jamiroguy1 Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Red Alert Everydayby Douglas Mattern02/02/2004Terrorism of the 9/11-type tragedy is a serious and dangerous problem that people understand, and they take caution when the color alerts are issued. What's amazing is that the same people ignore a far greater terrorism that is on Red Alert everyday with millions of lives and a billion tears but an hour away. This is the terrorism posed by nuclear weapons. The situation remains as President Kennedy stated before the UN General Assembly on September 25, 1961: "Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us."This warning takes on a new urgency due to the expansion of the nuclear weapons club, and, most ominous, the "preemptive" war policy of the Bush administration that includes the possible use of nuclear weapons. Military analyst William Arkin writes that the Bush administration's war planning "moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options."The Bush team is also determined to build a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons. The U.S. has already resumed production of plutonium pits for nuclear bombs for the first time in 14 years, and the Bush team has plans to resume nuclear testing at the Nevada underground site. Full Articlehttp://antiwar.com/orig/mattern.php?articleid=1825 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Originally posted by jamiroguy1 Red Alert Everydayby Douglas Mattern02/02/2004Terrorism of the 9/11-type tragedy is a serious and dangerous problem that people understand, and they take caution when the color alerts are issued. What's amazing is that the same people ignore a far greater terrorism that is on Red Alert everyday with millions of lives and a billion tears but an hour away. This is the terrorism posed by nuclear weapons. The situation remains as President Kennedy stated before the UN General Assembly on September 25, 1961: "Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us."This warning takes on a new urgency due to the expansion of the nuclear weapons club, and, most ominous, the "preemptive" war policy of the Bush administration that includes the possible use of nuclear weapons. Military analyst William Arkin writes that the Bush administration's war planning "moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options."The Bush team is also determined to build a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons. The U.S. has already resumed production of plutonium pits for nuclear bombs for the first time in 14 years, and the Bush team has plans to resume nuclear testing at the Nevada underground site. Full Articlehttp://antiwar.com/orig/mattern.php?articleid=1825 Are you against the missile defense system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiroguy1 Posted February 2 Author Report Share Posted February 2 Originally posted by mr mahs Are you against the missile defense system? IMO Yes, because it doesn't work and only points more nuclear weapons at us. We should continue down the road of total disarmament not continued nuclear build-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksimons Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 if I were a terroist, I'd drive a boat right into new york and blow it up with a nuke...or smuggle something in through mexicoor fly a plane from america into a nuclear power plantor just use a lot of explosives - oklahoma styleeor how about shoulder mounted missile launchers against planes?how about bombs and guns and hostages?9/11 was a triumph of low tech over higha missile system would be a boon for those who made it, but so far trials have shown it to be poor.would it be a deterrent? more importantly for you tax paying americans, could your money be better spent, say in looking at traditional intelligence sources, increasing man power, arabic trained speakers that sort of thing, or some fancy, very expensive, experimental missile defense system that will provide limited defense against one specific type of threat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 seeing you wont get half the kill and range power from a nuke if it the epicenter isnt around 2000 orso feet in the air it will not cause as much damage as a misslesecond.flying a plane into power plant could cause radiation if the right place is hit but no nuclear chain reaction (explosion)third. how the fuck do you know if it works or notfourth.im glad you already have a plan simons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Originally posted by pattbateman seeing you wont get half the kill and range power from a nuke if it the epicenter isnt around 2000 orso feet in the air it will not cause as much damage as a misslesecond.flying a plane into power plant could cause radiation if the right place is hit but no nuclear chain reaction (explosion)third. how the fuck do you know if it works or notfourth.im glad you already have a plan simons The missile defense system elliminates the threat of nuclear attack ballistically to us and our allies. It succesfully takes it off the table as a deterant and as a tool of blackmail.Mark you did mention that there are other ways to attack us and that's why the govt has been saying from the beginning that we can never be 100% protected but elliminating one threat from the radar screen is a start. Besides I though you peanicks would like the missile defense system because it limits the chances of a nuclear attack on Earth.There will never be a total ellimination of nuclear weapons and the people who think there will ever be is dellusional. People don't want nukes and countries who want to reduce don't want to pay for the dismantling- We have the next best thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksimons Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 new weapons technologies haven't exactly led to a more peaceful world.specifically talking about the missile defense thing.a few things.cost effeciency, will it actually work? initial tests prove not. there are cases of armies, both uk and us faking or ignoring results and pushing on wasting millions, billions even, of dollars, pounds, euros, whatever.the thing is that the hundreds of millions it would cost for the shield could be better spent.if that money went on providing drinking water for everyone in the world, which it probably could, say america forked out for that basic human necesity, imagine what that would do around the world, for america's image and for the feelings people harbour towards the country.now imagine america spending billions on defending itself from a threat it has never actually faced, and in all likelyhood, would not face.I mean if you know america will shoot your missile out of the air why bother? find another route.the lessons of 9/11 should be that your security agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA collect enough information but you need to co-ordinate between local police, national and international agencies.why spend money on the most remote threat when you can't even defend your nation against 19 guys with boxcutters and airline tickets.first things first.I don't think a missile defense system is what america, or it's allies, need, want, or should have.it's another expensive white elephant that would line the pockets of the manufacturers.oh, and I also wonder whether this defensive system could, as I'm sure bush and co would agree, that a good offence is the best form of defence, whether they could be used for attacking purposes...as for total elimination of nuclear weapons.ha.america was the first to make, use and then make lots more nuclear weapons.america is the one who caused other nations to want nuclear weapons as quickly as they did.America took nazi scientists and put them on the manhattan project (admittedly russia did the same).interestingly german scientists who helped develop their rockets, such as the V1 and V2 flying bombs that helped destroy major british cities, some of those scientists went on to work in the American space program, the apollo rockets being the most advanced development from the original flying bombs, some of the same major people worked on them.you could get rid of nuclear weapons if you wanted to.but it would be hard.for many reasons, not least that the people designing them really didn't give that much thought to how they might be got rid of, without detonating them.the best tactic would be superman throwing them in the sun, but erm, we can't do that...to be honest there are more than enough points that have been touched upon by people in this thread that could be developed and discussed a lot.the cold war mentality that gripped america for a good few decades has put in a rather awkward situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiroguy1 Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 I'm going to have to agree with simons here. I don't see how adding more nuclear missle systems, ready to fire at an instant makes this world safer. We all agree that the nuclear problem is a global problem not just a problem for our enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksimons Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 the missile defense thing isn't nuclear as far as I know, you just fire normal missiles at the nukes.ah.that was it.the fatal flaw.the system so far can't differentiate between a dummy warhead and a real one.so...if you have 20 missiles, and two of them are nukes, chances are, they may get through, due to targetting and also, it's fucking hard to hit a flying missile with a missile, it is like trying to shoot a bullet with a bullet...catalogue of faliure so far...--SINCE 1976 THE United States has spent tens of billions of dollars to conduct 17 high altitude intercept tests of various interceptors designed to destroy longer-range missiles launched against the U.S. or its allies. In only three of these 17 exo-atmospheric, hit-to-kill (HTK) tests did the "kill vehicle" (KV) hit the target, and of those, at least one was a qualified success. Ballistic missile defense (BMD) advocates have attributed test failures to "random" chance, but as the independent Welch Commission concluded in its Report of the Panel on Reducing Risk in BMD Flight Test Programs: "few, if any, of these failures were 'random'." Rather, the failures demonstrate the difficulty both of hitting a "bullet with a bullet" and of assuring reliability in these systems. To date, these programs are far from consistently achieving their primary HTK objective. Further, success on the test range does not mean success against real-world warheads, as demonstrated by the Patriot anti-missile system. The Patriot achieved a perfect intercept record in testing, but performed poorly during the Gulf War. The United States should avoid the "rush to failure" highlighted by the Welch commission, and pursue missile defenses wisely by ensuring that they are effective, reliable, affordable, and increase overall U.S. security. Specifically, the pursuit of missile defenses must not undercut reductions in the offensive nuclear weapons those defenses are intended to counter. http://www.clw.org/coalition/briefv3n6.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Missile Defense is a waste of money. There's no guarantee any such system would work. In fact, the Chinese are developing nuclear techonology that would be able to penetrate a missile defense system. The best deterrence we have against a nuclear launch is the fact that we have a large nuclear stockpile. Any country that nukes the United States knows very well they would be pounded into oblivion. A bigger concern for us, is terrorists' use of nuclear weapons. There are reportedly 80 or so suitcase nukes that are missing from the former Soviet Union and unaccounted for. It's been reported that Al Qaeda purchased suitcase nukes in '98. If that's true, we should be much more worried about that than a missile strike. They don't have the power of an ICBM, but would cause mass devastation and make a city uninhabitable for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 people lets all remember that we are at least 30 years or so ahead of china in missle anything so how they can penitrate it i dont knowyes they fire regular missles at any war head that is coming our way knocking it down or blowing it up in the airhey its better then nothing there must be some kinda of threat that is always there (russia,china,north korea)and if anyone will attack us either there country would be terminated or ours or prolly both.and we can never totally get rid of them cause we know how to make them and that will always be there we cannot just unlearn thisand you always agree with simons lastly nobody wants us to have it for one reason cause we would be unstoppable and people do not like to think of us like that especially the jealous english!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksimons Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 how did you come to the conclusion that the US is 30 years ahead of China in missile tech?jealous english?nah, england now, I like it here, I'd rather be here than America right now.I can have skunk delivered to my door, and cheap, I have cheap pills - we're talking about £2 a time, prison for weed is a very hard thing to get here.we have one of the best clubs in this country, Chibuku shake shake of liverpool, mixmag club of the year, as our regular club, and goddamn, I'm loving it.sure we got problems, but jealous, of America? right now, from where I'm sitting, not bloody likely mate...please, if we're talking domnation, go grab a map from the end of the 19th Century and see how much was pink - the sun never set on our empire...erm... yeah...where was I..."and if anyone will attack us either there country would be terminated or ours or prolly both."yup, so goes the M.A.D. mutally assured distruction doctrine, which america operated to for some years.america is stoppable, without having a military draft the army is at full stretch right now.america could win a war by nuking and gassing everyone, but what kind of world would you be running...does america want to take on the world?now, with the internet, the world is very small, I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying a significant population of the world is ahead in terms of their thinking than the leaders and a lot of the opinion formers in america. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiroguy1 Posted February 3 Author Report Share Posted February 3 Originally posted by pattbateman people lets all remember that we are at least 30 years or so ahead of china in missle anything so how they can penitrate it i dont knowyes they fire regular missles at any war head that is coming our way knocking it down or blowing it up in the air That would explain this...China's ambitious space plane:http://www.iht.com/articles/114009.htmlChina's space program timelined:http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/03/china.space.timeline/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 who the fuck wants to admit to being jealous!?!?!?!????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 just an educated guesswe have had missles 3 years longer then them so i just figured Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.