While I, along with everyone else, don’t want to experience the exhcange of ANY nuclear-based weapons, my real reason is that I think that we—the World—might need them some day, along with their missles, to defend ourselves against an asteroid strike. This, a strike by a “sizable” asteroid, is a problem of huge proportions.
The more that is learned about about past asteroidal strikes (to include comets), the more that the capable nation-states of the World are, IMHO, coming to similar conclusions. Asteroid strikes are bad things. Some are VERY bad.
So you would have us believe that the organization is untrustworthy simply because a board member is also involved with a group that helped shape the nation’s nuclear policies ? What, is it also somehow involved with the trilateral commission and the conspiracy of the illuminatus ? MAD was a GOOD thing. It kept us all alive for 30 years. Have you any evidence that a better solution can be found ?
Since no one has come up with any better information, or even legitimate criticism, the laymans best guides to atomic warefare are still this article
and this site
-Of course if you believe Sea Sorbust’s ridiculous attack on the Atomic Scientists, you’ll also have to disregard anything you see at the Federation of American Scientists(FAS) site since they are obviously involved in the same misinformation campaign:
From: http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html
Have you got any REAL beefs with these guys Sea Sorbust, or is this just another of your “Protecting the Purity of our Precious Bodily Fluids” arguments ?
I am, however, willing to suggest the following solution to the ongoing problem of numerous missle-equipped, nuclear-based weapons systems:[ul][]Soup up the missles to (at least) escape velocity capability;[]Ship them to Mars;[]Put them in a permanent orbit about Mars --[list][]equiped with a low power maneuver system, sufficient to intercept an asteroid or comet on collision course with Earth and[]supervised by a permanent base on Mars/Demos/Phobos[/ul]with a couple of Earth/Moon based (co-located with the ISS, for example) nukes in case of a “suprise” asteroid/comet and[]with an anti-missle defence just in case. :([/list]This beats (at [relatively] small expense) destroying a huge number of very expensive missles and warheads.
I regret to say,** Squink**, that I feel competent to discuss neither the odious Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) nor the utterly insane Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept outside the near-boundless confines of the :mad: BBQ Pit. :mad:
I am, however, willing to suggest the following solution to the ongoing problem of numerous missle-equipped, nuclear-based weapons systems:[ul][]Soup up the missles to (at least) escape velocity capability;[]ship them to Mars;[]Put them in a permanent orbit about Mars --[list][]equiped with a low power maneuver system, sufficient to intercept an asteroid or comet on collision course with Earth,[]augmented with a system of automated asteroid-hunting probes and[]supervised by a permanent base on Mars/Demos/Phobos;[/ul][]along with a couple of Earth/Moon based (co-located with the ISS, for example) nukes in case of a “suprise” asteroid/comet and[]with an anti-missle defence just in case. ( :eek: )[/list]This notion beats (–at [relatively] small expense–) destroying a huge number of very expensive missles and warheads.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sea Sorbust *
**
I am, however, willing to suggest the following solution to the ongoing problem of numerous missle-equipped, nuclear-based weapons systems:[ul][li]Soup up the missles to (at least) escape velocity capability;[]ship them to Mars;[]Put them in a permanent orbit about Mars --[list][]equiped with a low power maneuver system, sufficient to intercept an asteroid or comet on collision course with Earth,[]augmented with a system of automated asteroid-hunting probes and[]supervised by a permanent base on Mars/Demos/Phobos;[/ul][]along with a couple of Earth/Moon based (co-located with the ISS, for example) nukes in case of a “suprise” asteroid/comet and[]with an anti-missle defence just in case. ( :eek: )[/list]This notion beats (–at [relatively] small expense–) destroying a huge number of very expensive missles and warheads. **[/li][/QUOTE]
[hopefully ending this partial hijack]
The idea of shipping any type of astroid/comet defense for the Earth to Mars seems to be a poor one. Only a small percentage of the time would Earth and Mars be close enough in their orbits to make Mars a better staging area for defence of Earth than Earth itself. Since this isn’t really relevant to the OP, if you want to discussing the realities of defending Earth from Mars, we can start another thread.
[/hopefully ending this partial hijack]
Do any of you really know that much about nuclear devices and there effects, anything outside of the blast can easily survive, the problem is nuclear fallout, which is not a big problem at all, the nuclear fallout is the plume you would see after the initial blast, this is now radioactive, but it is a dust, you can simply sweep it away and you will be able to grow plants and survive, and ozone layer will definatly be intact, plus a nuclear winter??? its not lik eht etemp is goin to drop to freezing temeratures, it will probably drop only around 10 to 15 the average daily temp
Riiight, TiggaWigga. So we’re just going to sweep up the radioactive dust from the fallout of the bomb. Never mind that any ecology their is either ruined or mutated beyond reason. And that if we fail to sweep up any of this dust, if we leave just a little, it will probably haunt us for years to come. And if some goes into the ocean, fish start dying, and people drink contaminated water and have lots of problems. Remember how many US cities are on or near the coastline, and how many rivers in Russia feed into Central Europe. Not to mention, we’re talking dozens, perhaps hundreds of nukes exchanged. There might not be enough people to sweep up the stuff even if it was possible. And do you have any backing at all for your statement about the temperature?
In response to Beagle and clairobscur, the lowest-yield scenario that the original team considered capable of triggering a nuclear winter was a distressingly small 100 megatons, distributed in low-yield airbursts over cities. I think that scenario in particular is the one that is most often criticized, though, so take it with a grain of salt. –cite
This always seemed rather counterintuitive to me, but the aftermath of the World Trade Center makes me consider otherwise. The plume from that disaster was clearly visible to satellites, and a very high proportion of the buildings’ mass was converted into dust. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I was told the other day that fires are still burning somewhere deep within the wreckage. A city nuked by an airburst might pump out particulates for weeks. A city turned into a series of glassed-over craters might actually be cleaner by comparison, I suppose.
I sharply disagree, scotth, that your comment is any kind of a hijack whatsoever!
If the currently existing nukes (and their missles), sans a few, are shipped out to Mars, then the problem of Nuclear Warfare is ended. Kaput! There IS no problem of a destructive Nuclear War if the weapons are all well out of range.
THIS idea, in fact, is exactly the notion behind such things as “turning the cannon into plowshares, etc.” or in keeping the standing armies at very low levels, thus requiring a lengthy (a year?) process of mobilization.
Any missile that can be flown to Mars from here can be flown back here and still dropped onto a city, assuming you have the fuel. And you would have the fuel since you want to use them to shoot down asteroids.
You’re right! Simply disassembling the missiles is a silly idea… :rolleyes:
