I just don't see a need for a costly missile defense shield which won't protect us from a terrorist smuggling in a nuclear weapon through one of our ports.

 

The Cold War is long over, the chances that we could be attacked by a foreign nation with a nuclear weapon is slim to none at this point. I could have seen the need for it back in the 1980's, but with the U.S.S.R. gone, it seems like a very outdated piece of technology.

I just don't see a need for a costly missile defense shield which won't protect us from a terrorist smuggling in a nuclear weapon through one of our ports.

 

The Cold War is long over, the chances that we could be attacked by a foreign nation with a nuclear weapon is slim to none at this point. I could have seen the need for it back in the 1980's, but with the U.S.S.R. gone, it seems like a very outdated piece of technology.

636402[/snapback]

 

 

You sure about that. :plain

three words: Military Industrial Complex

 

The defense industry has much much clout.

If a country wants to destroy us with nuclear missles, they can. A defense "sheild" won't get dozens of missiles.

The key is to keep dangerous nations from stockpiling weapons.

If some rogue nation or terrorists want to send us a bomb, its going to come FedEx, not as an ICBM.

636520[/snapback]

Exactly why I think this program is a waste of good money.

The year is 2004. How do you know what the future holds? The question is not whether we need one, it is whether we should spend funds on it now. We defintely should have a missle defense shield, b/c for all we know by 2010 Putin consolidates his power or Hu Jintao does it, and we need to worry about nuclear assault. The thing is right now those funds are better placed elsewhere, and if there are enough funds left over then maybe they can experiment with a MDS

When is too late, when a nuclear bomb detonates 1000 feet over NYC ?

 

I say do it, we must defend ourselves from any nuclear attacks, all it takes is one, and I for one wouldnt make that gamble. Just because it may not be a threat today, doesnt mean that 10 years from now its not a danger. Its like Social Security, there is no threat of it going bankrupt for the next 20 years, but in 20 years when it does go bankrupt, is that when you wanna deal with it.

When is too late, when a nuclear bomb detonates 1000 feet over NYC ?

 

I say do it, we must defend ourselves from any nuclear attacks, all it takes is one, and I for one wouldnt make that gamble. Just because it may not be a threat today, doesnt mean that 10 years from now its not a danger. Its like Social Security, there is no threat of it going bankrupt for the next 20 years, but in 20 years when it does go bankrupt, is that when you wanna deal with it.

637355[/snapback]

Why would it be a threat 10 years from now? Do you know something nobody else does?

A defense "sheild" won't get dozens of missiles.

636488[/snapback]

 

How do you know what the proposed missile defense shield can and cannot do?

I just don't see a need for a costly missile defense shield which won't protect us from a terrorist smuggling in a nuclear weapon through one of our ports.

 

The Cold War is long over, the chances that we could be attacked by a foreign nation with a nuclear weapon is slim to none at this point. I could have seen the need for it back in the 1980's, but with the U.S.S.R. gone, it seems like a very outdated piece of technology.

636402[/snapback]

 

How naive do you have to be? So long as other nations are in posession of nuclear weapons, we need to do everything possible to protect ourselves regardless of whether there is an immediate clear and present danger or not.

 

Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, the UK, France and Russia all have nuclear weapons and as we speak there are other countries currently developing their own nuclear weapons programs such as Iran.

 

Yes I agree with you that terrorism is more of a threat to us than anything else right now, but we need to plan for the future. It is impossible to predict what the global climate will be 20 years from now.

 

If someone proposed having air marshalls on commercial airliners in the year 2000, nobody would have seen a need for it and most people wouldn't have even given the idea a second look. Or how about the department of homeland security, 5 years ago people would have said it was a waste of tax dollars rather than a necessity.

When is too late, when a nuclear bomb detonates 1000 feet over NYC ?

 

I say do it, we must defend ourselves from any nuclear attacks, all it takes is one, and I for one wouldnt make that gamble. Just because it may not be a threat today, doesnt mean that 10 years from now its not a danger. Its like Social Security, there is no threat of it going bankrupt for the next 20 years, but in 20 years when it does go bankrupt, is that when you wanna deal with it.

637355[/snapback]

Why would it be a threat 10 years from now? Do you know something nobody else does?

637407[/snapback]

 

And why wouldn't it be a threat 10 years from now? Do you know something nobody else does?

 

The fact of the matter is there are numerous anti-American nations that posess nuclear weapons, so who are you to say there is no threat?

When is too late, when a nuclear bomb detonates 1000 feet over NYC ?

 

I say do it, we must defend ourselves from any nuclear attacks, all it takes is one, and I for one wouldnt make that gamble.? Just because it may not be a threat today, doesnt mean that 10 years from now its not a danger.? Its like Social Security, there is no threat of it going bankrupt for the next 20 years, but in 20 years when it does go bankrupt, is that when you wanna deal with it.

637355[/snapback]

Why would it be a threat 10 years from now? Do you know something nobody else does?

637407[/snapback]

 

And why wouldn't it be a threat 10 years from now? Do you know something nobody else does?

 

The fact of the matter is there are numerous anti-American nations that posess nuclear weapons, so who are you to say there is no threat?

637538[/snapback]

What you fail to realize is that no sane country would directly attack the U.S. with a nuclear missile. Why do that when you can have terrorists smuggle the weapon in and detonate it, so that it can't be blamed on a specific country? It's the perfect scheme.

Just think about it though, how much sense would it make for Iran to nuke us, when we would be able to strike back with our entire arsenal, plus our military? I doubt any nation with common sense would risk a direct nuclear attack against us. I think the odds are extremely small of that happening. Terrorism is much more likely.

 

I don't think the Department of Homeland Security has done much to help our security, other than increasing the massive government bureaucracy. The most notable thing that has come out of that organization has been the "Color-Coded Terror Alert System", or as I call it, the national fear meter. That alone doesn't say much.

My thoughts are that it is unnecessary right now. Not only that but there are no scenarios in which this would mean squat.

Just think about it though, how much sense would it make for Iran to nuke us, when we would be able to strike back with our entire arsenal, plus our military? I doubt any nation with common sense would risk a direct nuclear attack against us. I think the odds are extremely small of that happening. Terrorism is much more likely.

 

I don't think the Department of Homeland Security has done much to help our security, other than increasing the massive government bureaucracy. The most notable thing that has come out of that organization has been the "Color-Coded Terror Alert System", or as I call it, the national fear meter. That alone doesn't say much.

637609[/snapback]

 

shows how much you know about homeland security. Immigration procedure (part of dHS) has doen a complete 180 since 9/11, increasing security checks without losing efficiency, and reforming for modernization. Furthermore it is much easier to hit us with a launched nuke right now than it is to smuggle one in. Chemical and biological is different but to smuggle a nuke in?! Its not that easy at all

Sorry, but since it's impossible for every container to be checked at each port throughout the country, it would still be pretty easy for a nuke to get into the country.

Sorry, but since it's impossible for every container to be checked at each port throughout the country, it would still be pretty easy for a nuke to get into the country.

639105[/snapback]

 

Yea but there are devices that can detect nuclear materials and on top of that aside from a dirty bomb, the size of a nuclear warhead is pretty large

Yea but there are devices that can detect nuclear materials and on top of that aside from a dirty bomb, the size of a nuclear warhead is pretty large

639120[/snapback]

 

Ted Taylor (chief designer of many of our fission weapons) designed a low yield battlefield fission device designed to be shot from a cannon that was quite small. He never said precisely how big it was but described it as "smaller than a grapefruit, larger than an orange" -- 100% ready to rock and pop -- smaller than a grapefruit.

 

The John Phillips "college junior physics class project" design was in the range of a 5gal pail.

 

Fission devices can be quite compact. Fusion devices are somewhat larger.

 

The smallest ones are of course Plutonium devices rather than Uranium.

639257[/snapback]

 

What is the scope of the damage that can be caused from the smaller devices? Enough to blow up a football stadium?

What is the scope of the damage that can be caused from the smaller devices? Enough to blow up a football stadium?

 

 

Enough bang to knock down a WTC tower/Empire state building sized thing, neutralize an aircraft carrier, etc.

 

Very tactical. Severe blast effects area is well under 1 mile. There'd be many survivors a mile away.

643308[/snapback]

 

So it would be a tragedy but nothing to the scale of what a soviet missle could have done

So it would be a tragedy but nothing to the scale of what a soviet missle could have done

 

The difference between tactical sized nukes and strategic "city busters" are orders of magnitude. A few kiloton versus megaton(s). I think the largest fission device we ever built was in the 300+KT range.

 

Large bombs are very inefficient - the inverse cube law has you hitting the point of diminishing returns pretty quick. A distributed pattern of much smaller/cheaper devices will have the same result. MIRV brought new problems - like having to avoid fratricide though...

 

I don't think anyone is building the "monster nuke" anymore. MIRV technology obsoleted "the big one".

643324[/snapback]

 

very interesting stuff..good to know