Obama reforms USA's nuclear weapons policy

[Icarus27k]

Including saying that the US would never use nukes against non-nuclear states. Really, this is what passes for a "controversial" policy shift in the US. My question: Why would using nukes against non-nuclear states even be considered in the first place? It's just common sense that one wouldn't ever do it.

Source: Obama Curbs Nuclear Weapons Usage - The Daily Beast

 

[Ron in Regina]

Not like it hasn't happened before. (Japan, twice). I think it's an important distinction,
and perhaps a warning to such countries as Iran, North Korea, etc...

 

[EagleSmack]

Including saying that the US would never use nukes against non-nuclear states. Really, this is what passes for a "controversial" policy shift in the US. My question: Why would using nukes against non-nuclear states even be considered in the first place? It's just common sense that one wouldn't ever do it.

Source: Obama Curbs Nuclear Weapons Usage - The Daily Beast

LOL.

Is this a serious question. Does someone need a history lesson?

 

[theconqueror]

It's not the nuclear weapons nowadays that the U.S. is concerned about since most countries disarmed. It's the fact that countries such as Iran are producing the "Nuclear Propulsion" technology that is required for such weapons capable of reaching far away places such as North-America is what they are concerned about.

 

[Icarus27k]

LOL.

Is this a serious question. Does someone need a history lesson?

It's a serious question. Except with a little bit of astonishment added in. Astonishment as if to say, "How stupid does someone have to be to consider this?"

 

[lone wolf]

It's not the nuclear weapons nowadays that the U.S. is concerned about since most countries disarmed. It's the fact that countries such as Iran are producing the "Nuclear Propulsion" technology that is required for such weapons capable of reaching far away places such as North-America is what they are concerned about.

Nuclear Propulsion? Have you ever heard of Atlas? Redstone? How about Saturn V (it sent stuff to the Moon) None of the ICBMs that could have peeled the Earth's surface off a hundred times over were propelled by nuclear anything.

Nuclear Propulsion is Star Trek

 

[theconqueror]

Nuclear Propulsion? Have you ever heard of Atlas? Redstone? How about Saturn V (it sent stuff to the Moon) None of the ICBMs that could have peeled the Earth's surface off a hundred times over were propelled by nuclear anything.

Nuclear Propulsion is Star Trek

Yes. I agree, and they want to keep it that way. Unless, your opt to finding out what happens with? I don't think so, that's why...

 

[lone wolf]

Yes. I agree, and they want to keep it that way. Unless, your opt to finding out what happens with? I don't think so, that's why...

I think you'll have to expand on that....

 

[theconqueror]

I think you'll have to expand on that....

Sure, maximum range for anything on earth on a single charge without going into orbit is what? 5,000 m/10,000km which is just from San Diego California, to Central Canada, Winnipeg Manitoba. I'm talking about something that can circle the earth without going into orbit which a ICBM cannot.

I dunno.. If you look at the military's timeline for nuclear technology and events, nuclear propulsion would come from Submarine technology which can remain at sea for years and years under one nuclear propulsion charge.

Therefore, if you would to put a nuclear charge behind a rocket engine it could in fact circle the earth with a single charge, which IS what we are trying to prevent. Maybe, it's still a government secret in hiding so we don't freak out the public, which i'm sure is an old reality long ago which made us disarm a long time ago because of.

 

[lone wolf]

A Boeing 747 can fly from Australia to Vancouver without going into orbit

 

[theconqueror]

A Boeing 747 can fly from Australia to Vancouver without going into orbit

Without re-feuling now... Good answer but I am talking about a single charge. The long range intercontinental boeing 747 has to re-fuel at 5,000/10,000 km even.

 

[lone wolf]

Without re-feuling now... Good answer but I am talking about a single charge. The long range intercontinental boeing 747 has to re-fuel at 5,000/10,000 km even.

They can mid-air refuel a 747 now? Cool....

 

[theconqueror]

They can mid-air refuel a 747 now? Cool....

No they don't. :lol:

I looked it up: Maximum range for the Boeing 747 is 7,700 statute miles (12,400 km).

We are talking about circling the earth which only a nuclear propelled rocket can do.

Maximum Range 7,700 statute miles (12,400 km)

 

[lone wolf]

Nothing nuke about this baby....

VOYAGER FIRST ROUND THE WORLD NON STOP FLIGHT | DICK RUTAN AND JEANE YEAGER | SIR FRANCIS CHICHESTER, SIR ROBIN KNOX JOHNSTON, DAME ELLEN MACARTHUR | SOLAR COLA, COKE, PEPSI, COCA COLA.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are a weapon that can only be used against another nuclear power. To do otherwise is to invite condemnation not only from the rest of the world, but also from the population of the user nation. However, using these weapons against someone else who has them invites nuclear retaliation and as the old cliche states, "It only take one nuclear bomb for everyone to have a really bad day." As a result nuclear weapons are useful only as a deterrent, making them one of the most useless weapons ever invented.

 

[theconqueror]

The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are a weapon that can only be used against another nuclear power.

Sorry bud, but war does not discriminate. shame, but there are no rules to that game..They can be used against anyone.

 

[EagleSmack]

It's a serious question. Except with a little bit of astonishment added in. Astonishment as if to say, "How stupid does someone have to be to consider this?"

Again...do you need a history lesson?

 

[EagleSmack]

I don't know. If some country gasses the crap out of another I think putting a mushroom cloud over a city in response is acceptable.

 

[EagleSmack]

Sure, maximum range for anything on earth on a single charge without going into orbit is what? 5,000 m/10,000km which is just from San Diego California, to Central Canada, Winnipeg Manitoba. I'm talking about something that can circle the earth without going into orbit which a ICBM cannot.

I dunno.. If you look at the military's timeline for nuclear technology and events, nuclear propulsion would come from Submarine technology which can remain at sea for years and years under one nuclear propulsion charge.

Therefore, if you would to put a nuclear charge behind a rocket engine it could in fact circle the earth with a single charge, which IS what we are trying to prevent. Maybe, it's still a government secret in hiding so we don't freak out the public, which i'm sure is an old reality long ago which made us disarm a long time ago because of.

Do you have an idea of how nuclear propulsion works? The nuclear reactor heats the water and creates propulsion and the turbines spin in lieu of oil and gas.

Anything else is Sci Fi at this time.

 

[lone wolf]

Do you have an idea of how nuclear propulsion works? The nuclear reactor heats the water and creates propulsion and the turbines spin in lieu of oil and gas.

Anything else is Sci Fi at this time.

Can you imagine the size of this thing ... just to cool the reactor?