|
Pro-nuclear vs. No-Nukes (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
You can't deny its dangers, however. Just because it's very clean and efficient doesn't mean that it can't be very dangerous in the wrong hands. What would it take for a country to launch nuclear war on another? |
Proliferation is a concern to the world body, but things like pebble bed reactors and other nuclear power generation tools allow almost any country to deploy nuclear power with out the world fearing that they will be attempting to build nuclear weapons will soon be available.
These will really bring about the fabled "power so cheap its un-meterable." |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
The percentage of humans who die in war was decreasing long before nukes. The real reason for the decline in war is the gradual recognition that trade and investment are ultimately superior to warfare if you want to accumulate riches.
;) |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The real reason for the decline in war is the gradual recognition that trade and investment are ultimately superior to warfare if you want to accumulate riches. |
What decline in war? The United States is still at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
There's a book my dad read that he was telling me about... written by a former navy sub captain- I can't remember it but I'll ask him later- about how there are even more subs and more nukes than the public even knows about. I wouldn't be surprised if there are all kinds of crazy like that going on that we'd never know about. |
Eh most of its all public knowledge. I live near Naval Base Kitsap which includes Bangor Submarine Base (the SSBN Pacific fleets home port) and in my time I have know and talked with a large number of civilian and military personnel.
Things like deployment areas, deployment lengths and load out are all secret and I am sure there are technologies on board that are not public yet as well, but as far as numbers go its pretty much out there.
International treaties in the nuclear realm are usually enforced by cooperation between Russia and the US because neither side wants to be on the lesser end, even now. Thats why they keep decommissioned silos in plain sight of Russian satellites for many months so their decommission can be verified. Even the Titan II museum in Arizona has its silo door half opened with the missile inside clearly displaying a giant hole cut in its warhead section to show that it is not a real missile. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
Russia could do the exact same thing to us at any given moment also. They have more nukes than us, you know. I know the U.S. and Russia are cool right now, but what could push a country over the edge, and launch a full-scale nuclear war? What could possibly cause that? |
you see this from the other day, about Russian subs patrolling off the East Coast of the U.S. now?
| quote: | “I don’t think they’ve put two first-line nuclear subs off the U.S. coast in about 15 years,” said Norman Polmar, a naval historian and expert on submarine warfare…
The submarine patrols come as Moscow tries to shake off the embarrassment of the latest failed test of the Bulava missile, a long-range weapon that was test fired from a submarine in the Arctic on July 15. The failed missile test was the sixth since 2005, and some experts see Russia’s assertiveness elsewhere as a gambit by the military to prove its continued relevance…
While the submarines had not taken any provocative action beyond their presence outside territorial waters of the United States, officials expressed wariness over the Kremlin’s motivation for ordering such an unusual mission.
“Any time the Russian Navy does something so out of the ordinary it is cause for worry,” said a senior Defense Department official who has been monitoring reports on the submarines’ activities. |
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...HQ23uZHvUqoKUU@)H)ccQ2FHcgHcjHQ23UKQ22vHcjPs@KUQ22eI@Q5DQ22
Speculation being that Russia is ramping up for another situation with Georgia (as I just read yesterday about escalating tensions), and that this is to send a message to Obama that they aren't to be trifled with this time around. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
What decline in war? The United States is still at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. |
The percentage of people who die in wars (or die because of human violence in general) has gradually been decreasing. Yes there are still some wars but they are generally less devastating than in previous eras.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pin...er07_index.html |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The percentage of humans who die in war was decreasing long before nukes. The real reason for the decline in war is the gradual recognition that trade and investment are ultimately superior to warfare if you want to accumulate riches.
;) |
True, but also two of the largest conflicts on the face of the planet happened in a 30 year period at the point right before nuclear weapons were developed. Since then there has not been a conflict on that scale, and the idea of one that large now seems suicidal. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
you see this from the other day, about Russian subs patrolling off the East Coast of the U.S. now?
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...HQ23uZHvUqoKUU@)H)ccQ2FHcgHcjHQ23UKQ22vHcjPs@KUQ22eI@Q5DQ22
Speculation being that Russia is ramping up for another situation with Georgia (as I just read yesterday about escalating tensions), and that this is to send a message to Obama that they aren't to be trifled with this time around. |
Yea, to be honest it gives me a little warm feeling. I like to see the Russians flaunting their stuff again. It help keep the US in check and makes sure that they know that Russia, though much weaker than it was during the Soviet days is not a force to be trifled with and is still a super-power, at least when it comes to the ability to rain serious death on its enemies.
*edit*
Also they need to ditch the whole Bulava program and restart from scratch there. In the mean time they need to put serious money back into the Russian navies present equipment. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Yea, to be honest it gives me a little warm feeling. I like to see the Russians flaunting their stuff again. It help keep the US in check and makes sure that they know that Russia, though much weaker than it was during the Soviet days is not a force to be trifled with and is still a super-power, at least when it comes to the ability to rain serious death on its enemies.
*edit*
Also they need to ditch the whole Bulava program and restart from scratch there. In the mean time they need to put serious money back into the Russian navies present equipment. |
They're about to drill for oil off the coast of Cuba too.... lol they have some serious balls and don't give a flying what whiney environmentalists say. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The percentage of humans who die in war was decreasing long before nukes. The real reason for the decline in war is the gradual recognition that trade and investment are ultimately superior to warfare if you want to accumulate riches.
;) |
Not really. The Cold War would almost certainly have been the Third World War without the nuclear deterrent. Deaths may have been decreasing, but I'd argue that nuclear weapons put as ahead by a good century, given how common massive wars were immediately prior to nuclear weapons and how non-existent they are now. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| Yea look at Western Europe. Before the end of World War 2 they had major conflicts every 30 years or so. Granted not on the scale of the world wars, but 60 years of relative peace in Western Europe? Thats a pretty new occurrence. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
There's a book my dad read that he was telling me about... written by a former navy sub captain- I can't remember it but I'll ask him later- about how there are even more subs and more nukes than the public even knows about. I wouldn't be surprised if there are all kinds of crazy like that going on that we'd never know about. |
I'm pretty sure what he's talking about are Tomahawk "Re-gen" boats. Most Los Angleles class boats are technically capable of targeting and launching nuclear cruise missiles either horizontally or vertically depending on the boat.
Now, because of the monumental amount of retraining and re-equipping and certifications that needs to be done and required, prior to even accepting the weapons onboard, each SUBGRU is only required to have one boat that is nuclear capable at any given time. That boat is called a re-gen boat and back in the day even other boats in her squandron that knew she was a re-gen boat didn't know if she had nukes on her or not. That maybe 20 years ago though. There are still re-gen units but they never carry, the crew just acts like they do for 18 months or whatever which is even more stupid and why you NEVER want to be selected or go to a re-gen boat. |
|
|
|
|
