Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on April 01, 2004, 10:48:44 PM
-
If nuclear weapons had zero radiation but still had the same blast and heat, would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?
-
the neutron bomb kills without blast damage or lingering radiation.
use in wars? perhaps in small tactical warheads.. i doubt a continent-killing bomb is acceptable.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If nuclear weapons had zero radiation but still had the same blast and heat, would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?
Ask the question, 'would it be acceptable to vaporize an entire city and its population with a single bomb, and then repeat the process a couple hundred times if need be?'
The radiation factor is really an afterthough, in my opinion. Radiation from nuclear weapons, even the big ones tested in the 50s and early 60s by the US and USSR, pales in comparison to the magnitude released in Chernobyl. The true horror, and thus effect of nukes is their ability to wipe away civilization, from continent to continent in minutes. Not to mention the massive, sun-blocking dust clouds. If they're all used in anger, with or without the radioactive aspect, the remaining people I think would welcome death, as there would be little left to look forward to in a world cleansed of the infrastructure and environment they've grown to depend on.
Small, tactical warheads are a different story, of course. Without radiation, we would have probably implemented them against military complexes in Iraq.
-
War in of itself is the single most ignorant thing we do as the "higher" species.
So I would say no.
-
Originally posted by OIO
the neutron bomb kills without blast damage or lingering radiation.
use in wars? perhaps in small tactical warheads.. i doubt a continent-killing bomb is acceptable.
you actually trumped my next point........ thanks a lot! :)
I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse of each weapon.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
you actually trumped my next point........ thanks a lot! :)
I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse of each weapon.
Like I said, what's the real difference between turning a city like New York or Moscow into a smoldering ring of carbon and turning the same city into a smoldering ring of carbon that is poisonous to the unfortunate few who choose to approach it afterwards.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse of each weapon.
You might as well argue about the winner of a fight between Spiderman and Batman.
-
On the one hand, say a nuke had zero radiation...just a huge explosive power. Such a weapon is only a progression of any explosive made in the past. At what point does an explosion become so large as to not be morally acceptable?
On the other hand, what if radiation alone could wipe out a massive tank assualt, yet leave all the buildings and tanks in tact and have no radiation left over beyond a couple weeks?
One is hypothetical, one is reality. The nuetron bomb was abandoned by it's inventor, the US, because of morality. The nuetron bomb was adapted and it thought to be held in large numbers by China, Russia, Israel and god knows who else.
The neutron bomb is almost the perfect weapon to be used against an armored assault in a tactical counter attack.
Weapons are weapons.....they kill. I just wonder why certain weapons are "taboo"
-
Originally posted by OIO
the neutron bomb kills without blast damage or lingering radiation.
use in wars? perhaps in small tactical warheads.. i doubt a continent-killing bomb is acceptable.
The effects of the neutron bomb are probably as bad as the long term effects of a nuke. The funny things about neutron bombs is that the high levels of neutron radiation have this wonderful habit of altering the DNA of what is exposed to it.... ie. corn that was ok to eat before may very well be poisonous the next go around... Thats the reason they are not tested above ground, they are just too damn unpredictable as to the long term effects.
-
What Bodhi said.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
high levels of neutron radiation have this wonderful habit of altering the DNA of what is exposed to it....Thats the reason they are not tested above ground, they are just too damn unpredictable as to the long term effects.
When tested underground in the desert southwest it altered the dna of earthworms who then terrorized Kevin Bacon. I saw a documentary about it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When tested underground in the desert southwest it altered the dna of earthworms who then terrorized Kevin Bacon. I saw a documentary about it.
:rofl :rofl
-
would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?
I hope that killing women and children never gets acceptable...
-
Good question Nuke cause i would have to say yes and no....its just plain difficult to answer because you would have to also answer the question of how big an explosion can be before its to big.
If we didnt have nukes we would prolly have seen this question for real. I know there was some controversy over the HUGE type of bomb you dropped over afghanistan but i cant remember the name for it.
My temporary answer to your question is that when an explosion is to big to prevent colateral damage it is to big.
Let me give you an ex of what i mean:
1. If you have a tank sitting in the street between to buildings and the explosion is so big that even if you hit the tank in the middle both houses are damaged/destroyed.....the explosin is to big
2. If you have 500 tanks spead out in the middle of a desert and the explosion takes out all the tanks but nothing else.... then the explosion is not to big.
conclusion: as long as the explosion only takes out the intended target it is ok.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If nuclear weapons had zero radiation but still had the same blast and heat, would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?
Absolutely!!! That's why there haven't been atomic wars!!! It's the deterence factor that makes people think twice. If it wasn't for the radiation, such bombs would have been used many times over.
Les
-
Originally posted by NUKE
you actually trumped my next point........ thanks a lot! :)
I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse of each weapon.
so if i see it correctly, you are asking, if we mind to kill civilians by thousand, if we can go and rob their dead bodies day ater?
dunno... may it could be acceptable for some God blessed people
-
B-52 (http://www.theb52s.com/)
-
Roam and Love Shack are my favorites. The B-52s are awesome.:D
Les
-
Fuel Air Explosives allready approch the levels of WW2 nukes......
in GW1 I saw 2 story bunkers that had been riped out of the ground by FAEs
Gunns
-
Spiderman would win hands down.
Ravs
-
Radiation is isn't understood very well by most folks. Radiation is not what kills you from a nuke. In fact modern nukes are less dirty then the ones dropped on Japan.
Have any of you seen the Nova episode on "Dirt Bombs".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/
Transcript
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3007_dirtybom.html
These Q & A's are from a FRONTLINE interview with Dr. Charles Till, a nuclear physicist and Associate Lab Director at Argonne National Laboratory West in Idaho.
Q: What is the nature of radiation? Is it that people have no way to experience it?
A: No, it isn't. And radiation, of course, to most who work with it is a very workaday kind of thing. The nature of radiation is that it requires a good bit of it to do you any harm. The nature of radiation is that you can detect absolutely insignificant amounts of it, extremely easily. The nature of radiation is that if you don't choose to detect it, you have it falling on you from everywhere you are on the earth's surface, in amounts that are probably 100 times or 1,000 times more than you would ever get from living near a nuclear plant.
Q: Where does most natural radiation come from?
A: Well, the natural radiation is mainly cosmic rays interacting with the earth's atmosphere, and we get a good bit of radiation on the earth's surface. The closer you are to the cosmos, the more radiation you get. So that if you're up in an airplane, you'll get considerably more than on the Earth's surface. Or people living at 5,000 feet, as I do, will get more than people living at sea level. But it's a part of the human environment just as air is, or anything else. It's most unremarkable.
Q: Why haven't experts been able to demonstrate to people that radiation is a natural phenomenon for which there's no escaping?
A: Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure that we are always able to convince people of our views, even though they may be correct. I think it requires a little bit of scientific background, probably, to be able to assess whether a statement that's made (you'll forgive me) on television is to frighten you for some political or other purpose, or whether it's there to provide you with information.
snip....
Q: Was Chernobyl a serious accident?
A: Chernobyl was the most serious accident, in my view, that a reactor could possibly have. It was a very large plant. It had been operating long enough that it had a large inventory of radioactive material and, it blew up. It was opened to the atmosphere for days. Fire, plumes of material, radioactive materials. The people who were asked to deal with the fire obviously had to be subjected to, in the crude way that the authorities responded to it, killing amounts of radiation. Some 30 or 40 of them did that, at an awful price. But contrary to the common knowledge that is simply not so. There have been very few, or in fact, only one identifiable source of deaths from that Chernobyl accident. And they are thyroids in children.
Q: Was Chernobyl as bad as it could get?
A: That's as bad an accident as you can get from a nuclear plant. And worse than any accident in a modern nuclear plant could possibly be. The point is that that reactor was on fire for days and days and days, with radioactive material going up into the air. But it was the crudest kind of reactor, which the Soviets thankfully have stopped building.
Fuel air explosions are fact horrid in their effects. Has anyone seen footage of Chechen's after the Russians used umm?
-
on the topic of radiation...
Anyone know when the US and UK planning to stop using DU rounds?
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid040402_1_n.shtml
-
Acceptable? I wouldn't find them acceptable if they were to be used on me. I don't even care much for old fashioned bullets coming my way. ;)
-
I bet you would care if the old fashioned bullets came by close.:D
Les
-
I meant that I wouldn't find even them especially acceptable. :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
on the topic of radiation...
Anyone know when the US and UK planning to stop using DU rounds?
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid040402_1_n.shtml
When the rest of the world starts making softer armor.
-
You could have one hell of a 4th of July party.
-
Buy ammo that does not need DU to penetrate armor Capt. Pork
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Buy ammo that does not need DU to penetrate armor Capt. Pork
I was just commenting on the fact that it may not happen any time soon. I'm not a big fan of littering the earth with decaying Uranium either.
-
Yeah i didnt think you liked it :)
Ammo without DU that can penetrate the same armor exists and i know Norway has stopped using it and are buying rounds without it. Im guessing that the US/UK is doing the same so i was wondering if anyone know the timetable for replacing it. Its easyer for smaller armies to replace their ammo so i guess it would take alot longer for US/UK. Im just afraid that US/UK may expend their DU rounds on "others" and then restocking with the DU free ammo.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Yeah i didnt think you liked it :)
Ammo without DU that can penetrate the same armor exists and i know Norway has stopped using it and are buying rounds without it. Im guessing that the US/UK is doing the same so i was wondering if anyone know the timetable for replacing it. Its easyer for smaller armies to replace their ammo so i guess it would take alot longer for US/UK. Im just afraid that US/UK may expend their DU rounds on "others" and then restocking with the DU free ammo.
Are these alternative AP rounds shaped-charge warheads, or some other sort of dense metal like Tungsten?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You might as well argue about the winner of a fight between Spiderman and Batman.
They're both queens...:mad:
-
Not sure what they are made of Pork but they are prolly not recomended by your doctor.
You have the shaped charge warheads of course but also sabot type thing.
Im a navy guy myself so im not that into army stuff.
Ill see if i can find the article on our military website and who makes the rounds....think it was Rheinmetall of germany or something.. Im guessing there are several brands since ammo is a huge industry.