Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tyrannis on October 25, 2011, 04:31:51 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/uss-most-powerful-nuclear-bomb-being-dismantled-071325260.html
Do you all agree with this? Im all for reducing Nuclear weapons among the world, but These bombs are the Fear Factor that keeps major countries in line due to M.A.D. So is it smart to get rid of ALL of them?
-
As far as nuclear weapons go.. I view this as getting rid of the carpet bombing campaigns and sticking to laser guided bombs..
We still have way more than anyone else and enough to destroy plenty. I don't think it changes anything honestly. Just because the biggest one is gone doesn't mean we cant drop two smaller ones in the same area.
-
They are all old junk that wouldnt work anyway, about the only reason they disarmed at all was that its been junk for the last 20 years.
As in the news story its 50 years old.
Forkit
-
^ this
best guess: they should have been decommissioned 30 years ago but it kept getting put off because of cost. now they are rusting and leaking nasty stuff so theres no choice.
btw dropping nukes from aircraft is soooo 1960s :old:
-
^ this
best guess: they should have been decommissioned 30 years ago but it kept getting put off because of cost. now they are rusting and leaking nasty stuff so theres no choice.
btw dropping nukes from aircraft is soooo 1960s :old:
But aren't ICBMs easier to intercept than Say, a stealth bomber?
-
But aren't ICBMs easier to intercept than Say, a stealth bomber?
LOL.
-
mmmmmmmmmmm
no.
-
LOL.
Its a serious question, due to me not really researching the difference between nuking a target through bomber transport, and nuking through ICBMs. :rolleyes:
And by my comment, im thinking that ICBMs would be immediately picked up upon radar from launch,and the country they are launched on would have time to react to stop them.
While a stealth bomber may be able to get closer to its target and drop its payload simply because of its low Radar signature. And the fact that the country wouldn't know of the payload simply from observation of the aircraft/radar signature.
I may be wrong, but like i said, ive done maybe 2% of research on what im asking.
-
We still have way more than anyone else and enough to destroy plenty.
As of the time of the article Russia had 11,000 total warheads to the US having 8,500.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html)
-
From Tyrannis: And by my comment, im thinking that ICBMs would be immediately picked up upon radar from launch,and the country they are launched on would have time to react to stop them.
The question is...how do you stop ICBM? The technology to do that is still in it's infancy.
-
And by my comment, im thinking that ICBMs would be immediately picked up upon radar from launch,and the country they are launched on would have time to react to stop them.
The question is...how do you stop ICBM? The technology is still in it's infancy.
I would say the same way Britain Stoped v1s, v2s in ww2. By upping a fighter which they continuely have on standby for such an occasion, and intercept the ICBM, causing it to somehow detonate safely in the atmosphere.
Thats just my guess, at-least.
-
stop guessing and hit up wikipedia:MIRV :aok
-
I didn't know we had exo-atmospheric aircraft now. :noid There are two proposed systems to take out missiles. A laser and an antimissile system. Neither work well enough to stop a true preemptive strike.
-
I would say the same way Britain Stoped v1s, v2s in ww2. By upping a fighter which they continuely have on standby for such an occasion, and intercept the ICBM, causing it to somehow detonate safely in the atmosphere.
Thats just my guess, at-least.
The problem is speed. ICBM's hit 15,000mph at burnout.
The reentry vehicle is at something like 5,000mph. As it stands today, no effective method exists to kill them.
-
The problem is speed. ICBM's hit 15,000mph at burnout.
The reentry vehicle is at something like 5,000mph. As it stands today, no effective method exists to kill them.
Oh. i see.
-
to put it in perspective the RN SSBNs can carry about 200 warheads (although in practice its nearer 50 iirc), which is roughly as effective as ~2,000 bombers ...
-
As of the time of the article Russia had 11,000 total warheads to the US having 8,500.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html)
Whoops.. My bad.. Even still, its way more than enough was my point
-
But aren't ICBMs easier to intercept than Say, a stealth bomber?
Ask a professional baseball catcher which he'd prefer, catching a 630 mph pitch blindfolded or a 15,000mph one that he can see comming.
-
I would say the same way Britain Stoped v1s, v2s in ww2. By upping a fighter which they continuely have on standby for such an occasion, and intercept the ICBM, causing it to somehow detonate safely in the atmosphere.
Thats just my guess, at-least.
They never could stop V2s.
-
Its a serious question, due to me not really researching the difference between nuking a target through bomber transport, and nuking through ICBMs. :rolleyes:
And by my comment, im thinking that ICBMs would be immediately picked up upon radar from launch,and the country they are launched on would have time to react to stop them.
While a stealth bomber may be able to get closer to its target and drop its payload simply because of its low Radar signature. And the fact that the country wouldn't know of the payload simply from observation of the aircraft/radar signature.
I may be wrong, but like i said, ive done maybe 2% of research on what im asking.
First of the earth is not flat so you can't detect an ICBM launching immediately with radar. Most early-warning satellites have a infrared sensor facing towards the earth either using a either a dedicated satellite like Lockheed Martin's Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) which is being developed since the 90s and is billions of dollars over budget (like all Lockheed Martin Projects(which I hate to say as much as I like Kelly Johnson)). Sometimes it is a hosted payload ,meaning on a commercial telecommunications satellite of some kind sharing the ride up and the cost, sensor which is much cheaper and just as effective like Orbital Science's CHIRP program which also uses an infrared sensor.
Tyrannis I put down those specific examples so you could research them if you choose.
-
ALTB
On Feb. 11, 2010, Boeing, industry teammates and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency successfully demonstrated the speed, precision and breakthrough potential of directed-energy weapons when the Airborne Laser Test Bed engaged and destroyed a boosting ballistic missile.
http://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_altb.html (http://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_altb.html)
http://www.mda.mil/news/news.html (http://www.mda.mil/news/news.html)
-
Some one knock some sense into tyrannis please.
-
ALTB
On Feb. 11, 2010, Boeing, industry teammates and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency successfully demonstrated the speed, precision and breakthrough potential of directed-energy weapons when the Airborne Laser Test Bed engaged and destroyed a boosting ballistic missile.
http://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_altb.html (http://www.mda.mil/news/gallery_altb.html)
http://www.mda.mil/news/news.html (http://www.mda.mil/news/news.html)
Lol unfortunatley that only works if you have them loitering within range of an ICBM launch area, the program hopes to get 300km of range out of it so not very far, and you have enough airframes to do so which we will never have. The missile interceptors are the best bet for countering ICBMs in their boost and glide phases. The patriot missile actually has some capability for taking out ICBMS becuase they relatively recently upgraded software for it.
-
im thinking that ICBMs would be immediately picked up upon radar from launch,and the country they are launched on would have time to react to stop them.
While a stealth bomber may be able to get closer to its target and drop its payload simply because of its low Radar signature. And the fact that the country wouldn't know of the payload simply from observation of the aircraft/radar signature.
I may be wrong, but like i said, ive done maybe 2% of research on what im asking.
No. Radar does not pick up an ICBM launch.. a satellite does. And that satellite has to be actively watching specific areas to catch the launch. Why do you think the US and USSR had a space program to begin with? The spy satellites were the only thing that could provide early warning.
ICBMs go up, exit the atmosphere, then ballistic towards target. About 3/4ths of the way in, they release their MIRV payloads (Multiple-Independent-Re.entry-vehicles) which are literally a half dozen or a dozen nuclear warheads with a guidance mechanism. These warheads re-enter the atmosphere heading to their particular targets.
On the radar screen you would see one blip become dozens spreading out. Given an ICBM would never be launched alone but in clusters so that it completely overwhelms any reaction/defenses...you get the idea.
Its extremely difficult to shoot down an ICBM because you'd have to intercept it on its way up. This happens over the territory of the nation that launches it. Thats why the US put so much stuff in alaska and eastern europe. On the way down its too late; youd have to intercept dozens of warheads per ICBM.
A bomber oth, has to fly inside the atmosphere at slow speeds (compared to the mach5+ an ICBM rocket flies at) and deliver its relatively small payload very close to target. That you can detect and intercept (or heck, the soviets even had defenses that consisted of detonating small nukes in mid atmosphere along the flight path of bombers to knock them down).
Stealth bombers arent invisible and undetectable. They are very expensive and very few. You cant saturate an enemy with it.
If you're thinking a surgical nuke strike... well, the current stealth bombers, submarine/ship launched tomahawks (there's nuke tipped ones) can do that too.
If all else fails, we can just ship them Snooky.
-
Lol unfortunatley that only works if you have them loitering within range of an ICBM launch area, the program hopes to get 300km of range out of it so not very far, and you have enough airframes to do so which we will never have. The missile interceptors are the best bet for countering ICBMs in their boost and glide phases. The patriot missile actually has some capability for taking out ICBMS becuase they relatively recently upgraded software for it.
If you bothered to read the news link I provided you would see that it is not just air born. :aok
-
They never could stop V2s.
Sure they could, just overrun the launch bases :D
-
Won't you guys need that for when China invades?
-
Ty,
I agree with everybody above but one thing you need to think about was in a Clancy novel. (paraphrasing) If I'm standing 10 ft away from you and have a 9mm pointed at your chest and I agree to take half of the bullets out before I start shooting you're still dead right?
Dismantling outdated nukes looks good in the papers but is fundamentally nothing to get excited about.
-
The Russians deployed the 53T6 Gazelle ABM system back in the '80s. It was based on the U.S. cancelled Sprint system and armed with a 10 kiloton nuclear warhead to destroy ICMB reentry vehicles as they entered the stratosphere. Useless against a massive nuclear exchange, but effective against a small scale "rogue launch" or limited attack from a small country. They're currently developing the S-500 theater defense missile system to replace the aging Gazelle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK6W0OATveQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anpTiQMpOcY
-
The Russians deployed the 53T6 Gazelle ABM system back in the '80s. It was based on the U.S. cancelled Sprint system and armed with a 10 kiloton nuclear warhead to destroy ICMB reentry vehicles as they entered the stratosphere. Useless against a massive nuclear exchange, but effective against a small scale "rogue launch" or limited attack from a small country. They're currently developing the S-500 theater defense missile system to replace the aging Gazelle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK6W0OATveQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anpTiQMpOcY
An early picture of the Gazelle in use....
(http://qgeek.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/tony_little.jpg)
-
Ye gods bcadoo. :rofl
I would personally be more worried about Mertvaya Ruka, Dead Hand, or Tony Little than about these rusting hazards.
-
Whoops.. My bad.. Even still, its way more than enough was my point
It's never enough.
As for the original topic, the troubling part of this weapon being dismantled is that our entire nuclear arsenal is aging, and there are no replacement weapons being developed. That means at some point we will be forced to give up one or more of our nuclear triad deterrent forces, and it would be a minimum of 10 years before a "crash" development program could revive it. There is already a gap developing, due to some systems being within their obsolescence window and funding being shut off from the replacement/refurbishment programs.
We knew this would happen approximately 4 years ago, because we were told it would become national policy to stop nuke weapon development. The capability gap is probably unavoidable now. Once you give up nukes, even if development is merely halted for a couple of years, it's hella-expensive to get them back.
-
Some one knock some sense into tyrannis please.
We would need to use something akin the mass of Saturn to accomplish that task.
-
First of the earth is not flat so you can't detect an ICBM launching immediately with radar. Most early-warning satellites have a infrared sensor facing towards the earth either using a either a dedicated satellite like Lockheed Martin's Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) which is being developed since the 90s and is billions of dollars over budget (like all Lockheed Martin Projects(which I hate to say as much as I like Kelly Johnson)). Sometimes it is a hosted payload ,meaning on a commercial telecommunications satellite of some kind sharing the ride up and the cost, sensor which is much cheaper and just as effective like Orbital Science's CHIRP program which also uses an infrared sensor.
Tyrannis I put down those specific examples so you could research them if you choose.
I always wondered if some of the overbudget stuff was a way to get the money for the secret stuff that gets developed. Or at least part of it.
-
See Rule #6
-
The biggest problem is that some d%^ head can press the button or even a hacker could start a worse case scenario, best to let go of nukes and maybe spend less on mass killing and just sort out the problem countries and the leaders because no one is ever going to use nukes unless they are mad.
Its a economic world now and we are all linked so threats like Saudi and other can just pull the 4 -5 trillion out of the usa and that's as good as dropping a big bomb, the whole thing with nukes its very 1960s.
Forkit
Wrong, nuclear weapons are an insurance policy...it is to deter the mad people from launching nukes, because they will die if they do...well what happens when the bad guy has a nuclear weapon and we do not? We are $#%@ that's what...
...we are not afraid of the sane people, but the mad ones...and as you just stated your method will not work...
-
The biggest problem is that some d%^ head can press the button or even a hacker could start a worse case scenario
It's probably the fault of whoever mis-educated you, but you are talking out of your a&$. You don't know what it takes to launch a nuke, don't know the command/control process, and couldn't spell "nuclear surety" if it... Well, if you calm down and think about it, it might occur to you that the people in charge of our nukes have somewhat more common sense than the average "hacker launches nuclear weapon" movie script writer.
I've been there. All I will say is that there are people in the loop so automated computer attacks couldn't result in a nuke going off, and it is unlikely that any conspiracy would be both broad and deep enough to include all of the individuals whose consent and willing participation is required to let the sunshine out of the can.
-
Who is going to drop a nuke on the US?
Give me three examples if who is going to nuke the US :old:
Remember Ruskis are capitalist now :old:
-
Give me three examples if who is going to nuke the US
Terrorists, terrorists and terrorists? You think some knucklehead that is willing to kill a few hundred with a car-bomb would be reluctant to set off a nuke? :headscratch:
-
They are where to drop a retaliation nuke on?
Those people go straight to heaven so nukes don't scare them :old:
Buy some nukes of Russia they have lots going cheap :)
-
The sprint missile system surely had the capability to intercept icbm reentry vehicles back in 1972.
There is a new system that attains the same speeds and gives better stand-off........just less acceleration than the sprint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZZV464z9g8
-
Lol :rofl
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
Are nukes worth anything after dis matled? :old:
-
Are nukes worth anything after dis matled? :old:
yes the fuel can be used in breeder reactors for energy.
-
Just dredge up the Tybee Island nuke and the problem is solved.
-
They started dismatling these things in the 1980's they were obsolete then :)