What should we do with the nukes?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-01-26 06:40pm

Nobody is willing to use(hopefully this will stay the same)but everyone is afraid to get rid of them, because they form a last chance deterrent(I suppose, though, that's not much help in countering the fucked up diplomatic relations you will have for 50 years+).

What do you think we should do?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-26 06:43pm

Blow up the moon.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-26 06:44pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:Nobody is willing to use(hopefully this will stay the same)but everyone is afraid to get rid of them, because they form a last chance deterrent(I suppose, though, that's not much help in countering the fucked up diplomatic relations you will have for 50 years+).

What do you think we should do?

Ever hear of North Korea? Kim Dong Small is about as whacked as you can get, and wouldn't shudder at pushing the red button. In order for any deterrent to be effective in the future, we would be forced to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack he might launch on US and Allied forces in South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-01-26 06:48pm

Nathan F wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:Nobody is willing to use(hopefully this will stay the same)but everyone is afraid to get rid of them, because they form a last chance deterrent(I suppose, though, that's not much help in countering the fucked up diplomatic relations you will have for 50 years+).

What do you think we should do?
Ever hear of North Korea? Kim Dong Small is about as whacked as you can get, and wouldn't shudder at pushing the red button. In order for any deterrent to be effective in the future, we would be forced to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack he might launch on US and Allied forces in South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.

Doesn't prove my point wrong; he's just the exception, because in his case his government won't exist for long following a nuke strike.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-26 06:51pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:Nobody is willing to use(hopefully this will stay the same)but everyone is afraid to get rid of them, because they form a last chance deterrent(I suppose, though, that's not much help in countering the fucked up diplomatic relations you will have for 50 years+).

What do you think we should do?

The problem with leaving them as they are is... what?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-01-26 06:52pm

For the US I'd like to see the Peacekeepers stored rather then destroyed (actually with the latest arms treaty I'm not sure what the fuck is suppose to happen to them), tritium production to be restarted as normal, and warheads stored and properly maintained in sufficient numbers to restore the Minuteman force to 3 warheads per missile. Research into earth penatraitor should precede full bore, and if we need some live fire tests to validate the designs so be it.

Abandoning a defence, which has proven 100% effective for nearly sixty years, is simply insane.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-26 06:55pm

Joe wrote:Blow up the moon.

Yep, but you'll blow more money than you spent on the stockpile building missiles that can actually lift the warheads that high.

Rev Prez

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-01-26 07:08pm

revprez wrote:
Yep, but you'll blow more money than you spent on the stockpile building missiles that can actually lift the warheads that high.

That's what Project Orion is for, low cost delivery of nuclear death using nuclear death throughout the solar system.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-01-26 09:16pm

Smores.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-01-26 10:03pm

Put them in orbit to act as a space defense platform, and as a 'well blast ya from orbit' deterent

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-01-26 10:07pm

Nuke the whales.

Gotta nuke something.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-26 11:42pm

Solauren wrote:Put them in orbit to act as a space defense platform, and as a 'well blast ya from orbit' deterent

Good suggestion, ecept that if the U.S. put something like that into orbit, every country on earth would consider it a delclaration of war. How does the United States of Cirac sound to you? Putinania?

Although there are some that would say it already exists.

I'm all for blowing up the moon, as it made a nice backdrop in the new version of the Time Machine.

"Is it a full quarter moon tonight?"

project Orion shows mucho promise, and what better way to threaten the MDF (Martian Defense force) than with megatons of nuclear projection.

"DO NOT RUN, WE ARE YOUR FIRENDS."
"We Won't."

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-27 12:11am

Project Orion seems a waste of money. Propelling a spacecraft by thermonuclear detonations is inrfficient, NERVA is a better choice.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 12:14am

Guardsman Bass wrote:What do you think we should do?

Turning the Middle East into a self lighting parking lot sounds attractive.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-27 02:23am

Ohhh market them to the public as coffee table books.

Always a conversation piece in one of those.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-27 03:47am

Sea Skimmer wrote:For the US I'd like to see the Peacekeepers stored rather then destroyed (actually with the latest arms treaty I'm not sure what the fuck is suppose to happen to them)

Whatever the US wants- SORT isn't very stringent- it's about absolute number of warheads, rather than the anal retentive restrictions on delivery systems that START and START II imposed. May those two treaties rest in pieces, trying to take away those lovely SS-18 SATANs.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-01-27 05:09am

I say we pile them all up in the San Andreas fault and set them off, just to see what would happen.

SecondStorm · Post by **SecondStorm** » 2004-01-27 06:46am

Chardok wrote:project Orion shows mucho promise, and what better way to threaten the MDF (Martian Defense force) than with megatons of nuclear projection.

"DO NOT RUN, WE ARE YOUR FIRENDS."
"We Won't."

That one is just priceless

.

Keeping the nukes seems like the best idea. A weapon you dont have to actually use is the most efficient resource-wise.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-27 11:08am

evilcat4000 wrote:Project Orion seems a waste of money. Propelling a spacecraft by thermonuclear detonations is inrfficient, NERVA is a better choice.

isp and thrust of Orion > isp and thrust of NERVA, IIRC.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-27 04:06pm

I vote we go fishing- just place them in the Pacific floor, set them off, and milions of tonnes of dead (irradiated, granted, butthat still puts it above McDonalds) fish at your doorstep!

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-27 04:13pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:I say we pile them all up in the San Andreas fault and set them off, just to see what would happen.

Lots of volcanoes?

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-27 04:31pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:I say we pile them all up in the San Andreas fault and set them off, just to see what would happen.
Lots of volcanoes?

More like getting rid of an entire uselss state

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-01-27 05:14pm

Definitely nuke the whales!

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-01-27 09:30pm

The Aliens wrote:I vote we go fishing- just place them in the Pacific floor, set them off, and milions of tonnes of dead (irradiated, granted, butthat still puts it above McDonalds) fish at your doorstep!

Nah, been done before.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-28 12:29am

phongn wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Project Orion seems a waste of money. Propelling a spacecraft by thermonuclear detonations is inrfficient, NERVA is a better choice.
isp and thrust of Orion > isp and thrust of NERVA, IIRC.

True but the cost of detonating so many nuclear bombs just to get from point A to point B is going to be prohibitbly expensive.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What should we do with the nukes?

What should we do with the nukes?

Re: What should we do with the nukes?

Re: What should we do with the nukes?

Re: What should we do with the nukes?

Re: What should we do with the nukes?