Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-15-2012, 08:09 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,967,571 times
Reputation: 5455

Advertisements

How will all life on earth be destroyed??? Talibon will still be hiding out in their caves I'm sure. lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,455,257 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave View Post
And no, 100 is not enough to kill billions of people. Are you referring to the nuclear winter theory? It would take many more than that to have that effect.
Nuclear winter is not the only possible collateral consequence of a nuclear exchange. If civilization stops, if there is no internet, no financial system, no transportation, no grocery stores--I'll let you imagine how many people can slaughter cattle and hogs to survive.

Quote:
As far as the actual explosive power/radiation goes:
How Many Nukes Will Destroy The World? - Atomic Energy - RecipeApart
The zone of "complete destruction" is the key error in this analysis. If you live outside the zone of complete destruction and are only left blinded and maimed in a zone of 'incomplete' destruction, you are still going to die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,012 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
How will all life on earth be destroyed??? Talibon will still be hiding out in their caves I'm sure. lol
Well, lucky them, but the rest of us will dead, or slowly dying of radiation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,660,138 times
Reputation: 24860
How dare the President reduce our ability to bomb and rebomb and rebomb the rubble. Everyone knows the rubble must be destroyed and we need thousands and thousands of weapons to do that. We dare not be so weak as to risk attack by nuclear rubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:37 AM
 
78,013 posts, read 60,221,209 times
Reputation: 49404
Really guys, sad you have to politicize this so much.

1) What Obama says <> what he does. This may be nothing more than election year posturing. The fact that I have to point this out to some of you regardless of whether you are a D or an R should be embarassing as it shows you've been zoned out for the last 3 years.

2) We would still have plenty of deployed nukes to crush anyone messing with us if needed, even in the most extreme of the 3 options. We'd still have many thousands of un-deployed nukes which wouldn't take long to put into action.

Remember, the bombs we droped on Japan were in the 15kt range. Many of our deployed warheads are 15mt (or more) so just using a loose rule of thumb each of those 400 warheads is 1000 times stronger on average (swag) than what leveled nagasaki.

Personally I think this is just political grandstanding and all the far lefties and righties here are just bickering back and forth. Some of your arguments are truly non-sensical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,904 posts, read 6,904,751 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No.

But out of curiosity, why would think that?
Because of the concerns I brought up in my post below that sentence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Not really. For example, the Russians are light years ahead in MARV technology, and you can all thank Blow Job Bill for that, since he gave the Russians not one, but two Cray Super II super-computers.
You might be correct in this statement, but you missed what I was getting at. I mentioned other nations' ABM systems, not ours. And since, as you said, we only some of our Trident missiles have MARV (I believe), I'm concerned about our missiles being vulnerable, thus damaging our deterrent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Good portion? No. Even in the mid-1960s when the technology was still basically in its infancy, there was only 10% fail rate. That's been reduced significantly, and the fail rate is overwhelmingly caused by the platform and not the warhead.

Failed ignition
Partial ignition
Ignition termination
Ignition explosion
Ignition no thrust
Ignition silo door failure

(all of the above would occur before the missile even cleared the silo or launcher)

Ignition launch failure
Failed booster separation
2nd stage ignition failure
Failed second stage separation
Failed 3rd stage ignition
Failed bus launch
Failed trajectory
Failed telemetry
Failed ejection from bus (for MIRVs only)

There's a few more than that if you want to get technical about it.

For the warhead, there's only a few conditions, mostly related to PAL systems: altimeter failure/incorrect reading, pressure sensor failure/incorrect reading, speed sensor failure/incorrect reading.

The assumed failure rate now is 2%-3%.
I was also referring to launch failure above, not just failure to detonate. The truth is, we have no idea what the failure rates are for our warheads, but you can't deny that our launch failure rate will be much higher than 2-3% in the event of a first strike against us. Each of the points I bring up aren't convincing numerically when taken individually, it's only in aggregate that there could be an erosion of our deterrent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Depends on the threat.

Only one warhead in excess of 300 kt is needed for Europe. Maybe four for South America. About 60-100 for Russia/Eastern Europe/Central Asia. 50-60 for Africa. About 25 or so for Asia.
Are those your estimates or do they come from a source? If so, I think it would be an interesting read if you wouldn't mind posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Yes. It isn't just the warheads and missiles, it's the entire infrastructure to support them.
I'll concede that delivery systems are expensive. But the most advanced (and expensive) delivery systems will undoubtedly still be deployed for those 20% remaining warheads. And if you try to get rid of a large portion of our SSBNs, the ones remaining will be easier for the "enemy" to track and attack in the outbreak of war.

As far as storage/development costs go, this is pittance compared to the $ spent on maintaining bases around the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
They aren't necessary. In fact, as the world becomes more developed, even fewer will be needed.
Your opinion. I see them as a valuable tool for peace, and I think most political scientists would agree with me. MAD will always have a purpose in preventing war until we get over our urges to fight (I won't hold my breath for this).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No possible way it could ever produce a Nuclear Winter. That theory was all lies, naturally, because if Sagan told the truth, then he couldn't frighten people.

Deterring...


Mircea
Agreed. Volcanic eruptions have a much greater impact on sunlight impairment. If nuclear winter is possible (and to be honest it likely is given enough nukes) it would probably take thousands of them, not a mere hundred.

Many people on here are grossly overestimating their destructive power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
YOu actually think a few nukes will destroy the planet? The old gal will be around a long time after that unless that global warming gets to her first.
Planet doesn't concern me so much, its humans that I slightly worry about.

Seeing as the United States has enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living thing larger then about an ant 20 times over, I think cutting that by 80% will be ok.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
How will all life on earth be destroyed??? Talibon will still be hiding out in their caves I'm sure. lol
You do understand what happens when you don't eat, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,315,724 times
Reputation: 2250
The reason to keep our 1500 nukes is to show power as a deterrent. No one plans to use them.
Obama is doing this to:
1. satisfy his anti war voters. They are angry that he followed most of Bush's foreign policy agenda, expanded the war in Afghanistan and even helped with a war in Libya.
2. he wants us to look weak to the rest of the world. He wants to cut the US down to size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:25 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,401,256 times
Reputation: 4798
What, you don't like your leader playing chop the carrot with his male appendages?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top