US Nukes In Europe

[TteFAboB]

Indeed. It could start WW3, or not, it could destroy the whole world, or just a small area of the globe, spread some radioactive clouds, but far from being armageddon.

I need more information to answer the question.

How much do these nukes cost to maintain? Who pays for them? Which areas would loose the quick-strike coverage thing if the nukes were removed?

Draw a map please.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Not true unless on a scale of US vs. Russia or something such as that. Then it is lose lose for everyone. And nukes are not an unsurvivable thing either. Many misconceptions portrayed, particulary by the media in regard to nukes.

Sure. And the holocaust never happened either.

Also, nukes are puny to what is about to come around the corner. Everyone will even forget that nukes even exist practically when you see what is about to come.

-S

Oh that makes me feel better about Nukes.

PS. The firebombing of Germany in the final week of WWII was much more destructive and devastating that the combined nukes dropped on Nagasaki and Haroshima.

\

The Nukes used on Japan in 1945 were firecrackers. Those were atom bombs. Not even close to the H bombs of today.

Convincing people that you can win a nuclear exchange is just ludicrous. It will not be the blast that will kill most people. It will be the radiation and nuclear winter that will send this planet into a new dark age.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by NEON DEOM

The Nukes used on Japan in 1945 were firecrackers. Those were atom bombs. Not even close to the H bombs of today.

Convincing people that you can win a nuclear exchange is just ludicrous. It will not be the blast that will kill most people. It will be the radiation and nuclear winter that will send this planet into a new dark age.

Agreed. Presumably they are not talking about an actual 'exchange' though, but rather a one sided nuclear volley where a nuclear power uses its nukes on a non-nuclear equipped country. And the only defence to that scenario is to preventively arm yourself with enough nukes to ensure you can deliver a MAD response, which would also likely be sufficient to be cataclysmic for all mankind.

[Kapitan]

Well we the tax payer pays for the nuclear arm, im happy to pay for it provided its used correctly and not used in a first strike role or by any other country who feels like using us.

today only these countries have nukes:

China 1 SSBN there was 2 but one sank in the yellow sea and they also have an SSB golf

France 4 SSBN's

Britian 4 SSBN's

Russia 16 SSBN's (although only 12 are thought to be availible compaired to 1980's 91 SSBN's)

America 14 SSBN's

All that together couldnt clear the face of the earth consider the shock wave which is the most distructive part of the bomb, it has to pass man made and natural obsticles and each time it hits these the sock wave will slow down and become less powerful the further it goes.

The media keeps saying a nuke will level a city well id doubt it 3 or 4 i think for a city like london and then yeah ok maybe flat but not just one unless its detonated mid air and not ground zero.

[NEON DEON]

It does not have to be: The USA Nukes Russia and Russia nukes the USA.

It could be: North Korea nukes a U S city. The US nukes North Korea. China can not figure out where the missles are going and they launch an all out assault on the US or fires off at Taiwain and south Korea which solicits a larger response by the US. Russia thinks every one is firing off Nukes so they fire theirs.

Recently, Russia freaked out when Finland fired a communication satelite into space. I can only imagine what it would do it if it detected multiple rocket launches.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

It does not have to be: The USA Nukes Russia and Russia nukes the USA.

It could be: North Korea nukes a U S city. The US nukes North Korea. China can not figure out where the missles are going and they launch an all out assault on the US or fires off at Taiwain and south Korea which solicits a larger response by the US. Russia thinks every one is firing off Nukes so they fire theirs.

Recently, Russia freaked out when Finland fired a communication satelite into space. I can only imagine what it would do it if it detected multiple rocket launches.

I can imagine how nervous they are on New Years Eve. :rotfl:

Who said nukes will be nothing compared to what is round the corner? That doesn't make sense. There is a nuke the Americans and Soviets have/had that was called the "Doomsday Bomb". Basically, this one bomb would wipe out humanity. It's the cobalt bomb.

So what can be worse then that?:hmm:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Not true unless on a scale of US vs. Russia or something such as that. Then it is lose lose for everyone. And nukes are not an unsurvivable thing either. Many misconceptions portrayed, particulary by the media in regard to nukes.

Also, nukes are puny to what is about to come around the corner. Everyone will even forget that nukes even exist practically when you see what is about to come.

-S

PS. The firebombing of Germany in the final week of WWII was much more destructive and devastating that the combined nukes dropped on Nagasaki and Haroshima.

Ah..ok...it was you. Sorry...not bothered going back up and editing my post. It's late here. Though please elaborate...what is worse then a nuke and supposedly around the corner?

And so what...the firebombing of Tokyo produced more deaths then Horoshima and Nagasaki put together.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Who said nukes will be nothing compared to what is round the corner? That doesn't make sense. There is a nuke the Americans and Soviets have/had that was called the "Doomsday Bomb". Basically, this one bomb would wipe out humanity. It's the cobalt bomb.

So what can be worse then that?:hmm:

Dimitri? Dimitri?

What's the good of having a doomsday device if ---- YOU DON'T TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Iceman]

Should the US and NATO maintain forward deployed nukes in Europe?


Heck yes if it is acceptable or able to.

[scandium]

I said "no" to the poll, but really it is not my taxpayer dollars being wasted to meet non-existant threats.

[Iku-turso]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

Recently, Russia freaked out when Finland fired a communication satelite into space. I can only imagine what it would do it if it detected multiple rocket launches.

Well,that surely was news for me,we dont have space launch facilities in here....maybe Finnish air force has something very hush hush going on:hmm:

[CB..]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

The media keeps saying a nuke will level a city well id doubt it 3 or 4 i think for a city like london and then yeah ok maybe flat but not just one unless its detonated mid air and not ground zero.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? think that'l do nicely in the flattened city stakes--thank you very much..

[MadMike]

Countries possessing nuclear weapons are the U.S., Russia, Great Britain, France, PRC, India, and Pakistan.

Suspected countries are Israel and N. Korea.

The only nation to completely destroys it's stockpile was South Africa.

Cobalt bomb? Someone's been watching "Dr. Strangelove" too many times.

Try this for starters-

http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Yours, Mike

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

The media keeps saying a nuke will level a city well id doubt it 3 or 4 i think for a city like london and then yeah ok maybe flat but not just one unless its detonated mid air and not ground zero.

Alrighty, let's put this to the test.

Let's say that Russia gets a bee in their bonnet over something and decides to see if a Typhoon can successfully launch its missiles at the west.
One Sturgeon heads for the UK, but it's a MIRV so we'll just use one warhead on London for fairness of the test.
Our 200kt warhead streaks through the atmosphere and detonates at prime altitude (bout 0.8 miles I think) above the Houses of Parliament.
Now, obviously Parliament is long gone, not that that will bother Mr Blair much as no doubt he'll be deep underground while the rest of us fry
So, let's see what else is gonna get levelled:


Right...(consults Google Earth)...well, it's not good news folks.
I'm afraid that, Peckhams gone, sorry Del Boy, Chelsea's gone, Mayfair, Rotherhithe...oh dear, oh dear...and that's just within the 4.3 limit...if we go out to the maximum 6.5 mile limit we've got Greenwich, Lewisham, Shepards Bush...that's gonna screw up the BBC.
So, yeah, it's not totally levelled London, but it's certainly done a good job of Central London which at the end of the day, is where you've got the Central Business District...so we're looking at a huge financial cost...and lives...well, I really dread to think what sort of casualties we're looking at, and that's BEFORE the fall out.
With a usual prevailing wind from the southwest, we're looking at fallout...oh, spreading over most of Essex, and probably a fair bit of Suffolk. I'd be staying indoors then, so should you Kap.

And that's a small nuke, now let's reset London and drop the Tsar Bomba on the same spot!
Not that this is really practical, as the Bomba was never really intended for use in warfare, it was more a case of 'My nuke is bigger than yours', but still, it's an example of extremes.
Our specially modified TU-95 somehow makes it into British airspace and releases its payload at approx 31,500ft. Luckily for the crew of the TU-95, the Tsar Bomba has a retardation parachute, otherwise they'd be on a suicide mission (that being said, the fact that the wing fuel tanks were removed to fit the bomb in means that they probably won't make it back to Russia ). The 27 tonne bomb floats down through the air and detonates approximately 12,000 ft above the Houses of Parliament.
The 15-5 psi blast radius is approximately 10 miles in radius, so that destroys everything from the Houses of Parliament out to Bromley, Croydon, probably the outskirts of Dagenham and Enfield.
Then the 2 psi blast radius heads out to approx 18 miles, which does heavy damage and firestorm damage out past Dartford, Epsom, Hounslow.
And finally the 1 psi which'll cause light damage out to 26 miles which takes in Gravesend, the outskirts of Rochester, Woking, Slough, Brentwood and Hemel Hempstead.

That will effectively remove London from the face of the planet I think, casualties through the roof and financial damage too high to count. Not that something as huge as the Tsar Bomba would be used due to delivery problems, though its interesting to note that the maximum payload of the Bomba was originally 100mt but it was cut back to approx 50mt for the tests...and somewhat fortunately for London, most of the blast energy was directed up into the atmosphere where the mushroom cloud rose up to 40 miles.

So in conclusion, I'd sum up that, yes, with the right magnitude a single nuke can destroy, or at least severely damage London, and at the end of the day, that's just as good an outcome to the enemy as total destruction.

Bibliography:
http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/slbm/r39.htm

http://survival.anomalies.net/nukes.html

http://www.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys..._Warfare_8.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-39_missile

And Google Earth