The Bomb

Aramike · 07-30-09, 06:27 PM

Anyone remember the 80s TV miniseries, The Day After on CBS? It was really the first production I can remember that popularized the understanding of what REAL nuclear war would seem like, unlike the safety PSAs on the 50's and 60's that suggested hiding under a desk, as it were. When one actually understand the tangible concepts of nuclear war, winter, fallout, etc., people finally can get a grasp at the urgency of preventing these weapons from being used at all costs.

Like Skybird, I have no concrete ideas on how to get out of this danger, but I do have some suggestions. For one, Russia needs to get their heads out of the sand regarding Iran and missile defense. It is well-known that a nuclear-armed Iran presents a danger to the world. Furthermore, it is known that any conceivable missile defense system will be limited in scope, and would find extreme difficulty with such threats as SLBMs.

As such, they should accept a partnership with the US on develop a missile defense system capable of giving the Iranians (or any other aspiring nuclear rogue nations) pause.

Indeed, there are other ways to detonate a nuclear weapon, such as a suitcase bomb. However, a ground detonation is far less "effective" than an airburst. But, more importantly, limiting the options of such nations makes it easier to allocate resources to defending against more unconventional options.

What really is terrifying about this situation is that the world CAN take action against such regimes militarily, but won't do it until AFTER a disaster strikes. So, once Iran wipes Israel off the map, only then will be bomb their nuclear capability into the ground. Either way, regarding Iran we end in the same place, except at the extraordinary cost of life on the road there.

Finally, the world's powers need to ask themselves - what the hell do nations such as Iran, North Korea, even Brazil need nuclear weapons for? The build-up of NATO versus Warsaw Pact, while unfortunate, was undeniably necessary from the perspective of each side. However, what threats do nuclear weapons in the hands of, say, Iran mitigate?

07-30-09, 06:27 PM	#5
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	Anyone remember the 80s TV miniseries, *The Day After* on CBS? It was really the first production I can remember that popularized the understanding of what REAL nuclear war would seem like, unlike the safety PSAs on the 50's and 60's that suggested hiding under a desk, as it were. When one actually understand the tangible concepts of nuclear war, winter, fallout, etc., people finally can get a grasp at the urgency of preventing these weapons from being used at all costs. Like Skybird, I have no concrete ideas on how to get out of this danger, but I do have some suggestions. For one, Russia needs to get their heads out of the sand regarding Iran and missile defense. It is well-known that a nuclear-armed Iran presents a danger to the world. Furthermore, it is known that any conceivable missile defense system will be limited in scope, and would find extreme difficulty with such threats as SLBMs. As such, they should accept a partnership with the US on develop a missile defense system capable of giving the Iranians (or any other aspiring nuclear rogue nations) pause. Indeed, there are other ways to detonate a nuclear weapon, such as a suitcase bomb. However, a ground detonation is far less "effective" than an airburst. But, more importantly, limiting the options of such nations makes it easier to allocate resources to defending against more unconventional options. What really is terrifying about this situation is that the world CAN take action against such regimes militarily, but won't do it until AFTER a disaster strikes. So, once Iran wipes Israel off the map, only then will be bomb their nuclear capability into the ground. Either way, regarding Iran we end in the same place, except at the extraordinary cost of life on the road there. Finally, the world's powers need to ask themselves - what the hell do nations such as Iran, North Korea, even Brazil need nuclear weapons for? The build-up of NATO versus Warsaw Pact, while unfortunate, was undeniably necessary from the perspective of each side. However, what threats do nuclear weapons in the hands of, say, Iran mitigate?