View Poll Results: Should the US Resume Neutron Bomb Research?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    25 67.57%
  • No

    12 32.43%
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93

Thread: Neutron Bomb Question

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I take it you just found out about these weapons and are trying to quickly bring yourself up to speed?
    You take a lot of things. You should put them back if they don't belong to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Again, I fully understand.
    Nope.

    If you fully understood, you wouldn't have claimed that because more neutrons are needed that a bigger blast is needed.

    That pretty much proves you don't know squat.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Even at 1/10th of the power, the damage at the epicenter will be immense as well the damage caused by the shockwave. And the way you are arguing to use them requires a large number of them. That effectively means that large areas of the US will be completely leveled.

    ...

    You also ignore the purpose of the weapons: to eliminate soviet tanks columns without having to irradiate the land. It was never about keeping the civilian structures in tact. It was about stopping armor.
    So, which is it, a land destroying supermegatonnage bomb as you claim in the first part, or an armor destroying non-irradiating weapon, as you claimed in the second?

    Can you pick one argument and lose with that instead of picking two self-contradictory arguments and losing twice?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You know, the whole messiah crap turns people off
    So?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    and makes you look stupid.
    But no where near as stupid as the people that voted for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Very little in your second post is worth even discussing as it's more of a hyperpartisan rant with little ties to reality.
    Yes, I hear that's one of the re-programming phrases from the DNC for people who need to follow orders. "hyperpartisan". Cool. What I think is means is that the people who voted for Obama burned out their hyperdrives.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    And you did in fact ignore the logistics problem that both Rathi and I discussed.
    No.

    I stated they weren't important.

    If you're going to say I ignored it, you have to addres the fact the I didn't ignore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Nowhere did you even talk about it. In fact some of us made jokes about how China is even going to get here with sufficiently large numbers of assets.
    Alaska. Ya ever hear of the place? Are you aware that it was an important strategic issue in WWII?

    There's this country called "Mexico", too. For some reason I can't imagine why you people are pretending Mexico doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    And we didn't have technological superiority when it came to WWII.
    Depends on what you're discussing. The Japanese didn't advance technically.

    The Germans had cool little toys, and their impact on the war was just as important as little kids playing with toys.

    The Chinese are working on technical superiority, though. But y'all can ignore that if you wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But we still won. Having a giant based called England helped.
    "We" won because "we" had factories the enemy couldn't reach and because, and only because, the funny little man in Berlin made the mistake of attacking the USSR before securing his western front first.

    That's the only reason Hitler lost the war.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Why bother with a neutron when you can just torpedo the landing craft? Seems simpler to me. Or just not get into a war. Imagine that. Ron Paul suggested that the easiest way to avoid war is not to get into one. Huh. So simple!
    Okay. So what you're saying is that WWII is a complete mystery to you.

    Very well.

  3. #73
    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 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You take a lot of things. You should put them back if they don't belong to you.
    I wonder if you have more insults than actual replies. I should tally.

    Nope

    If you fully understood, you wouldn't have claimed that because more neutrons are needed that a bigger blast is needed.

    That pretty much proves you don't know squat.
    Incorrect. What I said is that you need a sizable reaction to produce the amount of neutrons to kill the size of the force you were talking about. And given your senario, we'd need thousands of these things given their relatively small radius's and the fact that neutrons are readily absorbed by air thereby eliminating them as a weapon over anything more than a mile or so.

    Don't know squat eh? I'll wait till I get to your part about WWII.

    So, which is it, a land destroying supermegatonnage bomb as you claim in the first part, or an armor destroying non-irradiating weapon, as you claimed in the second?
    Did I say supermegatonnage bomb? No. Neutron bombs have relatively small radius of effectiveness. No more than a mile, optimal 1/2 a mile. The destruction caused by the blast can extends for hundreds of meters. This ain't hard to figure out. The people you want to kill by radiation are in this radius. The people you want to kill by radiation are also in the blast radius of the bomb which will kill them by conventional nuclear explosions. Sure the people on the fringes will eventually get radiation sickness, but one is obviously going to deploy the weapon where the radiation does the most damage, hence in the greatest enemy density....yet the blast from the weapon will kill them anyways. Hence self defeating unless you're willing to saturate huge areas with thousands of weapons to ensure no one gets through...but that seems far too unfeasible for a rational mind.

    Can you pick one argument and lose with that instead of picking two self-contradictory arguments and losing twice?
    It would help if you either lied better to the point where people didn't notice you lying, or if you just didn't lie.

    See above.

    So?
    You don't mind people considering what you write to be drivel on the basis of those terms?

    But no where near as stupid as the people that voted for him.
    Perhaps, but Obama is a Bush clone which makes people who voted for either the same kind of idiot.

    Yes, I hear that's one of the re-programming phrases from the DNC for people who need to follow orders. "hyperpartisan". Cool. What I think is means is that the people who voted for Obama burned out their hyperdrives.
    Ah labeling. The sign of a poor debater. Can't actually deal with their argument? Assume they are from the opposing faction so you don't have to actually deal with their claims.

    No.

    I stated they weren't important.
    Where?

    Alaska. Ya ever hear of the place? Are you aware that it was an important strategic issue in WWII?

    There's this country called "Mexico", too. For some reason I can't imagine why you people are pretending Mexico doesn't exist.
    I'm close to peitioning for this thread to moved to the conspiracy section. Your argument that Mexico would aid China or that Mexico would be invaded is insane. Not to mention that taking Alaska is hard ****, not to mention resupplying from there to the lower 48.

    If I didn't know better, I'd think you were joking about this whole thing.

    The Japanese didn't advance technically.
    Define "advance"

    The Germans had cool little toys, and their impact on the war was just as important as little kids playing with toys.
    It was more of an issue of quantity rather than quality. If they had the 262 early in the war, or if they had the number of Tiger that we had Shermans, we'd be in for a much harder war.

    "We" won because "we" had factories the enemy couldn't reach and because, and only because, the funny little man in Berlin made the mistake of attacking the USSR before securing his western front first.

    That's the only reason Hitler lost the war.
    Only? There are plenty of reasons why the Axis lost.

    The whole point is that technological superiority does not equate to logistical support that is vital to combat.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #74
    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 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Okay. So what you're saying is that WWII is a complete mystery to you.

    Very well.
    Do you have anything other than insults?

    Tell me, if WWII is such a mystery, why did the German U-Boats so successfully slow down the flow of men and material to Britain?

    Furthermore, tell me, how is an army suppose to fight without men and material in the combat theater?

    You have a lot of insults. And not much else.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #75
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,086

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by creativedreams View Post
    Interesting you bring this up.

    In the past China has threatened to send a Neutron bomb to Taiwain and send 200 Nuclear bombs to U.S.

    They are bitter of Taiwains dissent...
    You think China has 200 bombs they can send to the US.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  6. #76
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwaters View Post
    Taiwan is still run by the descendants of Chank Ki Chek and they will not be ruled by a Chinese occupation. China knows that. Taking a hard line towards Taipei is standard procedure for Chinese because of what a ganster Chang was. I think as long as the Mainland talks tough and makes provocative jestures in the straights periodically that's enough.
    Compared to Mao he was a pussycat.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You think China has 200 bombs they can send to the US.
    Delivered in 30 minutes or less, or they're free.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-08-14 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    What is the relative size and strength of the militaries? The goal in war is not and should not be to destroy all the people of a nation.
    Do you ever read any history? Genocidal war is a time honored tradition in many cultures.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  9. #79
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-08-14 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Why do you think killing millions of innocent Chinease will make us safer. Destroy their military, which should be doable, and they are no threat.

    Besides, we have more than enough nukes now to destroy any country in it's totality without making new weapons.
    Just to check our moral compass here, aren't soldiers of a totalitarian state also "innocents?" If we have to kill millions of ignorant young Chinese men one day to defend Progressives, Liberals, Pacifists, Humanists and other mistakes of Social evolution, I want them to realize that they share in the responsibility.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  10. #80
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,197

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Since China has 1,300 million people and the United States has less than a quarter of that, should the United States resume intensive studies of enhanced radiation weapons to prepare for possible future armed conflict with an enemy that could field an army four times the size of ours?

    I argue that it may become necessary for the US to employ nuclear weapons on US soil, and in that event, it would be ideal to minimize the damage from blast and fallout and concentrate the weapon's effects on the enemy invaders.
    I say yes we should develop neutron bombs. What ever our enemies have we should have something equal and if we can something better than our enemies. Better to have and not need it than to need it and not have it. The atomic bombs worked in WWII,who knows how many more American lives we would have lost if we didn't use those bombs.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 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
  •