Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, in theory. Of course, that doesn't prevent the rogue madman or terrorists who are ok with destroying the world. Plus eventually missile defense probably could evolve to the point of being nearly 100 percent effective, of course it would also have to be an ongoing process as countermeasures will no be developed to help icbm s evade or doubter the defenses. But I'd rather an arms race based on making better shields than more or bigger bombs.

As missile defences evolve, so do the delivery systems. And the ICBM is leading the arms race: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat

Yeah, in large part bc of the stupid anti ballistic missile treat signed by Nixon. But ya know what, no ones ever been killed by missile defense systems, whereas how many have been killed by nukes, oh yeah, large parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look, bottom line I'm not advocating nations just unilaterally give up their nuclear arsenals, but honestly the Cold War has been over for 30 years and despite putins best efforts isn't likely to come back. The threat of a massive first strike and possible retaliation are both rather remote now. The real threat is from accidental launches and rogue state or non state actors. And I'm not too worried about the DPRK or Iran developing even rudimentary mirv in the near future, and certainly I'm not worried they can produce them on a sufficient scale to thwart a well developed abm system.

[Novus America]

Yeah, in theory. Of course, that doesn't prevent the rogue madman or terrorists who are ok with destroying the world. Plus eventually missile defense probably could evolve to the point of being nearly 100 percent effective, of course it would also have to be an ongoing process as countermeasures will no be developed to help icbm s evade or doubter the defenses. But I'd rather an arms race based on making better shields than more or bigger bombs.

As missile defences evolve, so do the delivery systems. And the ICBM is leading the arms race: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat

Sure delivery systems evolve. But that is fine. It is the nature of things. Missile defense systems evolve too.

The RS-28 is an inexplicably stupid missile. We got rid of our heavy, liquid fueled silo launched missiles. Because they are obsolete.

Sure it has 15 MIRVs but if shot down in the mid phase it is putting too many eggs in one basket. And with New Start it leaves the Russians with fewer missiles.

You can leave the RS-28 and MAD with your disco albums and bell bottoms.

[Llamalandia]

As missile defences evolve, so do the delivery systems. And the ICBM is leading the arms race: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat

Sure delivery systems evolve. But that is fine. It is the nature of things. Missile seems we systems evolve too.

The RS-28 is an inexplicably stupid missile. We got rid of our heavy, liquid fueled silo launche missiles. Because they are obsolete.

Sure it has 15 MIRVs but if shot down in the mid phase it putting too many eggs in one basket. And with New Start it leaves the Russisns with fewer missiles.

You can leave the RS-28 and MAD with your disco albums and bell bottoms.

Plus I'm pretty sure modern abm systems can neutralize multiple warheads simultaneously now, heck pretty sure we have interceptors that can even take out multiple seperate warheads if they are still in close enough proximity. And that's just what has actually been made public.

[Dooom35796821595]

Sure delivery systems evolve. But that is fine. It is the nature of things. Missile seems we systems evolve too.

The RS-28 is an inexplicably stupid missile. We got rid of our heavy, liquid fueled silo launche missiles. Because they are obsolete.

Sure it has 15 MIRVs but if shot down in the mid phase it putting too many eggs in one basket. And with New Start it leaves the Russisns with fewer missiles.

You can leave the RS-28 and MAD with your disco albums and bell bottoms.

Plus I'm pretty sure modern abm systems can neutralize multiple warheads simultaneously now, heck pretty sure we have interceptors that can even take out multiple seperate warheads if they are still in close enough proximity. And that's just what has actually been made public.

You do realise that high end MIRVs travel at hypersonic speeds at over 24 times the speed of sound? If you have a missile with twelve warheads, three live and nine decoys there's no certainty of hitting all three nukes.

[Novus America]

A learn to speak AMERICAN please. B MAD and deterrence is stupid as hell. If the US makes it so that no can effectively use icbm then that is a good thing. I mean, it might be better to just get rid of all nukes but that seems unlikely to happen. This seems like the next best alternative.

Sorry I forgot you were an expert on everything. You clearly seem to think your nuclear strategy is better than the one that has kept peace between nuclear powers since the late 40s/50s.

Umm MAD only applied to NATO v the Soviets. Also it did not exist in the 40s or 50s. The Soviet nuclear forces were very weak until the mid 60s. In the 40s and 50s NATO had overwhelming nuclear forces to compensate for inferior conventional forces. MAD became nevcessary only after the Soviets caught up in terms of nuclear forces while still have overwhelming conventional forces. In the 80s NATO had strong enough conventional forces to provide a conventional deterent, thus making MAD less relevant. It is now dead with the Soviet Union, Russian doctrine includes the use of limited strikes and tactical nukes.

MAD thus like bell bottoms, disco and brutalist architecture is a curious and grotesque relic of the 70s.

[Llamalandia]

Plus I'm pretty sure modern abm systems can neutralize multiple warheads simultaneously now, heck pretty sure we have interceptors that can even take out multiple seperate warheads if they are still in close enough proximity. And that's just what has actually been made public.

You do realise that high end MIRVs travel at hypersonic speeds at over 24 times the speed of sound? If you have a missile with twelve warheads, three live and nine decoys there's no certainty of hitting all three nukes.

Well that is why you have tech that can discriminate between live warheads and decoys and also lots of interceptor missiles... or possibly space based platforms in the future.

[Novus America]

Plus I'm pretty sure modern abm systems can neutralize multiple warheads simultaneously now, heck pretty sure we have interceptors that can even take out multiple seperate warheads if they are still in close enough proximity. And that's just what has actually been made public.

You do realise that high end MIRVs travel at hypersonic speeds at over 24 times the speed of sound? If you have a missile with twelve warheads, three live and nine decoys there's no certainty of hitting all three nukes.

You will never be certain. That is not the point. Missile defenses are designed to shoot things going that fast. But the big weakness of MIRVs is if you hit the missile before they deploy they lose 12 warheads instead of one. Hence US missile defenses incude systems that attack missiles in mid course, before they deploy their MIRVs.

Liquid fueled and silo launched are still obsolete. If you are going to use MIRVs at least put them on a mobile solid fueled missile.

[Dooom35796821595]

You do realise that high end MIRVs travel at hypersonic speeds at over 24 times the speed of sound? If you have a missile with twelve warheads, three live and nine decoys there's no certainty of hitting all three nukes.

Well that is why you have tech that can discriminate between live warheads and decoys and also lots of interceptor missiles... or possibly space based platforms in the future.

No. Inteceptors work best when they target the first stage launch. And there is no way to determine what MIRV is live and what is a decoy at Mk24, let alone time enough to respond.

[Dooom35796821595]

You do realise that high end MIRVs travel at hypersonic speeds at over 24 times the speed of sound? If you have a missile with twelve warheads, three live and nine decoys there's no certainty of hitting all three nukes.

You will never be certain. That is not the point. Missile defenses are designed to shoot things going that fast. But the big weakness of MIRVs is if you hit the missile before they deploy they lose 12 warheads instead of one. Hence US missile defenses incude systems that attack missiles in mid course, before they deploy their MIRVs.

Liquid fueled and silo launched are still obsolete. If you are going to use MIRVs at least put them on a mobile solid fueled missile.

The previous poster was speculating on the ability to take out MIRVs after they deploy from the third stage, I was just pointing out that that is the worst point to target the missile, and would have the lowest success rate.

[Novus America]

Well that is why you have tech that can discriminate between live warheads and decoys and also lots of interceptor missiles... or possibly space based platforms in the future.

No. Inteceptors work best when they target the first stage launch. And there is no way to determine what MIRV is live and what is a decoy at Mk24, let alone time enough to respond.

Well it depends on the decoy. If it is a decoy warhead of the same size and weight you cannot tell. But you can discrimnate between warheads and countermeasures like flares and Mylar balloons.

But yes it is best to shoot down the missile before it can deploy its warheads at all, thus killing all MIRVs with one defensive missile.

Though a 100% effective missile defense is not neccesary. It just needs to be credible enough to make the opponent doubt the effectiveness of his missiles.

[Llamalandia]

You will never be certain. That is not the point. Missile defenses are designed to shoot things going that fast. But the big weakness of MIRVs is if you hit the missile before they deploy they lose 12 warheads instead of one. Hence US missile defenses incude systems that attack missiles in mid course, before they deploy their MIRVs.

Liquid fueled and silo launched are still obsolete. If you are going to use MIRVs at least put them on a mobile solid fueled missile.

The previous poster was speculating on the ability to take out MIRVs after they deploy from the third stage, I was just pointing out that that is the worst point to target the missile, and would have the lowest success rate.

True, though I believe we do or at least have been developing the technology to do that in case we don't detect the launch right away. But yeah, pretty much the sooner you can take out the missile the better. Much harder to target deployed warheads, not impossible.

[Novus America]

You will never be certain. That is not the point. Missile defenses are designed to shoot things going that fast. But the big weakness of MIRVs is if you hit the missile before they deploy they lose 12 warheads instead of one. Hence US missile defenses incude systems that attack missiles in mid course, before they deploy their MIRVs.

Liquid fueled and silo launched are still obsolete. If you are going to use MIRVs at least put them on a mobile solid fueled missile.

The previous poster was speculating on the ability to take out MIRVs after they deploy from the third stage, I was just pointing out that that is the worst point to target the missile, and would have the lowest success rate.

True, on that you are correct. Though are layered missile defense should have sytems to target the MIRVs that get past the mid course interceptors. The idea being that hopefully their reduced number is easier to deal with.

[Novus America]

The previous poster was speculating on the ability to take out MIRVs after they deploy from the third stage, I was just pointing out that that is the worst point to target the missile, and would have the lowest success rate.

True, though I believe we do or at least have been developing the technology to do that in case we don't detect the launch right away. But yeah, pretty much the sooner you can take out the missile the better. Much harder to target deployed warheads, not impossible.

We do have a system designed to hit missiles in the second or mid course stage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground- ... se_Defense
Though it is still in early developement and limited deployment.

Of course the best is to kill it in the boost phase, but you have to get close enough to the launch before or right after the launch, which is extremely difficult. You would need spaced based lasers for that, which have been proposed but are beyond our current abilities.

[Lalaki]

Bad, but not easily dealt with.

I wouldn't want the United States reducing its stockpile of nuclear weapons (which protect not only Americans but also our allies across the globe) as it may allow China, Russia, and other nuclear states to gain power on the geopolitical stage. That's not a sentiment to take lightly.

[Xenunian Galactic Confederacy]

Are Nuclear Weapons in your opinion, good or bad?

Nuclear Weapons, have brought up issues in the past, à la Tony Blair and in particular locations. I have mixed views about the topic. With them being a devastating, radiation-inducing weapon, that can leave large areas rendered uninhabitable for a long time, I oppose them. However, I feel it is necessary for nations to own these, as deterrents from others using it (MAD/Mutual Assured Destruction), thus making a Nuclear Attack less likely in theory.


What are your thoughts NSG?

Fantastic. We really enjoy killing. That's why we do it so often. It's lovely to see millions of dead victims blood flow like a river. To breathe in the wonderful stench of millions, nay BILLIONS, rotting in the sun. To see wolves attack the bodies.
No, seriously, it means we will commit M.A.S ( Mutually Assured Suicide ).

[Internationalist Bastard]

Untilwe figure out a way to completly eliminate the possibility of them ever existing again, we unfortunatley can't disarm them

[Dooom35796821595]

Untilwe figure out a way to completly eliminate the possibility of them ever existing again, we unfortunatley can't disarm them

Once a door is opened, it cannot be closed.

[Imperializt Russia]

You do realise that high end MIRVs travel at hypersonic speeds at over 24 times the speed of sound? If you have a missile with twelve warheads, three live and nine decoys there's no certainty of hitting all three nukes.

Well that is why you have tech that can discriminate between live warheads and decoys and also lots of interceptor missiles... or possibly space based platforms in the future.

That technology doesn't exist.

The most effective method for destroying MIRVs with decoy warheads is to kill the MIRV bus before it can deploy any warheads of decoys.

[Benevolent One]

Are Nuclear Weapons in your opinion, good or bad?

Nuclear Weapons, have brought up issues in the past, à la Tony Blair and in particular locations. I have mixed views about the topic. With them being a devastating, radiation-inducing weapon, that can leave large areas rendered uninhabitable for a long time, I oppose them. However, I feel it is necessary for nations to own these, as deterrents from others using it (MAD/Mutual Assured Destruction), thus making a Nuclear Attack less likely in theory.


What are your thoughts NSG?

Stop proliferation. Reduce number of warheads. Biosphere is at stake. Use of offensive nuclear weapons in a conflict will inevitably become "use them or lose them."
The end of human sustainability by way of a total environmental poisoning would be the result. Not only suicide by the human species but the ultimate murder of Gaia. Unforgivable.

[Novus America]

Are Nuclear Weapons in your opinion, good or bad?

Nuclear Weapons, have brought up issues in the past, à la Tony Blair and in particular locations. I have mixed views about the topic. With them being a devastating, radiation-inducing weapon, that can leave large areas rendered uninhabitable for a long time, I oppose them. However, I feel it is necessary for nations to own these, as deterrents from others using it (MAD/Mutual Assured Destruction), thus making a Nuclear Attack less likely in theory.


What are your thoughts NSG?

Stop proliferation. Reduce number of warheads. Biosphere is at stake. Use of offensive nuclear weapons in a conflict will inevitably become "use them or lose them."
The end of human sustainability by way of a total environmental poisoning would be the result. Not only suicide by the human species but the ultimate murder of Gaia. Unforgivable.

Limiting proliferation is much easier said than done. How would you do it? Same thing with further reducing numbers as they have been reduced very far and few countries are interested in further cuts. Especially not unilateral ones.

Use of nuclear weapons would not destroy the entire human species nor cause "total enviromental poisoning". There is plenty of life on Bikini Atoll, despite us nuking it multiple times with very large nuclear weapons.

They could cause a lot of damage to be sure, but you exaggerate. Plus you should not bring religion into it as it makes it harder to evaluate your arguement from a rational perspective.

[Imperializt Russia]

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is probably the densest and most diverse biosphere in Eurasia.

[Rufford]

Stop proliferation. Reduce number of warheads. Biosphere is at stake. Use of offensive nuclear weapons in a conflict will inevitably become "use them or lose them."
The end of human sustainability by way of a total environmental poisoning would be the result. Not only suicide by the human species but the ultimate murder of Gaia. Unforgivable.

Limiting proliferation is much easier said than done. How would you do it? Same thing with further reducing numbers as they have been reduced very far and few countries are interested in further cuts. Especially not unilateral ones.

Use of nuclear weapons would not destroy the entire human species nor cause "total enviromental poisoning". There is plenty of life on Bikini Atoll, despite us nuking it multiple times with very large nuclear weapons.

They could cause a lot of damage to be sure, but you exaggerate. Plus you should not bring religion into it as it makes it harder to evaluate your arguement from a rational perspective.

The environmental consequences of a nuclear attack are exaggerated. Yes they do cause destruction in the area surrounding the point of detonation, but the long term effects are not as bad as many people say they are. Take Hiroshima as an example, they had cleared the bodies within three days and the city was all but rebuilt by 1950. Nuclear bombs just do the job of a lot of conventional bombers in a short time, with a relatively small amount of of radiation as a by product. Only 15% of deaths due to nuclear bombings came from radiation, and most deaths came from the subsequent fires. The effects of going into areas affected by extreme radiation are overstated, in my opinion mostly to deter people from going back into an area like Fukushima in the immediate aftermath to loot or something. They are running tours to Fukushima, Chernobyl and almost every other place that something similar has happened. There even using fucking Pokemon Go to get tourists to go to Fukushima

[Imperializt Russia]

One peculiar curiosity about the Hiroshima bombings is that the Japanese people had a lower tolerance for radiation than studies suggested people would have. The LD50, the level at which absorbed radiation will kill half of all people exposed to it, for full-body radiation exposure is about 350 rads (archaic unit).

In Hiroshima, it was something like 220.

[Rufford]

One peculiar curiosity about the Hiroshima bombings is that the Japanese people had a lower tolerance for radiation than studies suggested people would have. The LD50, the level at which absorbed radiation will kill half of all people exposed to it, for full-body radiation exposure is about 350 rads (archaic unit).

In Hiroshima, it was something like 220.

Does anyone know why?

[Imperializt Russia]

Sadly I don't have the book with me.