Thread: The New Age

What if lets suppose a pressumption....that world war 2 was not a yester year war as it seems to be, many countries germany, russia etc had at that time already built specialized weapons and even used it successfully. T-72, aks, sukhois, submarines, missiles etc. So there is nothing new as we see in modern day versions they are one and the same thing only improvised. So as we know in those days germany, england, russia and japan were dictating terms in who should be ruling and winning the world war with subordinates america, china etc. What is the modern day stage set as the world war 3 was prevented in 1980s so it gave opportunities for much improvisation for even the weaker countries in this global world!!!
Like i just had a dream in which i am travelling in a train and i reach an undisclosed location in middle india. There is no railway station only a village but behind the village there is a backdrop futurama city of modern india which could be only possible in imaginations like as freddie mercury song video radio gaga city. So in that city there are vast number of missiles vents underneath the ground. These are intercontinental ballistic missiles kept as secret program run by russian india scientists. Their trail is seen separated as four in the sky flying at eye blink speed. These missiles have no nuclear warhead, only the range is very far reaching many countries and destructibility is too much. Could tild in minutes the outcome of the battle. So india neither has a powerful renowned army, scrap metal armaments, tanks, aircrafts, submarines, ships below par. And latest being experimental jets and small arms. But that doesn't count india being a superpower in modern age and neither a nuclear missile. But if my dream is true then in modern day world war, the outcome of the battle would be by intimidation, domineering by intercontinental missile system. So there would be need for testing valour of army, nor tanks nor at sea. So there is a change in history if i am correct, india though still in poverty but due to high monetary and technology would now be counted with the likes of germany and japan in future years. These are hidden accomplishments which

....which remain unnoticed and we see in tv newspapers from 1990s the same things that concerns about WMDs in gulf and korean countries. So the curator of indian intercontinental ballistic missile is not apj kalam. And india neither has any interests in space technology. But the curator is a russian scientist who lives in that undislosed location building missiles for india to intimidate the world in world war 3. The outcome of these war if they occur i think would be no one.

Originally Posted by pringle

What if lets suppose a pressumption....that world war 2 was not a yester year war as it seems to be, many countries germany, russia etc had at that time already built specialized weapons and even used it successfully. T-72, aks, sukhois, submarines, missiles etc. So there is nothing new as we see in modern day versions they are one and the same thing only improvised. So as we know in those days germany, england, russia and japan were dictating terms in who should be ruling and winning the world war with subordinates america, china etc. What is the modern day stage set as the world war 3 was prevented in 1980s so it gave opportunities for much improvisation for even the weaker countries in this global world!!!
Like i just had a dream in which i am travelling in a train and i reach an undisclosed location in middle india. There is no railway station only a village but behind the village there is a backdrop futurama city of modern india which could be only possible in imaginations like as freddie mercury song video radio gaga city. So in that city there are vast number of missiles vents underneath the ground. These are intercontinental ballistic missiles kept as secret program run by russian india scientists. Their trail is seen separated as four in the sky flying at eye blink speed. These missiles have no nuclear warhead, only the range is very far reaching many countries and destructibility is too much. Could tild in minutes the outcome of the battle. So india neither has a powerful renowned army, scrap metal armaments, tanks, aircrafts, submarines, ships below par. And latest being experimental jets and small arms. But that doesn't count india being a superpower in modern age and neither a nuclear missile. But if my dream is true then in modern day world war, the outcome of the battle would be by intimidation, domineering by intercontinental missile system. So there would be need for testing valour of army, nor tanks nor at sea. So there is a change in history if i am correct, india though still in poverty but due to high monetary and technology would now be counted with the likes of germany and japan in future years. These are hidden accomplishments which

I think the outcome of a modern day world war battle, would all depend on who is scared enough to comply.

Modern world war... First off we would see limited nuclear engagements. I say limited because a few insane countries may launch and then be retaliated against but every country in the world will not bring the full might of their nuclear weapons to bare. This will be followed by major tank and air engagements while navies battle it out in the oceans. If it continues for more than 2 or 3 years will we begin to see static zones of conflict similar to wait has been happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Insurgents" will carry on guerrilla operations against whatever invading force is occupying their country.

we begin to see static zones of conflict similar to wait has been happening in Iraq and Afghanistan

Not really sure what you mean--the situation was darn hard to deal with specifically because it wasn't static. What made them look "static" from the outside is they were low to medium level civil wars with no fronts, no rear area, and a tapestry of continuiously shifting alliances, support and combined. --a situation which probably won't happen when two nations duke it out.

I'm surprised we've avoided a nuke toss for this long.

By "Static zones" I mean that the combat is not ranging all across the countryside but seems to be confined to population centers as the the main military forces have been quashed. This leads to mainly urban combat environs. While Urban combat is very fluid with ever changing front lines it is still urban in location.

By "Static zones" I mean that the combat is not ranging all across the countryside but seems to be confined to population centers as the the main military forces have been quashed.

That wouldn't apply to Afghan, there aren't hardly any urban areas in that country. It is as much rural and village fighting as the half a dozen "cities." Iraq's battles were largely urban because the US and UK forces were to a large degree, bystanders as a civil war between tribes&neighborhoods took place around us. Millions of people moved to seek better security for their families and tribe. My biggest objection is conflating the insurgent civil war battles we see in Iraq and Afghan with the types of nation on nation fights--they have very different completion, one the US military had the relearn the hard way after the second invasion of Iraq. (I say relearn because we've got lots of historical experience that we weren't teaching).

These are things I was unaware of. My service was post Desert Storm and pre 9-11. I was in on the croatian front for a bit and spent time in south america doing drug task force training. Pent most of my time in Kosovo crawling around with my blade poking for mines

If a nuclear exchange happens
does the emp from the first bomb to go off destroy the guidance systems of all the other airborn nukes?

creating chaos from order?

Originally Posted by sculptor

If a nuclear exchange happens
does the emp from the first bomb to go off destroy the guidance systems of all the other airborn nukes?

creating chaos from order?

Probably not. EMP is pretty easy to protect from if you design it with a mind to...and that includes most military rated equipment.

Dear Lynx Fox. My soldiering did not require me to be in a combat area. Maybe a few Knockdown bucket of cold water differences of opinions were experienced without too much damage being done. But I know Defence Department Responsibilities. Based on...? The ever changing balance of wealth opportunity and power... and personalities. And History in regards the unpredictability of Future Conflicts and likely Outcomes. The best strategy(sic) the likely reasons for future conflicts probably centre around the control of natural wanted and needed resources for a Nations Survival, or at least to maintain Status Quo. One World. One Power. One Government. It depends what kind of a new world order would keep most of us constrained and non-violent in our daily attitudes. I suspect lots of Olympic Games and World Series Football and Netball Competitions etc etc Roman Collicioums(sic) throwing the law breakers to the lions kind of thing would have to be implemented.

So we find ourselves back at square one. Please God come back from Universe 49 on the outer reaches of the Fridged Zone and help us sought this troubled Planet in it's Hour of Need. This is a form of giving up. Too hard basket. Are we going to get it right before we lose our opportunity to do so? What time frame are we looking at here? Another 45 years before the so--called Third World Nations and people come up to speed? Still in our National Homelands? And then? Is this when we are all going to go into the melting pot? The New World Order? westwind.

Some people seem to talk about war and nukes as if it's a game... very disturbing mentality.

Better to deal with it as a game than as a reality.

Will you not offer some justification or explaination for that comment john?

Lets just hope it is a fantasy of some and never becomes a reality (again)

Animals acquire understanding an experience through play. This is well established. By playing at the concepts of nuclear war we become aware of its consequences and thus less likely to engage in it.

interesting theory.

There was a kid in my class who was literally obsessed with toy soldiers etc... he went on to serve in iraq as a soldier.

He did have learning difficulties so maybe that is why he didn't conform to the concept you presented...

And since he didn't set off any nuclear weapons while he was there my hypothesis is validated.

No, you missed the point.

He didn't play with nuclear bombs, he played with toy soldiers.

Since he became a real soldier in spite of his play acting... you theory in this instance is proved invalid.

But I'm not suggesting there is no truth in your theory.

Actually John theory holds water. By understanding the horrors that a nuclear engagement would create society becomes less likely to engage in said conflict. The counter argument of playing with toy soldiers and then becoming a soldier is not valid. Playing with toy soldiers does not grant a visceral understanding to the children of the horrors of combat. Quite the opposite. Most children's toys and shows that deal with soldiers ie. GI Joe and the like, glorify soldiers and combat. If you ever watch a GI Joe cartoon nobody ever gets killed. The vehicles explode pretilly and everyone jumps to safety. The shots that everyone fires seem to miss and everyone has unlimited ammunition. Even many current video games that are supposed to show modern warfare fail to factor in the abruptness of the man next to you suddenly having his head explode like a melon from a snipers bullet. Or seeing the aftermath of a landmine detonating under a child's foot.

By understanding the horrors that a nuclear engagement would create society becomes less likely to engage in said conflict.

I think that bares out even with the simple effect of TV on American thinking. We went from glamorizing war to being much more conservative about engaging in war just due to the increased coverage. And TV is nothing compared to the sound and smells of the battlefield.

Originally Posted by dmwyant

Actually John theory holds water. By understanding the horrors that a nuclear engagement would create society becomes less likely to engage in said conflict. The counter argument of playing with toy soldiers and then becoming a soldier is not valid. Playing with toy soldiers does not grant a visceral understanding to the children of the horrors of combat. Quite the opposite. Most children's toys and shows that deal with soldiers ie. GI Joe and the like, glorify soldiers and combat. If you ever watch a GI Joe cartoon nobody ever gets killed. The vehicles explode pretilly and everyone jumps to safety. The shots that everyone fires seem to miss and everyone has unlimited ammunition. Even many current video games that are supposed to show modern warfare fail to factor in the abruptness of the man next to you suddenly having his head explode like a melon from a snipers bullet. Or seeing the aftermath of a landmine detonating under a child's foot.

John's theory might well hold water, im not adverse to it at all... if you re read the short comments after johns comment then you will see, i did not disagree with the idea at all.

The old saying
"war is hell"
it seems that those who have seen combat up front and personal are least likely to want to see it again.

How many wars did the US have for the 3 generations following the "civil" war? (aside from the "indian wars")
Once you've experienced it. it looses it's appeal/

games are games, no-one usually gets hurt or dies screaming, moaning, pleading and whimpering in agony.
so, in a game, war begins to seem like something fun and something that can be won without pain and suffering.

If our "leaders" led in battle with their bodies on the line instead of leading with their mouths, or ball point pens, I suspect that we would "send in the troops" far less often.
Remember last year when the media made a big deal of a soldier killing a puppy?
Killing a puppy is repugnant while killing your fellow human being is what was wanted?
Is the whole damned world insane?

If we ever have another global conflict where the big and powerful countries gear up to fight each other instead of taking on 3rd rate armies from smaller countries, and we go nuclear, the nuclear part of it may just turn out to be the least heinous and painful part of it.

(but then again, I am biased on this subject)

As far as i know use of nuclear weapons is banned in modern world. In 1991 when CCCP had collapsed and many of its nations were in turmoil due to declining economy, the russians had signed a historic modern world 'peace treaty'. They had a total of perhaps nuclear warheads inter ballistic missiles of 100 to 180 in number. Out of which they had disbanded/disarmed 30 to 40 nuclear weapons. Now in modern day, america has 200 nuclear weapons but haven't used any still. And some european and asian nations only have ten each like france, china. And some say some developing nations harness the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? and have only tested the nuclear warhead, but haven't or will not use a missile to carry it???!!!
So the countries who don't have nuclear weapons do they really get intimidated by usa stats or its just on papers?

Or do the countries which possess nuclear weapons whether legally or illegally do they sign an agreement with United nations that these nuclear weapons will be used in exchange of fire only against military units/installations and will not be used against civilians?

As far as i know use of nuclear weapons is banned in modern world

Not true....and by whom?

The US for example, has always asserted the right to not only use nuke weapons but for first strike.

Originally Posted by pringle

As far as i know use of nuclear weapons is banned in modern world.

I think you mean the global testing ban.

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ain't evolution grand
wave rock
shake spear
rattle sabre
threaten first strike
...........
whither hence?

Originally Posted by pringle

They had a total of perhaps nuclear warheads inter ballistic missiles of 100 to 180 in number. Out of which they had disbanded/disarmed 30 to 40 nuclear weapons. Now in modern day, america has 200 nuclear weapons but haven't used any still.

Pringle, as was the case with pollution in Seattle, your grasp of facts is weak. Your statements here are totally wrong.

This wikipedia extract from here clarifies the issue:
During the Cold War the United States produced over 70,000 nuclear weapons. By its end the U.S. stockpile was about 23,000 weapons of 26 different types. The production of nuclear weapons ended in 1989, and since then existing weapons have been retired, dismantled, or mothballed. As of 2001 the Enduring Stockpile consisted of about 9,600 weapons of 10 types. As of 2004 about 3,000 of those weapons had been moved to the lowest readiness level, in which they are not dismantled, but no longer in active service.
Your numbers for the other nations are similarily faulty. Do you just make this stuff up?

What you mentioned about the massive number of various types of nukes might be exponential buster weapons, like small nukes attached on Amram a2a weapons or perhaps dropped with a paveway or perhaps attached warhead with a SAM or artillery, or maybe even to a javelian. But in 1992 i had twice or maybe thrice heard correctly in the english news that there once were built superweapons by USSR soviet which they under some political pressure had dismantled/destroyed some of them. USA was very much afraid of USSR super nukes capability, so they too devised super nuclear weapons on moderate scale. USA perhaps has no nukes, they devise something like elements disintegration nukes. Whereas soviet developed uranium enrichment programs, they devised atomic isotope nuclear weapons. You might had seen the soviet testing on towns where there was a quake shudder and huge reaction.
USA i don't think has any nuclear first use policy, they have bogus interests in world peace. So in the year 2035, would the history books read as USA overthrew iraq and captured afghanistan? No. It would perhaps say that USA had a peaceful march into gulf!
As the world is declining into its so called world peace, perhaps there won't be usage of nuclear weapons. So as i had said earlier that super ballistic missile systems will be considered much decisive weapons of mass destruction and table turners, than fighting head to head. Like for eg. the scud missiles system that were used. Even china worlds most peaceful country has no nuclear weapons. While india has something called a crude atomic bomb only one.

But world war 3 is really scary as the aftermath is really distorting. World shallow interests would take its toll. Perhaps nuclear weapons are devised for disrupting things with electrostatic energy. Many countries might have even devised many ways to survive in a nuclear aftermath. When a nuclear weapon disintegrates it generates much heat in the beginning. So the people affected never go berserk and stay keep in their fourth dimension for a while till the temperature comes to normal. But the nuclear combination perhaps affects the skin membrane of humans and emits gamma rays which causes radiation zones. But some humans could survive even that stage, till the rays alter the genome aswell. What if stories of hiroshima and nagasaki are fake written, only some people were affected and died. The only affect was like electrodes charging in a medium.

Imagine some small countries got hold of a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead in the future. The outcome would then be the major super powers saying why the damn nuke is not fired yet? And the small country leader would blush on tv, saying why what for we came in access with this so called nuclear, we are a peacefull country!!!

South Africa had nuclear weapons and were the first to voluntarily dismantle them.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

South Africa had nuclear weapons and were the first to voluntarily dismantle them.

That's interesting Kal, I didn't know South Africa had nuclear weapons. Did they design their own or did they aquire them from another country?

Originally Posted by pringle

What you mentioned about the massive number of various types of nukes might be exponential buster weapons, like small nukes attached on Amram a2a weapons or perhaps dropped with a paveway or perhaps attached warhead with a SAM or artillery, or maybe even to a javelian. But in 1992 i had twice or maybe thrice heard correctly in the english news that there once were built superweapons by USSR soviet which they under some political pressure had dismantled/destroyed some of them.

Pringle, are you simply incapable of saying : "I was mistaken."

The hiroshima nagasaki nucleas explosion was perhaps a small atomic bomb of fission reaction. The towns of hiroshima nagasaki were small towns of smaller dimensions and the atomic bomb dropped exploded at some height above the ground. This created a chain reaction in the atmoshpere uranium fission generating heat and a mushroom was seen in the sky which was infact very small but spread at a wide circumference. This atomic reaction reacts with the inert gases present in the higher regions of atmosphere and generates electric energy thereby electromagnetic impulses. The hiroshima nagasaki happened at daytime and lasted for an hour. Then when the cameramen journo who surveiled after didn't see any shudder nor gush of wind in the vicinity. The real nuclear explosion also produces reddening of the sky by making it dark, the reacted components of inert gases making a darkened sky above. But hiroshima nagasaki nuclear has no such resultant footage. People who were running scary villagers were burn by the heat in the surroundings and the gamma radiation has caused x-ray shadows on the walls of their houses. Only some concrete wooden houses at the centre of explosion was destroyed. While the hiroshima nagasaki flora fauna was still intact the next day. So the chemical nature of the atomic bomb was perhaps that protons were generated at high rate, and it combined reacted with the elements with which it came in contact. The radiation the only thing which changed the genome of the biodiversity. So the hiroshima nagasaki is little bit exhagerated on paper.
Have you seen the movie 'the three kings' in it every description seems as if of modern day nuclear threat. The underground bunkers, gas masks and suits. So might be that people in some war affected countries already made survivals. Like vietnam, afghanistan, iraq had already seen small nukes used against them which disintegrated. But weren't in the news and it never made a mushroom in the skies. These might be the small exponential buster weapons.
While the real nuclear which makes a huge impact was showcased in discovery channel of russian origin. The experimental town is shuddered and a huge nuclear explosion light emitted is seen nearby creating a mushroom. The atmosphere darkens and huge gush of winds start to flow. The atmosphere becomes reddened and inert gases makes unbreathable. Many trees plants gets burnout not by the heat but perhaps by the chemical reactions the protons creating the chain reaction in the elements. And there is wreakage in the concrete buildings too. The resultant after a month is barren lands with barren trees plants, charged ionic water sources. And perhaps even patches at many places where there is accumulation of inert gases and charged particles force fields. Many countries have failed to survive it like in my visions some european countries, asian regions and monk countries were seen affected. The nuclear explosion perhaps creates a 'time warp'. Like many families of a specific genome who died in hiroshima nagasaki were infact vapourized in a 'time warp'. So their peculiar genetics were unfound in other japanese communties for some time lets say two hundred centuries years. Then after two hundred centuries without any parental ancestorial linkages genome, the people progeny again resurfaced with perfect biological characteristics dna of their ancestors.
Some races believe in this 'time warp theory' and try to organize their community lineage heirarchy structure. They then make a social group and vanish in the time warp. Then after centuries they again resurface on earth as if had come from a time portal with no genetic combination trace of their parentage or their ealier races.
Time warp is also observed in short term basis. Like some communities try achieving the time warp for their mutual gains or social or political objectives. Like say for example the time being constant in year 1999, many news happenings were there. Then through time warp the communities again try to rearrange the same happenings without having knowledge of its earlier occurance. Time warp is also observed when the communities of the world try to move forth from one time zone to the next zone time lapse with nature adjusting itself if the present time makes them feel hindrances to their prima existence.
What do you say?

What do you say?

If you can't post something intelligible, without a half dozen half baked ideas such a time warping, than please don't post at all. Or at least keep the crazy shit in the right subforums--scifi, new hypothesis, pseudoscience or trashcan.

Thank You.

pringle
That may not be the craziest thing I read all week, but it sure comes close.

unless, of course you have experience of this time warp, then that's a whole different paradigm.
..............
time warps?!----and I thought that life for merlin musta been confusing
....................
Sumerian anunnaki?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by KALSTER

South Africa had nuclear weapons and were the first to voluntarily dismantle them.

That's interesting Kal, I didn't know South Africa had nuclear weapons. Did they design their own or did they aquire them from another country?

They developed them with help from Israel, apparently. South Africa and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by pringle

The hiroshima nagasaki nucleas < snip >to their prima existence.
What do you say?

Bollocks.

Have you seen the famous sci-fi movie 'total recall' in which there is actor played by arnie, who goes for a space visit to mars to find out if his alter life whose glimpses he saw in a simulator were infact existed or not. In the movie theme there is a mention that mars habitat is a tunneling space station which was built by unknown aliens or maybe humans before them which had a processor installation of Oxygen creating which is a wonder. Other than the pressure difference where the eyeballs veins pop out, the scenario is very much similar to a nuclear explosion aftermath. The sky reddening, color changing of atmosphere(our human eyes infact have color blindness discoloration defect), gush of winds, inert gaseous affects, heat and radiation mutation.
So then is the atmosphere on various planets of our solar system is infact similar, earth, moon, mars, venus...ect. Temperature being different. But nuclear explosion on earth can be compared as a opening to the space atmosphere like life on mars. So it might be that radioactive gamma has somewhat lesser effect on the biodiversity perhaps the inert gases of the exterior of earths' atmosphere reacts when it reaches the earth's surface, thereby disrupting flora fauna. So humans can easily survive on mars and other planets as well?
What is then the content of the layers of earths' atmosphere which sustains life on earth? Is it oxygen, hydrogen alone or what if the layer itself is called the 'ozone'? Why is it lunar missions in space orbit one never sees rays of the sun nor sun?

Where on earth do you get your information???

Pringle....when you get back please use less word salad we're short of dressing.

Originally Posted by dmwyant

Where on earth do you get your information???

Earth?
maybe
maybe not

If we're going to talk of nukes, then why not throw in biological weapons too? As I understand, most engineered diseases have built in time limits so after they're done killing the local population they don't keep migrating around and kill the ones who sent them too.

If it's a plant disease, you could kill off local resistance pretty fast by depriving the resistance of all useful sources of food. Ordinary citizens would willingly come to the camps you set up to sequester them, just to keep their children from starving. Then what is the resistance going to do? Who are they going to defend? Shall they attack the camps?

The only problem with that is that diseases mutate rapidly...

I don't think world war 3 would have to do with a country. I think it would have to do with an individual society that wants pure power over the world. Question: What do you know about the Tera Hertz band?

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

Question: What do you know about the Tera Hertz band?

Their first album was pretty good, but after that they went downhill and their live performances were always sub-standard.

If the next world war happens then it would be world war 4, as world war 2 was itself world war 3.
The agents, biological weapons, nuclear ...etc were already tested in 1940s and the outcome is still the same if it even happens at present!
World war 1 might had been in 1885s?

Originally Posted by pringle

If the next world war happens then it would be world war 4, as world war 2 was itself world war 3.
The agents, biological weapons, nuclear ...etc were already tested in 1940s and the outcome is still the same if it even happens at present!
World war 1 might had been in 1885s?

Huh?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

we begin to see static zones of conflict similar to wait has been happening in Iraq and Afghanistan

Not really sure what you mean--the situation was darn hard to deal with specifically because it wasn't static. What made them look "static" from the outside is they were low to medium level civil wars with no fronts, no rear area, and a tapestry of continuiously shifting alliances, support and combined. --a situation which probably won't happen when two nations duke it out.

I'm surprised we've avoided a nuke toss for this long.

Its most likely that nukes are a thing of the past and that is the reason why nukes would be second on anyone's list if they were planning an attack. The thing nowadays is more into using radio waves to hurt people and cyber technology (Robots, unmanned aircraft drones, internet hacking, etc.). This is the future.

What you mean is the movie 'terminator'???
But its just a human minds fictional creation or a hypothetical explanation of things that such technology can be put under constructional use?
Radio waves propogation for perhaps missile navigation, robots intelligence, internet hacking etc are not on a higher perfection scale only dimunitive. The end resultant if such a constructed war is created then would be worst aluminium cyborgs, internet hacking, bad unmanned aircrafts....etc. So would then humans fallback to conventional warrior vs warrior fighting again?

Originally Posted by pringle

What you mean is the movie 'terminator'???
But its just a human minds fictional creation or a hypothetical explanation of things that such technology can be put under constructional use?
Radio waves propogation for perhaps missile navigation, robots intelligence, internet hacking etc are not on a higher perfection scale only dimunitive. The end resultant if such a constructed war is created then would be worst aluminium cyborgs, internet hacking, bad unmanned aircrafts....etc. So would then humans fallback to conventional warrior vs warrior fighting again?

well technically yes i do think if there were to be WW3 then harmful radio waves, Robots, internet hacking, unmanned aircraft drones, etc.. would be the weapons of choice since these weapons bring no harm to the person in control. I understand Nukes don't bring harm to the person in control too but like i said, nukes are a thing of the past. If we continued to use the same weapon till now then we should not have guns we should only have fists otherwise my point is true and correct in that people look for newer things for warfare since they are curious for them.

Then i should consider the most bluff news came in 1993, the usa 'star wars' program and hydrogen bomb program in asia the most lethal. The star wars program was started in 1985 when there was threat of nuclear invasion of cold war CCCP soviets. The soviet intercontinental missiles had a trajectary path through space and then towards american cities. So america had developed a satellite covering the space flight of soviet missile system. When it came towards its range, the usa satellite used to mark it with laser and fire a small deterrent towards the soviet missile warhead so as to disable it. The usa also had more plans to laid deterrent missile system bigger patriot missiles by transporting through rail routes. But there was no news after 1993?
And usa had supplied some asian country with most hazardous hydrogen missile system. This were the most latest developments in military world. But might over exhagerrated fake news!

The thing nowadays is more into using radio waves to hurt people and cyber technology (Robots, unmanned aircraft drones, internet hacking, etc.).

Those things are just starting to be be implemented by the US and for the most part, completely unavailable to just about every other nation with nuclear capability. One thing I learned plenty about, is low-tech warfare is quite effective when you don't have the high tech stuff.

We are a long long ways from being rid of a major nuke war threat.

We should remember von Clausewitz's assertion that "war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means". What the nuclear 'threat' did was to encourage the most powerful nations to stick with diplomacy for as long as possible.

Originally Posted by pringle

Then i should consider the most bluff news came in 1993, the usa 'star wars' program and hydrogen bomb program in asia the most lethal. The star wars program was started in 1985 when there was threat of nuclear invasion of cold war CCCP soviets. The soviet intercontinental missiles had a trajectary path through space and then towards american cities. So america had developed a satellite covering the space flight of soviet missile system. When it came towards its range, the usa satellite used to mark it with laser and fire a small deterrent towards the soviet missile warhead so as to disable it. The usa also had more plans to laid deterrent missile system bigger patriot missiles by transporting through rail routes. But there was no news after 1993?
And usa had supplied some asian country with most hazardous hydrogen missile system. This were the most latest developments in military world. But might over exhagerrated fake news!

What i mean is people have brains. Why on earth would a person wipe out an area with a nuke and then leave it with radiation for? what is the point of that? You mean to tell me that people would just send nuclear warheads to each other just because they don't like one another? If that would happen then we'd all have to move to new places, all 7 billion of us or just the ones who survive. If i was equipped with one, then i'd save it for a rainy day probably when the sun turns into a black hole or something. Wouldn't you rather use robots to go in and annihilate the enemies and then take over their buildings? Who knows what future they might have after being taken over.

That is the reason why i say Nukes are a thing of the past, because people have brains and a common sense. Sending in unmanned drones / aircraft, Robots with A.I., internet hacking, harmful radio waves, etc.. are the way to go especially when you combine it with snipers, commandos and military vehicles and equipment (tanks, pivot guns, missiles, battleships, humvees,etc.). you'd win for sure

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

That is the reason why i say Nukes are a thing of the past, because people have brains and a common sense.

As this is a science forum I ask you if you have any evidence for that? There is certainly plenty of counter evidence: Syria; Islamic fundamentalism; Christian fundamentalism; tribal issues in Kenya, Somalia, Nigeria and the Congo; North Korea; Kentucky Fried chicken; the Palestinian issue; Global Warming deniers; etc.

Why on earth would a person wipe out an area with a nuke and then leave it with radiation for? what is the point of that?

Break will, destroy war making capability--not so different from the reasons for all types of warfare.

--
Not sure what your radiation comment is about. The area of nuclear bombs can be occupied in relative safety after a few weeks--though you might want to wait a few years before eating off a garden there.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Break will, destroy war making capability--not so different from the reasons for all types of warfare.

Yes

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why on earth would a person wipe out an area with a nuke and then leave it with radiation for? what is the point of that?

Break will, destroy war making capability--not so different from the reasons for all types of warfare.

--
Not sure what your radiation comment is about. The area of nuclear bombs can be occupied in relative safety after a few weeks--though you might want to wait a few years before eating off a garden there.

Ha, Radioactivity is harmful in continual exposure to a human, therefore the only way for people to live there is to probably wear something like bio-Chem suits throughout their stay. My evidence for this is the nuclear bombing on hiroshima during the WW2. They nuked that city and till this day it still has radioactivity. The government says its safe to go back to hiroshima, but in truth radiation is a dangerous element. They've already proven that it clings onto surfaces especially radioactive dust. So how does something which lasts for decades become safe in weeks? Even if you wore a bio chem suit they say that the radioactivity might still damage the fabric in some way (the material used in bio chem suits become weaker/degrades) if you don't wash it off. Question is even if you wash it off, does the radiation degrade whilst it is with water or does it remain as radioactive particles even after being in water? Because if radioactive particles still remain even after being washed off, then what the french did back then in the Pacific Ocean would still be active at the bottom of the ocean or still afloat somewhere in the pacific ocean.


Go to this link for further proof that continual exposure even after the nuke area has been declared 'safe' is still dangerous:

Radiation Exposure Examples

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

That is the reason why i say Nukes are a thing of the past, because people have brains and a common sense.

As this is a science forum I ask you if you have any evidence for that? There is certainly plenty of counter evidence: Syria; Islamic fundamentalism; Christian fundamentalism; tribal issues in Kenya, Somalia, Nigeria and the Congo; North Korea; Kentucky Fried chicken; the Palestinian issue; Global Warming deniers; etc.

Well in truth, some of these countries and extremist factions either do or don't have the money to build a nuke in the first place. But i ask you this, we live in the year 2012, pretty soon mankind itself would have brought out a new weapon of mass destruction due to the increasing technology we have. So if people had a choice like North Korea or Nigeria, why choose building an expensive nuke compared to building something else just as destructive like an army of cyborgs? I am pretty sure that even you would be conscious about the trends mankind has.

After all, when a country built the first nuke, another country followed suit and then another country followed after them and so on. So you tell me, do you still believe nukes are what these people seek or do you think they're after something more? Like i said, nukes are a thing of the past.

Originally Posted by Sci_Research

After all, when a country built the first nuke, another country followed suit and then another country followed after them and so on. So you tell me, do you still believe nukes are what these people seek or do you think they're after something more? Like i said, nukes are a thing of the past.

Weapons and the tactics and strategy with which those weapons are applied must take proper note of the circumstances. These circumstances extend well beyond the direct military aspects of any situation, to include political and social considerations. Japan suffered more materially from fire bombings by bombers engaged in conventional carpet bombing than from the two nuclear strikes. The success of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in ending the war lay in part in the novelty and ferocity of those attacks. They were appropriate for the circumstances.

The humble bayonet, in use for centuries, would - according to your theory - be a thing of the past. Bayonets were an essential part of the British commando assaults around Port Stanley during the Falklands conflict. In the same conflict a nuclear powered submarine sank a World War II vintage cruiser. Again, it is not a question of being outdated, but of appropriate capability for the job in hand.

Nuclear strike capability gives on the opportunity to threaten and to blackmail. An army of cyborgs? They are still some way of and demand a highly sophisticated and sustained infra-structure. that is likely more difficult to deliver than a couple of nuclear weapons.

My evidence for this is the nuclear bombing on hiroshima during the WW2.....

You evidence is poor, I fully encourage you to actually read the numerous reports from those two cities.

In summary, even those who were directly exposed to the initial radiation, but survived, lifespan was only reduced by 2 months to 2 years due mostly to increased Leukemia. While significant, they are relatively small compared to the typical ravages of war. Those, not exposed to the initial ionizing radiation (which was millions of times stronger than background) that came in to help weeks after the bomb (like an invading force might do) have radiation induced illness rates which are essentially no different than anyone else

They nuked that city and till this day it still has radioactivity.

As does your home, the milk you drink etc and just living in your beautiful part of N.C, which probably has a similar level of natural radiation as Hiroshima did a few months after the attacks.

63 years of radiation insights from Hiroshima and Nagasaki | SmartPlanet

We can only hope for 2 things:

1. Nuclear warheads to be neutralized mysteriously as they did during the Cold War

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...-the-world.jpg

2. Netanyahu gives up.

In yester years, countries used to fight against one another for show of power, capturing lands etc. Suppose the cold war and the gulf war are tactical improvisations in war! Small skirmish compared to world wars. In modern day on what basis would countries fight against one another? Even if they acquire nukes! The modern years find the countries seem disassembled armies and economic wars!

Originally Posted by pringle

In yester years, countries used to fight against one another for show of power, capturing lands etc. Suppose the cold war and the gulf war are tactical improvisations in war! Small skirmish compared to world wars. In modern day on what basis would countries fight against one another? Even if they acquire nukes! The modern years find the countries seem disassembled armies and economic wars!

The basis countries would fight each other for would be for resources. That's my guess anyway. I based my guess on the booming population in developed countries since many of them lack the resources to accomodate an ever increasing population. I mean right now they might say they have enough resources but you would have to count all the factors in such as future supplies, population increase expectancy over a 5 year period, housing costs, welfare payments, etc.. what happens when the demand exceeds the supply?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why on earth would a person wipe out an area with a nuke and then leave it with radiation for? what is the point of that?

Break will, destroy war making capability--not so different from the reasons for all types of warfare.

--
Not sure what your radiation comment is about. The area of nuclear bombs can be occupied in relative safety after a few weeks--though you might want to wait a few years before eating off a garden there.

If you poison the farm land, you've got a serious case of "Scorched Earth" there.

We take it for granted in the USA, but a lot of nations really can't spare that resource. So the threat if there's a nuclear war is that the victorious party won't get the most important kinds of resource for their trouble. Desire for resources is directly or indirectly the main motive for territorial conflict, so by removing the incentive we prevent the decision from ever being made.

Even worse, if someone is so greedy they decide to roll the dice that it won't go nuclear, and they lose that bet, not only will they fail to gain the other party's farm land, they'll lose what little farm land they started with. So it's not the kind of thing you want to try just to see if you can succeed.

If a super power country is in ruins in just six months of the starting of the world war 3, then whats the use calling it a super power nation? Is this the age of biased wars, with halle comets heavenly asteroids falling from sky, explosions, fire burning here and there. And in media, no neighbouring country is claiming that they had fired inter continental ballistic missiles. Or is world war 3 not fought between countries, but hidden world powers? Then the militaries came into existence after six months with their first baby steps??!!

Much of this thread is jibberish, but the part about asking what a country would fight for if there is risk of severe and longlasting damage, is valid. To that I would say there is the value of removing a competitor. The post war pie may be smaller but if you don't have to share the pie your piece of the pie may still be greater than it was pre war.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

The post war pie may be smaller but if you don't have to share the pie your piece of the pie may still be greater than it was pre war.

I don't believe what you just said mainly because:

A) The competitor gets analysed to see how much of a threat they are to the opposition
B) The competitor will lose alot of resources just as much as the opposition (mainly because wars do not leave much behind for people to live on)
C) The people who lived in war torn lands would have to move to other places meaning other resourceful areas will be absorbed of their resources and depending on how many people move there will depend on how fast those resources will deplete.

So what kind of 'pie' do you expect on getting after a war? Sure you could rebuild the war torn area but i'd say it would be like afghanistan in its early stages of rebuilding with looters, militias, etc. before it gets to the stage that it looks like Sydney or New York City.

Ah yes.... i've heard about certain freqs going into the brain and actually stimulating it like sending pulsated waves which makes the brain throb (since it is a muscle itself) and that massages it. I also know that our bodies contain muscles like our organs such as the heart and brain which could be aimed at and become a dangerous area for us if there were people who got hold of this knowledge and used it for their own purposes (like sending too much freqs waves to the brain). Scientist's oath if you know what i mean.

I know that militaries have experimented on people before. The Nazis experimenting on the allied forces in their death camps, the US Military experimenting on 'volunteers' (which can include both military personnel and civilians) and scientists who are curious in nature (whatever their reasons may be, medical, physics, etc.). My guess is that these people already know but want to keep it a secret from the entire world because it's their secret weapon against whoever their enemies are.