Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues

Agreed. The biggest threat, singular threat, is hair trigger nukes. Remove those and nothing, absolutely nothing mankind has no matter what motivations the leader are under, can destroy mankind in a short time frame.We could have the most insane leaders but without access to easily launched nukes, their potential is relatively low.Hell, the world almost was destroyed because some idiot US tech didn't take out the simulation program and thus reported that the Soviets were launching a full scale nuclear attack. You'd think that events like that would make people reconsider what they truly believe is the biggest threat to life on the planet. But I no longer believe that people here are reasonable in all aspects.

quote:

---

I have a very low BP, a very low heart rate and a low body temp. In fact, by the time I reach 98.6, I have a raging fever.

---

You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe that for a second.

quote:

---

Oh dear. I see. You're on of those.

---

So you're saying that his WMD argument was just a cover for his religious reason?The whole issue of Bush as a religious whackjob doesn't make sense. He only pulls out religion when a issue arises that he can't browbeat people into doing. Controversial issues that he can't force people to vote for is when he pulls out the card. And when he wins, the card disappears from that issue until he needs it again. Bush hyped up gay marriage in the 2004 election promising to ban it but once he won, he never talked about it again it the context of marriage. Plus his comments during his governorship hardly suggest what you do. IMO, if someone only uses religion to get votes or what he wants, he's not a actual believer, but instead uses religion as a tool.Just because we have a religious president doesn't mean the world will end.

That makes absolutely no sense. From a strategic MAD point of view, that is suicide. A single decapitating attack would instantly remove the US's ability to respond to a nuclear attack. Given how the US has historically spread authorization and defense hubs across the US, it makes no sense for a single man who can be eliminated to have sole authority.Furthermore, it doesn't mean that only the president can launch.Sagan and Waltz describe several instances where US missile commanders jury rigged missile to launch on command, and not from the president.And that's only half the equation. As stated before, the Russians almost killed everyone when a glitch reported a full scale attack by America. Russia doesn't have the same systems as the US does, allowing regional commanders, even as low as a half bird colonel to end the world.

quote:

---

The death of a President is the death of a President, whether by heart attack or nuclear attack.

---

I now realize how you work. You just post what you find on the internet and don't analyze or understand it. The average flight time of a ICBM from Russia is less then 30 minutes. A Typhoon or Oscar (I or II) launched could be less then a 5 minutes. A cruise missile off a cargo ship would be less then 2 minutes. And an attack on the president could be a non-missile. A suicide bombing killing the president followed by a launch would not allow enough time to transfer the authority and codes to whoever is left in charge. There is a reason why the US authorized a variety of people to launch and why Russia allows middle upper level commanders to launch as well. During the cold war, Russian submarine captains were authorized to use nuclear tipped torpedoes.

quote:

---

If I jury-rig a landline telephone to deliver a deadly shock to anyone who picks up the reciever, does that mean telephones are deadly?

---

....that was retarded. US missile commanders, well at least one, has bypassed the system and was able to be able to start WWIII whenever he wanted. That kind of problem is what we need to deal with, not bitch about how religious whackjobs can allegedly kill us all. A computer glitch is far more likely to wipe us all out then a religious crazy. Plus the US during the Cold War could have reasonably attacked the USSR with nukes without a fear of a complete launch. The US had satellite maps detailing exactly where Russian silos were due to their specific road patterns that the Soviet missile transports needed to turn around (not too creative them soviets). And we tapped the key underwater line off Vladivostok (it didn't hurt us that they had a big sign saying "do not fish") that let the US shadow every missile capable of carrying SLBMs. The US could have waged a nuclear war. But we didn't.The idea that the biggest threat is a religious crazy is just dumb if you look at history.

quote:

---

You didn't read the thread, did you?

---

Did you? I remember him stating this: "Our discussion can be quite broad."

quote:

---

therefore the government was established so that no one entity in the government would have exclusive power.

---

The US delegated US launch authority to a various number of people. It just makes NO sense to give authority to ONE person who can be eliminated easily. Read

quote:

---

You are naive if you think it would take any time whatsoever to delegate the authority to the appropriate official.

---

You are naive to think you understand how an actual attack would work.

quote:

---

That has nothing to do with who is authorized to launch a nuclear attack.

---

True, but it does show that our systems are hardly as you think they are (among many other things). I now realize how you work. You just post what you find on the internet and don't analyze or understand it.

quote:

---

Had you bothered to read the thread, you would have noticed that I've already mentioned that some military commanders were delegated the authority from the 1950s until the 1980s.

---

I read that. I just don't believe that we stopped that practice. And as your sources state, there is a level of uncertainty as to whether the US still does it or not. While the threat of a actual deliberate exchange between the US and Russia is virtually nil, for the US to give up its long practice of worse case contingency plans seems very put of place. The US military changes two things rapidly, and the rest at a snails' pace: weapons and combat tactics. Procedure for ICBMs and SLBMs falls in the later. Hell, Congress had to force the navy to build and implement SLBMs.Do you always have a bad tendency to ignore the majority of posts?I can see you are out of your league here.The biggest threat, as I've stated before and NO ONE seems to be able to argue against this, is merely the existence of the weapons themselves. If everyone went to virtual arsenals, we'd be pretty safe no matter who was in charge.

quote:

---

The Brookings Institute disagrees with you. Bruce G. Blair, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Air Force nuclear launch officer, is an expert on nuclear policy and he thinks predelegation was revoked in the 1980s.

---

But it just doesn't make any sense! Try analyze instead of just regurgitating whatever you find for a change. Especially with the advent of weapons that can be fit into a small car, the need for delegation of authority is still needed. A single small (5kt) could easily wipe out the heart of DC. If a missile launch occurred right after the detonation killing everyone on your list of succession, we'd be out of authority. Plus it goes against a long history of how the US military operates. We don't put all our eggs in one basket.

quote:

---

For the nuclear powers to disarm would be foolish. The technology could be acquired by a non-state actor.

---

I feel like I'm talking to a bot. A non-state actor cannot be deterred with nuclear weapons. They have no home address. You cannot send a missile back at them for what they did to you. Hence why it is believed that the US is letting Bin Laden hang out in Northern Pakistan. MAD does not work against a homeless organization.And did you even read your post quotes?"There is reason to believe that state and non-state actors, including terrorists, may be able to exploit weaknesses in these systems of control by physical or informational means, heightening the risks of unauthorized or accidental launch."If we went to a virtual arsenal, no weapons can be stolen, no unauthorized launches could be done as no weapons would be in physical existence. And terrorists do have access to nuclear weapons plans. But the difficulty of producing one is rather high, unlike merely stealing one. The Nunn-Lugar CTR plan was designed to secure and remove WMD from FSU states.I don't think you even understand this subject at all.

quote:

---

I think I will rely on the expertise of a Brookings Institute senior fellow, rather than you, dear.

---

It would help if you understood what they were saying instead of just copy-paste.

quote:

---

Really. You think our missile warning systems are that poor?

---

For cruise missiles and SLBMs offshore yes, and these systems don't work against truck bombs. Again, it would help if you actually understood this subject instead of just copy pasting. Missiles come in many different forms. It appears you only think they come from ICBMs.

quote:

---

You think that contingency plans aren't in place in the highly unlikely event that every person on that list is killed?

---

I do. It's called pre-delegation.

quote:

---

You've managed to drive 2 other posters off a thread with your nonstop ill informed bloviating. Are you trying for 3?

---

It's not my fault that the knowledge of you people is quite limited to science.

quote:

---

Again, had you bothered to read the link, the access they are talking about is thru the Russian system.

---

Doesn't matter. Everyone needs to go to virtual. The Russians keep their weapons because we keep ours. If we didn't have weapons in operation, they wouldn't need them either. The threat of MAD is still there, just without the actual weapons on alert.

quote:

---

Furthermore, non state actors can be located and stopped.

---

You sound like Bush. Even if they can be located, they are often in places that are not against the US. You are saying that we should be able to lob a nuke over, killing millions of innocent people. If you actually understood this subject, you'd see how ridiculous you are looking. You can't deter NSAs with nukes.

quote:

---

Yeah. That's going real well, isn't it? Since non proliferation treaties were signed, 6 nations have acquired nuclear technology.

---

Well, we probably gave Israel weapons. And Pakistan's design was likely stolen by Khan during his time in the West. Plus if the US can figure it out, other states can as well. But you seem completely incapable of understanding this subject. Plus if you actually knew what you were discussing, you'd know that the number of states actively getting programs prior to the NPT was over 15, with South Africa already having several gun types. Now it's just states outside of the NPT getting weapons. It's not the failure of states within the NPT (unless that bastard India-US plan goes through), it's the failure to include states outside of the NPT.

quote:

---

North Korea, a known weapons dealer to terrorist organizations, is just the latest in a long line of threats.

---

Oh how I have seriously overestimated people's understanding of politics. Why would NK give a weapon to someone who may use it against them? The Russians funded and gave millions of weapons to people we'd consider terrorists and never a nuke. Plus if they used a nuke against us, we'd figure it out and they'd be gone. The #1 goal of NK's regime is to stay in power. Using a weapon will end that goal.

quote:

---

I'd like to hear your plans for negotiating disarmament with Israel, Iran and North Korea. Especially since Israel denies having any nuclear weapons.

---

Do you understand the concept of a deterrent?

A virtual arsenal is where no weapons actually exist, but the machinery, knowledge, blue prints and raw material to build them do. If a short period of time after a attack, a state could retaliate. Because no weapons exist, a first, devastating strike can't occur, and any accidents can be investigated without the fear of overhanging immediate nuclear annihilation. And MAD still exists because a state is still capable of destroying each other, abet on a longer time frame.Frankly, I'm used to discussing these subjects who understand everything from the Uranium (and sometimes Thorium) fuel cycle to how weapons are used to prop up regimes.

quote:

---

You have demonstrated no understanding of the issues at hand. Your what-if scenarios are worthless.

---

This is almost amusing. You assume an attack will be purely ICBMs. When I mention things such as Typhoons or Oscars (which I'm pretty sure right now you don't even understand) you ignore them. Are you saying they don't exist? That the SLBM capabilities of Russian subs don't exist? (Granted, the US doesn't have much in that line anyways given the conversion of the Ohios to cruise missile platforms). I've given you more then enough to prove I actually understand the technical issues here. I have yet to see you prove you even understand anything similar.

quote:

---

That's the best you've got? A truck bomb?

---

Your inability to critically think scares me. A truck bomb by itself no. As a part of a larger attack yes.

quote:

---

A 400 kt truck bomb is detonated in front of the White House.

​

If you think that's going to wipe out every one on that succession list, you got another think comin'

---

Obviously you have no idea what a attack would include. If the the Russians were actually going to first strike us with the hopes of avoiding a full retaliatory attack (madness yes but let's have some fun), they'd probably use a number of large truck bombs across the country coupled at the same time with numerous cruise missiles from either subs or cargo ships (it's surprisingly easy to take a standard cargo container and turn it into a platform) to wipe out most of the command of the US short of Cheyenne within 3~4, minutes, maybe less if the cargo ships and subs are right off the shore. Most of the Hollywood crap (where you are getting your info from) revolves around working on a 15~30 minute timetable of ICBMs from Russia. Then the ICBMs would come. There's a reason the US placed numerous missiles in Turkey, to significantly decrease the time to wipe out Soviet positions.

quote:

---

There's a difference between succession and predelegation.

---

Of course. We probably have both.

quote:

---

The VP doesn't have nuclear launch authority. Were the President killed or disabled, he would, thru the rules of succession, not predelegation.

---

But that doesn't mean someone like the one or all of joint chiefs doesn't have pre-delegation.

quote:

---

Were everyone on that list killed (highly unlikely), I am certain there are additional successors that are known to the chain of command.

---

But not able to be reached in the necessary time to launch silo missiles before they are wiped out. With the conversion of the Ohio classes to cruise missile platforms and the known location of the Spirits, and it is stupid to assume the Russians don't know where our silos are, it's real questionable if we could respond with a retaliatory strike in less then 5 minutes on succession. Again, you are obviously working off Hollywood.

quote:

---

That's ridiculous. Let's assume everyone on this planet agrees to go virtual. How do we verify their status?

---

The same way we verify their status now. Besides, having a handful of nukes lying around isn't the end of the world. What is dangerous is having thousands on hair trigger. Plus more weapons exist, the greater the possibility of them being stolen. You can't steal a weapon that doesn't physically exist.

quote:

---

Furthermore, were a nation to assemble a weapon and launch, our response time would be considerably longer.

​

That's a risk you're willing to take?

---

That's the point. You have no idea just how many times hair trigger has almost ended all life on the planet. Neither you nor jar seem willing to talk about how human error and glitches have done what you claim a religious crazy could do. Without actual weapons, there is no threat of nuclear instant death. If Russia, US, India and Pakistan did this, the world would be much, much safer. Pakistan already has a form of this in dissembled weapons. Not quite there, but it's a good start. The fact that you guys are against this scares me since you argue that nukes+crazy=death. If we remove nukes, then your problem equation doesn't work. It's really simple.

quote:

---

All a virtual system does is remove the specter of an accidental launch by a nuclear power.

---

And this is bad why? Again, I remind you of your deliberate avoiding of the issue of how that has almost ended life on the planet numerous times in the past. Make up your mind. I get the feeling that if I said I like _____, you'd say you'd hate it. When I was back in high school, I just went to sleep when someone like that opened their mouth.

quote:

---

None of the problems that you are trying to circumvent (terrorist access, truck bombs, etc.) are mitigated in the least by a virtual system.

---

Obviously you aren't paying attention. The truck bomb was part of a larger attack, which you can't understand because all you understand is what Hollywood tells you. And my point about how you work is true. You don't understand. Explain to me how a terrorist steals a weapon that doesn't physically exist.. Or are you going to pretend I never asked that?You people are no different then creationists.

quote:

---

So what? The fact remains, they have the weapons.

---

So you throw babies out with the bathwater? Do you know who is one of the biggest detractors of the NPT and weapons control programs? Dubya

quote:

---

Bush would have no problem nuking a NSA with a nuclear weapon. Neither would most Americans.

---

How can you nuke a NSA when you don't know where they are? Can you shoot something you cannot see? Do you even und....nevermind. I know the answer to that.

quote:

---

And, despite your hyperbole, millions wouldn't be killed. Hundreds of thousands, yes. Millions, no.

---

Care to tell me just how large some of the Pakistani cities are?And you haven't answered the question. Do you or do you not agree with what I said?

quote:

---

What makes you think NK would be hit by Al Quaeda? Or any other terrorist group that would target America/Europe?

---

AQ? Not likely. But you miss the point. nations can't control terrorists. Not even Syria who exports terrorism as a way to get it out of the country. The US has constantly faced a boomerang effect with its weapons. To give someone you cannot control a WMD is insane. Iran has been practicing terrorism for decades and has chemical and biological weapons for a very long time. Yet we have yet to see any of its WMD being used by terrorists, even against Israel. There has yet to be a single instance where a state gave terrorists WMD. And there's a reason for that. Try use critical thinking before responding.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about MAD wrt to North Korea.

​

I'm talking about the possibility of NK selling weapons to NSAs/terrorists.

---

There's no difference. Any attack by a weapon would be traceable. One thing Hollywood DID get right was in Sum of All Fears where the tech crew could pinpoint where the critical mass came from. Any attack would be traceable as to where the critical mass came from and therefore we'd be soon sending a couple weapons their way. Why would a state who knows it would be on the wrong end of several ICBMs sell a weapon if that weapon would be used against its enemies? Welcome to the Madness of MAD. It works.

quote:

---

So. You're omniscient now.

---

No, I unlike you, have studied the subject as it is evident by my posts and the exponentially decreasing amounts you want to acknowledge.

quote:

---

1. You have no idea when or if Israel became a nuclear power.

---

Nuclear Weapons - IsraelStrike One. I don't know if the US helped, but I wouldn't be surprised if we did.

quote:

---

2. You have no idea if anyone gave Israel the weapons.

---

True, but would you be surprised if we did?

quote:

---

3. You have no idea, if they were given weapons, who gave Israel the weapons.
4. You have no idea what the USSR gave away or to whom.

---

Actually we do. The USSR kept relatively good records about its WMD. Not its conventional weapons, but its WMD were models of accounting. Only during the Fall of the Evil Empire did weapons disappear. But that could have been ol' Drunkard's (Boris!) way of scaring us rather then telling the truth.Just give up. You are clearly out of your league with no understanding of the geopolitical complexities of nuclear weapons.

quote:

---

You sure got somethin' against the Ruskies.

---

I, unlike you, know that their systems almost killed everyone. One incident happened a couple years back where some Scandinavian country launched a weather satellite and the Kremlin failed to inform several of its posts of this event which they knew of, resulting in those bases almost launching an attack on the US as they thought the missile was coming over the pole. Their problem isn't predelegation, but a combination of poor, obsolete technology with hair trigger weapons.

quote:

---

My previous post was in response to your pile of horse apples that "a truck bomb will wipe out everyone on the succession list".

​

Now, having no way to defend that scenario, you've chosen to fabricate a ridiculous plot worthy of a Tom Cruise movie.

---

No way? Are you seriously suggesting that typhoon and oscars don't exist? That cruise missiles can't be launched off of cargo ships? That Russia doesn't have the capacity to do this?Stop watching Hollywood movies. My argument, which you are clearly ignoring, is that a combination of events would occur at the same time to eliminate the ability of succession to proceed rapidly enough for massed return strike. You are fallaciously assuming they are all separate. It is not my fault you are a huge liar.

quote:

---

I get the distinct feeling that no matter how many times I tear your paranoid blithering to shreds, you'are going to ignore my response and foam at the mouth about an even more convoluted fntasy.

---

You haven't torn anything apart. You keep ignoring a ever increasing number of my points and you abandon your points. That's called losing. Furthermore, you haven't shown you know anything about the technical nature of nuclear weapons, from international treaties to the weapons themselves. You can say whatever you want about what you think I know, but until you can prove you understand at my level, it's pointless.

quote:

---

Au contraire mon frere. I am well aware of the glitches inherent in the current system.

​

But the fact remains, your "solution" creates more problems than it solves.

---

Seriously? Are you insane? How does having no weapons in existence create more problems then having hair trigger systems which have almost wiped out all life on the planet numerous times?But you'll pretend that doesn't exist because it's easier for you.

quote:

---

In fact, your 'solution" does nothing to prevent a scenario like the gibberish you posted tonight.

---

Are you mentally challenged? How can a nation launch a first strike attack with weapons they do not have? Could Saddam attack US allies in the Gulf with imaginary weapons? You are officially off your rocker.

quote:

---

What, praytell, would prevent those wiley Ruskies from carrying out such a fiendish plot if all nuclear weapons were disassembled?

​

You think the Russians are incapable of covertly assembly the necessary weaponry?

---

The fact that they'd get nuked back in a week. The Russians are incapable of producing the large number of weapons without us knowing about it. Hell we could track their subs and their silos. What makes you think we can't do it now? We can see whales from space are you're saying we can't figure out that the Russians are building a large number of weapons? Plus running a weapons program is extremely expensive. South Africa (here is where I again prove I know what I'm talking about and you are a ignorant talking head) after apartheid dismantled its secretive gun weapons (that's uranium based since you obviously don't know) due partially to its obsecence cost.

quote:

---

Yeah. That's going real well.

---

Better then how it was prior to the NPT.

quote:

---

A terrorist steals the parts.

​

Now was that so tough?

---

Better then them stealing a whole weapon as they can do now. Plus if we lock down the parts, specifically the critical masses, there's not much they can do. Actually it's easier then that. If we went to entirely implosion type and destroyed all of the shaped charges and fort knoxed the machines to make them, there's nothing they can do. A SLIGHT flaw in a shaped charged will result in a dud implosion weapon. Hint: if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be losing this like Illinois just lost the Rose Bowl.Plus if everyone went to complete and total virtual arsenals, there would be no parts to steal other then the several ton machines necessary to produce the parts (along with the knowledge itself). Terrorists would have to steal huge machines, the raw materials to build them, along with specific blueprints and have to kidnap numerous scientists and technicians to build the weapons. Now, I have a hard time believing they could pull that off without anyone noticing or figuring out where they went. Plus intercepting a ship full of nuclear machining parts is pretty easy.But maybe you have some way that could do that without anyone noticing the several ton machines missing and a number of known scientists and technicians missing as well. Not to mention several pounds of plutonium along with all of the necessarily equipment to handle it safely.

quote:

---

Um. You don't have to be real precise with a nuke.

---

But you do have to know where they are. Pakistan for example is a large country. Where are they in the area? Even the North western provinces are large areas of land. It would take several (I mean like 15) megaton weapons to 'pacify' the area. Indonesia is even worse. Good luck trying to figure out what island terrorists could be chilling on.

quote:

---

Oh! I see. It's just Pakistan you're worried about.

---

No, it's just an example.

quote:

---

Well. Given that a 400kt bomb can't even wipe out Washington DC, I'm not too awful worried.

---

Wipe out as you mean level everything, no. But to render the city useless and much of the surrounding area radioactive, a 400kt is rather overpowered. Several 20~50 kt weapons would be better. And they'd be cheaper too.

quote:

---

Now you're nattering on about "not being able to control terrorists" and "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".

​

Try to focus, mmmkay?

​

Now.

---

It is not my fault you cannot understand the relationship between terrorists, wmd and states.

quote:

---

We "can't control terrorists" BUT "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".

​

Either we can't control terrorists and they are a threat OR we can control terrorists and they do not pose a threat.

​

Try to pick a side and stick to it.

---

No, we can't control terrorists and historically terrorists have never used a WMD. That doesn't mean terrorists aren't a threat. Please be honest for a change. The reason terrorists haven't used a nuke is because they haven't had access to them. And the reason they haven't had access to them is because states don't give them weapons.

quote:

---

I merely pointed out that no one knows whether or not Israel has nukes and you for damn sure don't know whether or not the U.S. gave them nukes.

---

I never said that I knew we gave them. I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if we did.

quote:

---

Doesn't that kinda take alla the air out of your virtual system? After all, if the Russians sold off some of their weaponry, that means there are nukes out there that can't be accounted for. Up to 100 1kt bombs, they say.

---

Not at all. My point, my fundamental point has been to remove weapons entirely. The threat of nuclear terrorism is bad, no doubt, but the threat of hair trigger annihilation is far, far, far worse. One nuke, as you said, even at a collosal 400kt level would only eliminate one city. Thousands of ICBMs, SLBMs all MRVs would decimate the world over and over.And it's disturbing that I have to check my previous post to see how much you ignored.Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.

quote:

---

The systems worked and the Ruskies did not launch.

---

No. The Ruskies disobeyed their procedures and ignored their systems. Heck, we disobeyed our procedures and ignored our systems.How you people can be against the removal of nukes from hair trigger is just amazing.Could you explain to me how having thousands of ICBMs and SLBMs on hair trigger alert capable of eliminating all life from the planet within 30 minutes is safer then having no such weapons?

quote:

---

It's not their system that I'm talking about. It's your delusional "coordinated truck bomb attack" that is sooooo 1950s.

---

Perhaps if you actually argued against what I wrote instead of arguing with arguments you made, you'd have a point. You're like a insolent child who refuses to address a entire equation, pulling out one variably and calling the entire thing false without even addressing the entire equation!

quote:

---

I haven't answered your questions about missile defense yet.

---

You have gone out of your way to ignore a huge amount of points and questions.

quote:

---

I have the capacity to mow down a few dozen shoppers at the local mall with an automatic weapon. That doesn't mean I am going to.

---

So therefore you agree. The Russians DO have the capacity to render succession useless.

quote:

---

They would have the weapons, dink. They would just be disassembled.

---

Explain to me how you build large numbers of weapons from blueprints requiring a fair amount of industrial capacity, resulting in tell tail signs of production with no one knowing.

quote:

---

This hasn't been proposed. This is just another example of one of your drug fueled reveries.

​

If a virtual system of this sort has been proposed by a reputable source, please. Provide a cite.

---

Your ignorance is appalling. Nuclear Terrorism : The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe
Assessing virtual nuclear arsenals
Nuclear weapons in a transformed world : the challenge of virtual nuclear arsenalsBesides, I'm waiting for you to explain how hair trigger is safer then VNAs, either dismantled or completely virtual.Let's try a experiment. I like Cheese. You say "I hate/like Cheese."

quote:

---

Again. Assuming your delusions are somehow feasible, how would the U.S. respond if the Russians launched a coordinated truck bomb attack on nearly all of our facilities?

---

You assume that we wouldn't be able to tell that they were building large numbers of truck bombs. Explain to me, how we, the US can see whales from space, figure out that Nk was building weapons from detecting chemicals in the parts per billions and yet wouldn't be able to figure out that Russia was building thousands of nukes?And you call ME delusional...

quote:

---

Dear. We haven't been discussing South Africa.

​

You are a master of the non sequitur.

---

Apparently you have no idea what the term EXAMPLE means.

quote:

---

The danger isn't that they will steal from us. The danger is that they will steal from an unsecured facility in Russia.

​

I notice that you haven't provided any proof of your claim that the USSR kept track of their WMD.

---

Why should I when you can't even prove you know the difference between a gun type and implosion type? And don't go running to Wikipedia. That's for cowards and losers.Russia will remove its weapons when we remove our weapons. It's that simple. The cost of running a program (as you clearly ignored from South Africa Example, look its the word you don't know!) is tremendous. Without the threat of nukes, nuclear MAD disappears along with it the billions in costs to maintain and build new weapons.

quote:

---

Underground facilities. A la North Korea.

---

The one we fettered out with satellites? Oh wait...you lose for what, the 500th time here?

quote:

---

That isn't as difficult as you think. Any number of times, we have had a very good idea of the general area where Osama Bin Laden is hiding. If we were also pretty darn sure he had a nuke, we wouldn't hesitate to light his ass up.

---

True, it's not that difficult, but it is difficult to reduce civilian losses from the use of a weapon. And Bin Laden would likely not keep a nuke with him for obvious reasons.

quote:

---

So what? You said millions would die. They wouldn't.

---

Based on what? Are you saying that a 400kt used in DC wouldn't kill millions? Or are you going to pretend I never asked that?

quote:

---

Oh, but you don't know that. After all, you claim that Russian weapons are missing.

---

Well that depends on what you think of Ol' Drunkard may he rest in peace. And just because the Russians have lost a nuke doesn't mean the terrorists have it. The Us has a disturbing long list of lost nukes and we're pretty sure the terrorists don't have them.

quote:

---

If all weapons were disassembled, those weapons could be used by NSAs or Russia in your paranoid truck bomb fantasy. Hell, they could be used by any number of bad actors.

---

Possibly, but you are again ignoring one of key points I made about disassembly. Since you obviously don't know how nukes work, I'm going to explain how a implosion weapon functions. A implosion weapon worked by taking a small amount of plutonium, and placing curved shaped explosives around it. When the charges explode, they force the plutonium to implode, resulting in a explosion. Now, if you disassembled (i already mentioned this, you just pretended it didn't exist) these weapons and destroyed the shaped charges, they'd have to steal the milling machines to make them. Good luck with that. ONE slight flaw, less then a hair will cause the weapon to fail. If they steal everything except for the charges (since none would exist) they'd have to make it themselves. Without Russian help, it's almost certain they'd give up and make a dirty bomb. Please stop ignoring large parts of my posts.

quote:

---

2. Why is predelegation necessary if, as you admit, a truck bomb would not wipe out Washington DC (leaving the line of succession intact)?

---

God you annoy me.I have stated this before and you keep pretending it does not exist:
1) The Bomb itself would be part of a larger attack
2) Other members of the succession would be killed at the same time across the country
3) At the same time as the bombs went off, short range (read cruise) would be launched as well as weapons from Oscars and Typhoons.You being a giant dishonest liar are creating your own arguments and fabricating that I made them.

quote:

---

And, as a corollary, since you've mentioned the Joint Chiefs' predelegation twice, why would the Pentagon be exempt from a truck bomb?

---

They probably wouldn't. Predelegation would be assigned to people across the country, likely at least ONE person at all times in Cheyenne Mountain. That person could only be killed with several multimegaton warheads all directly hitting the mountain. By then, the retaliatory strike would have already been launched.

quote:

---

3. Why do you think that it would be difficult to assemble/transport nukes out of sight of even our best spy satellites?

---

How many we talking about? One or two, or a handful? Possibly. Several hundred or several thousand? Impossible. The amount of labor, tools, specific people, fumes, etc would give it away.

quote:

---

4. Why do you think that virtual system verification would be effective?

---

You first have to understand the relationship between the US and Russia. When we signed the biological weapons convention, we showed them how much we had. They freaked out as their stockpiles were tiny. Thus they built up HUGE amounts of bio weapons. We know this as we can now properly verify and there were reports of famous Russian biologists dying in seemingly unnatural rates. The US built up HUGE numbers of nukes because we thought the Russians had more then we did. Having clear and open verification of virtual weapons eliminates that mentality yet keeps the threat of nuclear 2nd strike open. Weapons got built in large numbers because we were afraid the other person had more. When we know that the only weapons they have are either in blueprints or disassembled with specific parts such as shaped charges destroyed, there's no longer that threat. Plus we know how many each other has. The accounting for dissembled parts would be real easy. We should have X, Y, Z number of these parts, and they should have A, B, C number of those. There will always be the problem of secret weapons programs as evident by Libya, Israel, Iran, South Africa, South Korea (yes they initially tried, the IAEA slapped them on the wrists for it), Taiwan and possibly Saudi Arabia, but in today's world, the threat of a huge secret weapons program is virtually impossible.

quote:

---

I agree. You're disturbed.

---

Then you're delusional.

quote:

---

I'm calling bullshit on this one. All life on this planet, hm? Cites, please.

---

Colonel Petrov Saves The World, September 26, 19831983 had 59,938 weapons. The VAST majority of them Soviet or US. let's assume a LOW ball number of 40% on hair trigger, 24,000 nukes. Let's assume a 1 megaton payload (rather tiny consider virtually all of those hair triggers were hydrogen). That's 24,000 megatons of nuclear power. The Nuclear Winter

quote:

---

The World Health Organization, in a recent detailed study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine), concludes that 1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injufles and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. This would represent by far the greatest disaster in the history of the human species and, with no other adverse effects, would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism. Unfortunately, the real situation would be much worse. In technical studies of the consequences of nuclear weapons explosions, there has been a dangerous tendency to underestimate the results. This is partly due to a tradition of conservatism which generally works well in science but which is of more dubious applicability when the lives of billions of people are at stake. In the Bravo test of March 1, 1954, a 15-megaton thermonuclear bomb was exploded on Bikini Atoll. It had about double the yield expected, and there was an unanticipated last-minute shift in the wind direction. As a result, deadly radioactive fallout came down on Rongelap in the Marshall Islands, more than 200 kilometers away. Most all the children on Rongelap subsequently developed thyroid nodules and lesions, and other long-term medical problems, due to the radioactive fallout.

---

End of the World as we know it. Except maybe Roaches...I find it amusing that someone who is so anti-Bush is buying in to his missile plan...Obviously you haven't looked at the success rates of the missile shield. or how its tests are cheats. We got a 70% score on missiles flying OUT of the US from coordinates we KNEW about AHEAD of schedule. That's bullshit. NMD: Test Failures and Technology Development
Global SecurityPlus a real Missile attack will involve a thousand+ weapons. Our missile defense cannot handle that. The PAC is a joke. We can't even shoot down scuds with that.It's amusing watching you being a Dubya Cheerleader. Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed Links

Could you explain how leaving weapons on hair trigger is safer then removing them and either destroying or disassembling them?You claim to know of the many, many incidents where full salvos of thousands of missiles almost occurred, yet you seem to be adamantly against the removal of hair trigger.Here are 20 historical incidents that almost lead to nuclear warKey Issues: Nuclear Weapons: Issues: Accidents: 20 Mishaps that Might Have Caused Nuclear WarAnd the addition of the Muscot 1985 almost launch over the Norway satellite can't be discounted, or this one:
Page not found – Federation Of American ScientistsA faulty computer chip almost ended the world as we know it and you're against going virtual?Care to explain your seemingly INSANE position?And getting back to the crazy religious whackjob, wouldn't REMOVING weapons from active and ready status decrease the damage they could do?It seems you are just arguing for fun, independent of just insane your argument actually is.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

*sigh*Why do I bother when you are essentially arguing with yourself? Not to mention completely ignoring a exponentially increasing amount of arguments I make.Okay, Dubya's cheerleader, what is your plan?Since you are obviously against the removal of hair trigger weapons, what is your realistic plan? Or do you just bitch and have no solutions?And seeing how you believe the shield will work, why is that every test we conduct is pre-scheduled and hardly represents anything close to a real flight plan from China, NK or Russia?Plus since you believe the shield is so worthwhile, could you care to explain how it will deal with a thousand mylar balloons?How do you argue without understanding the subject? Furthermore, do you believe you are even remotely acting like an adult?If you want to act like a 5 year old, you can. If that is what you need to do to 'win' so be it. It's just pathetic.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.