Replacing The Trident Defence System
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Well in that situation, Nuking that "organisation" isn't an option as they have no defined borders, like a country/state does.
I assume it would be met with more troops within that region and a greater use of conventional force.
As for the cost implications, sadly in this world it is good to have a nuclear missle system.
As for subs, they are the easiest way of using nuclear material for weapons delivery.
Do you release how heavy a nuclear bomb/reactor would be on a plane? They amount of "lead" needed for sheilding would be to much for it to fly effectively. Thats why we use subs and can have nuclear reactors to power our ships, the stuff weighs less in water or is it less mass? I always get the confused.
Last edited:
Do you release how heavy a nuclear bomb/reactor would be on a plane? They amount of "lead" needed for sheilding would be to much for it to fly effectively. Thats why we use subs and can have nuclear reactors to power our ships, the stuff weighs less in water or is it less mass? I always get the confused.
Hmmmmm.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
Do you release how heavy a nuclear bomb/reactor would be on a plane? They amount of "lead" needed for sheilding would be to much for it to fly effectively. Thats why we use subs and can have nuclear reactors to power our ships, the stuff weighs less in water or is it less mass? I always get the confused.
Oy vey.....
Mossad would probably know about it before the attack.
Do you release how heavy a nuclear bomb/reactor would be on a plane? They amount of "lead" needed for sheilding would be to much for it to fly effectively. Thats why we use subs and can have nuclear reactors to power our ships, the stuff weighs less in water or is it less mass? I always get the confused.
Why would you need a nuclear reactor on a plane?
Nuclear weapons are fairly easy to stick on planes.
Even fighter planes can carry a couple at once.
Both the Russians and the US developed nuclear powered strategic bombers. The US gave up after they realised it was basically a death sentance for the crew. The Russians built one and there are only a couple of surviving crew members as they all got radiation poisioning.
The advantage would be they could stay airbourne indefinitely.
The advantage would be they could stay airbourne indefinitely.
iirc they couldn't even do that.
Better just to have rotations like the did in the cold war.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
We have virtually no fear of being invaded by a foreign power.
Ask yourself why this is, and you answer the question of whether we need a nuclear deterant.
The big players will never fight each other as long as the stakes remain as high as they do now.
Ask yourself why this is, and you answer the question of whether we need a nuclear deterant.
The big players will never fight each other as long as the stakes remain as high as they do now.
This is going to be my sole post in this thread cos quite frankly AcidHell2 completely negated his own point.
While he claims that nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent he also points out that the US (who have the largest Nuclear arsenal on the planet AFAIK) are developing laser and missile interception devices.
If the USA feels it needs a shield then pray tell what good are the nukes doing?
While he claims that nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent he also points out that the US (who have the largest Nuclear arsenal on the planet AFAIK) are developing laser and missile interception devices.
If the USA feels it needs a shield then pray tell what good are the nukes doing?
Isnt that like saying 'If you need a lock on your door what good is your roof doing'?
Different threats require different deterrents and defences, obviously :cnonfused:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Why would you need a nuclear reactor on a plane?
Nuclear weapons are fairly easy to stick on planes.
Even fighter planes can carry a couple at once.
I was talking about the bomber the russians made in 60's/70's, it was nuclear powered so it could run for months, sadly the crew would get cancer and die because they didnt have enough shielding.
Because the threat of a nuclear deterrent will keep at bay serious powers like Russia china etc, but may not deter some nutter who thinks he'll get into paradise for it.
Nuclear weapons = waste of time, only a complete lunatic will use them and at that point you already lost regardless whos packing them. Why fire back revenge?? thats all it is at that point. Cold war is over (officially) no ones left to threaten anyone. Try living without them for 59 years se how we get on, bet it works out ok, especially with the yanks packing them, we shouldnt care. we aint a superpower, we cant even afford to run the army, airforce, navy - laptop fail typing
First World War is over, nobody is left to threaten anyone.
DOH.
Oh well, Second World War is over! Nobody left to threaten anyone.
DOH.
Ok, cold war is over, nobody left to threaten anyone this time, honest!
And this is all within the generation of many people on this planet..
What do you think will happen when energy supplies begin to dwindle? We'll sort it all out over a cup of tea?
you think it will result in nuclear war - and you think we win - anyone wins..?? get a grip - you lot are too alpha.
china will rule the world cos it can field a billion strong army.
or
nuclear wasteland in every major city on earth..
im learning chinese incase they do it when im still alive - all hail mao tse tung
china will rule the world cos it can field a billion strong army.
or
nuclear wasteland in every major city on earth..
im learning chinese incase they do it when im still alive - all hail mao tse tung
No the point is you have nukes so that it doesn't escalate to war in the first place.
If no one has them then you can merrily slog it out in conventional warfare for a few years, with nukes when one side starts losing too much ground they use them so you try not to start in the first place.
Ironically the Chinese are learning English.