wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:18 am

Hello everyone:
Take a look at this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/06/17/1638174-ap.html

Now, is there actually a possibility, that North Korea could fire these things, for real (ie-not a test 'flight')
They haven't done anything like it before, and seeing the state the country is in (80% of its population is malnourished, its health care system is non-existent, trade with anywhere other than China is minimal, it's cut off from the outside world, is pretty poor, and its leader is a basket case) is this a last ditch attempt to frighten the world or is there an actual risk of nuclear war (most likely against USA, S.Korea and/or maybe Japan).
The reason i'm slightly concerned is that I doubt they would waste so much power, energy and money into a project that wasn't for real.
Are we taking N.Korea seriously enough, I mean, all it takes is the push of a button.

I hope its not a real concern, and maybe this even a sign that North Korea is about to collapse ? They appear to be stuck in time, back when the Cold war was still going on.
I think that it's not a question of IF, but WHEN North Korea will collapse, and when they start to crumble, that's when we should be worried, as the 'dear Leader' will have nothing to lose.

So, what do you think ?

Thanks
Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:21 am

Nuclear War is a Possibility one day if the Controls fall in the Hands of Lunatics in Non Democratic Countries.
We all know who those Countries are.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
mrmeangenes
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:56 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:23 am

I don't think they are going to be quite THAT stupid !

They peek out from behind China and shout taunts and threats: knowing they can get away with crap because their military stuff is all set up within 30 miles of the Chinese border.
gene
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:03 am

One way or another, mankind's reign on this planet will be over, it is just a matter of when.
nothing
 
wardialer
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:08 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:11 am

The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war? May I ask? Everything is nice and rosey and this question should never be asked in the first place.

Are you living in the 80s or what??? That was the past and this is now. So forget about Nuclear war because we aint seeing it down the road.

S. Korea will never nuke us. NEVER. Not in our life time.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
the world is in peace right now.

Planning any trips to Baghdad soon?
This space intentionally left blank
 
MaxQ2351
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:41 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:30 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
S. Korea will never nuke us. NEVER. Not in our life time.

This is correct!!! NORTH Korea might though.......

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
In fact, the world is in peace right now...

What rock have you been living under?!?! The USA is fighting "terrorism", which is a very, how shall I say this, ambiguous enemy. We know what we're fighting, just our enemies can number as small as 19 people....

The world right now is fighting a "war", of which the likes we've never seen before. During the Cold War, our enemy was Communism, so it was very easy to to define our enemies. A country is either communist, or it is not. In the case of terrorism though, cells may operate unabated inside a country's borders and the government may not even know about it. How can we blame them?? The US didn't see the Oklahoma City bombing coming until it was all over.

Back to the topic at hand though. While I personally think a nuclear exchange TODAY would be close to impossible, who knows what TOMORROW could bring. Iran rattling their sabre, now North Korea, and God only knows what will happen when demand for oil outstrips supply. The US and China will be at each other's throats, and will stop at nothing to get the black gold. What's to say both of us won't threaten use of nuclear weapons?? The US government at least feels the threat is still there. Why else continue the development of the airborne lasers?? Who has ICBM's that would pose a threat to the US??

the UK?? I think not...
Russia?? No, we're on good terms with them (to some extent at least)
India?? Unlikely...
Pakistan?? No...
Israel?? Hardly...
France?? Maybe  
China?? .........

China is the one. They are why we are continuing development of nuclear defense systems. Why else would we??

-Max

[Edited 2006-06-17 18:32:27]
The 777-200LR......2 engines 4 longer haul
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 1948
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:40 am

I dont think North Korea is going to go ahead and bomb other countries with nuclear bombs because then everyone is going to be all over them cause no one wants a country launching nuclear weapons around everywhere. BTW - if North Korea were to launch a missle at the United States, could there be any way to stop it or shoot it down? Do our military have some kind of Surface to Air missle launchers that could shoot these down or would the send some fighter jet to shoot it down? Or is there no way to stop it?
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:41 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war

Sure, only war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo, Sudan, etc. Other than that it's fine.

And you're wrong. When it was an age where, basically, it was the US v. USSR, the world was probably safer in one way, since both sides were relatively stable, and fairly predictable-with the only real exception being the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Now, you have nations like Pakistan, the DRPK and Iran, either with weapons, or trying to get them. It's a much more unstable, unpredictable equation with these nations, backed by their ideologies, wth such weapons.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 5):
Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
the world is in peace right now.

Planning any trips to Baghdad soon?

 rotfl   rotfl 
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:56 am

It's seven minutes to midnight.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
MaxQ2351
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:41 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:09 am

Quoting Mke717spotter (Reply 7):
BTW - if North Korea were to launch a missle at the United States, could there be any way to stop it or shoot it down? Do our military have some kind of Surface to Air missle launchers that could shoot these down or would the send some fighter jet to shoot it down? Or is there no way to stop it?

If North Korea were to launch a true ICMB, the missile itself goes into space and then the warhead is ejected and drops down onto it's target. If that were the case, as of present, the US has very little means of shooting it down.

The only hope, as of present, of shooting down a warhead is the Patriot Missile Air Defense System:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/






-Max
The 777-200LR......2 engines 4 longer haul
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:17 am

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Thread starter):
Risk Of Nuclear War

There is no such thing as "Nuclear War"... Nuclear Holocaust because they fire on us, we fire on them... Both are irradicated in the process...
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
mrmeangenes
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:56 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:05 am

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 11):
irradicated in

"Irradicated" is a pretty good word ! Irradiated + Eradicated = That's all, folks !
gene
 
wardialer
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:08 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:48 am

The probability of a nuke striking the US is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

Nukes cannot even hit the US even from the Middle East...THEY DO NOT EXIST...And here we are spending billions of $$$$ on Nuclear Testing for crying out loud...I mean WHY??? It does not make any sense at all as to why we even have Nuclear weapons in our military arsenal because they will never ever be used anyway.

A nuclear missile cannot even hit us from 8000 miles away you know..
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:06 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
A nuclear missile cannot even hit us from 8000 miles away you know..

Yes, but we have the technology to hit them.
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:17 am

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 11):
There is no such thing as "Nuclear War"... Nuclear Holocaust because they fire on us, we fire on them... Both are irradicated in the process...

I don't know if the US would be irradicated, I mean if NK lobs one toward the US, the US would probably send 20. Also, I don't know how accurate the missle would be, hell it might even land in an low-populated area of the US, or worse, Canada.
nothing
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3973
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:30 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war? May I ask? Everything is nice and rosey and this question should never be asked in the first place.

Yeah... Look at the above examples and then look at India/Pakistan with Kashmir. No tension there, eh?

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
It does not make any sense at all as to why we even have Nuclear weapons in our military arsenal because they will never ever be used anyway.

Ever hear of something called deterrence?

You're in over your head. Nearly everything you have said here has been spot wrong. You're confusing the Koreas. For the good of everyone, you should probably leave this thread.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
KSYR
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:45 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:55 am

Quoting Jutes85 (Reply 15):
Also, I don't know how accurate the missle would be, hell it might even land in an low-populated area of the US, or worse, Canada.

This would be a serious disaster. If Canada was destroyed, not only would we lose 98% of the NHL, but we would also lose Tim Hortons, home of some of the best donuts on earth. Also, the world's maple syrup supply would be drastly limited, resulting in a massive spike in consumer prices and eventually all-out chaos. It is for this reason that I believe the United States and Canada should team up and develop a joint nuclear-defense missile system. The Americans could operate the machinery (in actuality within a few months the American jobs would be outsourced to New Delhi) while our Canadian friends worked on evacuating all known hockey players and fans to Cuba. They will be safer there and the weather is much, much better.
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:05 pm

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 6):
China is the one. They are why we are continuing development of nuclear defense systems. Why else would we??

Actually, in the present time, China has a "no first launch" doctrine. That is, their official government policy is that China will never be the one to instigate a nuclear arms exchange.

However, they have been looking at changing it, from a technological and security point of view.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
When it was an age where, basically, it was the US v. USSR, the world was probably safer in one way, since both sides were relatively stable, and fairly predictable-with the only real exception being the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Yes, mutually assured destruction (MAD) was a pretty insurmountable wall/obstacle to climb for a real nuclear war. For those who aren't aware, MAD basically means that if one side instigates a nuclear attack, the other will respond in kind (based on the time frame it takes them to arm and launch their own nuclear tipped warheads) before the other countries missles are able to fall, thus ensuring each country unloads enough missles to totally wipe out the other country before the missles actually fall and destroy them. This was paramount during the Cold-War.

Wikipedia has a lot about MAD, and can be found here, and here.

enjoy your nuclear apocolypse-themed reading  spin 
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:16 pm

Quoting KSYR (Reply 17):
This would be a serious disaster. If Canada was destroyed, not only would we lose 98% of the NHL, but we would also lose Tim Hortons, home of some of the best donuts on earth. Also, the world's maple syrup supply would be drastly limited, resulting in a massive spike in consumer prices and eventually all-out chaos

It's terrible already $1.25 for a Medium Double-Double is extorsion I tell you  Wink
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:03 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 5):
Planning any trips to Baghdad soon?



Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 6):
What rock have you been living under?!?!

Casualties during WWI avereaged about 320,000 per month.

Casualties in WWII averaged about 640,000 per month.

Both those numbers are on the conservative side and could be up to 40 or 50% higher.

Get some perspective.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
MaxQ2351
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:41 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:13 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 20):
Get some perspective.

Has the United States Congress declared war???

Didn't think so....

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein

War has not been declared Cfalk. However, I assure you, as Mr Einstein does, if we were ever to enter a World War 3, those monthly casualty rates would geometrically higher, no doubt including you and me.

THERE is your perspective.

-Max

[Edited 2006-06-18 11:17:36]
The 777-200LR......2 engines 4 longer haul
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:30 pm

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 21):
War has not been declared Cfalk. However, I assure you, as Mr Einstein does, if we were ever to enter a World War 3, those monthly casualty rates would geometrically higher, no doubt including you and me.

That's my whole point. For all the bitching about how violent the world is today, it's peanuts compared to a real war.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:58 pm

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 2):
don't think they are going to be quite THAT stupid !

Probably not, but when they are collapsing, the leader will have nothing to lose, why not just hit 'us' with everything they've got ?

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
The risk of nuclear war is very small. In fact, the world is in peace right now...so what makes you think of nuclear war?

The fact that there are thousands of nuclear weapons, some in the wrong hands, that's quite a big contributor.

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 4):
Everything is nice and rosey

Daily bombings and killings in Iraq ring any bells ?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
Sure, only war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo, Sudan, etc. Other than that it's fine.

And civil war about to break out in Sri Lanka again

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
The probability of a nuke striking the US is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

That means there's still a chance, however slim.

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:05 pm

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
The probability of a nuke striking the US is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

The problem with your assessment is that the probability of something happening is a function of time. The probability of it happening in the next hour is probably around the number you quoted. The probability of it happening in the next year will be much smaller. Within 10 years, smaller still. If time becomes infinite, probability will become 1. In other words, it is certain that one day, someone will nuke the USA.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:21 pm

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 24):
The fact that there are thousands of nuclear weapons, some in the wrong hands, that's quite a big contributor.

IMHO ALL of them are in the wrong hands. The world doesn't need these weapons, how about some serious effort to get rid of them all.

I propose - that each nuclear nation (yes ALL of them) promises to reduce their stockpiles by 20% over the next five years (or if they 'couldn't possibly do that - 10% over 10 years).

Just think of the money that Halliburtan and the boys could make in disarmanment!

[Edited 2006-06-18 14:22:46]
 
User avatar
ManuCH
Crew
Posts: 2679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:24 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
If time becomes infinite, probability will become 1. In other words, it is certain that one day, someone will nuke the USA.

Never trust a statistics you didn't forge yourself (tm)  Smile

-Manuel
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:45 am

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/intern...news/20060618p2g00m0in019000c.html
Seems like the are going to test it then.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
The problem with your assessment is that the probability of something happening is a function of time. The probability of it happening in the next hour is probably around the number you quoted. The probability of it happening in the next year will be much smaller. Within 10 years, smaller still. If time becomes infinite, probability will become 1. In other words, it is certain that one day, someone will nuke the USA.

 yes 

Wrighty
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
MaxQ2351
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:41 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:57 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
In other words, it is certain that one day, someone will nuke the USA.

I don't really have the time right now to look it up for sure, but I heard somewhere that the USA holds approximately 2,000 more warheads than any other nation that has nuclear weapons.

If someone nuked us, do you not think we'd fight back!?!?! Maybe it's just me, but if 2,000 nuclear warheads were torched off like a 4th of July party, that would have global consequences!!!

Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach", or read the book??? The movie is rather hard to come by, the 2002 remake at least, but it is a very sobering, and scary, movie to watch.

-Max
The 777-200LR......2 engines 4 longer haul
 
lijnden
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:34 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:11 am

The thread of large scale (country vs country) nuclear war is small, even from nations like Iran. The threat of small scale nuclear attacks (smart bombs from terrorists to wipe out cities) become more likely every day. I think we will see some wipe-outs from cities in our lifetime.
Be kind to animals! Next trip: ORF-ORD-NRT-IAH-ORF
 
wardialer
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:08 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:11 am

The US will NOT see or be hit by a nuke...I am 100 percent sure. Even the 9/11 attacks were setup by our own Government.

Like I said, the world is progressing to peace, so please take a long look at your question here...Esp. with the war in Iraq is over, we will not see anymore political disturbances in the far future anyway....

And another thing I would like to mention about N.Korea here...There not our enemy and they never even were....The US assumes that N. Korea is using their Nuclear Reactors as creating nuclear weapons or missiles...Thats not even true...Their using it for ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY.....

Its like saying that the San Onefre nuclear power plant down in Oceanside, Ca is being used to make nukes....I mean come on..Whats up with that theory???

N. Korea is NOT a threat...Their just using those Nuclear power plants for energy. So again....you guys are wrong.

The world is nice and rosey...so a threat of a nuclear war is VERY VERY next to impossible.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3973
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:19 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
Even the 9/11 attacks were setup by our own Government.

HAHAHAA

AND

YOU'RE

DONE.

 redflag  redflag  redflag  redflag  redflag  redflag  redflag  redflag  redflag 

Thats all you need to see here, folks.

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
Their using it for ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY.....

Are you really, reallly that stupid?

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):

N. Korea is NOT a threat...Their just using those Nuclear power plants for energy. So again....you guys are wrong.

HAHAHA! You gotta be shitting me. This has to be one of the most clueless, ignorant, and downright hilarious posts ive seen on here in ages!

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
Its like saying that the San Onefre nuclear power plant down in Oceanside, Ca is being used to make nukes....I mean come on..Whats up with that theory???

Uh....right. Sorry, thats just dumb. North Korea has a nuclear WEAPONS program. Not powerplants, not good intentions, WEAPONS. You grossly underestimate the craziness of Kim Il Sung, and the sorry state of the rest of the country.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:36 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
Even the 9/11 attacks were setup by our own Government.

That's a joke right, why would the government deliberatly kill thousands of their own civilians, ruin their airlines, therefore having to give them financial support and needlessly go into 2 wars ?

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
we will not see anymore political disturbances in the far future anyway....

 Confused

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
There not our enemy and they never even were.

The little thing about telling their people about how bad the Americans were, doesn't happen then. Oh, and thepart where they had a war with America.

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
Thats not even true...Their using it for ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY.....

So why exactly are they loading up a nuclear missile then ?

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
The world is nice and rosey

Tell that to the families of those people who get blown up everyday in Iraq then.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 31):
HAHAHA! You gotta be shitting me

 rotfl 

Just a genuine question, have you been in the military Wardialer ?

Thannks
Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3973
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:39 am

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 32):
That's a joke right, why would the government deliberatly kill thousands of their own civilians, ruin their airlines, therefore having to give them financial support and needlessly go into 2 wars ?

Because!!....because... oh wait. I never really thought about that, but the youtube movie said so.

The people that believe that shit tend to throw logic and reason out the window. 9/11 conspiracy theorists irritate me to no end.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:43 am

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 33):
Because!!....because... oh wait. I never really thought about that, but the youtube movie said so.

The people that believe that shit tend to throw logic and reason out the window. 9/11 conspiracy theorists irritate me to no end.

 yes 

Very true, always baffles me when people try convince me it was a cover up or a conspiracy or what ever.
These are the same people that say the moon landing is all a fake, and that it was filimed  Yeah sure

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 1948
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:05 am

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
There not our enemy and they never even were

Hmmmm......Oh really then how come were still technically at war with them from the 1950's, because it was only a ceasefire and not an end to the Korean War. Not to mention we have troops lined up against the North Korean border and they have troops on their side.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 31):
HAHAHA! You gotta be shitting me. This has to be one of the most clueless, ignorant, and downright hilarious posts ive seen on here in ages!

 checkmark 
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
TheSorcerer
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:35 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:05 am

I've heard nuclear ICBMs called peacekeepers, i think that's a good description, as long as they're not fired. China won't fire on america because they know that america will fire nukes at them if that happens. They know it's basically a lose-lose situation, victory would be in the form of a signed piece of paper, and that's all they'd achieve apart from killing millions of people.

Dominic
ALITALIA,All Landings In Torino, All Luggage In Athens ;)
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:21 am

Am I the only one who sees a splash of sarcasm in Wardialer's postings?

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
MaxQ2351
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:41 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:14 am

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 36):
I've heard nuclear ICBMs called peacekeepers,

It's one of two remaining types of ICBM's in the United States inventory. The other is the MinuteMan III.

As of present, the MMIII ICBM's are equiped with three MIRV's, or Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles. However, if it has not already been completed, the US military is now only putting a single warhead in the MMIII's.

As you said, the name Peacekeeper seems rather oxymoronic. The LGM-118A Peacekeepers are cold-launched ICBM's, meaning they are ejected out of the missile silos, then the main rockets fire. The Peacekeeper holds up to 10 independent warheads.

Why does the US keep these things?? If the USA ever engaged in a full on war with China, we'd be hopelessly outnumbered. We may have the meanest, most bad@$$ military in existence......Stealth planes, Los Angeles Class Submarines, and Land Warrior spec ops, but we'd still lose. The below picture used special photography to illustrate the Peacekeeper MIRVs upon reentry. Each one of those lines shows the path of a warhead that is TWENTY FIVE times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb.

http://www.geocities.com/peacekeeper_icbm/images/PK_RV7.jpg

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 36):
i think that's a good description, as long as they're not fired.

If a single Peacekeeper missile can unleash 250x more distruction than the Hiroshima blast, it is rather sobering to any potential enemy knowing that the US has over 100 Peacekeepers ready to fire at the turn of a key. That is how they keep the peace!!

-Max
The 777-200LR......2 engines 4 longer haul
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 1948
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:19 am

Hey maybe not exactly on topic - but how are US-Russian relations these days anyway?
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
SmithAir747
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:30 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 38):
The below picture used special photography to illustrate the Peacekeeper MIRVs upon reentry. Each one of those lines shows the path of a warhead that is TWENTY FIVE times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb.

Would those lines (the fiery reentry of the warheads) really be visible to witnesses on the ground in case of an ICBM attack? Would fiery trails be visible as the MIRVs came in?

Say I was standing outside my home near Fort Wayne, IN, when these came in over Fort Wayne. Would I see fiery trails of incoming enemy warheads?
(I'm thinking back to the Cold War, when the Soviets actually HAD warheads targeted at Fort Wayne, IN!).

I had a dream a few months ago about a Soviet nuclear strike on Fort Wayne (my hometown); in my dream, a bunch of fiery "shooting star" trails came down towards Fort Wayne!

I'd be interested to know if fiery MIRV trails would actually be visible.

SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:21 am

Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 40):
I'd be interested to know if fiery MIRV trails would actually be visible.

Even if they were, you wouldn't have time to tell anybody about them !!!.

"Hey Hank, you see those"..............BOOM  bomb   hot   flamed   tombstone 

One of the most humbling images of a nuclear blast that I have seen is in Terminator 2 where Sarah Connor is dreaming about that blast, and you can see the shockwave coming towards here then it literally rips her flesh from her bones whilst she is standing by that fence.

And that was just computer generated. Imagine what it would be like for real !!.

 wideeyed 
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
MaxQ2351
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:41 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:47 am

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 41):
I'd be interested to know if fiery MIRV trails would actually be visible.

To be quite honest, I don't know.

My knowledge about the subject comes from about one week of classes on the matter. I used to be a cadet in Civil Air Patrol, and I applied for a summer activity/class/camp (call it what you will) called Air Force Space Command Familiarization Course, or AFSPCFC....since the Air Force has acronyms for everything!!

Anyhow, during the one week, I got to tour NORAD, ICBM silos, both MinuteMan III and Peacekeeper, got to play around inside ICMB simulators, saw FC Warren AFB, a main ICBM base in Wyoming, toured Buckley AFB space defense facility, and got briefings and classes on almost all non-classified info!!! It was pretty cool!!

So, my knowledge is limited to everything I heard there, and they never gave any mention of that!! However, I'll take a guess and say no, you can't see them. If it was within the realm of possibility of the engineers to eliminate all visual signs of a warhead, why would they not go for it?? If a warhead is visible to the naked eye upon reentering, it gives your enemy one last chance of shooting it down.

-Max
The 777-200LR......2 engines 4 longer haul
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:54 am

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 42):
Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 41):
I'd be interested to know if fiery MIRV trails would actually be visible.

I didn't actually ask the question, but I'd imagine that there would be a possibility there would be visible trails if the were coming in through the atmosphere. Also in the atmosphere there would be a possibility too depending on the air temp/moisture content/shape of the object/speed its going etc - kind of like contrails on an a/c.

 Smile
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:32 am

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 41):
One of the most humbling images of a nuclear blast that I have seen is in Terminator 2 where Sarah Connor is dreaming about that blast, and you can see the shockwave coming towards here then it literally rips her flesh from her bones whilst she is standing by that fence.

nothing
 
Greyhound
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:37 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:27 pm

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 16):
Ever hear of something called deterrence?

So that's what I've been doing the past 6 years.... and here those nice people with the stop-the-armageddon signs outside our base were thinking otherwise.  Wink

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 31):
Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
Their using it for ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY.....

Are you really, reallly that stupid?

Reminds me of scenes of Hussein's cabinet during the war.... no, there are no tanks in Baghdad.... meanwhile an M-1 goes rumbling down the street.

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 38):
It's one of two remaining types of ICBM's in the United States inventory. The other is the MinuteMan III.

Lest anyone forget our more, and perhaps most survivable nuclear platform:

The underway SSBN.


That particular picture was of W-87 warheads. Launched from a different type of missile, but somewhat similar to the W 88s... although lower in yield.

Designator: Yield
W88/Mk-5 Ballistic Missile Warhead/RV 475 kt

Our arsenals our getting smaller though... public knowledge there.... no current TLAM-Ns although the warheads themselves, while not attached, may be maintained. And no more C-4 warheads.... all C-4 missiles are being dismantled. The Russians pay us regular visits to ensure there aren't any.
29th, Let's Go!
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:57 pm

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
The US will NOT see or be hit by a nuke...I am 100 percent sure. Even the 9/11 attacks were setup by our own Government.

You're 100% sure? That's interesting. You're 100% that a communist-dictator/madman won't attack the country he hates? May I remind you that this is gov't regards a simple motion on the floor of the UN as an act of war. And each time, the UN and we cave to these idiots. We following the same path with Iranians with broken promises, and crossed fingers when a treaty is isigned. Nevile Chamberlain also declared "peace in our time", and we see how well that worked out.

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
N. Korea is NOT a threat...

No, but their gov't is.

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 30):
Its like saying that the San Onefre nuclear power plant down in Oceanside, Ca is being used to make nukes....I mean come on..Whats up with that theory???

What you continue to miss is that when uranium is enriched, it's logical purpose is to become weapons grade meterial, and no longer used for peaceful purposes. The only reason to enrich uranium is build a warhead out of it. Uranium is enriched to pack a punch when detonated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13361343/
Sorry mate, but the above does not constitute nukes for peaceful purposes.
This is what giving in to tyrants does.
Made from jets!
 
kaitak
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:44 am

I'm ready a fascinating book at the moment about NK and its nukes, called "Nuclear Showdown" by Gordon Chang (it's an American book, so you should be able to get it stateside). It's very well written, with some wry humour. Basically (among other issues, such as being stark raving mad), Kim is blackmailing states around him for cash and aid, which of course leads me to wonder what the hell they're playing at now.

This evening, CNN is reporting that US missile defences are being switched from test to operational, so if Kim decides to "test" the missile now believed to be on a launch pad and refuelled, the US could decide to test its interception weaponry and take it down. Then what: next move to Kim and that's extremely difficult. In a country like NK, where Kim basically does all he can to keep the military sweet, not responding to the US move would put him in a very difficult situation, effectively portraying himself as weak. So, effectively, he'd be pushed into a corner. What then? Well, the South should be on full alert.

I hope that sense will be seen, BUT this is NK we're talking about. Fair warnings have been given. Over to them now ...
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:33 pm

Jutes85,

Yeah thats pretty much it. Pretty scary thought.

 eyepopping 
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Risk Of Nuclear War

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:11 am

Hello all:
They still haven't launched it (at time of writing), which is good, however, some think that they will have to launch it within the next few months, or else the fuel they believe they are using will start to corrode the insides of the missile.
It would appear it's obviously serious enough as the U.S have got their Navy on the ready.

Wrighbrothers
Alistair
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests