USA & Russias Nuclear Disposal

[DeletedUser]

Barak Obame has agreed with the Russians to have only 1,550 nuclear warheads which is a decrease of 30%.

Still enough to destroy mankind.
Debate...or.. Discuss

 

[DeletedUser]

Barak Obame has agreed with the Russians to have only 1,550 nuclear warheads which is a decrease of 30%.

Still enough to destroy mankind.
Debate...or.. Discuss

you must walk before you can run.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that we should dispose of the nuclear warheads in a more exciting and probably more useful way; just launch the nuclear weapons at a different planet, say, Venus. Venus is a completely useless and acid-atmosphere planet, and the nukes will probably do no more than benefit it for the long run.

 

[fossil1999]

how bout launching them at Asteroids?

 

[DeletedUser]

Why did they continue to make nuclear weapons once they reached the point where they had just enough to destroy life on earth.


At that point its just nations showing off but for no real reason since either side has enough to blow everything up :0

 

[DeletedUser]

Why did they continue to make nuclear weapons once they reached the point where they had just enough to destroy life on earth.


At that point its just nations showing off but for no real reason since either side has enough to blow everything up :0

No - it was about the superpowers ensuring that anti-nuke defence would be over-powered. Think about it, if you can shoot 10 nukes outta the sky at one time then your opponent needs to launch 20 (assuming 1 target and 9 nukes miss/don't get launched for whatever reason). Do you really think that nukes were created just for the ego trip? The Soviet Union had and has more nukes than the US nominally but I reckon that is mostly because half of them rely on guys with a fuse who like vodka too much!
:laugh:

 

[DeletedUser14029]

In layman's terms, to overpower Missile Defense Capability.
ALSO, in the 60s Number AND Magnitude of Nukes is an important factor in the Armaments Race.

Go on Youtube and check 'Tsar Bomb' - 50 mega-tonnes . . .

 

[DeletedUser]

Who the heck is Barak Obame?

Just kidding. Anyway, I like Schofield's idea.

it was about the superpowers ensuring that anti-nuke defence would be over-powered.

That could also be a problem today, since Barak Obame scrapped our missile protection deal with Poland and Czech Republic. Now neither country is safe, but the Russians are happy about it, which apparently satisfies Mr. Obame more.

 

[DeletedUser]

Still enough to destroy mankind.

This is rather comical. How would having enough nukes to destroy mankind make anybody feel safe?
On a serious note, the fact that we will get rid of "some" is a step forward, I reckon. Truth is, they didn't get rid of enough. Barrack is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, where's the peace? I would have at least like to have seen the arsenals cut in half... :dry:

 

[DeletedUser]

Barrack is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, where's the peace?

First of all, no offense, but this is driving me insane: it's "Barack".

Anyway, I couldn't agree more. He's succeeded a grand total of 0 efforts to promote peace.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is rather comical. How would having enough nukes to destroy mankind make anybody feel safe?

I say we make more nuclear weapons so we can feel safer

 

[DeletedUser]

I say we make more nuclear weapons so we can feel safer

Call me crazy, but I think gravy's on to something. How many people were nuked in the Cold War? A big, fat 0. Why? Because each side knew that if they struck first, the other would retaliate, resulting in mutually assured destruction.

 

[DeletedUser]

That could also be a problem today, since Barak Obame scrapped our missile protection deal with Poland and Czech Republic. Now neither country is safe, but the Russians are happy about it, which apparently satisfies Mr. Obame more.

Please explain to me how missile protection system makes you safe? It would either 1) make Russia develop one (back to square one), or b) make them launch before one is developed. A defensive shield is actually an offensive weapon. If a rival develops a means to make yourdeterrence useless, wouldn'tyou see tha as a threat?
Also, saying it is to protect against North Korea and Iran (as previous administration claimed) is a load of scloblok.
Good riddance to a very bad idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

Please explain to me how missile protection system makes you safe?

OK, I will. Missile launched. Missile detected. Missile eliminated. That doesn't sound too complicated to me.

It would either 1) make Russia develop one (back to square one)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I narrow it down to 2 possibilities:
1. You're talking about missile defense. First of all, I'm pretty sure they already have that.
Second of all, even if they didn't, your argument appears to be that they would build one. Way to go, Sherlock Holmes!
Besides we don't to nuke them anyway, do we?

2. You're talking about nukes. The Russians have a lot of nukes as is. I mean, a lot of nukes.
I really don't see how you can make an argument out of that.

or b) make them launch before one is developed.

That wasn't really an option before the deal was terminated. Now that it is, anything launched at
Czech Republic or Poland will have little chance of being intercepted.

A defensive shield is actually an offensive weapon.

Not really. I'm getting tired of explaining how missile defense works, so I'll let Wikipedia take over.

If a rival develops a means to make yourdeterrence useless, wouldn'tyou see tha as a threat?

Not in the slightest. They're defending themselves, there's no threat in that. If they were making their own nukes,
I would take that as a threat.

Also, saying it is to protect against North Korea and Iran (as previous administration claimed) is a load of scloblok.

Perhaps it is, but what's not scloblok (is that Norwegian?) is protecting one's allies in a deal that benefits only your rivals,
and enrages your allies. Truly, the Poles and Czechs are not happy about this.

Good riddance to a very bad idea.

So you would rather have your allies be nuked than not. You just told me a lot about yourself.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not sure what you're talking about

Exactly. You fail to grasp the arguments.

1. You're talking about missile defense. First of all, I'm pretty sure they already have that.

I thought we were talking about missile defence, and no, they don't have it. THAT'S THE POINT!

That could also be a problem today, since Barak Obame scrapped our missile protection deal with Poland and Czech Republic. Now neither country is safe, but the Russians are happy about it, which apparently satisfies Mr. Obame more.

Yup, that'll be missile defence we're talking about.

Second of all, even if they didn't, your argument appears to be that they would build one. Way to go, Sherlock Holmes!
Besides we don't to nuke them anyway, do we?

You're going to have to make your point again I'm afraid as I genuinely don't understand these sentences.

2. You're talking about nukes. The Russians have a lot of nukes as is. I mean, a lot of nukes.
I really don't see how you can make an argument out of that.

Have you been drinking? Do you seriously think that I believe Russia will be developing nukes?

That wasn't really an option before the deal was terminated. Now that it is, anything launched at Czech Republic or Poland will have little chance of being intercepted.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't demonstrably work, you argue that the Russians wouldn't launch before the shield was devised. So tell me what is the need for it?

Not really. I'm getting tired of explaining how missile defense works, so I'll let Wikipedia take over.

Try taking some ginseng for your tiredness. I know exactly what I am talking about. I know what offence and defence are and I understand how circumventing MAD with the Russians is even more dangerous than MAD itself.

Not in the slightest. They're defending themselves, there's no threat in that. If they were making their own nukes,
I would take that as a threat.

Sorry, you've lost me again here. We're talking about Russia, the largest global nuclear power.

Perhaps it is, but what's not scloblok (is that Norwegian? - anagram) is protecting one's allies in a deal that benefits only your rivals,
and enrages your allies. Truly, the Poles and Czechs are not happy about this.......So you would rather have your allies be nuked than not. You just told me a lot about yourself.

Firstly, I'm more likely to be nuked than you as I am a European.
Secondly, the nuclear threat is more likely to be terrorist-based rather than from an ICBM.
Thirdly, the only argument (and the one being made by the US) is to the threat from Iran and North Korea. However, the missile threat of Iran is to Israel and from North Korea it is to South Korea and Japan. The first is more worrying than the second because the Koreans use Nukes to gain concessions whereas the Middle East has the religious element.
Even if it did work (a big if), it is threatening the largest nuclear power. I'm sorry that you can't see that. Maybe if the US agreed to share it with the Russians against these "rogue states", how would that do?

Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6720153.stm
and this as to popularity in Czech republic and Russian reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense

 

[DeletedUser]

Wait- the US and Russia are no longer at odds with each other, so why are we still talking about this foolish arms race? It's plain and simple: now that we have the chance we're trying to abolish this danger we've created for ourselves. Sure there's a bit of mistrust, but it's nowhere near cold war levels. As Bendos said, the only real threats are to Israel, SK, and Japan, so we have pretty much nothing to worry about.

 

[DeletedUser]

and now Ukraine doesn't want any nukes or high-grade uranium. It just keeps getting better.

 

[DeletedUser]

I thought we were talking about missile defence, and no, they don't have it. THAT'S THE POINT!

*Faceplant* Did you not read my Wikipedia article? Or do any research at all?
Russia not only has missile defenses, but has ever since the days of the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, if you read the article, you would know that the Soviets
demonstrated a successful anti-ICBM system in 1961. That's 49 years ago,
since I doubt you can be bothered to do math. Surely, anti-missile technology has only improved since then.

You're going to have to make your point again I'm afraid as I genuinely don't understand these sentences.

OK, let's try this: If you were the president of Russia, would you build
missile defense systems if you had none? Any sane ruler would.
And you don't understand that we don't want to nuke Russia? Go back to kindergarten.

Have you been drinking? Do you seriously think that I believe Russia will be developing nukes?

Whether or not they are developing nukes is irrelevant. The question is
whether they already have nukes.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't demonstrably work, you argue that the Russians wouldn't launch before the shield was devised. So tell me what is the need for it?

Clearly, you have zero understanding of the topic. First off, there is no
literal shield. I thought you read my wikipedia article. Evidently I was
wrong. Second of all, if the Russians don't attack before the system is
online, then they're thwarted.

Try taking some ginseng for your tiredness. I know exactly what I am talking about. I know what offence and defence are and I understand how circumventing MAD with the Russians is even more dangerous than MAD itself.

Ginseng? That's the first good idea you've had this entire discussion. You
clearly need to have it explained many more times. At any rate, you certainly haven't demonstrated your knowledge, if you have any.

Sorry, you've lost me again here. We're talking about Russia, the largest global nuclear power.

I was answering your question, from the perspective you told me to take.
Besides, didn't you claim that the Russians had no nuclear program a
little while back?

Firstly, I'm more likely to be nuked than you as I am a European.

Yeah, I kind of figured you were Russian.

Secondly, the nuclear threat is more likely to be terrorist-based rather than from an ICBM.

Perhaps it is, but that is not remotely the point of this discussion. The
purpose of the missile defense system was to protect against the threat
from Russia, which is far more likely to use ICBMs.

Thirdly, the only argument (and the one being made by the US) is to the threat from Iran and North Korea.

Not exactly. Let me try to explain in a way you might understand:
Russia have nuke. If Russia use nuke, Poland and Czech Republic screwed.

Even if it did work (a big if), it is threatening the largest nuclear power. I'm sorry that you can't see that. Maybe if the US agreed to share it with the Russians against these "rogue states", how would that do?

Another bright, shining example of your failure to comprehend the difference
between offense and defense. Missile defense systems don't launch ICBMs,
rather, they defend against ICBMs. Perhaps it would help if the US and
Russia pooled their efforts, but there's one tiny little problem with that:
they won't do it.

 

[DeletedUser]

*Faceplant* Did you not read my Wikipedia article? Or do any research at all? Russia not only has missile defenses, but has ever since the days of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, if you read the article, you would know that the Soviets
demonstrated a successful anti-ICBM system in 1961. That's 49 years ago,
since I doubt you can be bothered to do math. Surely, anti-missile technology has only improved since then.

YOUR wikipedia article. Oh that explains it. Yes I read the article and after the first couple of paragraphs it becomes clear even to a ******ed monkey that no one has an effective anti-missile shield. But then this is wikipedia so who knows right? And yes, anti-missile technology has improved. They can miss multiple launches of nuclear-payloaded cruise missiles by a hair's whisker, say about 200 miles.

OK, let's try this: If you were the president of Russia, would you build missile defense systems if you had none? Any sane ruler would.

Actually, NO SANE COUNTRY would unless a rival decided to obsolete that country's defence (i.e. via Mutually assured destruction).

And you don't understand that we don't want to nuke Russia? Go back to kindergarten.

Actually I understand completely how the US doesn't want to nuke Russia, I'm just not sure you don't want to......

Whether or not they are developing nukes is irrelevant. The question is whether they already have nukes.

You seemed to imply that I believed Russia to be developing nuclear weapons because I thought they didn't have them. Please don't insult my intelligence again.

Clearly, you have zero understanding of the topic.

Clearly, and I must bow to your extensive knowledge of 1 wikipedia article that you have mis-interpreted.:laugh:

First off, there is no
literal shield. I thought you read my wikipedia article. Evidently I was
wrong. Second of all, if the Russians don't attack before the system is
online, then they're thwarted.

Another fantastic sentence that your English teacher is so proud of. I really don't understand what you are saying.

I was answering your question, from the perspective you told me to take.
Besides, didn't you claim that the Russians had no nuclear program a
little while back?

No, I said that Russia was not developing nukes. You know, like they already have them. As for their STAR WARS programme, I'm sure they are racing to get that one sorted.

Yeah, I kind of figured you were Russian.

The closest I've gotten to being Russian is drinking Smirnoff.

Perhaps it is, but that is not remotely the point of this discussion. The purpose of the missile defense system was to protect against the threat from Russia, which is far more likely to use ICBMs.

What happened to N Korea and Iran? :laugh:

Not exactly. Let me try to explain in a way you might understand:
Russia have nuke. If Russia use nuke, Poland and Czech Republic screwed.

Let me try to explain in a way a monkey might understand. Russia have nuke. If Russia use nuke WE ALL SCREWED.

Another bright, shining example of your failure to comprehend the difference
between offense and defense. Missile defense systems don't launch ICBMs,
rather, they defend against ICBMs.

Yes of course, I totally failed to see that a missile defence system was not aimed at bringing down ICBMs launched offensively at a country/countries. Yeah I totally don't get it. It's like whatever man. I mean I'm totally bogus dude. I'm such a total moron.

I'll try one last time. Sir Bendos and Sir Monkey are enemies. Both have a sword and know that if 1 attacks, then the other will swing their sword at the same time and also kill the other. Thus both die. However, Sir Monkey picks up a shield and now says to Sir Bendos, I have a shield. that means I can swing my sword and kill you and at the same time survive your sword blow with my shield. i.e. Sir Bendos, I own you dude. I am totally top monkey.
Sir Bendos thinks, I seriously need one of those shields dude.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, NO SANE COUNTRY would unless a rival decided to obsolete that country's defence (i.e. via Mutually assured destruction).

So now it's insane to defend one's own country before it's too late? My, how
things have changed in the past 10 minutes.

You seemed to imply that I believed Russia to be developing nuclear weapons because I thought they didn't have them.

That's sure what it sounded like. You seemed to be arguing that their
development of nukes was a major factor.

Clearly, and I must bow to your extensive knowledge of 1 wikipedia article that you have mis-interpreted.:laugh:

Clearly, and I must bow to your extensive knowledge of absolutely nothing. :laugh:

Another fantastic sentence that your English teacher is so proud of. I really don't understand what you are saying.

Here we go again :dry::
Missile launched. Missile detected. Missile eliminated.

As for their STAR WARS programme, I'm sure they are racing to get that one sorted.

Like they did back in the 60's?

What happened to N Korea and Iran? :laugh:

They were never part of the discussion to begin with. :laugh:
Since when is this USA & Russias & Irans & North Koreas Nuclear Disposal?

Let me try to explain in a way a monkey might understand. Russia have nuke. If Russia use nuke WE ALL SCREWED.

That's why we have missile defense.

I'll try one last time. Sir Bendos and Sir Monkey are enemies. Both have a sword and know that if 1 attacks, then the other will swing their sword at the same time and also kill the other. Thus both die. However, Sir Monkey picks up a shield and now says to Sir Bendos, I have a shield. that means I can swing my sword and kill you and at the same time survive your sword blow with my shield. i.e. Sir Bendos, I own you dude. I am totally top monkey.
Sir Bendos thinks, I seriously need one of those shields dude.

Once again, you're not only forgetting the elephant in the room, but the one
who has spray painted himself orange with lavender spots and is doing the
Napolean Dynamite dance. Sir Monkey (Czech Republic and Poland) doesn't
have a sword (nukes), so he can only defend himself against Sir Bendos
(Russia). When you take away Sir Monkey's shield, Sir Bendos is free to
turn him into corned beef hash. Even if Sir Monkey could get a sword, it
would still be a butter knife compared to Sir Bendos' claymore.