## Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:31 am

What do you think, the united states recently signed a bill saying that the USA and Russia will decrease their nuclear stockpiles by 30%. Meanwhile, according to one of their defecting nuclear scientists, north korea is preparing for a THIRD test of long range nuclear weapons.
Personally, if north korea gets hold of a couple of working nukes, than I think that the United states must take military action against them before they attempt to fire it upon my country, launch it into space as an orbital weapons platform, or hurtle it at a european or asian country.
handcuffs for your thoughts?

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Nuclearo » Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:08 am

30%... That still leaves both with a few hundred nukes, and I say few because I don't remember the numbers right now. Does having 700 city wrecking ultra bombs make you any less overpowered than having 1000? I don't think so. It only took 2 to end the biggest conflict of our history. Granted, it was largely due to shock factor, but I don't think even if all of the state's enemies bound up for an all out war that they'd do it with even half those nukes at risk of landing in their collective territories (unless, of course, they're insane fanatics...).
I'm not really familiar with the North Korean deal, more than "they're communist extremists and building nukes", but if we switch out the word 'communist' with 'Muslim' we get that exact same thing but with Iran, just with a different schedule. So yeah, military action does seem like the only way at it given the fact that the leadership just won't communicate with you "American bastards" but you have to remember one thing: these aren't small poverty ridden dust speck countries whose standing military force consists of a camel and 2 dust bunnies. Military action in this case means war. REAL war, that goes 2 ways. YOUR house could be bombed just like all those houses in Iraq an Afghanistan. So yeah, just throwing bombs at it and hoping the problem dies won't really fix that, especially with the Iranian (and I'm guessing the Korean one too) being spread out, underground and well defended.
I will end this on a different note though, seemingly undermining everything I said in a double faced attempt in wisdom that will undoubtedly leave me utterly hypocritical:
We who fight for so called "freedom" are in reality very oppressed when it comes to warfare. When it comes to that, they are the true free ones.
Interpret that as you like, now give me those metal cuffs that I came for.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by anjell » Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:38 am

all i got to say is 30% is to small needs to be more like 90% (would say 100% but that well never happen). If it wasn't for USA and Russia having so many other country's like North Korea wouldn't even be trying to make and test any.
Think if this if you may would you be worried if you were born and raised in North Korea.
And keep the cuffs already got my own.
Let's use all the colors.
Dust 'em, Pix!
Yup! That tasted purple!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:17 pm

> Nuclearo wrote:30%... That still leaves both with a few hundred nukes, and I say few because I don't remember the numbers right now. Does having 700 city wrecking ultra bombs make you any less overpowered than having 1000? I don't think so. It only took 2 to end the biggest conflict of our history. Granted, it was largely due to shock factor, but I don't think even if all of the state's enemies bound up for an all out war that they'd do it with even half those nukes at risk of landing in their collective territories (unless, of course, they're insane fanatics...).
> I'm not really familiar with the North Korean deal, more than "they're communist extremists and building nukes", but if we switch out the word 'communist' with 'Muslim' we get that exact same thing but with Iran, just with a different schedule. So yeah, military action does seem like the only way at it given the fact that the leadership just won't communicate with you "American bastards" but you have to remember one thing: these aren't small poverty ridden dust speck countries whose standing military force consists of a camel and 2 dust bunnies. Military action in this case means war. REAL war, that goes 2 ways. YOUR house could be bombed just like all those houses in Iraq an Afghanistan. So yeah, just throwing bombs at it and hoping the problem dies won't really fix that, especially with the Iranian (and I'm guessing the Korean one too) being spread out, underground and well defended.
> I will end this on a different note though, seemingly undermining everything I said in a double faced attempt in wisdom that will undoubtedly leave me utterly hypocritical:
> We who fight for so called "freedom" are in reality very oppressed when it comes to warfare. When it comes to that, they are the true free ones.
> Interpret that as you like, now give me those metal cuffs that I came for.

you get no handcuffs because you called us "american bastards"
so instead, I am giving you toe cuffs
O--O

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Fesselfan » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:32 am

Just a side note...so far in history, only one country has ever used nukes in a war.
As much as I loathe any country to have these weapons...which right does i.e. the US or russia have to own these weapons that other countries have not?
Cheers
FF
There are 10 kind of people in the world.
Those who understand binary numeral system, and those who don't.

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:15 am

> Fesselfan wrote:Just a side note...so far in history, only one country has ever used nukes in a war.
> As much as I loathe any country to have these weapons...which right does i.e. the US or russia have to own these weapons that other countries have not?
> Cheers
> FF

other countries may own them but they just havent figured out how to make them yet! if they want to, they can make them, and also go by a set of rules too!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:16 am

> aielen wrote:

> > haloguy wrote:What do you think, the united states recently signed a bill saying that the USA and Russia will decrease their nuclear stockpiles by 30%. Meanwhile, according to one of their defecting nuclear scientists, north korea is preparing for a THIRD test of long range nuclear weapons.
> > Personally, if north korea gets hold of a couple of working nukes, than I think that the United states must take military action against them before they attempt to fire it upon my country, launch it into space as an orbital weapons platform, or hurtle it at a european or asian country.
> > handcuffs for your thoughts?

> percentages are nothing. Russia still has a lrarger capability with road mobile ICBMs, lots of MIRVs despite the new START and Tu-160 bombers. The US has no nuclear capable supersonic bomber and has de-MIRVed all its landbased ICBMS which are not mobile.

almost any plane these days can go at supersonic speeds, and the unites states has more bombs all together than russia.

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Fesselfan » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:31 am

Just out of curiousity...which exact value does a supersonic bomber have? They can be intercepted almost as easily as a subsonic bomber. And in the case of a nuclear war...they (the bombers) are useless anyway, in the age of intercontinantal missiles of course.
Cheers
FF
There are 10 kind of people in the world.
Those who understand binary numeral system, and those who don't.

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Nuclearo » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:13 am

I wouldn't say bombers as a whole are useless, but a nuke is more appropriately delivered by ICBM. Bombers are more logical for carpet bombing and such, where you send out more than a handful. When you only send out one big payload it makes much more sense to use a missile or at least a rocket. The problem (for the nuker that is) is that missiles can be shot down too, especially those big long range ones with the sophisticated guidance systems.
I do hope this war at least sparks some more space racing for accessible orbital platforms. If we're going to kill millions of people and create insane tension again, might as well do the progress part too.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Boundgal08 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:14 pm

I keep reading this post as Nuclearo's disarmament I is terrible
I have nothing to say on this topic, not sort of my thing
But I thought I would mention it
Cheers,
BG
BOUNDGIRL!
Probably the kinkiest woman you will ever meet!
I am a switch, I like to put a man in ropes and also have a man put me in ropes!
I am the 'Queen of bondage'

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:30 pm

Russia and China combined currently have 7,500 nuclear warheads supposedly capable of reaching the US. So that we do not just scare ourselves to death, let us suppose that with Russia's deteriorating economy that the maintenance on these have made about half of them operational. Let us say 4,000. And let us say that only half of these would be aimed at North America, the rest being aimed at Europe and other places in the world. This means that only 2,000 would be aimed at North America and let us further assume that US defenses are such that we will stop half of them (although I am not certain how one currently stops an ICBM or particularly a SLBM). But anyway, that leaves us with 1,000 nuclear weapons exploding over North America.source yahoo username (and professor) "its not me its you"
now the united states also has about 6000 nukes that can reach the US. Approximately 95% are ready to fire if needed. Approximately 80% of them are aimed somewhere in Asia/middle east where the threat is. So those 2 leave about 5000 nukes aimed at russia/anywhere else there that poses a major threat. lets say that china and russia's poor ICBM program can only intercept about 25% of them. that means that about 1250 nukes are exploding over them. and that is saying that the USA is at war with china and russia at the same time. very unlikely.
besides, if there is an explosion of about 100 megatons, that can cause damage to the biosphere, no biosphere=no life. these countries understand that using this will mean suicide for their nation, and for the world. and saying that the only threat for a nuke getting launched is either an accidental launch, terrorists, or a rouge commander. and even these, only one might be launched, easy to pick off
anything else you guys want to say?

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Nuclearo » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:17 pm

Are you sure there aren't any extra zeros there? What do they need all those goddamn nukes for?! Those aren't suitcase nukes. They're megaton and above bombs. What, are we nuking empty enemy territories for fun now?
Also: lol boundgal.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Boundgal08 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:05 am

> Nuclearo wrote:Are you sure there aren't any extra zeros there? What do they need all those goddamn nukes for?! Those aren't suitcase nukes. They're megaton and above bombs. What, are we nuking empty enemy territories for fun now?
> Also: lol boundgal.

Don't laugh at me Nuclearo
BOUNDGIRL!
Probably the kinkiest woman you will ever meet!
I am a switch, I like to put a man in ropes and also have a man put me in ropes!
I am the 'Queen of bondage'

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:40 pm

> Nuclearo wrote:Are you sure there aren't any extra zeros there? What do they need all those goddamn nukes for?! Those aren't suitcase nukes. They're megaton and above bombs. What, are we nuking empty enemy territories for fun now?
> Also: lol boundgal.

the more nukes you've got, the more threatening you look

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Nuclearo » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:04 pm

> haloguy wrote:

> > Nuclearo wrote:Are you sure there aren't any extra zeros there? What do they need all those goddamn nukes for?! Those aren't suitcase nukes. They're megaton and above bombs. What, are we nuking empty enemy territories for fun now?
> > Also: lol boundgal.

> the more nukes you've got, the more threatening you look

Oh sure, because the 100,000ft tall monster is so much more intimadating than the 99,999 one.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:27 pm

hmmmm, not quite, but also, all nuculear countries abide by the MAD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destructionagreement

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Nuclearo » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:56 pm

you call that an agreement like they all met together all planned it out. Besides, MAD only works if both sides can anihilate eachother. That means every alliance in the world needs massive nuke stockpiles. Mutually is a key word here. But it's seriously a deranged strategy in my opinion, showcasing a nice big chunk of what's wrong in human nature. It's mad. MAD I TELL YOU!
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by haloguy » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:18 pm

lol, I laff kuz eet eez funnee!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Nuclearo » Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:40 pm

> haloguy wrote:lol, I laff kuz eet eez funnee!

The other chunk being the one causing people to type like this.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by dreadnaught3200 » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:51 pm

As far as Nukes go, while I agree of course that they are totally deplorable; I think from a historical point of view we need to keep in mind that Nuclear Weapons were the only thing that prevented the third World War. A lot of people these days forget just how tense the cold war was, and the knowledge of the horror of a Nuclear attack was the only thing that kept the United States and Soviet Union from tearing at each others throats.
I say this because the same principle still applies today to some extent. If the United States and its allies have Nuclear Weapons to counter the threat of countries like North Korea and Iran, they won't dare use them. Simply because they must recognize that a strike from even a single Nuclear Warhead will undoubtedly illicit total annihilation of their country. So, while regrettable, I think its necessary that we maintain a limited Nuclear Arsenal. The simple fact is, nuclear weapons exist, and if we don't have them, someone else will.
Oh btw, I don't know why you're so worried about the US's lack of supersonic bombers. The load out of Trident ballistic missiles on the current US fleet of Ohio Class submarines more than compensates. Between those and the remaining land based ICBMS, delivery wouldn't be an issue. Let's just pray it never becomes an issue!
There's a permanent tension in music isn't there? On one hand you have three chords, you know, four four and three chords. Then there's the people like me, who say "Well, why don't we add a fourth chord and put it in five four?" - Bill Bruford

### Re: Nuclear disarmament

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:26 pm

I agree with Dreadnought; there'd have been a World War III and probably !V and V by now were it not for the atomic bomb because civilization is often too damned uncivilized. Another forgotten fact of WW II is that Japanese as well as U.S. casualties in the end of the war would have been far GREATER in a conventional invasion (as originally planned) than was actually the case with the Bomb. The atomic bombs destroyed two cities and much of their populations with no U.S. casualties. It has been estimated that withoit the invention of the atomic bomb, Japanese civilian casualties alone would have been 10 to 20 times greater, and U.S and enemy military casualties far greater than they were in the Invasion of Normandy had we been forced to use conventional means; it would've taken that much to make the (rightfully or wrongfully) proud Japanese to surrender (we wouldn't surrender easily either, after all, so I'm dissing the Japanese). Even without the atomic bomb, we were destroying entire cities such as Dresden; just not as easily. The threat of the atomic bomb has stabilized world relationships to a general extent - though not 'hot' spots like the Middle East and Asia. Most of the trouble spots in the world became so anyway because of European and American interference with their cultures long before the Atmic Bomb. So the Bomb is not the source of all evil - maybe one of the fruits of it, but not the source.
That's my 2 cents worth, anyway.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...