Obama: No Nukes- Even in Self Defense

[Moontanman]

Yeah, toasty, you are correct one bomb will kill us all, no way to shield any one or anything, huge sheets of lead and concrete (or maybe 36 inches of soil)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter

 

Shielding

A basic fallout shelter consists of shields that reduce gamma ray exposure by a factor of 1000. The required shielding can be accomplished with 10 times the amount of any quantity of material capable of cutting gamma ray effects in half. Shields that reduce gamma ray intensity by 50% (1/2) include 1 cm (0.4 inch) of lead, 6 cm (2.4 inches) of concrete, 9 cm (3.6 inches) of packed dirt or 150 m (500 ft) of air. When multiple thicknesses are built, the shielding multiplies. Thus, a practical fallout shield is ten halving-thicknesses of packed dirt, reducing gamma rays by 1024 times (210).

 

Usually, an expedient purpose-built fallout shelter is a trench, with a strong roof buried by ~1 m (3 ft) of dirt. The two ends of the trench have ramps or entrances at right angles to the trench, so that gamma rays cannot enter (they can travel only in straight lines). To make the overburden waterproof (in case of rain), a plastic sheet should be buried a few inches below the surface and held down with rocks or bricks.

 

Or maybe we are already dead, we detonated many nukes in the atmosphere before the nuclear test ban treaty.

 

Toasty, yes nukes are bad, no they should not be used but there is a difference between knowing the danger and running around stepping and fetching like your ass is on fire and your head is catching.

 

Nukes are defined as weapons of mass destruction, they are all dangerous and under the correct conditions and numbers they could all pretty much end civilization as we know it. If you want to learn about the effects of nuclear weapons i suggest you do some research instead of listening to all the anti nuke crazies out there.

 

Would a nuclear strike be bad for everyone? Yes, no doubt but even a limited war between small powers would not kill us all, it would be bad, no doubt the effects would hurt us all. But it would not be world ending, I spent all of my growing up years in horrible dread of nuclear war, it took me many years to find out the old wives tales of nukes and radiation have real world connections but that most of them are gross exaggerations of what would really happen.

 

I think it's great the the US has decided not use nukes to automatically attack if we are attacked by WMD's. But your constant fear mongering of how world ending the use of any nuclear weapons would be is simply not true.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty, i owe you an apology, this thread has gone so far off topic I'm not sure what it was we were supposed to be discussing. This thread is a huge pile of ifs, maybes, coulda, woulda and shoulda's. I find myself defending the indefensible, excusing the inexcusable. Which is more powerful among the WMD's is like deciding if being eaten alive by a shark or a killer whale is worse. personally i don't want to die either way.

 

After exorcising my own demons i have to say that using a nuke, even in defense should not be an option. Nukes are terror weapons, the idea of nuclear power drives demons in people we never even know we have. But Nukes are not supernatural, the do have limits but the limits are quite large.

 

Given the technology IMHO nerve gas is probably the biggest threat to the human race, Nukes would have to be second but for low tech scenarios bio-weapons have to be the stuff of nightmares than can come true.

 

If I was in power and knew of a hardened bio-weapon facility that was being used offensively a ground penetrating type of bunker buster bomb might be justifiable if time was a factor but in all but the most extreme scenarios conventional weapons would be the only way to go.

 

Nukes can be useful as MAD weapons but to actually use one is almost completely unthinkable. They are threats, as was already said in this thread like hand-grenades in an enclosed space. But bio-weapons are equally ridiculous as weapons as are chemical weapons, only the insane would use such weapons or the desperate and often the two are difficult to see a difference in.

 

lets hope that the trends of the last couple of decades continue and that our children or their children do not have to have this discussion due to the idea of unreasonable people with ideologies than can turn the other side into a threat that has to be eliminated no matter what the risk.

 

Lets hope that the numbers of all weapons of mass destruction continue to go down and eventually get to zero. IMHO the real weapon of mass destruction is unreasoning ideologies that that dehumanize anyone who disagrees and allows the slaughter of other humans simply because God or they are of a different social system or economic system says they can be killed.

 

The true weapons of mass destruction are these dehumanizing ideologies and the people who follow them.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Moontanman
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

Yeah, toasty, you are correct one bomb will kill us all, no way to shield any one or anything, huge sheets of lead and concrete (or maybe 36 inches of soil)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter

 

 

 

Or maybe we are already dead, we detonated many nukes in the atmosphere before the nuclear test ban treaty.

 

Toasty, yes nukes are bad, no they should not be used but there is a difference between knowing the danger and running around stepping and fetching like your ass is on fire and your head is catching.

 

Nukes are defined as weapons of mass destruction, they are all dangerous and under the correct conditions and numbers they could all pretty much end civilization as we know it. If you want to learn about the effects of nuclear weapons i suggest you do some research instead of listening to all the anti nuke crazies out there.

 

Would a nuclear strike be bad for everyone? Yes, no doubt but even a limited war between small powers would not kill us all, it would be bad, no doubt the effects would hurt us all. But it would not be world ending, I spent all of my growing up years in horrible dread of nuclear war, it took me many years to find out the old wives tales of nukes and radiation have real world connections but that most of them are gross exaggerations of what would really happen.

 

I think it's great the the US has decided not use nukes to automatically attack if we are attacked by WMD's. But your constant fear mongering of how world ending the use of any nuclear weapons would be is simply not true.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty, i owe you an apology, this thread has gone so far off topic I'm not sure what it was we were supposed to be discussing. This thread is a huge pile of ifs, maybes, coulda, woulda and shoulda's. I find myself defending the indefensible, excusing the inexcusable. Which is more powerful among the WMD's is like deciding if being eaten alive by a shark or a killer whale is worse. personally i don't want to die either way.

 

After exorcising my own demons i have to say that using a nuke, even in defense should not be an option. Nukes are terror weapons, the idea of nuclear power drives demons in people we never even know we have. But Nukes are not supernatural, the do have limits but the limits are quite large.

 

Given the technology IMHO nerve gas is probably the biggest threat to the human race, Nukes would have to be second but for low tech scenarios bio-weapons have to be the stuff of nightmares than can come true.

 

If I was in power and knew of a hardened bio-weapon facility that was being used offensively a ground penetrating type of bunker buster bomb might be justifiable if time was a factor but in all but the most extreme scenarios conventional weapons would be the only way to go.

 

Nukes can be useful as MAD weapons but to actually use one is almost completely unthinkable. They are threats, as was already said in this thread like hand-grenades in an enclosed space. But bio-weapons are equally ridiculous as weapons as are chemical weapons, only the insane would use such weapons or the desperate and often the two are difficult to see a difference in.

 

lets hope that the trends of the last couple of decades continue and that our children or their children do not have to have this discussion due to the idea of unreasonable people with ideologies than can turn the other side into a threat that has to be eliminated no matter what the risk.

 

Lets hope that the numbers of all weapons of mass destruction continue to go down and eventually get to zero. IMHO the real weapon of mass destruction is unreasoning ideologies that that dehumanize anyone who disagrees and allows the slaughter of other humans simply because God or they are of a different social system or economic system says they can be killed.

 

The true weapons of mass destruction are these dehumanizing ideologies and the people who follow them.

 

If you read my post I never said one nuclear bomb could kill us all. I was citing studies that a nuclear war yielding around 2 megatons could cause a global catastrophe. I was also making a point that it is much cheaper and easier to defend against bioweapons than it is to defend against nukes.

 

However, it seems we were debating the danger of bioweapons compared to nuclear weapons. And in reality you are right, they are both terrible weapons, but it seems we do have common ground on the overall opinion of WMDs. I apologize as well for this thread going off-topic.

 

And It also seems we agree on the original topic of the thread. Should the United States use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

 

I also would like to note I share you beliefs on one day hopefully we have a world without such weapons.

[Leader Bee]

If you read my post I never said one nuclear bomb could kill us all. I was citing studies that a nuclear war yielding around 2 megatons could cause a global catastrophe.

 

Where is your source? The Mike shot of operation Ivy was over 10 megatons and is one of only many multi megaton weapons atmospherically tested before the Start & Salt treaties. I don't see any global problem from those detonations.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

However, 77% of the final yield came from fast fission of the uranium tamper, which meant that the device produced large amounts of fallout.

 

The fireball was approximately 3.25 miles (5.2 km) wide, and the mushroom cloud rose to an altitude of 57,000 feet (17.0 km) in less than 90 seconds. One minute later it had reached 108,000 feet (33.0 km), before stabilizing at 136,000 feet (25 miles or 37.0 km) with the top eventually spreading out to a diameter of 100 miles (161 km) with a stem 20 miles (32 km) wide.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Leader Bee
Further information on the fallout of Mike shot.

[toastywombel]

Where is your source? The Mike shot of operation Ivy was over 10 megatons and is one of only many multi megaton weapons atmospherically tested before the Start & Salt treaties. I don't see any global problem from those detonations.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

However, 77% of the final yield came from fast fission of the uranium tamper, which meant that the device produced large amounts of fallout.

 

The fireball was approximately 3.25 miles (5.2 km) wide, and the mushroom cloud rose to an altitude of 57,000 feet (17.0 km) in less than 90 seconds. One minute later it had reached 108,000 feet (33.0 km), before stabilizing at 136,000 feet (25 miles or 37.0 km) with the top eventually spreading out to a diameter of 100 miles (161 km) with a stem 20 miles (32 km) wide.

 

If you read my previous posts I cited three sources from wikipedia. But since you didn't read the whole thread before commenting I will reiterate,

 

"A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[4][5]"

"A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation."

"A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

 

Also a two megaton device is not as destructive as many small devices that yield a total of two megatons.

[Mr Skeptic]

Turns out that there's an exception for biological weapons as well, so all our silly arguing is kind of moot. John Stewart covers this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-8-2010-david-remnick

[bascule]

The Daily Show reaction to this was awesome.

 

And in 20/20 hindsight, WTF? This thread is ridiculous. The title of this thread is:

 

Obama: No Nukes- Even in Self Defense

 

W T F? In absolutely no way did Obama declare anything close to a complete abandonment of the potential usage of nuclear weapons. This despite the OP claiming he was quoting a Fox News headline (even Fox News isn't that bad).

 

The discussion then descended into a lot of back and forth about biological weapons versus nukes. Well, Obama's policy "reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy" in the event of biological weapons threats.

 

Move along folks. Nothing to see here. This entire discussion was motivated by nothing but spin spin spin

Edited April 10, 2010 by bascule

[toastywombel]

OP claiming he was quoting a Fox News headline (even Fox News isn't that bad)

 

That was the headline on the front page of Fox.com at the time that I linked to this article.

 

There were several other forums/ websites that commented on the article and mentioned the headline that was featured on the Fox.com homepage.

http://cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=mofo&thread=4955&page=1#52578

http://forum.gatorsports.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=991&p=14403

http://story.newsclicker.com/index.cgi?id001=mjmjtucart7apom&ADN&pub-5921050296885253

http://knowthebuzz.com/2010/04/06/obama-no-nukes-even-in-defense/

Edited April 10, 2010 by toastywombel

[Zolar V]

IMHO the real weapon of mass destruction is unreasoning ideologies that that dehumanize anyone who disagrees

 

The true weapons of mass destruction are these dehumanizing ideologies and the people who follow them.

 

"unreasoning ideologies that dehumanize anyone who disagrees", sounds like religion..

[Moontanman]

"unreasoning ideologies that dehumanize anyone who disagrees", sounds like religion..

 

Sadly religion is often used for that but if you think back so has economic systems, race, and even where you are from.

 

 

So while religion is used for that it does not have a strangle hold on mans inhumanity to man for sure.

[Zolar V]

i would agree. man will always find some way to prove he is better than someone else by some doctrine, using force of arms.

[toastywombel]

Sadly religion is often used for that but if you think back so has economic systems, race, and even where you are from.

 

 

So while religion is used for that it does not have a strangle hold on mans inhumanity to man for sure.

 

Good point Moon, it really doesn't matter what type of system it is, what matters is that a few people gain control of that system and use it for just what you described.

[bascule]

That was the headline on the front page of Fox.com at the time that I linked to this article.

 

My apologies. It would appear (even in the Daily Show footage) that Fox News has been unabashedly misrepresenting this change in policy. Hannity and Newt Gingrich were lobbing hypotheticals about a biological weapons attack, apparently completely unaware that exemptions against biological attacks were in place.

 

So this is just yet another case of Fox News spin distorting what's really going on.

[The Bear's Key]

To state the obvious, we didn't respond to 9/11 alQaida with nukes and even if they had used biological, we'd likely still not have done it.

 

Also, nukes would destroy infrastructure -- often strategically -- which hurts medical response and communication system-wide, perhaps globally. Food and transportation's destroyed, ecosystems wither, livestock starve, a dominoes effect of wholesale proportions. Biological can't do the same, no matter how infectious the buggers are.

 

I've traveled by car across the entire nation a few times, and many here probably don't realize this, but our country has an insanely vast amount of open land, no houses or infrastructure (except widely scattered about).

 

Biological spreads via people, they're its main vehicle, so lots of people will be unaffected except in the cities. So...wait a bit and the infected die out -- especially as it'd be so deadly a virus.

 

Plus there are lots of ships in the ocean that could wait everything out.

 

Native people in the vast regions of Northern Canada would likely survive also. There's many such vacant regions on the planet. But nuclear winter is a threat to everyone no matter where, and not just people but other life as well -- animals, plants, etc.

 

 

The military operates under different rules than do we mere civilians, and for good reason.

Surely, a few leaders even prefer the military operate under no rules, and for ill reason.

 

The option to use them should be left on the table, IMO. The cold hard logic of in-kind retaliation coupled with the US classification of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons as one and the same has acted as a deterrent against the deployment of these weapons by others nations. That deterrent has now vanished.

Well, it's been vanished -- ever since nukes became hand-transportable and so we can't pinpoint the responsible nation in time to prevent the (rapid set of) detonations likely following it. The most strategic response then is to blanket-nuke all our potential enemies indiscriminately -- not likely to happen.

 

Nice sentiment, wrong world.

Doubtful. Things are simply going your way now. However that's bound to change one day.

 

 

Just consider the anthrax affair a while back.

And that was by a U.S. citizen, not by foreign terrorists. How would nukes deter people inside the attacked nation?

 

For that matter, if someone's willing to blow themselves up or perform some other brand of crazy, what do they care if the victim nation responds with nukes? It'd propably be their goal.

 

 

How about if a weaponized virus crosses with an avian one, so that the little birdies spread the virus everywhere?

So how does retalliation help against that? Everyone's screwed, including the nation that unleashed the virus.

 

And what if they crossed the virus with a plants one? (Since we're discussing fictional possibilities)

[CharonY]

And that was by a U.S. citizen, not by foreign terrorists. How would nukes deter people inside the attacked nation?

By threatening to go nucular on their apartment community?

 

So how does retalliation help against that? Everyone's screwed, including the nation that unleashed the virus.

Ohh I got an idea. How about create a plant virus that gives you lung cancer if you smoke the plant?

 

It is likely though that for terrorist organizations it is easier to get hands on chemical and biological weapon than nuclear ones. Deterrents do not work for them as they do not work along borders (for the most part). And I assume as long as their respective leaders see themselves maintaining power they won't care if their home country (if they have something like that to begin with) gets bombed into the stone age. In fact, it may actually help their cause. Unless there are also leaders of the respective countries, of course.

Still, right now natural diseases are still way ahead with respect to population effects than anything a lab cooked up until now.

Edited April 13, 2010 by CharonY