August 7th, 2005, 04:07 AM
ok so it's been around about 60 years since the awsome power of nuclear weapons was first demonstrated and used in warfare.
thankfully it hasn't been used since but what i want to know is wether or not you consider the preasance of nuclear weapons in the world as an entirely bad thing.
when you look at it no two nuclear powers have ever gone to war with each other, thus we have not seen a global war since the end of WW2 in 1945.
I'm gonna say that they have had a negative impact on society simply because of the fear they inspire in mankind and the ease with which they are used to control mankind. To say that they have kept nuclear powers from war might be accurate, but soon after their creation, some men realized how easy it would be to use them to keep the masses in line.
I think they served the purpose of the ultimate deterrent to invasions and outright global war. They of course have not stopped some from waging many war that cost millions of lives.
The religious radicals and other mentally unstable people didn't appear to worry about nukes at all. Now we have some other radicals trying to obtain such technology to do harm to society as a whole. They have no interest at all in occupying any country. Nuclear weapons serve a purpose, and they also are the wild card that if dealt to the wrong player could cost everyone dearly.
I must admit that I can’t say every country has to dump his nuclear bombs, the damage is already done. But still we could only wish they never existed. Because no weapon is strong enough to bring peace (Quoting Michael Franti from Spearhead "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can’t bomb it into peace")
In those 60 years many others were able to produce the weapon and who can blame any other country for trying to make one, as long that you don’t have it you’re pushed back by those who have one. So one can only conclude that the making of the first, was the first step toward total disaster, we can only hope they spare us the next sixty.
Him
It is all about how they use atomic energy. If for the good of humankind than I think it is a useful tool but when used to only destroy it becomes rather a bad thing to have.
with nuclear bombs being as powerfull as they are the people should be afraid of anyone with the materials to make one...damm i'm runing out of time so i'll have to make this quick.
any nation producing nuclear weapons in secret, take north korea, should be feared and probably taken down.
but lets not oversee there practical applications that are not destructive to human life. i understand that the Panama canal was carved out useing nuclear weapons, then we have them incase of some asteroid coming to destroy us and them our good friend nuclear medicine and power would not have been created had it not been for the millitary intrest placed on the technology. out of time for now.
I think every nation who has one should be also be feared, so if you extrapolate this thought…Originally Posted by wallaby
So maybe I must correct myself, the only way to exclude others from making atomic bombs is to dump your own, only then you can start preventing other from making them. It may sound naive, but it is the only acceptable way. I.e. you can’t prevent others from peeing in the flowerpots if you are shitting in them. You can try to but it won’t work especially when you’re not looking.
And just do be clear, there is indeed a big difference between nuclear power and knowledge on one hand and nuclear bombs on the other.
Him
I'm pretty sure every country out there has the brains to make a nuclear weapon or they could find the talent with little trouble. It's building the equipment needed to process the materials to build the bomb that appears to take the time and even more talent.
Countries like Iran that insist on refining the material for the production of a bomb or bombs need to be stopped. The simple solution is to simply destroy their facilities before they can yield any results. The US now has the bunker busting tactical nuke. It would work well to take out any such plans. The mindset of a small group of people within these countries is the largest concern, not the nation as a whole. Most of the people don't want or need a nuclear weapon parked in their back yard to feel secure. Some of the others appear to feel this is the only way to deter a nuclear attack. Too bad it would all be over long before they even knew it was coming. By the time many of these small countries identified that they were in fact about to be wiped out they would be reduced to ashes. They would need to develop technology to detect the attack in order to even consider the possession of a nuclear weapon a deterrent. I guess many of them just don't see it that way.
So if a few stealth bombers flew over north Korea and dropped several large nukes on their heads does anyone think the north Koreans would have time to launch their one or two weapons. I think not. Chances are their weapons would be part of the fire. The future may hold the same true for the US and other countries as well, it's only a matter of time before smaller nations develop stealth technologies. With computers becoming more and more powerful the supercomputers of yesterday used to develop some of these technologies is becoming more and more available to just about everyone.
The real fear is radical people using nuclear weapons in a covert way to wage war on countries that are not aware they are at war with them.
so we dump our weapons and then some crazy bastard country develops more in secret...i'd say that everyone would be completely screwed as well.
lets not forget that an attack on a nuclear power station with conventional weapons or some brains could prove equally devistating.
Yes, it would make a big mess. It shouldn't cause a nuclear reaction, just a lot of crap being deposited in the atmosphere. I'm not sure what happens if you drop a nuke on top of another nuke, I suspect that would perhaps react. Perhaps not. It's one field I've not looked at that much.
Just a few thoughts:
Having nuclear weapons is not a remedy to prevent others from making it in secret.
Having nuclear weapons is rather the fuel that inspires others to make them.
Talk like “we have to bomb them if they make the same weapons as we have”, is the disease that feeds the hatred against Western countries. In a world with nuclear powers it is a dangerous game you play.
You must realise that Western countries from a bigger threat to most Arabic countries (like Iran for instance) then the other way around.
I must agree, so if nobody has nuclear weapons you can launch a NV supported isolation and destruction of installations making nuclear weapons (whatever country it is!!!).
They will use a Neutron bomb instead. Ever hear of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects.
The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays.
Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."
positive. to the point where they are the reason why there was no atomic war!
it happened. they split the atom. some bright spark decided to use it as a bomb. but with all tec. advances in science and the world... it would a happened.
fact is .. if the us ad lost the race, or if germanny had discovered it first... then the world woulb be a worse place. but now is time to reducse.
but teh optionis there for countrys to try, the knowlage has been made. so we need to keep a gun.. just in case! :? make sense?
I say that they are bad, because even though they are a technological breakthrough, they kill people easily and cause fear, thus they are very dangerous and if the wrong people get hold of them, we will all be in trouble.
Those who build nuclear weapons should be consequent with their intent, and build ONLY Cobalt-32 bombs. If I wanted to end the world, I would choose cobalt 32. There is no point in doing "clean" nukes, or talk baout "bunker-buster" nukes as if someone was to be stupid enough to wait until this toys are operative before building his bunkers deep and with supply lines long enough as to not be affected by a heap of nukes. Take any silly hill higher than 500 meters and there you got a billion tons of stone to protect your bunker; build your tunnels separated by 45 º from each other so you have 8 of them and let's see who's the smart bastard able to bomb it with no matter what amount of nuclear bunker busters... And then you know that "hilly" is a nice definition to some of those countries we all know who could wish to have a secret or not-so-secret nuke just in case some smart ass tried to play on them the same trick they played on Saddam Hussein. :wink:
Now it's just too late as to dream of being rid of nukes... not until we figure something even nastier that can defend us even better from all those dudes who won't do us the favor to stop scaring the shit out of us...
Can't answer that yet.
1: Atomic bombs haven't distroyed the world or entire civilizations, so it's not entirely negative... yet.
2: We haven't derived a near-perfect engergy source from atoms, so it's not entirely positive... yet.
Only time will tell. I will say this though, atomic bombs have forced American and Russian scientists to research and make discoveries that would have decades ahead of their times.
September 3rd, 2006, 03:49 AM
They will use a Neutron bomb instead. Ever hear of them?
Cosmic traveler introduces a fantastic subject position, Dr. Sam Cohen mirrors things missing from the further, but usual discussions on nuclear weapons. (i.e. Ed Teller, Oppenheimer, Bethe, etc.) Quoted from http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/16..._exclusiv.html
"The neutron bomb has to be the most moral weapon ever invented,"
Dr. Cohen reveals a LOT upon his state of mind in this statement and hints upon the surrounding situations set in motion in nuclear weapons development.
Personally, I am not going to state my opinion on what I think of nuclear weapons on a post 9/11 planet, however, Dr. Carl Sagan laments something along the following: "We accept the products of science, and reject its methods."
Less people have died in wars per year since the bomb than before the bomb.
The bomb is fear. Do you think if Iran or North Korea had a nuke they'd really be any more powerful? They still need to move it, which would be pretty difficult against their enemies.
Could you quote a source on that?
September 10th, 2006, 07:30 AM
It appears the discussion responses are focused upon the technology of Nuclear Weapons, not the science. To investigate this is difficult, in the same manner in which contemporary expressions are aligned where all humans are threatened--globally inclusive. So might it be reasonable to wonder about the Manhatten project? And the Germans work as well? Or perhaps save a step and disregard the conditions of war, and maybe on situations of active weapons development during so called peacetime.
So, might it be useful to evaluate recurring events such as Alfred Nobel and a vision of a war too ghastly for humans to fight. In other words, find the between rather than the extreme instead of end results associated with bad and understand further to guide abilities and pursue the good.
I found this on my shakedown run of Google video player also, have a look:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1054&q=nuclear
I may be one of the few people (if any) on this forum who lived through the Cuban crisis and the extreme worry this caused. In my own case my wife and I actually postponed trying for our second child. That is how convinced ordinary people were that 'The end was nigh' indeed there were even cases of suicide attributed to it. Ever since then[cuba crisis] I have spotted that more people die each year from road accidents than nuclear weapons. Today, having seen many friends and family members 'bail out' in all sorts of [horrible/painful] ways, I think instantaneous vaporisation would probably be my 'exit of choice'.
The point being, I am more afraid of vehicles than Nuclear weapons, terrorists, Metoers, Tsunamis etc etc.
The bomb might have brought some fears but it gave the world a new kind of technology. a new energy source. a entire new percpective on the nature. So i say it hasnet had a bad impact. Even a normal knife can have bad impact on society if its put in the hands of a dangerous morron
| « perpetual electricity | conventional ICBM » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
