Posted: 7/20/2013 2:47:21 PM EDT
|
Two things (been drinking and watching ww2 stuff)
1. I realize the invasion of japan would of cost many US lives, and they started it, and the soviet union needed to be shown what we could do but, we developed nukes and used them twice, right away. 2. Its been 70 years and no nukes have been used in hostilities since. We had MAD with the USSR but the US could effectively nuke anyone besides russia without taking too much damage, shit we destroyed iraq with conventional weapons. How is it that a rogue state or terrorist group hasnt detonated a nuclear weapon? Also, ice or no ice when drinkin scoth? |
|
Quoted:
Two things (been drinking and watching ww2 stuff) 1. I realize the invasion of japan would of cost many US lives, and they started it, and the soviet union needed to be shown what we could do but, we developed nukes and used them twice, right away. 2. Its been 70 years and no nukes have been used in hostilities since. We had MAD with the USSR but the US could effectively nuke anyone besides russia without taking too much damage, shit we destroyed iraq with conventional weapons. How is it that a rogue state or terrorist group hasnt detonated a nuclear weapon? Before the collapse of the USSR, because of pressure from them not to. Since, because of a lot of work behind the scenes. |
|
How to put together an atomic weapon is scientific child's play.
The Little Boy Bomb's design was never tested because they knew if would work. It's getting the parts, specifically the uranium, that's the bitch of it. It takes a huge amount of money, time, and resources to compile enough to be used on a weapon. Just the hardware and facilities needed to enrich the stuff would ensure any competent agency watching would know exactly what you were up to. Building a nuke covertly in today's world is impossible. |
|
Quoted:
How to put together an atomic weapon is scientific child's play. The Little Boy Bomb's design was never tested because they knew if would work. It's getting the parts, specifically the uranium, that's the bitch of it. It takes a huge amount of money, time, and resources to compile enough to be used on a weapon. Just the hardware and facilities needed to enrich the stuff would ensure any competent agency watching would know exactly what you were up to. Building a nuke covertly in today's world is impossible. no need to build it. if you have the money, you will EVENTUALLY, be able to buy one. with countries like russia, pakistan, india, north korea, etc making weapons, and having poor control of their people, and the factions in their gov, and military, who would love to give one to some pet terrorist group, its just a matter of time until someone gets greedy and sells something. hell, they have caught several people trying to sell the weapons grade uranium in the past, just by sheer luck. i will be surprised honestly, if we do not see a nuke terror related event in our lifetimes. |
|
I thought plutonium was man made but uranium is natural and just needs enriching. Is the process that complex that its impossible?
How about all the soviet weapons? All accounted for? How about the broken arrows we know about in the ocean? Probably more than we know right? |
|
Quoted:
How to put together an atomic weapon is scientific child's play. The Little Boy Bomb's design was never tested because they knew if would work. It's getting the parts, specifically the uranium, that's the bitch of it. It takes a huge amount of money, time, and resources to compile enough to be used on a weapon. Just the hardware and facilities needed to enrich the stuff would ensure any competent agency watching would know exactly what you were up to. Building a nuke covertly in today's world is impossible. So in other words you saying, Iran. |
|
Quoted: I thought plutonium was man made but uranium is natural and just needs enriching. Is the process that complex that its impossible? How about all the soviet weapons? All accounted for? How about the broken arrows we know about in the ocean? Probably more than we know right? If Hadji and Achmed could find them, WE would have found them about 10 minutes after they were lost.
|
|
Quoted: How to put together an atomic weapon is scientific child's play. The Little Boy Bomb's design was never tested because they knew if would work. It's getting the parts, specifically the uranium, that's the bitch of it. It takes a huge amount of money, time, and resources to compile enough to be used on a weapon. Just the hardware and facilities needed to enrich the stuff would ensure any competent agency watching would know exactly what you were up to. Building a nuke covertly in today's world is impossible. Was South Africa's program covert or overt? |
|
Quoted:
Was South Africa's program covert or overt? Quoted:
Quoted:
How to put together an atomic weapon is scientific child's play. The Little Boy Bomb's design was never tested because they knew if would work. It's getting the parts, specifically the uranium, that's the bitch of it. It takes a huge amount of money, time, and resources to compile enough to be used on a weapon. Just the hardware and facilities needed to enrich the stuff would ensure any competent agency watching would know exactly what you were up to. Building a nuke covertly in today's world is impossible. Was South Africa's program covert or overt? Overt, but they weren't suspected of hosting the enrichment process, as that was figured to be Israel. |
|
Quoted:
Was South Africa's program covert or overt? Quoted:
Quoted:
How to put together an atomic weapon is scientific child's play. The Little Boy Bomb's design was never tested because they knew if would work. It's getting the parts, specifically the uranium, that's the bitch of it. It takes a huge amount of money, time, and resources to compile enough to be used on a weapon. Just the hardware and facilities needed to enrich the stuff would ensure any competent agency watching would know exactly what you were up to. Building a nuke covertly in today's world is impossible. Was South Africa's program covert or overt? Overt with israeli cooperation IIRC |
|
Quoted:
Two things (been drinking and watching ww2 stuff) 1. I realize the invasion of japan would of cost many US lives, and they started it, and the soviet union needed to be shown what we could do but, we developed nukes and used them twice, right away. 2. Its been 70 years and no nukes have been used in hostilities since. We had MAD with the USSR but the US could effectively nuke anyone besides russia without taking too much damage, shit we destroyed iraq with conventional weapons. How is it that a rogue state or terrorist group hasnt detonated a nuclear weapon? Also, ice or no ice when drinkin scoth? Nukes have fundamentally changed warfare forever. My greatest frustration with the AF is they seem to be the branch least capable of accepting that pre-eminent (and thus far provable) fact of the post war era. |
|
Quoted:
Two things (been drinking and watching ww2 stuff) 1. I realize the invasion of japan would of cost many US lives, and they started it, and the soviet union needed to be shown what we could do but, we developed nukes and used them twice, right away. 2. Its been 70 years and no nukes have been used in hostilities since. We had MAD with the USSR but the US could effectively nuke anyone besides russia without taking too much damage, shit we destroyed iraq with conventional weapons. How is it that a rogue state or terrorist group hasnt detonated a nuclear weapon? Also, ice or no ice when drinkin scoth? Making a bomb, especially the fissile material, is hard. That's why everyone is worried about Iran because they are working and succeeding at making weapons grade material. Terrorists in Pakistan might be able to beat together and AK from tractor parts, but a nuclear bomb is out of their reach. I'm not too worried about them getting it from a rogue state. The consequences would be too great for them. And ice with scotch. The water actually releases molecules in the scotch to enhance flavor and smell. |
|
How would a full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia go today? Back in the day, it would of been about even destruction.
I'd say we'd be able to land a complete knockout blow via tridents before the ruskies could annihilate more than a few cities and key military bases. Assuming our carrier fleet is out at sea and not lumped together in port Also, no ice. It was a trick question. |
|
I heard an interview with a Soviet KGB guy recently. He said they really didn't want to die, since they didn't believe in an afterlife. Our current enemy doesn't have that issue. I think a nuclear attack is much more likely now than it was for most of the Cold War.
When the Iranians get some nukes, we're going to see some mushroom clouds. |
|
Quoted:
I heard an interview with a Soviet KGB guy recently. He said they really didn't want to die, since they didn't believe in an afterlife. Our current enemy doesn't have that issue. I think a nuclear attack is much more likely now than it was for most of the Cold War. When the Iranians get some nukes, we're going to see some mushroom clouds. Not for us. Iran doesn't have the ability to get them here. |
|
Quoted: Not for us. Iran doesn't have the ability to get them here. Quoted: Quoted: I heard an interview with a Soviet KGB guy recently. He said they really didn't want to die, since they didn't believe in an afterlife. Our current enemy doesn't have that issue. I think a nuclear attack is much more likely now than it was for most of the Cold War. When the Iranians get some nukes, we're going to see some mushroom clouds. Not for us. Iran doesn't have the ability to get them here. Container ship off shore with hidden launchers. Boom, headshot. |
|
Quoted: Not for us. Iran doesn't have the ability to get them here. Quoted: Quoted: I heard an interview with a Soviet KGB guy recently. He said they really didn't want to die, since they didn't believe in an afterlife. Our current enemy doesn't have that issue. I think a nuclear attack is much more likely now than it was for most of the Cold War. When the Iranians get some nukes, we're going to see some mushroom clouds. Not for us. Iran doesn't have the ability to get them here. security) to JFK. Divert at the last minute before landing and detonate over Manhattan. |
|
Using a nuke would be counterproductive for terrorist purposes. Terrorists arent tryong to win a conventional war. They want to provoke the government into overreacting that leads to internal conflict that weakens the domestic government.
Terrorist tries to blow up plane = soccer moms start getting felt up by TSA at airport = soccer moms get pissed at TSA and demand the USA quit being so mean to terrorists = terrorist success Terrorist nukes major city = soccer moms get angry = soccer moms demand the USA nukes Mecca = terrorist fail |
|
Quoted:
Using a nuke would be counterproductive for terrorist purposes. Terrorists arent tryong to win a conventional war. They want to provoke the government into overreacting that leads to internal conflict that weakens the domestic government. Terrorist tries to blow up plane = soccer moms start getting felt up by TSA at airport = soccer moms get pissed at TSA and demand the USA quit being so mean to terrorists = terrorist success Terrorist nukes major city = soccer moms get angry = soccer moms demand the USA nukes Mecca = terrorist fail bullshit. Obama wouldn't do shit. If Iran unleashed a nuke (but not directly attributable) the people would be clamoring for surrender, not revenge. are you willing to bet 2 million lives that Iran believes your analysis and not mine? |