Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Current Attitude To Nuclear Disarmament

  1. #1

    Default Current Attitude To Nuclear Disarmament

    I find it a little annoying how society views nuclear weapons as old news.



    Everything from the War on Terror to constant threats from Kim Jong-un; seems to have caused people to become very complacent about the topic.


    What are your thoughts?

  2. #2

    Default

    To make one thing clear, normally, if nuclear weapon would drop from the plane, or the plane would drop to the ground, that bomb isn;t going to explode.

    To trigger the chain reaction you'll need a very carefully controlled ignition.

    To make facts a little worse than these stated.

    In 1966 an American B52 collided with a tanker aircraft, 4 nuclear bombs landed in Spain. 2 totally splettered all over the area (the plutonium is still not completely cleaned up by the US as of today, often leading to heated debate against the US). The fourth one landed of the coast of Spain.

    Another accident with a B52 crash carrying 4 nuclear bombs in Greenland also sparked outrage. Again it's never compeltely cleaned up, and Denmark had quite clearly said it will not tolerate nuclear weapons on it's soil.
    Ironic that they would than even crash on their soil.
    Last edited by Wellust; 28-Sep-2014 at 22:30.

  3. #3

    Default

    I understand that; nukes are usually detonated by a timer and not impact anyway...
    The issue I'm talking about is how people don't seem to care anymore, and its impact on legislation regarding nukes; the vid provides a good example of this in its conclusion.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SleepyTyrant View Post
    I understand that; nukes are usually detonated by a timer and not impact anyway...
    The issue I'm talking about is how people don't seem to care anymore, and its impact on legislation regarding nukes; the vid provides a good example of this in its conclusion.
    Normally not. The detonation device did actually detonate on two of the bombs in Spain.

    That;s why they not only crashed, the convential explosion of the bomb catapulted plutonium all over the region.

    The area is closed nowadays, off limits with fences.

    And I do care by the way, I want them gone. But I also understand it isn't going to work, or at the very least is going to be an international venture where some will have to take the lead.

  5. #5

    Default

    The whole thing is a bit of a joke, really. I guess it'd be great if the US and Russia got rid of their random nukes that are floating around, but it wouldn't make much difference. The state of human knowledge has advanced since 1945. A lot. So much so that if your nation wanted some nukes, there are plenty of scientists and engineers currently working for most major governments who could build them. Definitely the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Israel. Also Japan, despite their lack of army. The hard part in the past was getting the nuclear material refined and setting up a proper detonator. But look at the world today. Most major industrialized nations have operating nuclear power plants and numerous centrifuges. The same equipment that makes for energy also makes for the materials you need to build a bomb (this is why everyone gets so hysterical about Iran). So, sure, disarm everybody. If somebody every wanted a nuke, all disarming does is extend the time it takes them to drop it by a couple days.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ArchieRoni View Post
    The whole thing is a bit of a joke, really. I guess it'd be great if the US and Russia got rid of their random nukes that are floating around, but it wouldn't make much difference. The state of human knowledge has advanced since 1945. A lot. So much so that if your nation wanted some nukes, there are plenty of scientists and engineers currently working for most major governments who could build them. Definitely the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Israel. Also Japan, despite their lack of army. The hard part in the past was getting the nuclear material refined and setting up a proper detonator. But look at the world today. Most major industrialized nations have operating nuclear power plants and numerous centrifuges. The same equipment that makes for energy also makes for the materials you need to build a bomb (this is why everyone gets so hysterical about Iran). So, sure, disarm everybody. If somebody every wanted a nuke, all disarming does is extend the time it takes them to drop it by a couple days.
    Well, one won't be able to create 4800 or even more (Russia is rumoured to have up to 8000) in a week. Not even a year, and judging by modern day evolutions, not even in a decade.

    So we would loose all these unneeded weapons. And well, just agree that everybody keeps some if they please, but enough that can be well maintained, well guarded and used properly.

    I also don't really get the point. Many, well most, if not almost all, of these weapons are very old and probably not even usuable. If anyone thinks he can get a B52, an F16, Panavia Tornado or Eurofighter anywhere near Russian ground to drop bombs, well, let's say at most pieces of debris wiould eventually reach it. On the way to the salvage yard perhaps. Yes these cruise missiles can be used and of course there are others. I was going to add F35, but that one would probably desintegrate on itself without external help from our imaginative enemy.

    But one could start with these useless bombs and see where it goes. Unless we plan on throwing them on a nation like Libya we have no use for them.

    That would already make Europe clear of American weapons, which would make me sleep better. I have more trust in the French with these things, especially seeing these things. And with the third nuclear arsenal in the world, I don't see what more we need than them over here.

    And if someone should still be uncertain as to the danger of a real nuclear accident, even if the chance would be close to 1% that a accident would result in a nuclear catastrophe, one might want to take a look at this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lear_accidents

  7. #7

    Default

    When it comes to nukes, we might as well be complacent. If the bombs start falling, there's not a whole lot we'd be able to do about it. That being said, it is my hope that eventually we'll get rid of ours and then most of the rest of the world will follow suit. We just need to find an effective means of defending ourselves from any incoming nuclear weapons and then we'll be good. Though, all we have now is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to respond to a nuclear attack by effectively ending the world.

    Also, I would argue that there isn't a real use for nuclear weapons anymore, especially since we are not very aware of the full consequences of their use. We have plenty of conventional weapons just as strong, and they don't have the fallout that comes with nukes. Because there is fallout, an engagement between two countries will more than likely affect all the surrounding countries as well. It's why I believe that China does not support North Korea's nuclear program; if they were to use those weapons on South Korea, the fallout would hit China.

    Personally, I'd be more worried about weapons that don't officially exist, like the neutron bomb, or the chemical and biological weapons that countries are developing. Right now, I think the biggest threat to the world from nuclear weapons is their falling into the hands of extremist and/or terrorist groups, so we might as well disarm.

  8. #8

    Default

    We've grown up with nuclear annihilation being a very real possibility that we don't know how to prevent so the only way to deal with it, for most of us, is to go on with our lives as if it will never happen. It is still in the back of our minds and pops up in modern culture in the form of zombie apocalypse movies. The "duck and cover" of the 1950s has been replaced with doomsday preppers. Accidental detonation isn't that much of a concern as long as it doesn't happen in our own back yard. Intentional detonation on a large scale is the horror we try to convince ourselves will never happen.

    The only viable solution seems to be total, world wide, nuclear disarmament. The problem is human technology has evolved phenomenally over the last 20,000 years but human brains haven't. And we can't uninvent nuclear weapon technology, so it will always be available to those who seek it. Maybe the best solution is to let nuclear annihilation play itself out before we invent something worse... a black hole device?

    The problem of trying to control weapons of mass destruction is greater than any single country, or small alliance of countries, can handle. I believe we are at a point where we need to push for a world government if we are to survive as a species.

  9. #9

    Default

    Nuclear weapons these days tend to come in the form of ICBMs. That said, a nuclear strike is more likely to come from a terrorist cell, rather than a sovereign state. As practically every country is tied into the global economy, such an attack would be of no benefit to anyone.

  10. #10

    Default

    if folks in the US are really looking for accurate information on the state of your/our nuclear delivery systems, the treaties they function under, and where this Country is going with it's nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future...... i would suggest you start with something other than *made for HBO satire*. possibly something such as this PDF bellow;
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...Zm7ZEyetB3ynVw

    on the other hand, if you are just interested in a quick guide to understanding the past and present US nuclear arsenal, please find that here;
    http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/.../Allbombs.html

    i must admit my personal experience in the care, handling and use of the above is both limited and dated. but when i was involved, my training was professional, extensive and continuous. overseen no less by JCS.....

    as an American, i think they are a needed deterrent, and i sleep very sound at night knowing that they are there.

    as an addendum;
    here is a PDF file that a hard-cor person might find informative on the DoD nuclear weapons security called *PRP*..... something everyone who had anything to do with them (nukes) had to qualify in. this is a non-classified document;
    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/521042r.pdf
    Last edited by littlelodgewrecker; 30-Sep-2014 at 09:37.

Similar Threads

  1. North Koera does another nuclear bomb test
    By Fire2box in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 15-Feb-2013, 01:17
  2. What is the attitude of your urologist?
    By AnalogRTO in forum Incontinence
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 20-May-2010, 02:06
  3. The Nuclear Issue
    By Jaiden in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-Oct-2009, 01:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.