Bush`s Nukes

[Snow Wolf]

Is this the road we really want to go down?

http://www.bushflash.com/nuke.html

[TheReverend]

no, everyone has nukes now, they no longer hold any form of intimidation factor......making more nukes only means more dead people.

[SNOWBOARDING_IS_AWESOME]

but you know what im not really worried.
because the USA has the best military defense system that there is.
and if a nuclear war breaks out we might get hit a couple times but most of them will be blown up by the scud misslies that we send out before they hit land.

[undeadkiller]

no matter how many scud missiles we have, it is VERY difficult to shoot down a missile. the reason why no one uses nukes is because were one used you have guaranteed mutual destruction.

[TheReverend]

if a nuclear war breaks out we might get hit a couple times

but is the cost as far as millions of dead people for the few that slip by really worth it? no.

[undeadkiller]

well it is a given that any life lost is bad.

and we wouldn't just get hit by a couple, we would only shoot down a couple.

[TheReverend]

and even the ones we shoot down....sure we took care of the blast but the radiation is still there.......everyone still dies in the end


and if its over the ocean then there would be catastrophic environmental consequesnces especially if its close to the coast.

[DragonUSMC]

OK this post has nothing to do with the "politics" of your discussion. I’m going to explain the mechanics of an ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) because you have NO idea how missiles work.

First, if hundreds of ICBMs were fired at us, yes more then 95% would be shot down. I would personally go as far to say that if 100 were shot 99 or 100 would be brought down. I've seen the new systems and played with them... its kinda fun.

You have no military experience so I don’t expect you to know this stuff. ICBMs are HUGE!!! They have to fly from one continent to another. Therefore making them carry crazy amounts of fuel... This means they are slow. Our interceptors are small and fast... they don’t have to travel as far.

As for your radiation in the sky... they don’t work that way. Shooting a warhead out of the sky means a non activated warhead hits the ground. Is the plutonium in there dangerous? Yes, but your not going to get the movie effect of a nuke blast in the sky. They don’t arm that way.

So there are a few mechanics of how missiles work. Add that to your knowledge and continue the debate =)

[undeadkiller]

well north korea's new missile is not going to be easy to shoot down. it is not an ICBM, and it has the ability to reach california!

[DragonUSMC]

Its not an ICBM? I gave you the DEFFINITION of ICBM!!! how is it not an ICBM if it can go from N.Korea to Cali. Think about it...

[Snowcat pat]

Its not an ICBM? I gave you the DEFFINITION of ICBM!!! how is it not an ICBM if it can go from N.Korea to Cali. Think about it...

Bwhahahahahahahahahahah.

Now im non military but I understand how a ICBM works.
Theres a boost stage, a low earth orbit, and a reeentry stage.

A ICBM is huge, right up until it hits orbit.
Then the warhead(s) reenter on there trajectorys towards there intended targets.

Warheads arent all that big, and they travel very fast.

If full scale nuclear war occurs we can kiss our asses goodbye, we dont have the antibalistic missile technology to stop a sufficient amount of warheads.

Now, anything that doesnt enter orbit, such as a scud or any mid-long range missile we can effectively counter. However the prospect of stopping a thousand warheads simultaniusly reentering the atmosphere headed for continental north america is foolish.


The nuke in question however is a tactical nuclear weapon not a strategic nuke like a ICBM. A good example of how this would be used would be in afghanistan in that tora bora cave complex. It would have levelled the mountain and anything/anyone in it.

Theres a big difference between strategic and tactical nukes.

I personally dont see anything wrong with the developement of weapons that will effectively kill the enemy while keeping our boys safe.

[TheReverend]

I personally dont see anything wrong with the developement of weapons that will effectively kill the enemy while keeping our boys safe.

i agree with that

until it gets to the point the weapons are creating more collateral damage than tactical damage.

like for instance your reference to tora bora- i wouldnt feel a village full of dead civilians is worth the death of a handful of terrorists

[DragonUSMC]

Welcome to war... Civillian casuilties are a fact of it. It happens, what about the collateral damage we took on Sep 11th? I think there is a misconception that civillian life > military life. I do not want to see helpless women and children killed. But you cant keep track of everyone when bombs are flying and your launching 40mm granades into a house, because they just shot an RPG at you from there.

Like you said the sacrifice of many civillians to kill only a few bad guys, different tactics should have been used. But you cant understand just how hard it is and how fast you have to make decisions on the battle field that are going to end the lives of people. They are dreams I live with everyday, and because i had to do that, i hope that you will not have to.

here is somthin my mom sent me when my buddy got aced... Husband and father of 2.

[DragonUSMC]

I think i kinda got off topic... sorry bout that.

[undeadkiller]

have you been watching the news recently?

the north koreans are planning on testing a NEW missile that is capable of reaching california. it is NOT, i repeat NOT like other ICBMs. it is intercontinental, it is ballistic. but it will not be easy to shoot down.

[DragonUSMC]

Ok “rocket scientist” tell me how this Intercontinental Ballistic Missile is DIFFERENT then every other ICBM in the world.

Snowcat pat so far is the only one who has effective described how an ICBM works. He is right to say that a mass sustainment of incoming warheads would pose threat. But warheads are easy to track after separation because of no guidance system and easily predicted flight paths. Obviously a few thousand warheads makes life difficult… but a few here and there… not to worried.

[Snowcat pat]

Ok “rocket scientist” tell me how this Intercontinental Ballistic Missile is DIFFERENT then every other ICBM in the world.

Snowcat pat so far is the only one who has effective described how an ICBM works. He is right to say that a mass sustainment of incoming warheads would pose threat. But warheads are easy to track after separation because of no guidance system and easily predicted flight paths. Obviously a few thousand warheads makes life difficult… but a few here and there… not to worried.

Bwahahha.
This missile is different because its north korean.
Ive got some news for you undead. Take everything the media says with a grain of salt.

Nowadays the media is way to sensationalistic, ever notice how every story is accompanied by action photography? The news is more of an entertainment program nowadays than an informational one.
Ive written a thesis paper on it..
Fox news had the audacity to compare the war on terror as a struggle of good against evil.

All the news has accomplished by claiming that the north koreans have created a "new and improved" icbm is breed fear. Fear is a goddamned powerful weapon, it has been forever. Since when are reporters rocket scientists anyways?

In turn, with stories such as this one the intention is to make the american people view north korea as a threat.

The simple fact is that we have more nukes than anyone, we could put north korea back into the stone age at any given moment.

Im willing to bet that this "new" ICBM is merely an older multiple warhead design with one warhead and a few decoys. Now, in my eyes, a few decoys are much less dangerous than a few extra real warheads.

Koreas no threat, they dont have the resources to allocate to a massive nuclear program like the soviet union did. My guess is all they are trying to do is gain the nuclear detterence that we have had since 1945. Good for them, we are still the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons in war.

With the ability to strike california the koreans are hoping that we will stay out of their affairs IMO. We keep sticking our nose where it doesnt belong around the globe and frankly alot of people are sick of it.

-Pat

[undeadkiller]

i am not at all frightened, especially after all 6 missiles fell in the ocean. now iran is rasing the ****ing oil prices again.... damnit.

[ADRsk8boarder]

ICBM ARE NOT EASY TO SHOOT DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE BUDDY.... REGAN AND STAR WARS WAS THE SAME IDEA BUT THEN THEY REALIZED IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOOT DOWN AN ICBM ....... but if there is a NOOOK-clear war george would be one of the few to survive in some hideout, think of what would happen to the genes if that happened

[ADRsk8boarder]

haha fox news with its NO SPIN ZONE, & FAIR & BALANCED reporting..... what a load of ****

[ADRsk8boarder]

i highly doubt a nuclear war too, the risk is far to dangerous for smaller economically deprived countries with nukes to let one loose on us

[ADRsk8boarder]

snowcat pat have uever watched bikini radio... its a good movie about the effects of radiation happening to us troops when they were testing nuclear bombs out in the pacific at bikini atol... u might learn a thing or two

[DragonUSMC]

ICBM ARE NOT EASY TO SHOOT DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE BUDDY.... REGAN AND STAR WARS WAS THE SAME IDEA BUT THEN THEY REALIZED IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOOT DOWN AN ICBM ....... but if there is a NOOOK-clear war george would be one of the few to survive in some hideout, think of what would happen to the genes if that happened

I'm kinda curious when and from whom you've gotten your security clearance from. Let’s just say star wars was a prototype, and has been completely refabricated. Is it perfect? By no means, what weapon system is? We still use the M-16/A2 as our main rifle for all branches of the service. Those are POS! But they still kill people nicely. OK… let me see if I can put this in a different content and you make the connection.

Do you know what a mortar is? It’s basically a grenade launched with a single blast charge guided by a tube in which its flight path is highly susceptible to change do to wind and humidity. The round is about the size of your forearm. They liked to shoot these at me a lot in Iraq; we have systems to light these up and shoot em out of the sky… 100% no… but getting one incoming to hit and the rest get blasted in the sky makes me happy.

In short it’s much harder to hit a mortar then it is a warhead. Can you see where I’m trying to draw a parallel?

[ADRsk8boarder]

yea but we have no clue when an icbm has been launched there is no thud like the sound of a mortar,,, if north korea chose to launch one on a top secert mission and the u.s. had no clue we wouldnt not be able to shoot it down cause they fly up to 5 miles per second

[DragonUSMC]

yea but we have no clue when an icbm has been launched there is no thud like the sound of a mortar,,, if north korea chose to launch one on a top secert mission and the u.s. had no clue we wouldnt not be able to shoot it down cause they fly up to 5 miles per second

we dont know when a mortar is launched either... it is picked up by radar and satilite, not sound. it takes less then 30 seconds from a mortar firing to impact. So if our radar can pick up the mortar, configure the Dragon System and shoot it out of the sky in less then 30 seconds, why would it be difficult for these same radar and satilite systems to pick up an ICBM after launch, configure missile defense systems and shoot it out of the sky in the 30 minutes it would take for travel?

Again because of the long distance of travel for an ICBM the flight paths are predictable. Decoys are the only defense systems they have. Interceptors are agile and much faster and are fired in multiples... its not 1 interceptor for 1 warhead.

[Snowcat pat]

yea but we have no clue when an icbm has been launched there is no thud like the sound of a mortar,,, if north korea chose to launch one on a top secert mission and the u.s. had no clue we wouldnt not be able to shoot it down cause they fly up to 5 miles per second

Wrong, our sattelites pick up the heat signature of a missle launch instantaniously .
Im still skeptical about the antiballistic missle stuff, but I belive we have made leaps and bounds on it.
-Pat

[DragonUSMC]

Wrong, our sattelites pick up the heat signature of a missle launch instantaniously .
Im still skeptical about the antiballistic missle stuff, but I belive we have made leaps and bounds on it.
-Pat

Unfortunately I cannot really cite anything that describes the improvements and systems themselves. Any websites I could provide no one could gain access to anyway. =( Its horrible for my stand in this debate I know… but your right, its not perfect by any means. Just much better then the 30 years ago when it started.

[Aporter]

Just in!

"In a stunning report on nuclear war today, CNN has released documentation relayed directly from government sources. This document details a way to give Unites State capital cities a stronger form of garunteed defense against nuclear war. After working on this plan for years they have finally unveiled a highly realistic rendering of what this plan will look like..."

The Rendering (http://wulfen.rucus.net/ForceField.jpg)

:usa:

[ADRsk8boarder]

yea but it sounded bad at first anyways STAR WARS come on naming it after a popular movie of the time

[ADRsk8boarder]

Just in!

"In a stunning report on nuclear war today, CNN has released documentation relayed directly from government sources. This document details a way to give Unites State capital cities a stronger form of garunteed defense against nuclear war. After working on this plan for years they have finally unveiled a highly realistic rendering of what this plan will look like..."

The Rendering (http://wulfen.rucus.net/ForceField.jpg)

:usa:

do u have a link to the report

[DragonUSMC]

yea but it sounded bad at first anyways STAR WARS come on naming it after a popular movie of the time

oh i wont dissagree with you on that... the name is STUPID! might as well named it Daffy Ducks Caped Avenger Missile Defense system... I would have respected it a bit more. I mean seriously... who's gonna mess with the Caped Avenger?

[ADRsk8boarder]

haha that would sound pretty badass specially for antiballistic weapon or w/e u call it

[DragonUSMC]

HA! i messed up... its actually Duck Dodgers... Plucky is the caped advenger. OH well... seriously though... who is gonna with stand this? Duck Dodgers > Nukes... nuff said.

http://atlas.kennesaw.edu/~hgrantie/images/daffy/ddodgers001.gif

[Snowcat pat]

I was laughing my ass off at whoever kept calling them ballistic missles earlier. All missles are ballistic by definition hahah.

[DragonUSMC]

yeah i've always thought it was stupid to use a synonym to describe something.

well i guess one is a noun and one and adj. but still... ballistic missile. I didnt know that there were ground missiles!

[Snowcat pat]

^ exactly hahaha
Oh well, I dont make up the acronyms or definitions I just use them
-Pat

[rosstheboss2009]

bush is a terrorist, that is all i have to say

[rosstheboss2009]

the system star wars is awsoem

hail nixon

[DragonUSMC]

bush is a terrorist, that is all i have to say

So did you read the thread or just post stupidity? Join the debate with logical, and thought out composition.

[username? tim?]

true not all misiles are ballistic misiles...

relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under their own momentum and the force of gravity;

the ballistic part means that it's falling for some time it's being propelled by gravity and not being pushed by fuel

air to air misiles are fuel powered all the way