The world doesn't have as many nukes as you might think...

[Infohawk]

[deleted - circular link]

You always here that "we have enough nukes to destroy the planet three times over" myth. We should be increasing spending on unconventional weapons and decreasing spending on conventional forces.

 

[JSt0rm]

shwa?

 

[Arkaign]

The link points to P&N? I guess this is where teh WMD were the whole time? Damn fusetalk!

 

[TheSkinsFan]

The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision, conventional weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Via Gizmodo

You always here that "we have enough nukes to destroy the planet three times over" myth. We should be increasing spending on unconventional weapons and decreasing spending on conventional forces.

We've never had 'enough nukes to destroy the planet three times over'. People as a general rule vastly overestimate the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

Why would we want to increase spending on our nuclear forces though? What strategic aims could we accomplish with a larger arsenal that we cannot accomplish now?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

Yep, plus we have to keep existing stockpiles up-to-date so that they will be effective if (heaven forbid) we need to use them.

It would be very nice to have a near-zero fallout miniature nuke to use as a burrowing bunker buster to clean out cave / bunker systems. But, I doubt the international community would allow use of such a bunker buster even if it was clean due to the stigma of nuclear weapons.

It is safer to have a medium-sized stockpile of accurate nuclear weapons capable of retaliation in a decapitation strike on us than a huge stockpile of the alternative. The fewer needed, the less chance of them falling into the wrong hands and the less concern of cleanup once they reach end of life.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

Except in the words of bill gates radioactive fallout is a feature not a bug.

 

[bbdub333]

Instead of building bigger and more powerful weapons of mass destruction, we need to focus on getting more use out of the ones we have now.

 

[SickBeast]

Even if nukes are "clean" they are still a WMD that kills millions of people in one shot.

The US does need them as a deterrent, however it's only a matter of time before everyone has them. Really they should focus on how to intercept a nuke or shoot down their delivery systems.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision, conventional weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

SAT-mounted kinetic weapons?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision, conventional weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

SAT-mounted kinetic weapons?

Possibly... but, sadly, "Star Wars" has always been too much of a political issue to make any real progress in engineering such weapons.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Even if nukes are "clean" they are still a WMD that kills millions of people in one shot.

The US does need them as a deterrent, however it's only a matter of time before everyone has them. Really they should focus on how to intercept a nuke or shoot down their delivery systems.

millions of brown people. they dont matter as much. Millions of brown people are worth like 40 americans.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Even if nukes are "clean" they are still a WMD that kills millions of people in one shot.

The US does need them as a deterrent, however it's only a matter of time before everyone has them. Really they should focus on how to intercept a nuke or shoot down their delivery systems.

millions of brown people. they dont matter as much. Millions of brown people are worth like 40 americans.

Are the Russians "brown"? No, they're certainly not. Yet, we were essentially at war with them for over 45 years, and they are the single biggest reason we developed and stockpiled so many nuclear weapons. Imagine that.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Even if nukes are "clean" they are still a WMD that kills millions of people in one shot.

The US does need them as a deterrent, however it's only a matter of time before everyone has them. Really they should focus on how to intercept a nuke or shoot down their delivery systems.

millions of brown people. they dont matter as much. Millions of brown people are worth like 40 americans.

Are the Russians "brown"? No, they're certainly not. Yet, we were essentially at war with them for over 45 years, and they are the single biggest reason we developed and stockpiled so many nuclear weapons. Imagine that.

Grow the fuck up.

I did grow up but I was able to keep my youth. I'm just lucky I guess.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
it's only a matter of time before everyone has them.

This is truth. Unfortunately this nation has become so weak we can't even stomach the mild waterboarding of a few terrorists. How can we possibly expect to do what is necessary to stop other nations from getting nukes? Covert violence is really the best solution to this problem. We must slaughter the scientists who would give other countries the ability to build nuclear weapons and use them against us. This is not a difficult thing to do, the main problem are the fools who would block such actions. They must be replaced with persons who are strong willed enough to approve such actions. Everyone knows this.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: SickBeast
it's only a matter of time before everyone has them.

This is truth. Unfortunately this nation has become so weak we can't even stomach the mild waterboarding of a few terrorists. How can we possibly expect to do what is necessary to stop other nations from getting nukes? Covert violence is really the best solution to this problem. We must slaughter the scientists who would give other countries the ability to build nuclear weapons and use them against us. This is not a difficult thing to do, the main problem are the fools who would block such actions. They must be replaced with persons who are strong willed enough to approve such actions. Everyone knows this.

You should make a video game.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I did grow up but I was able to keep my youth. I'm just immature I guess.

fixed.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I did grow up but I was able to keep my youth. I'm just immature I guess.

fixed.

ok whatever you want to call it.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Even if nukes are "clean" they are still a WMD that kills millions of people in one shot.

The US does need them as a deterrent, however it's only a matter of time before everyone has them. Really they should focus on how to intercept a nuke or shoot down their delivery systems.

millions of brown people. they dont matter as much. Millions of brown people are worth like 40 americans.

Russians fight back. Republicans don't like that.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision, conventional weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

Or we could put the funding into cancer research or ensuring that people don't go hungry.

 

[heyheybooboo]

LOL @ The Nuke Nuts

 

[Orignal Earl]

Heh, saw this video on liveleak this morning

House in the Middle 1945

Always remember folks, a tidy home is a nuke safe zone
Some shit never changes...

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

Yep, plus we have to keep existing stockpiles up-to-date so that they will be effective if (heaven forbid) we need to use them.

It would be very nice to have a near-zero fallout miniature nuke to use as a burrowing bunker buster to clean out cave / bunker systems. But, I doubt the international community would allow use of such a bunker buster even if it was clean due to the stigma of nuclear weapons.

It is safer to have a medium-sized stockpile of accurate nuclear weapons capable of retaliation in a decapitation strike on us than a huge stockpile of the alternative. The fewer needed, the less chance of them falling into the wrong hands and the less concern of cleanup once they reach end of life.

Do you even know how nuclear weapons work? It's impossible to design a nuclear weapon with no fallout/radiation. The closest thing to a "clean" nuclear weapon you can get is a hydrogen bomb, but we have no way of producing a fusion reaction without a massive fission reaction first.

Secondly, nuclear weapons are stabilizing. The problem is that asymmetric distribution of nuclear weapons is de-stabilizing. No two countries that were nuclear armed have ever escalated a conflict. IMO, every region should have balancing nuclear weapons.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision, conventional weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

Actually, the neutron bombs developed back 30 years ago had very little fallout, and a small epicenter of destruction. They were designed as "tank killers", that would kill with massive amounts of neutron radiation, without destroying everything and leaving a huge radioactive crater (just a small one!).

Wikipedia article on neutron bombs.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The U.S. does NOT need more nukes, we just need to discover a way to make new ones that are "clean."

It would be nice to see the same levels of destruction possible without all the nasty radioactive fallout afterwards.

We should also be looking to shift funding to rapid-response, long-range, precision, conventional weapons that could be launched and hit pinpoint targets, anywhere on Earth, in 30 minutes or less. This would go a long way in the WOT and other instances when rapid responses are necessary.

Or we could put the funding into cancer research or ensuring that people don't go hungry.

How about we do both and stop giving it away to Private Banks?

It's OK to have a bleeding heart AND carry a big stick ya know.