castledoom.com

[Muji]

The "Bomb Iran" made me think of starting this thread (because I don't dare touch that thread with a ten-foot pole).

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on nuclear weapons in general.

For the record, I'll state that it seems to me they are one of humanity's most evil inventions, and that honestly, I can't even begin to wrap my mind around the fact that some people consider them a viable alternative.

I remember doing a bit of (not very in-depth, admittedly) research on the subject some years back and estimating (very roughly) that if the largest-yield bomb I could find listed at that time (this was years ago, I'm not sure which one it was... but it was probably the Tsar Bomba, as high-yield nuclear warheads stopped being produced quite some time ago) was to be detonated in the northeastern US—between Montreal and NYC—the -initial blast- would vaporize those two cities and everything in between.

Everything I've heard (emphasis on hearsay) is that all that would be needed for a severe global nuclear winter is a very small handful of medium-yield warheads to be detonated, regardless of where. Being that -if- anything close to a nuclear war were to break out between sufficiently large/driven opponents (i.e. not just a nuclear-capable country turning a small one to glass with just one bomb), this is probably what would happen.

So I don't understand...

I know many see nukes as a viable alternatives, so I'm wondering if anybody could provide me with some documentation showing how/why, exactly.

I know they're getting smaller and smaller. And I know the focus of development now is on low-radiation tactical warheads. But even then... knowing humans to be what they are, even a tiny tactical nuke, in my mind, will serve little more than to escalate the situation into a build-up of growing proportions.

I can conceive of a few situations where one or two tactical nukes could be used, and it would end there, sure. But thing is, once the precedent has been set, people will be more likely to use them again. And once the chain reaction begins, it seems to me the ultimate outcome is inevitable, and that the only variable, really, is time.

Thoughts?

P.S. I'll be gone for the weekend, but I'll try to look some of this stuff up (re: fallout/nuclear winter) when I get back.

[Darkness]

I was actually randomly thinking about this earlier today. Well not really randomly, cause it was after I had read the last few posts in the Iran discussion, but yeah.

I don't know much about nuclear weapons. I don't know anything about the political situations around them. I do know, that a weapon that can wipe out a whole country, an entire city or even a tiny part of it, should not even exist.
Some countries have them, but have 'agreed' not to use them. So why have them? As long as the bombs exist, the risk of them being used will be alive and time is only ticking until some psycho nut activates it.

I really don't know enough about these things to come up with well thought out arguments and all, but I am humane enough to realise that having a bomb that can kill thousands of innocent people's lives, is plain evil and should not even come up into anyone's mind.
It truly hurts me to see people talking about the potential use of nukes as if the world is just another game like Earth:2025. You're dealing with REAL people here.

But oh well, whatever, nevermind :P

[JuntaJoe]

You simply cannot undo technology once it exists.

Furthermore, the horror of the weapons keep them unused, but lets governments relax enough not to develop extreme biological weapons that I feel would be more risky to the populace in general because nuclear poisoning is not contagious.

[bannie]

I had to do a report on Fat Man and Little Boy (the only two nuclear weapons to be used for combat) a few years ago and I find the use of any type of weapon of mass destruction (Nuclear, Bio, Chemical) to be completely abhorrent

Aside from a nifty little side effect nicknamed the 'nuclear shadow', nuclear weapons have little to no redeeming qualities in their use.

Fallout that can be carried for miles
Cancer
Radiation burns/ posioning
Birth defects
Severe heat burns
unusable ground within miles of the blast

the only thing the two weapons did was stop us from invading Japan, which would have been a disaster for both sides


Bio weapons arent any better. At least with fallout you predict where it will drift, most biological weapons are indiscriminate.

We now live in a global community. With some exceptions like Anthrax, where you have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the diseases will spread if the attack is large enough or secret enough. Since you are contagious during the incubation period and show little to no signs, you can travel where ever, becoming a carrier and spreading it where you go


Chemical weapons are harder and more expensive, but that doesnt make them better. They only contaminate certain areas, become diluted outside and today, in metro areas, are easier to clean up. Unfortunately the point of a chemical attack is that of a bomb, instantaneous. Except bombs usually dont injure people 10 minutes after they go off. Chemical attacks will injure and possibly kill first responders and anyone downwind of the area.


Oh, and if your in the subway for either a bio or chemical attack, your fairly screwed even if it wasnt at your station. There is an artifical wind created by the trains that will carry any and all airborn particles

Sorry for the long winded post. My dad is a terrorism consultant to the city of Boston. I hear this stuff all the time

[Waray]

All ranged weapons are for wussies.

I suggest we return to old fashioned, up close and personal melee weapons where you actually needed some skill to finish someone off who was holding another melee weapon.

:P

Back to topic, as JJ said, we created it and we'll never get rid of it, since Bio & Chem won't be seen as the ultimate weapon like the nuke is, thus everybody wants to have one.

Maybe we should research into making giant robots who can beat the living hell out of eachother, that would be cool.

/end corny rant here
________
Hawaii marijuana dispensary

[JuntaJoe]

Waray wrote: .......since Bio & Chem won't be seen as the ultimate weapon like the nuke is.....

And yet I see bioweapons as much more dangerous to us all.

A global nuclear war would require the active participation of the planet's great leaders and their counselors.

Whereas a single madman in a high tech lab could create a bioweapon that no one could stop.

[DungeonMoron]

Won't the use of such a weapon imply the active participation of the world greatest leaders?

I mean, nobody would be able to through a few bio boms somewhere and not have the entire civilized world upon his doorstep

[JuntaJoe]

Who said it needed to be a bomb?

How about a simple aerosol canister at Chicago O'Hare airport quietly infecting everyone getting on planes going around the world?

All you need is high contagion ability and a slow incubation rate and you could infect millions within days.

Say something like a slow onset Ebola virus grafted to the common cold virus.

Ebola hasn't killed us all yet because it incubates so fast that it kills the patient before too many others get infected.

Slow down the viral rate and make it more communicable and it might kill 70% of us outright.

You'd have to fire off every last nuke to get that kind of carnage.


Nukes cause widespread and long lasting damage, but each nuke still only will do finite and localized damage.

The right bioweapon could be essentially infinite in it's range and killing power.

[bannie]

Bingo


Or 'better' yet, cross anything with the Q fever, the worlds most contagious disease, and the global community is screwed


Think about it: On its own, tThe Q fever is so contagious, all it takes is one bacterium to cause infection. It incubates for 10-45 days and knocks you out for a week or two with only 2-3% of the cases resulting in anything truly serious. Now mix that with something more malicous and you may have something out of The Stand or 12 Monkeys