micr0wave Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 There might not have been a direct war but enough proxy wars to realise that the posession of nukes doesn't prevent conflicts.It just moves the battlefield to a place far away from home, and hides the fact they're playing wargames and lowers the risk of one side putting the nuke card onto the table.Take a look on Orwell's world map and judge yourself which game is played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 There might not have been a direct war but enough proxy wars to realise that the posession of nukes doesn't prevent conflicts.So if my country has nukes, there will not be a war on my country's soil? I'm sorry, but you're making a very s***y argument for getting rid of the nukes.If Ukraine were smarter, and did not part with their share of nukes, the Crimea peninsula would be still with Ukraine now.They were gullible enough to believe that US and UK would uphold the spirit of the disarmament agreement, rather than twist the words of the document to weasel out of it.By the way, it was a huge mistake for US. Ukraine wasn't the only nation with similarly worded agreement with US, and other nations are watching. Take a look at how Chinese policy in South China Sea has changed in 2014.Nukes are a good deterrent against direct attacks, but they certainly do not replace an effective foreign policy and good military force to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 So if my country has nukes, there will not be a war on my country's soil? I'm sorry, but you're making a very s***y argument for getting rid of the nukes.They were gullible enough to believe that US and UK would uphold the spirit of the disarmament agreement, rather than twist the words of the document to weasel out of it.By the way, it was a huge mistake for US. Ukraine wasn't the only nation with similarly worded agreement with US, and other nations are watching. Take a look at how Chinese policy in South China Sea has changed in 2014.Nukes are a good deterrent against direct attacks, but they certainly do not replace an effective foreign policy and good military force to back it up.Staying clear of the politics, Nukes are a fear weapon, but they potentially do as much harm to the user as the victim at some point. Couple other things about nukes - mostly a three dimensional action used against a 2-dimension there is diminishing utility of a larger weapon. - the last country that used them got stuck with the cleanup bill- We have no-nuclear weapons in our arsenal that we have used on a limited basis that against smaller densities of individuals did surprisingly similar damage, and basically got no attention in the world media. The ones we have used so far pale in comparison to weapons out there developed and being developed.- people are afraid of radioactivity for the most part senselessly, and when weapons are dropped, and the disenfranchised mass lose their fear, the world will never be the same. There is the potential at least to scald large populations of soldiers with microwave technology (not to mention civilian populations) not to mention space bound lasers.There are cluster bombs, and there are new-age smart bombs . The problem is basically that in the Cold War the world was forced to decide what its polarity was. There is no cold war. And the threats we are making are useless against chaos in the age of information. And the biggest weapon on the planet is the population bomb, and unless someone has missed it, its gone off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwenting Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who 'needs' ICBMs anyway ?They serve no constructive purpose, more the opposite.Building weapons for peace is like f**#+ing for virginity.Given that we've had no major wars on the scale of WW1 or WW2 for 70 years now, when the average period between them was 20-30 years prior to the invention of nuclear weapons and long range missiles and rockets, it seems to me we do need them to prevent countries from starting a major war.And the only countries that have started hostilities against other countries have been countries without nuclear weapons.Don't blame the weapons for human nature, blame human nature for the weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Staying clear of the politics, Nukes are a fear weapon, but they potentially do as much harm to the user as the victim at some point. Couple other things about nukes - mostly a three dimensional action used against a 2-dimension there is diminishing utility of a larger weapon. - the last country that used them got stuck with the cleanup bill- We have no-nuclear weapons in our arsenal that we have used on a limited basis that against smaller densities of individuals did surprisingly similar damage, and basically got no attention in the world media. The ones we have used so far pale in comparison to weapons out there developed and being developed.- people are afraid of radioactivity for the most part senselessly, and when weapons are dropped, and the disenfranchised mass lose their fear, the world will never be the same. There is the potential at least to scald large populations of soldiers with microwave technology (not to mention civilian populations) not to mention space bound lasers.There are cluster bombs, and there are new-age smart bombs . The problem is basically that in the Cold War the world was forced to decide what its polarity was. There is no cold war. And the threats we are making are useless against chaos in the age of information. And the biggest weapon on the planet is the population bomb, and unless someone has missed it, its gone off. Sorry, you seem to have missed that we're talking about the real world, and not some alternate history where nuclear yields and the number of weapons stopped expanding sometime in the late 1940s.And the only countries that have started hostilities against other countries have been countries without nuclear weapons.True, if you've been asleep since roughly the end of the korean war. Have you? It would really help explain a lot. Edited August 23, 2015 by Kryten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex_NL Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) ...Nukes are a good deterrent against direct attacks, ...Tell that to the 2977 who died in the 9-11 attacks. Edited August 23, 2015 by Tex_NL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwenting Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 True, if you've been asleep since roughly the end of the korean war. Have you? It would really help explain a lot.only in the twisted minds of leftists is it not the case... They tend to blame everything bad that happens on the US after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 only in the twisted minds of leftists is it not the case... They tend to blame everything bad that happens on the US after all....you know there are nations other than the US that have nuclear weapons, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 Ok guys, stop getting off topic. This thread is about Space Shuttle SRB derived ICBMs (I propsed a 1seg SRB with a Castor upper stage, rather than a 5-seg.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Boosters Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Tell that to the 2977 who died in the 9-11 attacks.Well, are you implying that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by another state and were a military operation?Also@jwentinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claw Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Well then, this thread looks like it's run it's course about SRBs, and has led down the alternate theories and politics track. Both of which we like to avoid due to their inflammatory nature.Cheers,~Claw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts