US on Nukes: We’re Keeping Them to Blow Up Asteroids

sfsuphysics said:
This part is pretty cringe worthy, because they are accelerating the entire time they fall towards Earth up until they reach terminal velocity. The way this makes it sound is that they actually slow below terminal velocity and then speed back up which doesn't make much sense at all.
Click to expand...

Being a nuclear state ain't helping Israel much, they still need our 5-10 million dollar a day financial support.

As far as the Cold War, it was a collusion between both governments to control their own populace. Gods need devils.
 
I could use 2 nukes for astro stuff
send to
my adress is: big boom jar jar binks
 
vasta said:
The majority of factories that make US goods are in China because China hasn't cared about pollution for decades even though recently China appears to be on a solar kick (yet they continue to bring about 6 coal plants online each day) which is why the air over there has become so thick with shit you can cut it with a knife and paying workers cents an hour over there is apparently the norm, those things make building polluting factories in China appealing to companies, that and the fines China has handed out to polluting companies are pocket change

You also forgot, short of the US actually dropping a nuke on Beijing, closing trade with the US will never happen considering the US is the biggest importer of Chinese goods, companies also have the option of moving back to the US if things ever got really bad but that would require money and actually require these companies to sort of give a shit about all the garbage they are pumping into the air, meanwhile in China you are pretty much free to pollute the hell out of everything but don't worry, if you get caught you might have to pay like 40 grand in fines
Click to expand...

Your information is a bit out of date, China has dramatically slowed new coal construction compared to what it was previously and has managed to halt or reverse growth in coal consumption in a number of provinces.

Their air and water are still terrible, but they have turned a corner on it at this point and look to be cleaning up their act, albeit not as rapidly as we need.
 
They just want to live their dreams of being Bruce Willis and blow up an asteroid.
 
Ummm, excuse please :D

This article is talking about not destroying components that are scheduled for destruction right?
It is not addressing our current operational inventory at all. those babies are always ready to go at any given moment.

So, there are two reasons we destroy nuclear weapon components;

A. By treaty.

B. Because the components are not needed, have reached end of life, and are being replaced by new or better components.

Since we do B anyway all the time then this brings A into strong consideration.

Now given that Russia has been misbehaving lately is no secret. Have you guys considered that just maybe this is a veiled threat, "Keep it up and the old treaties are off". just maybe?
 
Phoenix333 said:
The concept of mutually assured destruction of an enemy nation is still a valid military deterrent for most nations. The problem is that the global nature of economics, and the fact that the US has moved its means of production into other nations, reduces the usefulness of that concept. The US won WWII in Europe because it could keep building tanks, plans, and bombs, while the Germans couldn't, since the US was bombing the German factories into rubble. Now all of the factories that make stuff for the US are in China and Mexico. The problem there is that if the US were to use nuclear weapons, China and Mexico and anyone else could just protest it by closing their borders to US trade. The US economy collapses, and its citizens starve.

The other problem is that it's unlikely for a nation such as China or Russia to launch an overt attack using nuclear weapons. An infiltration attack by Muslim terrorists is far more likely, but then who are you going to launch your nukes at? What city do you annihilate in hopes of removing a threat that is scattered all around the world? The only use for nukes at this point are as a "kill everyone else on the way out" option, but at the same time, if everyone else has nukes and the US doesn't... well then it's just a question of who wants to take a shot at the US first.
Click to expand...

The problem with this Phoenix is that the US has already survived economic collapse and that's because we still maintain the resources required to sustain production of necessary materials. We won't starve, we just won't be selling so many cell phones. Land and resources are what is required and when faced with doom people will do what is required to survive.

In counterpoint to your argument, although some nations might withhold production, decentralization also makes it far trickier to halt our production capability, you'd have to attack many nations to do it if they can't be convinced to withhold their support. Besides, we have fast stockpiles of military equipment sitting in mothballs, we could well equip a very large Army and we all know just how effective that Army is. And if you think our Military has been dismantled or gutted, you should see just how much money has been spent lately and on what.

http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5387

Granted that this is just the last day of the fiscal year so they are spending all their leftover budget, but it's also just one day and what a hell of a spending spree it was.
 
Hmm...deflecting (or at least discouraging) an ass-teroid named Putin perhaps?

The US needs to be keeping every nuke we have and modernizing our entire inventory by building more.
They are the cornerstone of our nations defense and the one thing that gives us an overwhelming force option to maintain order if necessary (and to keep Russia honest).
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Nope. Allied air raids were largely ineffective at cutting German production. Even towards the end they had plenty of production resources to throw at expensive and complicated projects like the V-1/V-2 missiles and jet fighters. What they didn't have was manpower.
Click to expand...

Oh really? History disagrees.

Much of the doubt about the effectiveness of the bomber war comes from the oft-stated fact German industrial production increased throughout the war. Until late in the war, industry had not been geared for war and German factories only worked a single shift. Simply by going to three shifts, production could have been tripled with no change to the infrastructure. However, attacks on the infrastructure were taking place. The attacks on Germany's canals and railroads made transportation of materiel difficult.

The attack on oil production, oil refineries, and tank farms was, however, extremely successful, and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. German insiders also credit the Allied bombing offensive with crippling the German war industry.
Click to expand...

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-histo...07/the-strategic-bombing-of-europe-1141-9242/

lcpiper said:
And if you think our Military has been dismantled or gutted, you should see just how much money has been spent lately and on what.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt the capability of the US Military as far as the soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen are concerned, nor their equipment. It's the politicians giving the orders that are the problem. It's been a problem since Korea and I don't see it being fixed any time soon.
 
Nukes are useless in space. Anyone with half a brain in physics knows this. Stupid government playing on its peoples' ignorance.:mad:
 
sfsuphysics said:
This part is pretty cringe worthy, because they are accelerating the entire time they fall towards Earth up until they reach terminal velocity. The way this makes it sound is that they actually slow below terminal velocity and then speed back up which doesn't make much sense at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are accelerating the entire time they fall towards Earth because they would be approaching the light speed. They would be at a fixed velocity at the time they fall towards Earth but would be most likely much higher than the terminal velocity of gravity. I think the atmosphere would slow it down and equalize with the terminal velocity of gravity, not slow down below the terminal velocity and accelerate again.
 
Koolthulu said:
Launching a nuke at an asteroid is about the least likely way of stopping one. If it does anything at all, it will just make things worse. Just shows that they don't understand anything about nukes or asteroids.
Click to expand...
No one said anything about launching. We're landing Bruce on one who will drill into the surface to plant the nukes. This is asteroids 101 man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top