in the city

2.) everyone that flew out of the city

3.) all of the cities that had incoming flights from chicago

 

estimated death toll: ALL major cities in North America, AND major cities All other continents. Virtually 1/3 of the worlds population could be infected in 1 month, the other 2/3 of the worlds population could be infected as well. the biological agent is only inhibited by areas that are not frequently traveled, such as villages in south Africa, South America and various islands.

 

Nuclear bomb, Aerial detonation. 1 city destroyed estimated death toll.. 10 maybe 20 million depending on the city

 

Biological Agents TRUMP severely both nuclear and chemical.

Case and point Bubonic Plague.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I would also like to note, if chemical agents were truly a greater threat than nuclear weapons. Why are the nations who have active nuclear weapons considered the superpowers, while the nations who have active chemical/biological weapons aren't?

 

Simple.

People, IE the masses, think explosions are more powerful than biological agents. People are dumb. People are influenced by media.

 

here is a good test of that point, Take a vial of Ecoli bacteria and a stick of dynamite and ask random people which can kill more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Okay' date=' well it seems you refuse to accept the facts that I cited above. The Tsar bomba was actually 50 megatons, not sixty, and it was originally designed to yield 100 megatons, the test bomb was downgraded.

 

The Tsar Bomba was also not a very old inefficient weapon. It is the most powerful piece of weaponry ever designed and it operates the same exact way that modern nuclear bombs do.

 

Also again you seem to not understand, the point of a nuclear bomb is to create radiation, that is how the blast is created. As I stated above 45% of the blast is caused by thermal radiation. And again, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about 20 kilotons. Modern Nuclear weapons are in the range of several hundred kilotons to megatons. Check out the following chart,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield[/quote']

 

What facts did you cite toasty? the fact of 20 to 100 megaton bombs being a what nuclear weapons are all about ? Why do you ignore my fact that few if any current bombs in use are more than .5 megatons, huge multimegaton bombs are out dated and no longer in use.

 

Tsar bomba was an old out dated very ineffecient bomb, no one makes boms like it anymore, it was huge in size, not just explosive potiential, (sorry i missed it by 10 megatons), the bomber that dropped it was also huge and had to be because the bomb weighied several tons.

 

Modern nuclear weapons are not multimgaton weapons, they are small, easily deployable, very accurate and very deadly. just because huge multimegaton weapons are possible is not a reason to assume that is what is in use. Several small nukes are far more distructive than one or two huge ones.

 

I'll say it again, the has never been a 100 megaton bomb deployed by anyone, the russians tried and it was too big to be usable, almost too big to be carried by a bomber. There is no reason to use huge multimegaton weapons, the smaller ones are quite deadly enough.

 

If you had read your own chart you would have found that the US does not feild a nuclear bomb bigger than 1.2 megatons. Missle war heads are smaller by more than half

 

Largest US weapon ever fielded, retired in 1957.

EC17/Mk-17, the EC24/Mk-24, and the B41 (Mk-41) various Most powerful US weapons ever: 25 megatonnes of TNT (100 PJ); the Mk-17 was also the largest by size and mass: about 20 short tons (18,000 kg); the Mk-41 had a mass of 4800 kg; gravity bombs carried by B-36 bomber (retired by 1957).

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87 (300 kilotons)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 (475 kilotons)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb (1.2 megatons

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb (9 megatons, largest bomb currently available but not in active service)

 

so where are all the factual 20 to 100 megatonnweapons just waitign to be dropped all over the eaerth? Do the russians have them, they seem to be as serious as the US about small reliealbe weapons instead fo huge city bustetrs of the cold war, do the french have them? who has them as you claim to be facts?

 

Nulcear weapons are desinged to use blast and heat to destroy targets, fallout and or radioactuive poisoning of the planet is not the idea behind modern nuclear weapons.

 

I don't know why this discussion has gone into how powerful nukes really are but a limited strijke against one city is not going to end the world or kill 95% of the planets population. Bio weapons can indeed kill a major number of people not targeted by them. Bio-weapons get out of control they spread, reproduce, nuclear weapons do not reproduce and spread like biological organisms do.

I applaud Obama for saying nukes will not be used against non nuclear states. I also think bio weapons are more dangerous than nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I strongly doubt any biological agent exists today which can wreak the same havoc as a thermonuclear ICBM.

 

 

You are severely wrong, Biological agents exist as of RIGHT now that can Destroy the entire population of the world.

You don't hear about them because of their need to be classified.

Just take for a moment a simple thought process.

 

You have AIDS, a presently incurable disease that is spread via sexual intercourse, contact with an infected persons blood, saliva and mucus.

Now just genetically mix or modify it with something like Ebola or some other disease that kills, and Viole you have a biological agent that is incurable, easily spread and will kill millions upon millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are severely wrong, Biological agents exist as of RIGHT now that can Destroy the entire population of the world.

You don't hear about them because of their need to be classified.

Do you say this because you enjoy releasing classified information or because you think it just has to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, no i believe it to be true. Due to the amount of NBC training we get.

NBC= nuclear biological and chemical


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

also it is not classified about their existences i would imagine that their classification comes from how and what they are made of.

you don't want your neighborhood Taliban growing some mold and sneezing in a petri dish now do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also perfectly conceivable that a biological weapon not intended to be a world-killer accidentally becomes one. Bacteria and viruses can, and do, and will continue to, "borrow" genes from each other in the case of co-infection. In case you're wondering, 90% of the cells in your body are non-human. A biological agent could acquire additional virulence genes from your normal microfauna, or from a sick person, or could transfer the specially weaponized genes to infectious organism or normal human's microfauna.

 

A nuke can't accidentally wipe out most of humanity. A biological agent could. A nuclear war could, but then so could a conventional war. Additionally, with biological warfare, people in shelters may not be safe as others may seek shelter or treatment after they got sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nulcear weapons are desinged to use blast and heat to destroy targets, fallout and or radioactuive poisoning of the planet is not the idea behind modern nuclear weapons.

 

That doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons produce fallout and fallout is deadly.

 

Bio weapons can indeed kill a major number of people not targeted by them.

 

So can fallout

 

Bio-weapons get out of control they spread, reproduce, nuclear weapons do not reproduce and spread like biological organisms do.

 

Diseases can be contained. Fallout cannot.

 

You are severely wrong, Biological agents exist as of RIGHT now that can Destroy the entire population of the world.

 

That's generally not how biology works. You'd be hard pressed to find any sort of biological agent, even in lab conditions, that can kill 100% of a large population of organisms. Now, consider a modern population of humans with state-of-the-art immunology and organizations dedicated to fighting outbreaks of disease.

 

Horrible diseases exist. Ebola exists. If someone weaponized ebola it would be bad. However, weaponizing a disease to the point it can exterminate all humans on earth? I don't buy it whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons produce fallout and fallout is deadly.

 

I will agree with that

 

So can fallout

 

Yes but the fallout from a single or even several nuclear detonations is limited, Radiation does not become ever more dangerous, it becomes less dangerous over time.

 

 

 

Diseases can be contained. Fallout cannot.

 

 

No, diseases cannot be contained, once released they can spread and grow, fallout is limited and becomes less dangerous over time, not more dangerous.

 

That's generally not how biology works. You'd be hard pressed to find any sort of biological agent, even in lab conditions, that can kill 100% of a large population of organisms. Now, consider a modern population of humans with state-of-the-art immunology and organizations dedicated to fighting outbreaks of disease.

 

I will grant you this, even rabies is not absolutely 100% deadly.

 

Horrible diseases exist. Ebola exists. If someone weaponized ebola it would be bad. However, weaponizing a disease to the point it can exterminate all humans on earth? I don't buy it whatsoever.

 

Agreed and neither can one or even several nuclear weapons eliminate everyone on the earth. Both are very bad, both are very scary, it is conceivable that the release of one bio-weapon over one populated are could spread and kill a huge percentage of the human race. The release of one nuclear weapon would be limited in both the number of deaths and the spread of radiation. It could not eliminate even every one in a large city much less the entire human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, no i believe it to be true. Due to the amount of NBC training we get.

NBC= nuclear biological and chemical

NBC would be effective against an agent that causes immediate effects, like mustard gas or a short-term biological agent, but any agent with a month-long incubation period would have already infected everyone with NBC training before they realize there's something to defend against.

 

In any case, the US is prohibited from developing and stockpiling biological weapons under the Biological Weapons Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.