Mini Nukes

[sayonara]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3126141.stm

Anybody else interpret "these weapons are more flexible" as actually meaning, "now when we have bombed their cities and destroyed their infrastructure we also have the option of nuking any survivors while they hide undergorund, thereby proving our superiority by killing them ALL".

[Ste]

idiots.

[acropolis]

in fairness it would be my guess that the countries most likely to be targeted with those would have their leaders and their WMD buried deep.

at present we can only kill masses of civilians. a deep explosion would probably be environmentally better etc.

[Mushroom]

yeah. Did anyone see that thing a while ago from that leaked pentagon document that said Dubya had ordered the military to look into developing these mini-nukes, neutron bombs and those orbital platforms that could fire nukes onto anywhere? That was scary.
I actually had a chat with my chemistry teacher about this last year, who it turned out felt strongly about the issue and ended up calling George Bush a wanker

Hiroshima? Bush can't even spell it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Mushroom
those orbital platforms that could fire nukes onto anywhere?.

The what now? Something about that is deeply worrying. Wasn't there a treaty signed demilitarising outer space or am I going totally mad?

[Blastoderm]

Originally posted by Mushroom

Hiroshima? Bush can't even spell it.

He can't read let alone spell.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by acropolis
at present we can only kill masses of civilians. a deep explosion would probably be environmentally better etc.

negative. That's the absolute worst bomb there is, environmentally. Currently most nukes go off 1000m or more above the ground. It reduces the amount of contaminated earth tossed into the upper atmosphere, thereby alleviating fallout.

Digging nukes lift extremely large quantities of earth into the air, immediately after irradiating it all. The fallout from those nukes would be horrendous. Ofc, in this case, that might not be an issue because they're so small.

I'm not sure what to make of it though. Smaller nukes could mean a shift in attitude where it's "Ok" to use nuclear weapons. ick.

[JonnyBGood]

I was right!

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
The what now? Something about that is deeply worrying. Wasn't there a treaty signed demilitarising outer space or am I going totally mad?

No, there was a UN resolution about it i think.
But since when has he been bothered about the UN? And besides, at the moment he's just "looking into the possibility", which isn't a crime. Unless you're Saddam. Or Kim Jong Il. Or someone not American.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
The what now? Something about that is deeply worrying. Wasn't there a treaty signed demilitarising outer space or am I going totally mad?

Afaik that treaty applied to weapons-grade laser technology only. I'll look into it when I get home.

I'm sure the aim of these weapons right now is to destroy arms caches and hardware. However history consistently demonstrates:
(1) You can never 'uninvent' new weapons,
(2) Technology spreads,
(3) The next person in power could be worse.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I was right!

Ah, that's the one.

Notice how the US said it had "no intention of putting WOMD in outer space".

Outer space being the term used to refer to space outside the solar system.

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
I'm not sure what to make of it though. Smaller nukes could mean a shift in attitude where it's "Ok" to use nuclear weapons. ick.

Yes. Ick. And it would be a shame if they shared the technology with russia to get rid of the main opposition in creating it, and then had another "fallout" with them (ho ho ho).
Dabbling with nukes no matter how big they are seems like a very bad idea to me.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by sayonara
Ah, that's the one.

Notice how the US said it had "no intention of putting WOMD in outer space".

Outer space being the term used to refer to space outside the solar system.

First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Unless the website got it wrong.....



Which it didn't as I just read the treaty itself.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
negative. That's the absolute worst bomb there is, environmentally. Currently most nukes go off 1000m or more above the ground. It reduces the amount of contaminated earth tossed into the upper atmosphere, thereby alleviating fallout.

Digging nukes lift extremely large quantities of earth into the air, immediately after irradiating it all. The fallout from those nukes would be horrendous. Ofc, in this case, that might not be an issue because they're so small.

I'm not sure what to make of it though. Smaller nukes could mean a shift in attitude where it's "Ok" to use nuclear weapons. ick.

Aren't most of our nuclear tests done underground though (the new mexico ones)?

Though they probably do them a lot deeper etc.

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by acropolis
Aren't most of our nuclear tests done underground though (the new mexico ones)?

Yes, but in those areas the soil is very harshly irradiated - that's where they're testing these new bacteria that supposedly eat uranium oxides

[LHC]

dubya bush lol

[sayonara]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Unless the website got it wrong.....
Which it didn't as I just read the treaty itself.

Yes, I saw that. I refered to a section dealing with the pre-treaty situation:

On September 19, 1963, Foreign Minister Gromyko told the General Assembly that the Soviet Union wished to conclude an agreement banning the orbiting of objects carrying nuclear weapons. Ambassador Stevenson stated that the United States had no intention of orbiting weapons of mass destruction, installing them on celestial bodies or stationing them in outer space.

That would have give the US to place whatever weaponry they liked within the solar system as long as it was not in orbit of Earth or on the moon.

Considering "Project Orion" it's not completely insane to believe they might have tried it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by sayonara
Yes, I saw that. I refered to a section dealing with the pre-treaty situation:That would have give the US to place whatever weaponry they liked within the solar system as long as it was not in orbit of Earth or on the moon.

Considering "Project Orion" it's not completely insane to believe they might have tried it.

I don't think there's much point to it if it flies off towards the sun to be honest.

[Marilyn Manson]

Would it be legal if they sent Cameroon into outer space with nukes on it?

[K-W]

The Bush administration is scary, but in the end they are very detached from reality and most of thier ideas (especially the space stuff) are completely rediculous and will never be realized. As scary as it is, we wont have space weapons any time soon. the biggest risk is that we will launch nuclear powered things into space in order to head towards such technology, if a shuttle/rocket carrying nuclear material explodes in the upper atmosphere we could have big problems.

The tactical nuke stuff is scary because it is more realistic, and to develop them would require testing and developing and violating treaties, which of course would cause the other nuclear countries to do similarly in order to keep up with the U.S. It will also further encourage new nations to aquire nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves from the U.S.

Another thing the U.S. is aiming for is fast attack drones, that could be sent around the world at high speeds bombing whoever we want.

[Mushroom]

it's a bit worrying though, they have plans for this star wars defence system and further nuclear development, so they pull out of the nuclear proliferation treaty.
If they have plans for orbital stuff (which they do, not just nukes, but they have plans to put things that will drop concrete/metal blocks from orbit, for bunker destroying effect), who's saying they won't try to pull out of the UN? Let's face it, they virtually did anyway over the entire Iraq thing. It's things like this that make me glad (for once) that Blair has as much influence on Bush as he does.

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by K-W
Another thing the U.S. is aiming for is fast attack drones, that could be sent around the world at high speeds bombing whoever we want.

Nasty thought: fast attack drones + mini nukes.
Ouch.
They say they're going to be based on the latest accurate missiles, but something _always_ goes wrong. I dread to think what would happen if they ended up mini-nuking a chinese embassy...

[acropolis]

Originally posted by K-W
It will also further encourage new nations to aquire nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves from the U.S.

Once we control space the game is over.

No one will be able to put a satellite up without our say so, and we won't say 'yes' to any satellite that could hurt our control of space.

Any ballistic missiles that get fired will be taken out (probably not in the boost phase cause that's just tough) quickly, and whatever country launched them will get wiped instantly by nukes from the sky.

Point being, it won't encourage other nations to pursue weapons because all weapons will then be useless against us (maybe some terrorism type activity still, but that's it)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by acropolis

And then once one particular group has the power of life and death over six billion people I imagine they'll organise a tea party for everyone to attend?

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
And then once one particular group has the power of life and death over six billion people I imagine they'll organise a tea party for everyone to attend?

"You WILL attend!"

I think one major flaw in this is that the US is still thinking that it can get rid of its problems by bombing countries, when if it's _really_ after terrorism, it should know that bombing countries is just going to piss the terrorists off, which isn't a good idea.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
And then once one particular group has the power of life and death over six billion people I imagine they'll organise a tea party for everyone to attend?

Don't even try to tell me you would stand them up.

PS: I should add that I'm not making a whiny liberal attack, this is the public argument of the neocon leadership.

Originally posted by Mushroom
"You WILL attend!"

I think one major flaw in this is that the US is still thinking that it can get rid of its problems by bombing countries, when if it's _really_ after terrorism, it should know that bombing countries is just going to piss the terrorists off, which isn't a good idea.

A lot of problems are bombable, and most can be solved by the threat of bombing.

Terrorism's just a bitch.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Mushroom
it's a bit worrying though, they have plans for this star wars defence system and further nuclear development, so they pull out of the nuclear proliferation treaty.
If they have plans for orbital stuff (which they do, not just nukes, but they have plans to put things that will drop concrete/metal blocks from orbit, for bunker destroying effect), who's saying they won't try to pull out of the UN? Let's face it, they virtually did anyway over the entire Iraq thing. It's things like this that make me glad (for once) that Blair has as much influence on Bush as he does.

The star wars system is a pipe dream. The people who came up with these ideas are not scientists. They are right wing thinktankers. These are the same people who thought we could send a tiny force to iraq and the people would all just surrender and celebrate in the streets. The militarization of space will be an issue, and this administration is starting what might turn into an arms race in space, but other than sending up some stuff and starting programs to explore it this administration will not be able to realize any of thier space plans. This is assuming of course that the U.S. swings left again and people are put in power who wont follow through.

Originally posted by acropolis
Once we control space the game is over.

No one will be able to put a satellite up without our say so, and we won't say 'yes' to any satellite that could hurt our control of space.

Any ballistic missiles that get fired will be taken out (probably not in the boost phase cause that's just tough) quickly, and whatever country launched them will get wiped instantly by nukes from the sky.

Point being, it won't encourage other nations to pursue weapons because all weapons will then be useless against us (maybe some terrorism type activity still, but that's it)

Erm. We do not have the technology you speak of currently. Developing and deploying it will take a long time. During that time other countries will be developing thigns to counter us. The invincible U.S. model is the one the Neocons are shooting for, but right now its just a model on some paper developed by people who are dreamers. (albeit they dream up pretty evil things) The odds that they can stay in power long enough to even get a fraction of that dream accomplished are slim to none.

Originally posted by Mushroom
"You WILL attend!"

I think one major flaw in this is that the US is still thinking that it can get rid of its problems by bombing countries, when if it's _really_ after terrorism, it should know that bombing countries is just going to piss the terrorists off, which isn't a good idea.

The U.S. Isnt trying to stop terrorism, or at least not in a meaningful way. They are more concerned with thier agenda.

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by K-W
The U.S. Isnt trying to stop terrorism, or at least not in a meaningful way. They are more concerned with thier agenda.

Which is ironic in a way, because it's because the US only follows their own agenda that hatred of the US in the east has built up.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Mushroom
Which is ironic in a way, because it's because the US only follows their own agenda that hatred of the US in the east has built up.

Whose agenda should the US be following? And why?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by K-W

Erm. We do not have the technology you speak of currently. Developing and deploying it will take a long time. During that time other countries will be developing thigns to counter us. The invincible U.S. model is the one the Neocons are shooting for, but right now its just a model on some paper developed by people who are dreamers. (albeit they dream up pretty evil things) The odds that they can stay in power long enough to even get a fraction of that dream accomplished are slim to none.

We have satellites up there (obviously).

We have GPS. We have satellites that can shoot down other satellites. We're a few years away from ballistic missile defense.

And yes, there are some aspects that are decades away.

But who is going to beat us there?

The only other country with the pocketbook and the will to compete in space is China, and they are forty years behind.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Whose agenda should the US be following? And why?

Erm, not radical neoconservatives, because thier agenda is flawed and unsafe.

[K-W]

Originally posted by acropolis
We have satellites up there (obviously).

We have GPS. We have satellites that can shoot down other satellites. We're a few years away from ballistic missile defense.

And yes, there are some aspects that are decades away.

But who is going to beat us there?

The only other country with the pocketbook and the will to compete in space is China, and they are forty years behind.

We arent nearly that close to such technologies.

Who is going to beat us? Personally I dont think anyone is, because I think these mad scientist schemes will die with the radical group thats pushing them.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I don't think there's much point to it if it flies off towards the sun to be honest.

Not particularly, but it would be a nice way to, ohhhh.... say, sequester Mars?

And all within treaty restrictions.

Course, a reason to do so would be an asset to the grand scheme.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
The only other country with the pocketbook and the will to compete in space is China, and they are forty years behind.

It takes far less time to duplicate what someone else has already done, since you can buy or steal the technology.

Plus given the deplorable state of the current US space program[*] I think China could pass us in 10 years--if they wanted to.



* Broken down orbiter fleet, expensive space station that nobody wants, and an expendable launch fleet that includes the reworked Atlas 5 rocket that uses Russian-built engines.

[sayonara]

...not to mention the fact that China doesn't have any whiney voters to put the politicians off investing money that could go on schools and public health.

[HAL-9000]

The trouble with those treaties, especially the one forbidding the detonation of nuclear weapons in space, is that they prohibit the possible devolopment of possible useful technologies.

Take, for example, Project Orion - possibly the only positive use that a hydrogen bomb can have which would have changed the world. For those of you that have not heard of it, Project Orion was a project around the 1950's that was designed to produce a spacecraft that used the detonation of hydrogen bombs against an inertial plate. This was then and therefore still is, from an engineering point of view, entirely practical. It is likely that the Orion spacecraft could have reached up to 10% the speed of light. A trip to Alpha Centauri, 4.3 light years away, would take 43 years.

Unfortunately the various treaties currently in place hold up development of such scientific projects. Orion was actually under serious development when said international treaty was signed. There should always be exceptions. However, allowing Mr. Bush to nuke the hole of a rabbit family that has been eating his dad's carrots is not the kind of exception that is acceptable. This bloke has a serious stick up his arse. He needs to get beaten silly with a model trampoline. He pisses me off!

[sayonara]

Originally posted by HAL-9000
Orion was actually under serious development when said international treaty was signed.

Orion used proven technology already and could have been constructed in space, beyond the limits laid out by the treaty.

Here is a brief history of the project with pictures and stuff for anyone interested:

http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_orion_and_empire.htm

[HAL-9000]

Originally posted by sayonara
Orion used proven technology already and could have been constructed in space, beyond the limits laid out by the treaty.

Here is a brief history of the project with pictures and stuff for anyone interested:

http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_orion_and_empire.htm

But the treaty forbids the detonation of nuclear weapons in outer space. Construction is no problem whatsoever. However the country is not allowed to have the bombs detonated. Further (due to your impending 'the people on the ship could detonate them they are not on the earth so not bound by treaty blah blah), the ship would be classed as United States territory and hence the detonation of the bombs in the US, any place on earth or on any ship would go against the treaty. Designing an automated detonation would be akin to setting off a nuclear bomb on a timer. The place where it was manufactured has in essance been the place of detonation, or at least the place where the detonation (or the process of detonation) began, and therefore that is also banned by the treaty. Afaik there is no way of getting around it.

It's a crying shame really.

[K-W]

I think that such treaties probably err on the right side of things though.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by HAL-9000
But the treaty forbids the detonation of nuclear weapons in outer space...

It's a crying shame really.

Yes, in the case of Orion it is a shame (or not, if you consider the military's decision to increase the funding of the project by turning it into a warship five minutes before the president turned up to have a look at the progress - bad mistake).

However, as I already pointed out earlier the use of the term "outer space" in the treaty is ambigous since in astrophysics it refers to the space outside the solar system.

[HAL-9000]

Originally posted by sayonara
Yes, in the case of Orion it is a shame (or not, if you consider the military's decision to increase the funding of the project by turning it into a warship five minutes before the president turned up to have a look at the progress - bad mistake).

However, as I already pointed out earlier the use of the term "outer space" in the treaty is ambigous since in astrophysics it refers to the space outside the solar system.

Hmm very interesting. I was not aware of that (but then I don't study astrophysics so how on earth would I know?!). Quite a loophole if it were to be exploited!

[K-W]

I wouldnt want nasa playing with anything like that with the current ties between the defense dept and nasa.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by K-W
I wouldnt want nasa playing with anything like that with the current ties between the defense dept and nasa.

Increase our budget, rawrrrr!!!!

OMG this is so far OT it's ridiculous

[HAL-9000]

Originally posted by K-W
I wouldnt want nasa playing with anything like that with the current ties between the defense dept and nasa.

With the current ability to know virtually everything that is going on (especially something as big as creating a doomsday device in space) I doubt anything would be done. The outcome would be catastrophic for the US. If they wanted to create such a device they would not bother trying to masquerade it under the pretence that they are creating an interstellar starship. They would just do it. They clearly don't give a toss what other countries think. No I would probably trust NASA on this one.

[Archi]

Hold the mushrooms please........

[Woof]

I think the UN security council should meet and demand that these WMD are destroyed, and UN inspection teams be let in to ensure that WMD are not developed.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Woof
I think the UN security council should meet and demand that these WMD are destroyed, and UN inspection teams be let in to ensure that WMD are not developed.

Do you really want to wait that long?

[K-W]

Originally posted by HAL-9000
With the current ability to know virtually everything that is going on (especially something as big as creating a doomsday device in space) I doubt anything would be done. The outcome would be catastrophic for the US. If they wanted to create such a device they would not bother trying to masquerade it under the pretence that they are creating an interstellar starship. They would just do it. They clearly don't give a toss what other countries think. No I would probably trust NASA on this one.

With NAsa so underfunded, the well funded dept of def has gotten itself tied in with nasa providing much needed funds, but adding a military componant to the research thats done. As long as this is the case I dont trust NASA.

[Woof]

Originally posted by K-W
As scary as it is, we wont have space weapons any time soon. the biggest risk is that we will launch nuclear powered things into space in order to head towards such technology, if a shuttle/rocket carrying nuclear material explodes in the upper atmosphere we could have big problems.

Cassini was a Martian probe launched a few years back with a nuclear power source.
When launched it used earth’s gravity to sling shot on towards Mars.
So not only was there a risk of it exploding on launch, but also a risk as it flew past the Earth a second time.

They've already done it, so i think bigger nuclear luanches are Inevitable.

[treelo]

Sounds like the next Tom Clancy novel

Mini-nukes are pointless. Yeah you could wipe out pretty much anything. But what's the point if you can't actually go where you've been blowing stuff up? I thought that was the whole idea of warfare. Advance - Kill - Advance - Kill - Advance - Kill - search for WMD - Kill....