Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well nk fires missiles off in the direction of japan all the time and we don't bother shooting them down, despite our agreement that theyre under our umbrella of protection. I'd hazard a guess if they fired one off towards Hawaii, our military would take a "wait and see what happens" approach and hope that it's another test. Only if it does turn out to be a nuke will they retaliate.
And with the military's track record of shooting down missiles in general, and the lack of Hawaii based interceptors, my confidence isn't that high that we'd be able to shoot down the real thing. of course, I doubt nk is lobbing precision guided missiles in the first place. seems to be pointed in a general direction off their coast fired without guidance.
The only two times nukes have been used in warfare, they weren't delivered by missiles. 50-year-old propeller planes and even balloons can work just as well. People are putting too much emphasis on their missile program, and not enough on their nuclear program. Missiles can be used to launch satellites, put men on the moon, and have other humanitarian uses. Nuclear weapons programs, not so much.
id imagine navigating a fishingboat with a nuke device into local waters and detonating to be a far easier method of attacking hawaii, if they were really inclined to do so.
They want it for the same reason iran and other countries want it. the deterrence factor. A country with significant amount of nukes cannot be attacked directly or risk nuclear retaliation. nuclear weapons have probably done more for peace over the last 70 years than anythign else. If there was no such thing as nukes, we'd probably have been engaged in wwiii with russia by the 50s or 60s, maybe wwiv a few decades later with china
id imagine navigating a fishingboat with a nuke device into local waters and detonating to be a far easier method of attacking hawaii, if they were really inclined to do so.
They want it for the same reason iran and other countries want it. the deterrence factor. A country with significant amount of nukes cannot be attacked directly or risk nuclear retaliation. nuclear weapons have probably done more for peace over the last 70 years than anythign else. If there was no such thing as nukes, we'd probably have been engaged in wwiii with russia by the 50s or 60s, maybe wwiv a few decades later with china
I think the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction for an "All-Out" conflict very well have kept most war limited to small regional actions.
Mutually Assured Destruction might likely fail, however, in cases where leadership is or near to insane, either through ideological or theological influences, and comes into possession of nuclear weaponry, fissile, dirty or otherwise.
That is one of the reasons that the previous administration's coddling of Iran was such a dangerous thing, bordering on, if not fully, Treasonous. I am not convinced that Iran wants nukes for the deterrent factor. In both their and Porkchop's case, they are desired for their offensive capability more than defensive (via deterrent) capabilities, IMHO.
However, I do agree with part of the sentiment so oft-expressed on this forum on this topic. Keeping ones head in the sand, and pretending the threat is non-existent, is by far the easier path to follow.
I would re-issue my previous bit of advice:
Just because you aren't interested in war, doesn't mean war isn't interested in YOU.
Now where is my fruity, carbonated beverage (Sugar-Free, of course).
The only two times nukes have been used in warfare, they weren't delivered by missiles. 50-year-old propeller planes and even balloons can work just as well. People are putting too much emphasis on their missile program, and not enough on their nuclear program. Missiles can be used to launch satellites, put men on the moon, and have other humanitarian uses. Nuclear weapons programs, not so much.
What background in this subject do you have, and in what long-ago decade did it revolve around?
I would recommend you start with learning the difference between a Missile (weapon system) and a rocket (capable of delivering payloads into space such as satellites or other space vehicles).
Shooting down a bomber is so much easier than an inbound missile re-entering from space. Enter a MIRV payload, with or without several decoys, and the problem grows exponentially. The idea of delivering nukes via balloons, which have no guidance whatsoever, once launched, is a joke.
If you are prepared for one disaster you are prepared for most. I am, so I don't worry about it. There is no point in worrying.
I think it is good government agencies have a more specific plan.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I know some folks who moved here from California to get away from what they said was zombies in L.A. I guess that's how they prepare for zombie attacks. Maybe we should all move to Montana, probably no nukes in Montana?
better rethink this, there are already plenty of nukes in Montana and if you squint just right, they form a giant bulls-eye.
"What background in this subject do you have, and in what long-ago decade did it revolve around?"
I just assumed that everybody already understood the difference. We all learned that the first US "Rocket Scientists" were Germans who worked on Hitler's missile program when we were in grade school. Relax... Seriously, take a deep breath.
"The idea of delivering nukes via balloons, which have no guidance whatsoever, once launched, is a joke."
The only deaths on the US Mainland during WWII were in Oregon from a bomb strapped to a Japanese balloon. The program by far was a failure, but not a complete failure: https://www.wired.com/2010/05/0505ja...-kills-oregon/. Since a nuclear weapon is supposed to be detonated above the target, and has a much further reach than a conventional bomb, guidance becomes less relevant. I doubt the families of the 6 killed in Oregon thought the balloon bomb was a "joke".
"Shooting down a bomber is so much easier than an inbound missile re-entering from space."
"What background in this subject do you have, and in what long-ago decade did it revolve around?"
I just assumed that everybody already understood the difference. We all learned that the first US "Rocket Scientists" were Germans who worked on Hitler's missile program when we were in grade school. Relax... Seriously, take a deep breath.
"The idea of delivering nukes via balloons, which have no guidance whatsoever, once launched, is a joke."
The only deaths on the US Mainland during WWII were in Oregon from a bomb strapped to a Japanese balloon. The program by far was a failure, but not a complete failure: https://www.wired.com/2010/05/0505ja...-kills-oregon/. Since a nuclear weapon is supposed to be detonated above the target, and has a much further reach than a conventional bomb, guidance becomes less relevant. I doubt the families of the 6 killed in Oregon thought the balloon bomb was a "joke".
"Shooting down a bomber is so much easier than an inbound missile re-entering from space."
To prevent mass causalities, our military has to get things right every single time. Our adversaries only have to get things right once.
Before you assume others know the difference, it would behoove you to first know the difference yourself. Obviously, you didn't.
Yes we are all aware of the Japanese balloon bombs, utter failure and doesn't apply to nukes, which can't be sent out in the thousands. Your idea is, in fact, a joke. It just doesn't scale - at all.
An occasional collision at sea in no way relates to shooting down, or not shooting down aircraft - PERIOD.
Recitation of platitudes, isn't debate - it's just mental...well, you know.
Location: not sure, but there's a hell of a lot of water around here!
2,682 posts, read 7,578,196 times
Reputation: 3882
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 2 4
Before you assume others know the difference, it would behoove you to first know the difference yourself. Obviously, you didn't.
I'm much less worried about North Korea than I am worried about you worrying about us...
Stay on the Mainland, it's safer
Bigger target, but safer.
Okolemaluna pupule
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
