Thread: US army loses 6 nukes for 3.5 hours

Originally Posted by Bruno

Btw, a lot of people don't realize it, but there is an awful lot of lost nukes strewn around the planet, waiting for someone to find them.
The US lost 12 between 1955 and 1980. Anything after that date is classified so there might be more.
Dozens of Soviet nukes are lying on the ocean floor, and maybe France and the UK have lost some as well. And nobody know what the Chinese have done, but chances are that everything is not hunkydory there as well.

I think Bruno rephrased what I said, only left out the haji reference.

What I was trying to say, before someone decided to imply that I was a bigot, was that there are SO many nukes floating around that as long as they stayed in military custody it is certainly better than circumstances you might encounter elsewhere.

In other words, if 6 nukes ended up on a bread truck headed into Manhattan, then I would be worried. Still in military custody? Not so bad.

Soldier walking down the street with a rifle? OK
Guy wearing a "Jesus Saves !" shirt walking down the street with a rifle?
RUN!!!

Have I made my point now??

Next question.
Does anyone know what percentage of overseas shipping containers entering the US are scanned for radiation?

AND BTW DIDN'T NORTH KOREA DETONATE AN ATOMIC WEAPON, NOT NUCLEAR?

Originally Posted by heliguy

many here think this is uncalled for, but some people are just looking for a big reaction once you realize this, its best to treat them like you would a child acting up to get attention. ignore it and they will grow up in time.

Well, glad to hear that you have been appointed to decide what is offensive to everyone.
Now I can sleep at night.

Did you have to campaign for this position, was there an election?
A self appointment perhaps?
You seem to have all the diplomacy and tact of a born leader, to be sure.




The same country that is funneling weapons and fighters into Iraq (and much of the rest of the middle east)
is building a bomb, not just A bomb, but THE BOMB, and I have bothered the world by calling a spade a spade.

Tisk tisk, when ever will I grow up?

I have read that they scan as much cargo as possible with the time that they have. everything coming in from suspect locations gets more attention as well.
I have also read that major cities like NY and Washington DC have permanent scanning going on, but I don't know if that is true or not.

Old soviet nukes are not as much of a problem as modern ones because they leak a significant amount of radiation that is relatively easy to detect.

I have absolutely no fear of North Korean nukes. What they are known to have is very crude. They can't have more than a couple, and they don't have the means to send them very far (though they could hit Japan and SK).
However, even Kim junior is not stupid enough to do that because the US or china would probably vaporize him instantly.

All in all, MAD worked pretty well in the past, and as long as not too many states have them, I suspect it will.
I am also not that afraid of nuclear terrorism because there are a ton of engineering hurdles that make it very hard to build a nuke from raw materials.
And live nukes are very hard to come by, and easily guarded.

What I am more afraid of is terrorists getting their hands on biological weapons.
Russia, the US china, ... all work on them, even today. Security of bio weapons factories in russia is a joke (there was a scary documentary on TV a while back) and if one terrorist can let the cat out of the bag in a major airport like JFK, schiphol or heathrow, a global crisis might occurr that dwarfs the results of a single nuclear explosion.

I think it's interesting that we (the U.S.) feel comfortable with having a few thousand nuclear weapons, but feel the need to prevent the development of nuclear weapons in other countries.

I usually stay away from talking politics and religion amongst friends and family, and I feel that this forum somehow lies within this range.

But why is it that we can have nukes and other countries can't? I understand the perceived threat of Iran having a missile that could knock off a hunk of our coastline, but did it ever occur to anyone that they might be scared we'd hurl one at them and they'd find themselves without so much as a rock to load in their slingshot in defense?

It seems silly that some countries are seen as "mature" enough to handle nuclear weapons, while others can't even be allowed the chance to develop the technology within their own borders without someone putting a stop to it.

Not to sound like a tree-hugging-dirt-worshiper, but the world would be much safer if we all decided to disarm in the nuclear department. Napalm burns shit up, but nuclear bombs leave a resulting fallout that sticks around a LONG TIME. Generations after their detonation who may not even remember why they were dropped have to live with the consequences. Does that seem logical?


This is my two cents, and may be worth just that.


Cheers, and let's keep this one civil,


Landis

Originally Posted by BBSWANNABE

I think it's interesting that we (the U.S.) feel comfortable with having a few thousand nuclear weapons, but feel the need to prevent the development of nuclear weapons in other countries.

I usually stay away from talking politics and religion amongst friends and family, and I feel that this forum somehow lies within this range.

But why is it that we can have nukes and other countries can't? I understand the perceived threat of Iran having a missile that could knock off a hunk of our coastline, but did it ever occur to anyone that they might be scared we'd hurl one at them and they'd find themselves without so much as a rock to load in their slingshot in defense?

It seems silly that some countries are seen as "mature" enough to handle nuclear weapons, while others can't even be allowed the chance to develop the technology within their own borders without someone putting a stop to it.

Not to sound like a tree-hugging-dirt-worshiper, but the world would be much safer if we all decided to disarm in the nuclear department. Napalm burns shit up, but nuclear bombs leave a resulting fallout that sticks around a LONG TIME. Generations after their detonation who may not even remember why they were dropped have to live with the consequences. Does that seem logical?


This is my two cents, and may be worth just that.


Cheers, and let's keep this one civil,


Landis

Ideal! Also naive!! I have to assume that you are a young kid. A very sweet young man with lofty notions, but imagine if every country disarmed, and then keep in mind that not every country holds your lofty notions. There would always be one or two rogue nations bent on using the disarmament of other nations to their own dark designs!
Once we open the door to such weapons there is no closing it!

As far as not talking about politics or religion with friends, I have one question; how do you ever really get to know your friends, in fact, how do you know that they are even friends?

Mark Avery

First off... Wasn't it the Air Force that misplaced them (Not lost.There's a difference.)? Second, Iran is being run by people that believe provoking nuclear war will usher in their own version of heaven on earth and I believe Iraq and Afghanistan were used for the purpose of positioning troops close to Iran (Just in case?). The leadership in Iran will put the nuclear chip on their shoulder and dare us to knock it off. All this nuclear brinksmanship really is cause for concern. I'm kinda glad I got out of the military.

Originally Posted by Bruno

All in all, MAD worked pretty well in the past, and as long as not too many states have them, I suspect it will.
I am also not that afraid of nuclear terrorism because there are a ton of engineering hurdles that make it very hard to build a nuke from raw materials.
And live nukes are very hard to come by, and easily guarded.

What I am more afraid of is terrorists getting their hands on biological weapons.
Russia, the US china, ... all work on them, even today. Security of bio weapons factories in russia is a joke (there was a scary documentary on TV a while back) and if one terrorist can let the cat out of the bag in a major airport like JFK, schiphol or heathrow, a global crisis might occurr that dwarfs the results of a single nuclear explosion.

So, we should be pretty aggressive in counter terrorism?

Jordan

Originally Posted by BBSWANNABE

I think it's interesting that we (the U.S.) feel comfortable with having a few thousand nuclear weapons, but feel the need to prevent the development of nuclear weapons in other countries.

I usually stay away from talking politics and religion amongst friends and family, and I feel that this forum somehow lies within this range.

But why is it that we can have nukes and other countries can't? I understand the perceived threat of Iran having a missile that could knock off a hunk of our coastline, but did it ever occur to anyone that they might be scared we'd hurl one at them and they'd find themselves without so much as a rock to load in their slingshot in defense?
It seems silly that some countries are seen as "mature" enough to handle nuclear weapons, while others can't even be allowed the chance to develop the technology within their own borders without someone putting a stop to it.

Not to sound like a tree-hugging-dirt-worshiper, but the world would be much safer if we all decided to disarm in the nuclear department. Napalm burns shit up, but nuclear bombs leave a resulting fallout that sticks around a LONG TIME. Generations after their detonation who may not even remember why they were dropped have to live with the consequences. Does that seem logical?


This is my two cents, and may be worth just that.


Cheers, and let's keep this one civil,


Landis

Landis, we've had nukes for the past 60 years. For the last 20, the Iranian gov. has been hostile to us. If we were going to nuke them....

Iran has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map and that they will attempt it. What do you think of that? Should the U.S. protect Israel? Based on this alone, should we feel comfy with Iran having nukes? I think that issue (the Israel issue that is) goes a long way to defining the middle east trouble we have. It gets complicated, no?

Jordan

You guys got me...

I'm the 22 year old guy who's a senior in college.

I guess I do sound a bit idealistic, even though after 4 years of college, I'm starting to lose faith.

Originally Posted by jnich67

Landis, we've had nukes for the past 60 years. For the last 20, the Iranian gov. has been hostile to us. If we were going to nuke them....

Iran has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map and that they will attempt it. What do you think of that? Should the U.S. protect Israel? Based on this alone, should we feel comfy with Iran having nukes? I think that issue (the Israel issue that is) goes a long way to defining the middle east trouble we have. It gets complicated, no?

Jordan

I understand to a decent extent the Middle east trouble, and yes, this issue is very complicated.

I've had many long conversations with a Palestinian man who owns the gas station at the bottom of my road. His stories have truly given me a new perspective on the middle east. I know Palestine and Iran are two different places, but the prejudices that perpetuate these kind of threats are as old as civilization.

Why is it that we feel the need to protect one nation while others (Darfur, Rawanada) can be in the grip of genocide and the world can ignore it?

**Don't mean to hijack the thread**

Originally Posted by BBSWANNABE

You guys got me...

I'm the 22 year old guy who's a senior in college.

I guess I do sound a bit idealistic, even though after 4 years of college, I'm starting to lose faith.





I understand to a decent extent the Middle east trouble, and yes, this issue is very complicated.

I've had many long conversations with a Palestinian man who owns the gas station at the bottom of my road. His stories have truly given me a new perspective on the middle east. I know Palestine and Iran are two different places, but the prejudices that perpetuate these kind of threats are as old as civilization.

Why is it that we feel the need to protect one nation while others (Darfur, Rawanada) can be in the grip of genocide and the world can ignore it?
**Don't mean to hijack the thread**

$$$ and culture. We're largely of European extraction. And money, well that's money.

Yes, I was young too. Wait til you start paying taxes....

Jordan