Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 146 of 241 (444736)
12-30-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by tesla
12-30-2007 2:16 PM


The Call
The President is the one who has to make the decision to launch nuclear weapons.
Two Minutes to Launch
On receiving a report of a Russian nuclear attack, perhaps in the middle of the night, our commander-in-chief must decide whether the report is true or false and whether to order a retaliatory strike. And he must do this in mere minutes, bearing in mind that a single warhead--from either side--could destroy any large city.
Your concern is if the President should become unstable or decide to launch weapons while sleep walking, correct?
Since the launch information is kept in a briefcase that is manned by a military aide, my guess is that there are protocols in place for such a possibility. The military aide would be familiar with possible scenarios.
Nuclear Football
When the president is at the White House, the football is kept in a secure location there. One of the military aides always is able to retrieve it quickly.
For obvious reasons those protocols would not be available for everyone to see. I can't imagine the Government answering you, other than saying that there are safeguards in place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 2:16 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by molbiogirl, posted 12-30-2007 6:07 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 159 of 241 (445099)
01-01-2008 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by obvious Child
12-31-2007 5:40 PM


Re: End Time Belief and Political Power
quote:
We don't put all our eggs in one basket.
And the whole iceberg isn't visible.
quote:
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.
Isn't that an old Star Trek episode?
What exactly do you mean by virtual arsenal? Are you saying they would engage in a computer battle or have I missed something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by obvious Child, posted 12-31-2007 5:40 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by obvious Child, posted 01-01-2008 4:32 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 214 of 241 (448273)
01-12-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by obvious Child
01-12-2008 6:54 PM


Virtual Arsenal
quote:
This is comical.
Yes it is, but you're not the only victim. It's kinda like quicksand.
quote:
'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.
So the idea behind the virtual arsenal is that to attack they wouldn't be building the weapons until war was declared? So countries without the equipment also wouldn't be able to buy the weapons intact. Is that right? I was a bit fuzzy on that part or I've got it all wrong.
It has been a bit difficult following this...discussion. I do realize that your mention of Russia was for discussion purposes only, not that you feel attack is imminent.
ABE: I missed Message 209.
Obvious Child writes:
1) Get off Hair trigger nuclear alert
2) Go to virtual arsenals, where the weapons are implosion type and all of the shaped charges are destroyed, leaving only the machines to make them
3) Go further then that and go down to machines, blueprints and technical knowledge
4) Missile shield is a waste of money as it is cheap to bypass.
I think this answers my question. I'm sorta on the right track.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 6:54 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 2:37 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 217 of 241 (448417)
01-13-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by obvious Child
01-13-2008 2:37 AM


Re: Virtual Arsenal
Getting away from hair-trigger would eliminate the problem of a leader going mad or accidental issues.
Would it be possible to ensure that all had complied with the reduction?
I found it interesting that mylar balloons could function as countermeasures. I think many forget that while we are creating weapons, others create countermeasures to thwart our efforts; just as we do to counter their weapons.
As I understand it, the ABL that MBG mentioned in Message 195 is part of the boost phase defense. (My info comes from reading so excuse dumb questions.) Would that still be made ineffective through airbursting? I know you said most in Message 213 and not all, but I'm curious.
If I understand what the ABL is supposed to be doing, it should catch the missiles shortly after launch. So wouldn't it catch the nuke intended for airbursting?
ABE: I'm a little fuzzy on hegemonic.
quote:
And I forgot about this, one major reason that big powers should be pushing for global virtual arsenals is because it makes their conventional militaries hegemonic. We all saw how Iraq's military was crushed in Desert Storm. Now imagine that forever. I don't agree that should be a reason to do it, but it's out there.
I did look up the meaning:
It is used broadly to mean any kind of dominance, and narrowly to refer to specifically cultural and non-military dominance
Who determines that one is dominant when no military is taken into account?
Edited by purpledawn, : hegemonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 2:37 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by molbiogirl, posted 01-13-2008 2:15 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 220 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 4:25 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 226 of 241 (449035)
01-16-2008 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by obvious Child
01-15-2008 4:10 AM


Quicksand
As I said earlier, quicksand.
Since you have made your position clear, it would be wise to disengage your discussion with MBG.
It'll just be countermeasures from here on out.
I did find your comments fascinating and an enjoyable read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by obvious Child, posted 01-15-2008 4:10 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by obvious Child, posted 01-16-2008 3:52 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024