Nuclear

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Nuclear
OP - August 14, 2017, 02:22 PM

Is it just wishfull thinking or is there a significant chance a nuclear war will not end humanity? I know hiroshima and nagaski where not the same kind nukes as today or the cold war but japans doing fine..plus the uk and usa and others have anti nuke defences right? And at some point i belive nukes will be obsolet as weapons evolve as well as defences.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Nuclear
Reply #1 - August 16, 2017, 02:50 AM

If two superpowers, or close to superpowers exchange nukes yah it will be over for us. Russia, China and the USA have plans for just such exchanges. If a superpower and a minor power like Iran or NK are involved than I doubt it as the plans will be far more limited in scale.

Anti-nuclear defenses are completely lacking when it comes to large scale attacks such as a Russian and American exchange.
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Nuclear
Reply #2 - August 16, 2017, 06:45 AM

Quote from: bogart on August 16, 2017, 02:50 AM
If two superpowers, or close to superpowers exchange nukes yah it will be over for us. Russia, China and the USA have plans for just such exchanges. If a superpower and a minor power like Iran or NK are involved than I doubt it as the plans will be far more limited in scale.

Anti-nuclear defenses are completely lacking when it comes to large scale attacks such as a Russian and American exchange.

Hope full no retard or zealot gets in charge of usa russia or china.......oh wait caugh(trump)caugh.

But what about in the future....i still belive new weapons may make a nuke pointless like laser weapons or better and more widespread use of iron domes ect?
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Nuclear
Reply #3 - August 16, 2017, 06:20 PM

Quote from: Philowolf on August 16, 2017, 06:45 AM

Hope full no retard or zealot gets in charge of usa russia or china.......oh wait caugh(trump)caugh.

Trump is not as unstable as CNN tells you. If you think he is going to attack China or Russia you are hysterical. Get help.

Quote
But what about in the future....i still belive new weapons may make a nuke pointless like laser weapons

Lasers are replacements for small munitions such as bullets and missiles not nuclear weapons. Modern nuclear weapons can have a blast range of 150km and a death radius of up to 450km. Lasers require precision as a laser is a tight beam of light. To get a laser to cover that range is so beyond us that it is science-fiction. The replacement of nuclear weapons will be fusion weapons which will be far more dangerous. Hypothetically only one would be required to fry the planet as it would ignite the atmosphere and burn it away. Earth would be worse off than Mars

Quote
or better and more widespread use of iron domes ect?

Iron Domes work because Israeli is tiny and it's primary enemy is localized; Gaza and the WB. It is not hard to blanket any area within those confines. Also the enemy is primitive in comparison. The IDF has it's current enemies completely outmatch. For America, China and Russia it would would require a massive investment to cover the borders. Enemies are far more global due to aerospace and naval assets with payloads of nukes which has been the standard strategy for decades. All have ICBMs, air force and mobile ground assets. Besides most defense systems are deployed to protect military assets not the population. Major cities are death zones due to targeting and the willingness of the military to sacrifice the civil population to win a war. If NYC is required to be destroyed to win a war it is time to move.

Modern war strategy is based on Total War theory. Civilians are part of the military infrastructure due to taxes alone. You pay for the soldiers, pay for the workers making the weapons, for the resources used in construction, the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc. You are also the replacements for causalities. In the nuclear war the Geneva Convention is just a fancy form of toilet paper. All bets are off.
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Nuclear
Reply #4 - August 16, 2017, 06:46 PM

Quote from: bogart on August 16, 2017, 06:20 PM
Trump is not as unstable as CNN tells you. If you think he is going to attack China or Russia you are hysterical. Get help.

Lasers are replacements for small munitions such as bullets and missiles not nuclear weapons. Modern nuclear weapons can have a blast range of 150km and a death radius of up to 450km. Lasers require precision as a laser is a tight beam of light. To get a laser to cover that range is so beyond us that it is science-fiction. The replacement of nuclear weapons will be fusion weapons which will be far more dangerous. Hypothetically only one would be required to fry the planet as it would ignite the atmosphere and burn it away. Earth would be worse off than Mars

Iron Domes work because Israeli is tiny and it's primary enemy is localized; Gaza and the WB. It is not hard to blanket any area within those confines. Also the enemy is primitive in comparison. The IDF has it's current enemies completely outmatch. For America, China and Russia it would would require a massive investment to cover the borders. Enemies are far more global due to aerospace and naval assets with payloads of nukes which has been the standard strategy for decades. All have ICBMs, air force and mobile ground assets. Besides most defense systems are deployed to protect military assets not the population. Major cities are death zones due to targeting and the willingness of the military to sacrifice the civil population to win a war. If NYC is required to be destroyed to win a war it is time to move.

Modern war strategy is based on Total War theory. Civilians are part of the military infrastructure due to taxes alone. You pay for the soldiers, pay for the workers making the weapons, for the resources used in construction, the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc. You are also the replacements for causalities. In the nuclear war the Geneva Convention is just a fancy form of toilet paper. All bets are off.

I dont think trumps that much of an idiot just me joking around

And I ment one day if we dont see the use of nukes we may reach a stage where science fiction weapons may be more realistic and accievable...did not know about fussion weapons tho.

I am not a fan of the total war concept....i understand in a do or die situation like ww2 japan but not every war ever sinhle time
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Nuclear
Reply #5 - August 16, 2017, 06:47 PM

Also....an iron dome for areas like london or nyc/washington? But a more better one than the israelies
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Nuclear
Reply #6 - August 17, 2017, 02:47 AM

Iron Domes were never designed for longer range fast missiles which most nukes are payloads of. Better to use Arrow or Magic Wand
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Nuclear
Reply #7 - August 17, 2017, 03:30 AM

Quote from: Philowolf on August 16, 2017, 06:46 PM

And I ment one day if we dont see the use of nukes we may reach a stage where science fiction weapons may be more realistic and accievable...did not know about fussion weapons tho.

Sure. However it is better to speculate based on weapon develop that is current. Small munitions are going to be replaced by laser and mass weapons like rail-guns (both are in testing phases). Long range missiles are here to stay especially if we progress into a space colonization age. The ranges are so great that weapons systems need to be able to change course.

Quote
I am not a fan of the total war concept....i understand in a do or die situation like ww2 japan but not every war ever sinhle time

Hence why many of the current wars will not end. When was the last time Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany did anything? They got the message via total war loud and clear.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »