Originally posted by astralis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Obama signs nuclear arms treaty
Collapse
X
-
it would depend on a lot of factors, weather, wind, how the city is built up, the targeting system etc.
there's not too many of the high-megaton bombs out there, either, because it's more effective just to have large numbers of low/medium yield bombs instead.
Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Chogy, pls understand i'm not much more informed then you are when it comes to this topic. I've come to the conclusion based solely on what the good people here have said in the past.
Originally posted by Chogy View PostI've already acknowledged my ignorance in this matter. Do you think it (the narrative) is inaccurate?
Originally posted by Chogy View PostWe have plenty of examples, especially the ubiquitous suicide bomber.
Originally posted by Chogy View PostMy understanding is that North Korea has plutonium stocks, not uranium. Pu requires implosion.
Originally posted by Chogy View PostIran does not have weapons-grade uranium. They currently have thousands of crude centrifuges separating the isotopes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postit would depend on a lot of factors, weather, wind, how the city is built up, the targeting system etc.
there's not too many of the high-megaton bombs out there, either, because it's more effective just to have large numbers of low/medium yield bombs instead.
Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostI was not aware of that, an implosion device is a step up from the gun type. You'd think they'd try to get the simpler thing out the window first before moving on. But this depends on availiablity of fissile material, if uranium isn't avaliable then they had no choice.
Looks like they're going for the gun type.Last edited by Bill; 09 Feb 11,, 19:33.
Comment
-
Ah, yes, but when you severely limit launchers and warhead totals, it only makes sense to make much, much bigger warheads.
much more likely in my mind is a furtive crash program, trying to create a nuke in as fast as time possible from a civilian program-- then hiding it. as it is, one nuke, whether 10-megaton or 1 kiloton, is not a particularly good way to blackmail somebody. it's better for minimal deterrence purposes.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postas always, it would probably depend on the situation. i can't imagine a scenario where in a non-nuclear world, an enemy power would be able to suddenly unveil a big warhead and a launcher system without its neighbors and a certain superpower detecting it.
Comment
-
I'll make one more point and then let it go...
It's one thing to strap up some explosives and blow ppl up vs getting a nuke and pulling it off. The getting bit is the problem because of the consequences.
For example, we know that U.S. nukes were recently flown by accident. In another setting, maybe another nation, imagine two dozen people on the inside intentionally flying a nuke or four, and at some point of maximum confusion, they divert one. We (the U.S.) gripe about security issues with Pakistan especially, when our own security can and does have serious lapses. (yes I know these weapons could not be detonated in their current form, lacking the correct codes. But they could be disassembled.)
The fact remains that for a period of time, U.S. nuclear weapons were missing. It was unintentional. Imagine if it had been intentional.
I am simply not so quick to dismiss the threat. Before 9/11, no one imagined what would happen on that day. It was inconceivable, but it happened.
Comment
-
....
Betraying the Brits
O's awful gift to the Kremlin
Documents from Wiki Leaks indicate that the Obama administration, des perate to get the Russians to sign the new START treaty, agreed to pass on secret information about the British nuclear arsenal -- right down to the serial numbers of the warheads.
In 2009, the United States lobbied Britain to supply Moscow with the data needed to calculate the exact size of the British nuclear arsenal -- a number Her Majesty's government has always kept secret. The British refused. Now, it seems, the White House did it anyway.
Comment
-
Reducing the number of nuclear warheads just makes the possession of a single warhead, or a handful, that much more powerful. It's the same logic that I discourage people from voting. It makes my single vote that much more powerful."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postas always, it would probably depend on the situation. i can't imagine a scenario where in a non-nuclear world, an enemy power would be able to suddenly unveil a big warhead and a launcher system without its neighbors and a certain superpower detecting it.
much more likely in my mind is a furtive crash program, trying to create a nuke in as fast as time possible from a civilian program-- then hiding it. as it is, one nuke, whether 10-megaton or 1 kiloton, is not a particularly good way to blackmail somebody. it's better for minimal deterrence purposes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chogy View PostAre you referring to the consequences to the terrorist group, or the nation/entity supplying the material? If the former, then I'd maintain by definition they do not care for anybody or anything except their agenda. If the latter, my concern rests around the possibility that a rogue group that has penetrated an otherwise stable and rational organization. I know it sounds like a bad thriller novel, but I don't think it can be discounted.
Originally posted by Chogy View PostFor example, we know that U.S. nukes were recently flown by accident. In another setting, maybe another nation, imagine two dozen people on the inside intentionally flying a nuke or four, and at some point of maximum confusion, they divert one. We (the U.S.) gripe about security issues with Pakistan especially, when our own security can and does have serious lapses. (yes I know these weapons could not be detonated in their current form, lacking the correct codes. But they could be disassembled.)
The fact remains that for a period of time, U.S. nuclear weapons were missing. It was unintentional. Imagine if it had been intentional.
Worst i can see is they create some sort of dirty bomb. How far can they spread the radioactive material around in that case. The difference in the explosion is less by a factor of a thousand or more. It's pointless in this case to steal a nuke just to create a dirty bomb isn't it.
Originally posted by Chogy View PostI am simply not so quick to dismiss the threat. Before 9/11, no one imagined what would happen on that day. It was inconceivable, but it happened.
9/11 took advantage of existing weakness. To do that with a nuke, they'd have to find one, transport it to the destination without being identified and finally detonate it. Do you see the difference between the two scenarios here.
Comment
-
Some unthought of issues here. The Chinese and Indians are relying on the super 2 to make their arsenals effective. If either China or India were to face the US alone, they would have to collapse their defence budgets. The fact is that they're relying on the American and Russian arsenals as to not being able to spare any nukes to make theirs inconsequential. The US with their 1000+ nukes can rendered the less than 24 nukes China can deliver onto the CONUS mute but the US cannot do so without becoming substantially weaker than Russia and hence why the Chinese arsenal is effective.
Without the big 2 facing each other, the other 3+3 powers are essentially dead meat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostSome unthought of issues here. The Chinese and Indians are relying on the super 2 to make their arsenals effective. If either China or India were to face the US alone, they would have to collapse their defence budgets. The fact is that they're relying on the American and Russian arsenals as to not being able to spare any nukes to make theirs inconsequential. The US with their 1000+ nukes can rendered the less than 24 nukes China can deliver onto the CONUS mute but the US cannot do so without becoming substantially weaker than Russia and hence why the Chinese arsenal is effective.
Without the big 2 facing each other, the other 3+3 powers are essentially dead meat.
There is a natural limit to how low the US & Russia can go with reducing their inventory without exposing themselves to attacks from the other six. To reduce further requires all nuclear powers to likewise reduce their arsenals.
To proceed with that requires accurate numbers of warheads from all countries concerned. If even one country refuses to provide those numbers then there is no deal. The US & Russia can afford to go public with their numbers but i'm doubting whether the rest could. And if that's the case then its impossible to go any lower for everybody.
Comment
Comment