America to build super weapons

LEDagent

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Messages
1,487
Location
San Diego, California
When are humans going to stop making weapons of mass destruction?

I know this will keep us all safe and all but.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mecry.gif
 

BuddTX

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Messages
2,521
Location
Houston, TX
[ QUOTE ]
LEDagent said:
When are humans going to stop making weapons of mass destruction?

I know this will keep us all safe and all but.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mecry.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand, but, every society needs a policeman.

It SHOULD be that we don't need laws or police, we would all just get along. BUT, this kind of weapon, in the right hands, is a real deterent.
 

lightnix

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
249
Location
Kent, UK
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes ? - Who watches the watchman ?

Who decides who the "right hands" are ?

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but this story really scares me, it looks like yet another escalation of the arms race. As with the A-bomb, America will not be able to keep this technology to itself forever, other powers will develop it in the end and then what ? The acquisition and redirection of small asteroids onto "enemy" targets, maybe ?
 

Orion

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
1,613
Location
Missouri
It depends on how Top Secret they can keep these plans. Plus, it will depend on other countries ability to understand and/or perform the same technology. Stuff like this doesn't scare me and I DO see it as a "policeman's baton" against agressor countries.

You know what they say, "Peace through superior firepower"

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif
 

ewick

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
252
Location
Kentucky
You can't make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time.

Party "A" says, "This new technology will enable us to respond more immediately and more precisely to actions which threaten international security, while reducing the risks associated with these types of operations for our personnel."

Then Party "B" will say, "You have no right to interfere with the affairs of our nation or its people. Your country, as a military superpower, is a threat to the entire planet."

Party "A" says, "We will no longer give military or technological support to any foreign nation, as we have decided that the security of our own people, including those in our military, takes precedence."

Then Party "B" will say, "As a military superpower, you have an obligation to provide security and aid to under-privileged nations. Your refusal to do so is a blatant disregard for human welfare."

Go figure. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif
 

LEDagent

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Messages
1,487
Location
San Diego, California
Well...if they really want to keep this stuff secrect, maybe the media, or the governmnent, should stop advertising their plans for new weapons. If this is their way of showing off or scaring other countries, i say we scare them with a "demonstration"... not through the media.

I know that we don't live in a utopia...but it's just sad that we have to defend ourselves in this way. Even regular school fights end with someone getting shot. Whatever happened to a good ol' fist fight? I have avoided many fist fights in my day because i feared of getting shot by some gang member after school. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif If only i had the chance to drive my fists into someone's face, without the fear of weapons. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 

hula

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
117
Location
England
Imagine such weapons were available right now. Would they have been able to acheive the results we have seen in Iraq?
They may well contribute to rendering any hostile countries' military capabilty useless but that is just one part of resolving a hostile situation.
Time money and resources would be better allocated in the intelligence system so that terrorism acts on home soil are reduced to as near impossible as can be hoped for.
 

DavidW

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 2, 2000
Messages
1,793
Location
Central Florida
What if the title read:

"Al Quaida to buy super weapons from Russia
And plan to resell to terrorist groups"
 

lightnix

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
249
Location
Kent, UK
[ QUOTE ]
LEDagent said:
...i say we scare them with a "demonstration"...but it's just sad that we have to defend ourselves in this way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean in the same sort of way that Al Qaeda "demonstrated" their abilities on 9/11/01 ? I sincerely hope not.

"Have to..."? Why ? Can't anyone think of a better way ?

[ QUOTE ]
hula said:
Time money and resources would be better allocated in the intelligence system so that terrorism acts on home soil are reduced to as near impossible as can be hoped for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe they can. Thank Christ for that.
 

vcal

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Messages
3,074
Location
San Gabriel Valley
[ QUOTE ]
LEDagent said:When are humans going to stop making weapons of mass destruction? I know this will keep us all safe and all but.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mecry.gif

[/ QUOTE ]And let's not forget what some other nations can still do:....

A hot day in South Texas
 

NightStorm

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
1,090
Location
Between a rock & a hard place.
Very similar to a scenario I read pertaining to Seattle. It was published in the Seattle Times in the 1982, when Ronald Reagan was talking seriously about the concept of "Survivable Nuclear War". Fortunately for the world, the preliminary paper on "Nuclear Winter" was released less than a year later (by Richard P. Turco, Owen B. Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan) and most discussions of the concept were dropped. Unfortunately, the Seattle Times archives only go back to 1996, so I will not be able to post the original article and will have to depend on memory.

Seattle Map

In the scenario, there is an air burst of a 1 megaton device, 1000 feet above Lake Union (just north of downtown) during evening rush hour. Within a fraction of a second (9 nano-seconds to initiate and complete both fission and fusion reactions. "Three shakes of a lamb's tail" it is sometimes called by nuclear physicists.) everyone (approx. 200,000 including Craig) and all human constructs within one mile radius of the hypocenter of the blast, would be vaporized. Fortunately these people would never feel a thing, as the gamma/x-ray pulse from the detonation, would destroy their nervous systems before any sensation can be received by their brains. Others are not so lucky.

The heat effects of the blast would extend outward to approximately 5 miles from the hypocenter, igniting structures as far away as Mercer Island, the SODO district, West Seattle, Ballard/Magnolia and the neighborhoods immediately north of Greenlake. Regrettably, the people in this zone would not receive enough of the gamma/x-ray pulse to die outright and would probably succumb to the heat and blast effects. If not, the odds are very poor (for those within two miles of the blast) on surviving the massive cellular damage caused by the gamma/x-ray pulse.

The third zone is the one I live in and it is the blast effect zone. It would extend approx. 8 miles out from the hypocenter (I'm 6 miles out, in the Greenwood neighborhood) and would almost reach the Seattle city limits on the northern limits (145th St.) and Boeing Field to the south. Most wood or brick veneer structures in this zone would be heavily damaged or destroyed and concrete structures would fair only slightly better. Needless to say, this house would probably be destroyed (maybe Phinney Ridge would divert the blast....nah). The people in this area would suffer crushing injuries, flash burns, blindness and would probably die from radiation sickness within two weeks (if treatment for the other injuries were received), if they weren't killed outright. Most hospitals in the city of Seattle would be destroyed and the hospitals in the Puget Sound region (or the entire West Coast) would be overwhelmed. Total dead within a month, over 350,000.

During that period of time, it was stated that the Puget Sound area had 20 primary targets (heck, the Trident submarine pens at Bangor are only 8 miles west by northwest from me) and that the Soviets would probably deliver 3 devices to each target, due to lagging technology in the area of missile guidance. Needless to say, this area would lose its natural beauty for....say, hundreds of years.

Suffice it to say, I really wish we could put the genie back in the bottle. But we can't. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif The best we can do is reduce our own stockpile, while trying to prevent their proliferation elsewhere. We currently are working with the former Soviets in arms reduction, security and the reprocessing of weapons grade material into reactor fuel rods. I hope that its not "a little too little, too late".

Peace out,
Dan
 

vcal

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Messages
3,074
Location
San Gabriel Valley
Re: The Seattle scenarioKinda puts things in perspective, reminding us of how ephemeral this life can be.... :O



Even our fearless maximum leader, Mr. W. Bush would have to admit that those devices are the real "WMDs". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif
 

pedalinbob

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 7, 2002
Messages
2,281
Location
Michigan
if an irresponsible country attains nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them, we will be in a very dangerous position.

i think we should keep enough nuclear weapons to "get the job done", and dismantle the rest.

then, we should build a ballistic missile shield to make all those non-american missiles obsolete.


Bob
 

PhotonBoy

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
3,304
Location
Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, Canada http://tinyu
What annoys me is the paralysis demonstrated by the "United Nations" from which people expect leadership, perhaps naively. Given the UN's inability to act, the United States, being the remaining superpower, is forced to act as a world policeman, reluctantly and at great expense.

There's got to be a better way.
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
Amen to that Photonboy!!! The UN could gain alot more credibility if it would start by clearing out all the "Bully" member nations of it's Human Rights Commission. It galls me that the very commission tasked with providing the information the Security Council relies on to decide on intervention attracts the membership of the countries with the most to hide!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Edit: It also burns me that the rest of the world, including some of America have become so complacent in following the recommendations of these tyrants. As long as there exists a body of individuals who's agenda includes the oppression and uncivilized treatment of portions of mankind, then the development and sustainment of the weapons to defend against and possibly erradicate this body and it's supporters, is completely warranted and justified IMHO /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
[ QUOTE ]
BuddTX said:

... every society needs a policeman. It SHOULD be that we don't need laws or police, we would all just get along. BUT, this kind of weapon, in the right hands, is a real deterent.

[/ QUOTE ]

This theme was explored on a more universal scale in this superb sci-fi film, considered one of the all-time greats.


THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL


Brightnorm
 

Latest posts

Top