View Poll Results: How many warheads?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0. Arms are for hugging

    13 31.71%
  • 300. We should be on par with most others

    4 9.76%
  • 500. Not the most, but it sends a clear message.

    1 2.44%
  • 1500. Is plenty

    7 17.07%
  • 5000 or more. We must maintain superiority at all levels.

    16 39.02%
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 81

Thread: How Many?

  1. #31
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    I have to agree with Ronald Reagen on this one:

    “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
    Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1985

    Nonetheless, at our current position, I'm not looking for any major reduction.
    Ice T's position on Gun Control, "I'll get rid of mine when EVERYONE else does? That makes sense doesn't it?"

    Such is my view on our nukes.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  2. #32
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: How Many?

    300 active nuclear weapons seems more then sufficient. Furthermore, we can always just send 50 of the largest into the atmosphere resulting in a near eternal nuclear winter to kill every living being on the planet. That's uber spite of the worst caliber.

    We should just let the stockpile draw down to 300 and maintain them from there, utilizing the fuel for civilian purpose for the weapons that are decommed. Maybe we can sell fuel to Russia the same way we bought their Mox? That would be doubly ironic. Russian nuclear warheads once aimed to kill Americans are now powering their homes at the same time American nuclear warheads aimed to kill Russians now power their homes.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #33
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Another point: Libs always seem to be the ones who want to cut the military, but think about this. You think American Conservatives are bad, just remember the only thing between you and a burka is the strong arm of our military.

    You think the Muslim Brotherhood give a damn about your right to an abortion? You think Islamic Fundamentalists are sensitive to LGBT issues? You think the Chinese give a **** about civil rights? Freedom of speech? Academic freedom?

    All of those freedoms you guys love so much were born here in America, and don't you take them for granted. If we are weak, the other powers waiting in the wings are not going to be sensitive to any of those issues you guys hold dear.
    How is this relevant? The biggest criticisms of a nuclear free world come from countries that are reliant upon nuclear weapons to hold the American military at bay. A world free of nuclear weapons means that there is nothing militarily that can stop NATO. A nuclear weapon free world means an even stronger Hegemony for the West.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #34
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,878

    Re: How Many?

    Wouldn't 10 nukes be enough? If we fought someone that fired off their 10 nukes, the planet would very soon become inhabitable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  5. #35
    Demented Lycanthropist
    wolfman24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    East Waboo USA
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 01:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Actually it isn't.

    I've studied this subject in depth. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but not nearly so powerful as many people who have not studied their effects assume.

    Also, most nuclear weapons would be used to create "air bursts" to maximize the area of effect... and air bursts do not create fallout.

    Radiation from a standard nuke doesn't last forever. It typically falls off by the formula 7/90%... in 7 hours it falls off 90%, in 7x7=49 hours it falls off another 90% (99% total from original value), in a couple weeks it is down to 1/1000th of its original value.

    Also, the whole "nuclear winter" thing has never been more than a hypothesis that has remained controversial; many scientists and engineers consider it highly improbable. Even if "nuclear winter" occurred, it would not last forever and would not be the end of humanity, let alone life on earth.

    We do not have the power to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons, nor render it uninhabitable. We MIGHT have sufficient nukes to effectively end OUR current cycle of civilization and cause a "reset" with a much-reduced population... even that is questionable however.

    The idea that a nuclear war would exterminate humanity is much over hyped and almost certainly untrue.
    This goes against everything that science has been saying for the last 60 years. The half life of the materials used in nuclear weapons is not 7 hours, it more like 20 years if that short a period of time. It is the effect of radioactive materials in the fallout and not the fallout itself which is the issue. Once this material comes in contact with living material in the doses it would in a full scale nuclear war everything dies. EVERYTHING. This is not theory this is fact. Our early tests on nuclear explosions proved this. the only animal that is relatively resistant to "fallout" is the cochroach but even when subjected to ultra high levels of radiation it died. the other factor to consider is Strontium 90 which is lethal to all life forms. This would cover the ground and be carried in the wind currents and if memoryh serves is the main component of concern in Nuclear Winter.

    Nuclear winter is based on models that show the effect of radiation in massive quantities in the atmosphere for extended periods of time.

    Your assertion that there are not enough nukes to blow up the world is niave. The issue is not BLOWING up the earth which is what conventional weapons do. The issue is creating a nuclear disaster that becomes and ELE. We are talking about one "bomb' which carries multiple nuclear warheads of 20mg ton or larger. If I remember correctly the Hiroshima Bomb was 2mgton.

    All militaries capable of ICBM delivery systems or stategic targeting are not going to hit just any old place they going to put it in the pickle barrel. Strategically placed weapons (I hate the word bomb when talking nukes) would render over 90 per cent of the world unfit for live let alone human habitation. And if you think your home made bomb shelter is going to save you. Go luck with that.

    From what I understand, 1 20mgton weapon will incinerate everything within a 10-20 sq mile radius and affect everything within at least a 100 mile radius BEFORE the radiation effectively (in bulk) enters the atmosphere. Once this happens the effects become exponential. Multiply this effect by 1000 and then measure in wind patterns and drift and you start to see the picture.

    Even the survivalist maps of the 60-80's showed that over 85% of the US would be unfit for human life and primarily any life. This was based on a limited exchange
    "Those who do not learn from history and condemned to relive it".

    "There are those who will debate the necessity of wilderness, I will not, either you know it in your bones or you are very very old". Aldo Leopold - Sand County Almanac

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfman24 View Post
    This goes against everything that science has been saying for the last 60 years. The half life of the materials used in nuclear weapons is not 7 hours, it more like 20 years if that short a period of time. It is the effect of radioactive materials in the fallout and not the fallout itself which is the issue. Once this material comes in contact with living material in the doses it would in a full scale nuclear war everything dies. EVERYTHING. This is not theory this is fact. Our early tests on nuclear explosions proved this. the only animal that is relatively resistant to "fallout" is the cochroach but even when subjected to ultra high levels of radiation it died. the other factor to consider is Strontium 90 which is lethal to all life forms. This would cover the ground and be carried in the wind currents and if memoryh serves is the main component of concern in Nuclear Winter.

    Nuclear winter is based on models that show the effect of radiation in massive quantities in the atmosphere for extended periods of time.

    Your assertion that there are not enough nukes to blow up the world is niave. The issue is not BLOWING up the earth which is what conventional weapons do. The issue is creating a nuclear disaster that becomes and ELE. We are talking about one "bomb' which carries multiple nuclear warheads of 20mg ton or larger. If I remember correctly the Hiroshima Bomb was 2mgton.

    All militaries capable of ICBM delivery systems or stategic targeting are not going to hit just any old place they going to put it in the pickle barrel. Strategically placed weapons (I hate the word bomb when talking nukes) would render over 90 per cent of the world unfit for live let alone human habitation. And if you think your home made bomb shelter is going to save you. Go luck with that.

    From what I understand, 1 20mgton weapon will incinerate everything within a 10-20 sq mile radius and affect everything within at least a 100 mile radius BEFORE the radiation effectively (in bulk) enters the atmosphere. Once this happens the effects become exponential. Multiply this effect by 1000 and then measure in wind patterns and drift and you start to see the picture.

    Even the survivalist maps of the 60-80's showed that over 85% of the US would be unfit for human life and primarily any life. This was based on a limited exchange


    Wrong on so many counts I hardly know where to begin.

    For starters, the Hiroshima bomb was not 2 megatons... we didn't even have megaton-range weapons then. IIRC Hiroshima was about a 20 kiloton... several orders of magnitude less than your estimate.

    Second, fallout does not consist of "the materials used in nuclear weapons", at least not in bulk. It consists of particles picked up from the ground in the fireball of a surface blast and irradiated into a temporary state of radiactivity... not the components of the bomb itself, which are very limited in mass. As I mentioned, most nuclear attacks on anything other than hardened military bunkers would be "air bursts", WHICH DON'T PRODUCE FALLOUT.

    MOST fallout consists of particles that decay according to the 7/90 rule... the ones producing the most rads. There are some other particles in SMALL AMOUNTS that would stick around, which I address below.


    Third, you blithely talk about 20 megaton weapons as if they were the norm... they are not. Most strategic nukes are in the 200-300 kiloton range... again, several orders of magnitude lesser in power than what you're talking about. Also, a lot of the nukes referred to in scarism literature are actually tactical nukes... typically 50kt or less.

    Next, yes Strontium 90 would be a long-term problem, but it isn't as you protrayed it "lethal to all lifeforms". The primary concern about Strontium 90 would be small amounts settling into bones and resulting in bone cancer over a long period of time... not instant lethality.

    Then, there's the "85% of the USA would be rendered unfit for human life" maps.... again, wrong. What that actually was, was that in a full-on global nuclear war with EVERYTHING being shot off, there was a good chance that 85% of the USA would experience SOME level of fallout. Not necessarily lethal to humans, not necessarily lethal to lesser lifeforms... in particular, people who could take shelter in a basement with some extra improvised shielding could survive in most areas other than a few immediately downwind of the missle silos and bunkers in the midwest.

    Your misinformation is typical of people who have a small amount of mostly-misunderstood knowlege but haven't studied the matter in depth.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #37
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: How Many?

    People argue that we would never use them for the wrong reasons, who determines whether something is used for the right or wrong reason? Why the double standard? Why are we allowed to have them but some other countries are not? Who is to judge who uses these weapons for good not evil, because that comes down to personal opinion, and that is ALWAYS biased.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    People argue that we would never use them for the wrong reasons, who determines whether something is used for the right or wrong reason? Why the double standard? Why are we allowed to have them but some other countries are not? Who is to judge who uses these weapons for good not evil, because that comes down to personal opinion, and that is ALWAYS biased.

    An excellent question. The answer is: We will, because we are powerful enough (in this period of time) to impose our will on other nations if we wish.


    That is the way of the world. You don't have to like it, but it is so.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #39
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How Many?

    We need just enough nukes to knock the asteroid or comet coming at us off track.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  10. #40
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    An excellent question. The answer is: We will, because we are powerful enough (in this period of time) to impose our will on other nations if we wish.


    That is the way of the world. You don't have to like it, but it is so.
    That is exactly the problem.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •