Author Topic: New Era of Nuclear Doctrine (Read 721 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #30 on:** September 07, 2004, 01:24:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Too much to lose? They could use people as bullets and their population wouldn't even feel the loss.

Imagine the logistics. Projection of power over land requires supply lines and the means to defend them, extensive control of the airspace. They cannot win.

Sikboy · « **Reply #31 on:** September 07, 2004, 01:24:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184

And SIKboy, wtf you talking about? I didn't follow the quote then into what you said.

I don't think I was being cryptic.

You said that if we don't have them (nukes I presume) then China will be the superpower. My counterpoint is that I don't think anyone is saying that we will just get rid of all of our nukes on our own (that is, without a multilateral agreement).

Perhaps I missed that argument.

-Sik

Gixer · « **Reply #32 on:** September 07, 2004, 02:30:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
no country that bans it's citizens from owning firearms because "they can't be trusted" should be trusted with nukes.

I don't care who has em but goiong by nz's crime rate... they shouldn't be allowed to have em.

lazs

Thanks for trying to bring your Gun debate into this thread. Still a bit upset that people are questioning your right to own guns?

Put your dummy back in and go back to sleep.

~~...-Gixer~~

Bodhi · « **Reply #33 on:** September 07, 2004, 05:44:03 PM »

Gixer,

What do you think about this thought....

OBL has issued a communique... they control a theater ballistic missile in Tehran. They intend to launch it with an improvised nuclear warhead against Tel Aviv unless the West agrees to pull out of Iraq in 2 hours. We look with Satellites, and there is indeed a weapon there, well guarded with radar and that ilk. The weapon reads as having a "live" warhead. Experts agree that the weapon will kill 100's of thousands if it is launched. Do you use a tactical nuke to take it out?

Cobra412 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 07, 2004, 05:57:10 PM »

Bohdi simple answer considering the facts given for the current situation, Yes!

gunnss · « **Reply #35 on:** September 07, 2004, 06:03:50 PM »

Why just Nukes?
We allready have FAE's bigger and better than the WWII bombs, and during my military time I was the Company NBC guy. The classes involved in Qualifying, lead me to believe that Nukes are just Big Powerfull Poisenious expolsions, the only real advantage to a tac nuke is its weight . Bring in pinpoint FAE's they will do most of the jobs just fine.....

Unless you are depending on the emotional tag attached to the N word, we got better stuff in the bunkers that dosent cost as much to maintain.

Gunns

Bodhi · « **Reply #36 on:** September 07, 2004, 06:08:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gunnss
Why just Nukes?
We allready have FAE's bigger and better than the WWII bombs, and during my military time I was the Company NBC guy. The classes involved in Qualifying, lead me to believe that Nukes are just Big Powerfull Poisenious expolsions, the only real advantage to a tac nuke is its weight . Bring in pinpoint FAE's they will do most of the jobs just fine.....

Unless you are depending on the emotional tag attached to the N word, we got better stuff in the bunkers that dosent cost as much to maintain.

Gunns

not delivery oriented we don't.

Chortle · « **Reply #37 on:** September 07, 2004, 06:23:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
The current "old" nukes are in need of replacement because of a number of different reasons.

#1. Guidance packages have been developed that ensure an even better amount of accuaracy (less than the 100 meters) the current Tridents warheads offer....

I know accuracy is generally something you cant have too much of, but is there really that much difference in effect if a nuke is 100m one way or the other? I'm not being snide, just trying to imagine the situation where it would help.

J_A_B · « **Reply #38 on:** September 07, 2004, 06:37:10 PM »

"I know accuracy is generally something you cant have too much of, but is there really that much difference in effect if a nuke is 100m one way or the other? I'm not being snide, just trying to imagine the situation where it would help."

It depends on the warhead.

With something like a 1.2 mT warhead...then 100m won't matter much.

OTOH with say a 1.5 kiloton warhead...then yes the 100m is very important.

Contrary to popular belief, "nuclear" doesn't automatically = city destuction size blast

J_A_B

Chortle · « **Reply #39 on:** September 07, 2004, 09:18:13 PM »

Thanks for that. Unbelievably, while googling this I found a site that claims the Bali nightclub explosion was caused by a micro-nuke. shrecking unreal.

NUKE · « **Reply #40 on:** September 07, 2004, 09:37:36 PM »

I don't think nuclear attacks should ever be used pre-emptive , but the threat of using them needs to be a valid one...otherwise what threat are they?

If the US is attacked with WMD, then the response should be on at least an equal level if the nation responsible can be identified. This is another "pandora's box".....how can a nation be held responsible for an act carried out by a group not attached to it's government.

It's a mess.. The only thing I know is that the use of force and the threat of the use of force is the ONLY law man and nations respond to. No treaties or agreements have ever kept a nation secure, only military might has done this.