ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-
Neo-ganon
Nukes are not weapons of defense.
Obama May Ditch Most US Nukes
This topic is locked from further discussion.
First off, nuclear warheads are by no means defensive. Secondly, there's absolutely no need for 70,000. That's ridiculous. Besides, I don't see the third world war coming just yet.ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-
Neo-ganon
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]
ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-
worlock77
Nukes are not weapons of defense.
yes they are. they are a deterrent. its the fact that we have nukes and are willing to nuke the countres who fire their own at us that keeps other nuclear armed nations from attacking. If you were in a mexican stand-off with someone who wanted to kill and rape you, would you lower your weapon?
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]
ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-
Neo-ganon
Nukes are not weapons of defense.
yes they are. they are a deterrent. its the fact that we have nukes and are willing to nuke the countres who fire their own at us that keeps other nuclear armed nations from attacking. If you were in a mexican stand-off with someone who wanted to kill and rape you, would you lower your weapon?
1). Cold War ended decades ago now. 2). You would still have enough to destroy all possible opponents even in a worse case scenario 3) Your Mexican standoff analogy is awful. This is analogous to dropping off all other weapons except for the pistol that is going to do the killing.Disabling most of the US's nukes would still leave enough firepower to easily wipe every city in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and France thrown in for good measure, right off the map.[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]
ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-
Neo-ganon
yeah, our small amount of nukes against the entire stockpile of nukes belonging to the enemy that they are undoubtedly hiding because they know how much of a wuss obama is. we take down one or two of their cities, they completely glass us or worse, emp attack us
if the article saying that we would have less nukes than congressmen is true at least
I was reading a book once called "The Hot Gate" by John Ringo. After spending most of the book explaining why Latinos had a terrible work ethic, he finally got back to the actual story of the series in the last 75 pages or so. Anyways, at some point, a number of attackers found themselves in a system of caves. The good guys sent their troops from the Middle East to go fight them. John Ringo then went on to explain how the people from the middle east were perfectly at home in systems of caverns, and then talked about how they had rigged it with explosive traps, because apparently, in his words, building explosives was like a national sport to the people of the middle east, it was a hobby and a pastime, and they all learned to do it, and they were good at it. That's when it hit me. This guy actually thinks like this. This is what he thinks the world is like. These are the people claiming that we could be all killed in our beds by the American hating terrorists, this is how they think. It baffled me, seeing the truth of how this man's mind worked. Why did I go into that long story about reading a long story? Simple. The epiphany I had, realizing "wow, this person actually thinks that way?". I'm having it again. :|[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]
ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-
Neo-ganon
Nukes are not weapons of defense.
yes they are. they are a deterrent. its the fact that we have nukes and are willing to nuke the countres who fire their own at us that keeps other nuclear armed nations from attacking. If you were in a mexican stand-off with someone who wanted to kill and rape you, would you lower your weapon?
And a few hundred more than achieves this goal. We do not need more than that, and keeping such is costing us an insane amount of money. Keeping massive stocks of nuclear weapons may have made military sense during the Cold War, but that is long over. The world has changed, and so has warfare. The future of warfare is unmaned drones, urban combat, and cyber warfare. Time to put our focus there, not on having more nukes than the Red Bear.
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Nukes are not weapons of defense.
Ace6301
yes they are. they are a deterrent. its the fact that we have nukes and are willing to nuke the countres who fire their own at us that keeps other nuclear armed nations from attacking. If you were in a mexican stand-off with someone who wanted to kill and rape you, would you lower your weapon?
1). Cold War ended decades ago now. 2). You would still have enough to destroy all possible opponents even in a worse case scenario 3) Your Mexican standoff analogy is awful. This is analogous to dropping off all other weapons except for the pistol that is going to do the killing. #3. is exactly what I was thinking. Yeah, it's a Mexican stand-off, that's the point of nukes, but one of the guys in the stand-off, along with having his pistol, is also carrying a rifle in the other hand, a shoe knife, is holding another gun in his teeth, somehow operating a cannon with his foot, has a laser eye, a telescoping gun built into his hat like some violent Inspector Gadget, and to top it all off, has bombs wired to his heartbeat that will kill his opponent anyway if his heart stops beating.[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"][QUOTE="Tylendal"] Disabling most of the US's nukes would still leave enough firepower to easily wipe every city in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and France thrown in for good measure, right off the map.Tylendal
yeah, our small amount of nukes against the entire stockpile of nukes belonging to the enemy that they are undoubtedly hiding because they know how much of a wuss obama is. we take down one or two of their cities, they completely glass us or worse, emp attack us
if the article saying that we would have less nukes than congressmen is true at least
I was reading a book once called "The Hot Gate" by John Ringo. After spending most of the book explaining why Latinos had a terrible work ethic, he finally got back to the actual story of the series in the last 75 pages or so. Anyways, at some point, a number of attackers found themselves in a system of caves. The good guys sent their troops from the Middle East to go fight them. John Ringo then went on to explain how the people from the middle east were perfectly at home in systems of caverns, and then talked about how they had rigged it with explosive traps, because apparently, in his words, building explosives was like a national sport to the people of the middle east, it was a hobby and a pastime, and they all learned to do it, and they were good at it. That's when it hit me. This guy actually thinks like this. This is what he thinks the world is like. These are the people claiming that we could be all killed in our beds by the American hating terrorists, this is how they think. It baffled me, seeing the truth of how this man's mind worked. Why did I go into that long story about reading a long story? Simple. The epiphany I had, realizing "wow, this person actually thinks that way?". I'm having it again. :|You don't need to read John Ringo's books to know that he's a clinicalyl insane redneck piece of sh1t. :P
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Nukes are not weapons of defense.
worlock77
yes they are. they are a deterrent. its the fact that we have nukes and are willing to nuke the countres who fire their own at us that keeps other nuclear armed nations from attacking. If you were in a mexican stand-off with someone who wanted to kill and rape you, would you lower your weapon?
And a few hundred more than achieves this goal. We do not need more than that, and keeping such is costing us an insane amount of money. Keeping massive stocks of nuclear weapons may have made military sense during the Cold War, but that is long over. The world has changed, and so has warfare. The future of warfare is unmaned drones, urban combat, and cyber warfare. Time to put our focus there, not on having more nukes than the Red Bear.
Believe me, I dont like having nuclear weapons any more than any other sane person. The ability to wipe out all civilization in a push of a button is not a weapon we should have access to. however, we cant just get rid of all of them, especially since we know for a fact that there are people in the world (Iran) who would use them against us if they had access to them. And it doesnt take a full nuclear barrage to take down a country. All you need to do is detonate one in the atmosphere and set everybody back to the 19th century.
What I feel like we SHOULD do, is set up a better missile defense system (much like the star wars program only more practical) and then dismantle our nukes. We cant completely trust anyone. I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but any nuclear armed country can lie and say that they are dismantling their nukes so that we can lower our defenses.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]
yes they are. they are a deterrent. its the fact that we have nukes and are willing to nuke the countres who fire their own at us that keeps other nuclear armed nations from attacking. If you were in a mexican stand-off with someone who wanted to kill and rape you, would you lower your weapon?
Neo-ganon
And a few hundred more than achieves this goal. We do not need more than that, and keeping such is costing us an insane amount of money. Keeping massive stocks of nuclear weapons may have made military sense during the Cold War, but that is long over. The world has changed, and so has warfare. The future of warfare is unmaned drones, urban combat, and cyber warfare. Time to put our focus there, not on having more nukes than the Red Bear.
Believe me, I dont like having nuclear weapons any more than any other sane person. The ability to wipe out all civilization in a push of a button is not a weapon we should have access to. however, we cant just get rid of all of them, especially since we know for a fact that there are people in the world (Iran) who would use them against us if they had access to them. And it doesnt take a full nuclear barrage to take down a country. All you need to do is detonate one in the atmosphere and set everybody back to the 19th century.
What I feel like we SHOULD do, is set up a better missile defense system (much like the star wars program only more practical) and then dismantle our nukes. We cant completely trust anyone. I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but any nuclear armed country can lie and say that they are dismantling their nukes so that we can lower our defenses.
Nobody is saying get rid of them all. A few hundred will suffice for whatever purpose we need. You do not need to annihilate your enemy to win a war. You need only to destroy his ability to fight. How many nukes do you think it would take to incapacitate Iran? Perhaps a handful at most.
And missle defense systems are a pipe dream. They've never been proven reliable. And why do you think we should dismantle our nukes after this missle defense system? Do you want us vunerable?
lol at the people thinking that they know better than the pentagon.
This seems like a really good idea now, but if $*** ever hits the fan and we actually need them, it is going to be a huge mistake. Sure you could destory verything you need to with 500 nukes, but lets imagine a situation where a system like "star wars" has actually been built by an enemy that might be interested in nuking us, and it is able to shoot down 99.5 of the nukes launched at that country it would only allow ~3 nukes through. We would have far too few nukes to be a deterrent, if 30 nukes still made it through, that would be a much different story.
This seems like a really good idea now, but if $*** ever hits the fan and we actually need them, it is going to be a huge mistake. Sure you could destory verything you need to with 500 nukes, but lets imagine a situation where a system like "star wars" has actually been built by an enemy that might be interested in nuking us, and it is able to shoot down 99.5 of the nukes launched at that country it would only allow ~3 nukes through. We would have far too few nukes to be a deterrent, if 30 nukes still made it through, that would be a much different story.
Jacobistheman
If such a system were to be developed I can guarentee you that it would lead to another arms escalation and the US would suddenly have a hell of a lot more than 300 nuclear weapons actively deployed.
[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]
This seems like a really good idea now, but if $*** ever hits the fan and we actually need them, it is going to be a huge mistake. Sure you could destory verything you need to with 500 nukes, but lets imagine a situation where a system like "star wars" has actually been built by an enemy that might be interested in nuking us, and it is able to shoot down 99.5 of the nukes launched at that country it would only allow ~3 nukes through. We would have far too few nukes to be a deterrent, if 30 nukes still made it through, that would be a much different story.
worlock77
If such a system were to be developed I can guarentee you that it would lead to another arms escalation and the US would suddenly have a hell of a lot more than 300 nuclear weapons actively deployed.
I don't think that a system of lasers that are capable of destroying missiles in the upper atmosphere would lead to a arms escalation. I am would not be surprised at all if US, Russia, China and a lot of European countries deploy systems like this in the next 10 years. I have seen systems like this on the history channel, they say that they are in "early development", which basically means they are really far if the are willing to release the information to the public.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]
This seems like a really good idea now, but if $*** ever hits the fan and we actually need them, it is going to be a huge mistake. Sure you could destory verything you need to with 500 nukes, but lets imagine a situation where a system like "star wars" has actually been built by an enemy that might be interested in nuking us, and it is able to shoot down 99.5 of the nukes launched at that country it would only allow ~3 nukes through. We would have far too few nukes to be a deterrent, if 30 nukes still made it through, that would be a much different story.
Jacobistheman
If such a system were to be developed I can guarentee you that it would lead to another arms escalation and the US would suddenly have a hell of a lot more than 300 nuclear weapons actively deployed.
I don't think that a system of lasers that are capable of destroying missiles in the upper atmosphere would lead to a arms escalation. I am would not be surprised at all if US, Russia, China and a lot of European countries deploy systems like this in the next 10 years. I have seen systems like this on the history channel, they say that they are in "early development", which basically means they are really far if the are willing to release the information to the public.Sorry if I don't take anything shown on the History Channel seriously. But beside that point such systems have been proven to be pretty much in the realm of science fiction (hence the derisive name, "star wars").
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
And a few hundred more than achieves this goal. We do not need more than that, and keeping such is costing us an insane amount of money. Keeping massive stocks of nuclear weapons may have made military sense during the Cold War, but that is long over. The world has changed, and so has warfare. The future of warfare is unmaned drones, urban combat, and cyber warfare. Time to put our focus there, not on having more nukes than the Red Bear.
worlock77
Believe me, I dont like having nuclear weapons any more than any other sane person. The ability to wipe out all civilization in a push of a button is not a weapon we should have access to. however, we cant just get rid of all of them, especially since we know for a fact that there are people in the world (Iran) who would use them against us if they had access to them. And it doesnt take a full nuclear barrage to take down a country. All you need to do is detonate one in the atmosphere and set everybody back to the 19th century.
What I feel like we SHOULD do, is set up a better missile defense system (much like the star wars program only more practical) and then dismantle our nukes. We cant completely trust anyone. I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but any nuclear armed country can lie and say that they are dismantling their nukes so that we can lower our defenses.
Nobody is saying get rid of them all. A few hundred will suffice for whatever purpose we need. You do not need to annihilate your enemy to win a war. You need only to destroy his ability to fight. How many nukes do you think it would take to incapacitate Iran? Perhaps a handful at most.
And missle defense systems are a pipe dream. They've never been proven reliable. And why do you think we should dismantle our nukes after this missle defense system? Do you want us vunerable?
I do not want us vulnerable. Im just saying that regarding the subject of nuclear disarmament we would need a better missile defense system. I never said "dismantle ALL the nukes" either. And missile defense systems arent "pipe dreams" either. The air force had plans and working prototypes for airplane and naval ship mounted lasers that could shoot down ICBMs from half a hemisphere away, but obama axed the plan even though it was proven many times that they were 100 % effective
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment