Thermonuclear Stockpiling

[Defcon 6]

I'm going to throw an idea out and see how people respond.

First of all, more and more countries and developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons. Pakistan, India, North Korea, China. And perhaps soon Iran and other third world countries like them. So where do we draw the line to the increasing nuclear threat? What we have done in Iraq didn't work, in fact I would bet you any amount of money that they moved whatever weapons they had to Syria. There is evidence to support this theory in the form of satelite pictures that depict greatly increased non civillian truck traffic between Iraq and Syria and Iran as well right before March 2003.

So heres my idea, lets quit trying to stop these countries from developing these weapons. Let the UN handle it, and we can back the UN if they decide to take military action. However, lets no rely on the UN. I believe in stock piling thermonuclear weapons. Yes, Hydrogen Bombs. Fusion weapons are not only cleaner than Fission weapons, but also greatly increased in power. I would suggest bombs in the category of 10 MT. A good number of them. And a few 20-30 MT bombs that could be deployed from manned bombers. A 1-5 MT warhead could most likely be attached to an ICBM so that takes care of that.

Now that is what I believe to be good deterrence. If Iran and North Korea are going to build bombs, we simply build bigger ones and increase our first strike capability and hopefully increase funding to the ICBM defense projects.

 

[vrus]

I don't agree with you. By 'we' do you mean US? Anyway if larger advanced modern countries like the US and Russia start building larger weapons in terms of yield, then the third world countries will also want to attain this ability and continue efforts on this. This will lead to a more worse scenario. It will also be harded for disaramament to take place...

 

[Defcon 6]

Eventually those countries will want to build H-Bombs anyways.

 

[Ender89]

My concern is when the world will start stockpiling WMDs in space.

 

[Defcon 6]

Actually thats already been outlawed basically. I think it's a treaty or U.N sort of thing. But it's against the...well...I guess you could say its against the law to put nuclear weapons in space. Besides, it's easy to track everything that goes into space. So we could prevent the use of a nuclear based satellite weapon (aka a satellite armed with nuclear weapons).

 

[Ender89]

Oh good. but what about satelites that carry weapon grade energy sources?

I have also read that if a nuclear ballistic missle was to go approxitmately 300 miles above the earth and detonate the emp would disrupt all electronics in an area of the size of North America If this would to happen it would take over ten years to get the country back in order.

 

[vrus]

THe treaty that does not allow nuclear weapons into space... What are the consequences of going against it ? Sanctions? Invasion?

 

[Ender89]

Probably UN disaproval and they might ask the country not to.

 

[Defcon 6]

THe treaty that does not allow nuclear weapons into space... What are the consequences of going against it ? Sanctions? Invasion?

The implications are far worse. First of all, we would know if they launched something into space. so they could not do it in secret. secondly, if they did it. then we would respond by launching nukes into space. and thirdly, they might be targeted by other countries nuclear weapons if they did such a thing.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Personally i'm glad the time of the thermonuclear arms race is passed. i think it would be irresponsable and reckless to go down that path again. And anyway what purpose could it serve? The U.S. has thousands of fission weapons stokpiled anyway which are more than an apropriate deterrent. 10 megatone nuclear weapons only serve one purpose,a massive strategic nuclear strike. Does Doomsday wring a bell? I think more constructive aproaches would bring more sucsess in non proliferation. A fased reduction in U.S./Russian stockpiles, economic encentives and a concerted effort by the inteligence community to attemt to contain the black market would be more sucsessful than the resurection of the large scale H bomb.

 

[Waylander]

That's it.
Why the hell do you want to build bigger bombs? Don't you think that thousands of NATO N-Weapons and the same number in russia are not enough? Do you think that these bombs aren't enough to make nice little glass plates out of every country which attacks NATO or Russia? Really big MT bombs are just good for one thing. They are city killers. Nothing more. To talk about these things as if they would be the best way to make the world safer is not what I understand if somebody is talking about making the world a safer place.

 

[KH-12]

Oh good. but what about satelites that carry weapon grade energy sources?

I have also read that if a nuclear ballistic missle was to go approxitmately 300 miles above the earth and detonate the emp would disrupt all electronics in an area of the size of North America If this would to happen it would take over ten years to get the country back in order.

Already happened back in the days when it was cool to "play" with thermonuclear weapons in the atmosphere, it went like this "I wonder what would happen if ...." the effects today would probably be alot worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

 

[Rich]

In case you haven't noticed the United Nations is a Political brothel. The various head pimps, in their various pink Cadillacs, have yearned for decades to get their hands on the keys of the U.S. military, and the $$$ of the Yank taxpayer, so's they can impose their little manifesto on the world collective, all the time promising we'll all join hands at the equator and sing "give peace a chance".

I say we empty that wretched building out, line up a 1,000 bulldozers, and send it to the bottom of the Atlantic where it can provide structure for sport fishing. At least then it would serve a useful purpose.

 

[radiosilence]

we have the most leverage to dictate the un's agenda. its has become convient for some to bash the un when it doesn't go along with the adminstration policies. i.e the iraq war

 

[Waylander]

@Rich
Did you ever looked at how many vetos the US used during the history of the UN? It is by far much more than the rest of the veto powers so you should think about who makes the UN weak.

 

[Rich]

Probably UN disaproval and they might ask the country not to.

Let alone the horror of having a couple of dozen resolutions being passed against you. Oh...the pain:wah So say the North Koreans put such a weapon into orbit? How would we know its a weapon? And realistically what could the ridiculous United Nations do about it?

 

[dioditto]

I would suggest bombs in the category of 10 MT. A good number of them. And a few 20-30 MT bombs that could be deployed from manned bombers. A 1-5 MT warhead could most likely be attached to an ICBM so that takes care of that.

Now that is what I believe to be good deterrence. If Iran and North Korea are going to build bombs, we simply build bigger ones and increase our first strike capability and hopefully increase funding to the ICBM defense projects.

Now this is just pure madness. You do realise the moment you increase the yield, the other side will just do the same as well, (namely russians and chinese, and then the indians, pakistanis then iranians.) Soon, it will be at 100MT, 1 GT (giga-tonne), 1 TT (tera tonne?!) and NO DEFENSE YOU CAN EVER MOUNT or HOW DEEP YOUR NUCLEAR BUNKER IS...IS GOING TO PROTECT YOU. It only accelerate the sure destruction of this planet we call Earth. The bigger the weapon, the more certainty of our total destruction, and frankly, by building bigger weapon only encourages this trend. You are NOT going to scare the "other side" into NOT building a weapon they see as a mean to protect themself.

 

[dioditto]

@Rich
Did you ever looked at how many vetos the US used during the history of the UN? It is by far much more than the rest of the veto powers so you should think about who makes the UN weak.

Haha, to a degree it's true, but not quite :

Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used 5 vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 81. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, the numbers have been: China, 2; France, 3; Russia/USSR, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 43.

 

[Rich]

@Rich
Did you ever looked at how many vetos the US used during the history of the UN? It is by far much more than the rest of the veto powers so you should think about who makes the UN weak.

Im dont believe this thread is about the United Nations and its pandering to The World Leftist Collective. The crimes of the UN are for another thread.

 

[Waylander]

I was not the one who started to talk about the UN.