US's most powerful nuclear bomb being dismantled - Page 3

Oberon · 10-28-11, 09:39 AM

Reminds me of when they were doing dummy bomb drops over Orford Ness with the Victors, they lined up for a bomb run but the doors jammed shut and so the bomb didn't drop. So they aborted to the nearest airfield which was RAF Woodbridge, landed and parked up, then managed to pry the door open...and the dummy bomb promptly fell out onto the concrete.

Turns out it had been resting on the doors all the way back, and since it had been dropped if it was real then it would have armed itself, and then probably exploded as the aircraft descended for landing.
Needless to say, adjustments were made to protocols.

Sailor Steve · 10-28-11, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

I used to love that show, if it's the comedy I'm thinking of. That and the film of Max Headroom. Out on dvd anyone?

It is. And it is.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...=sledge+hammer

Or rather, they are.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...omplete+series

Unless by "film" you mean the original British version, which sadly is not.

You might also enjoy the best and funniest superhero comedy ever.
http://www.amazon.com/Tick-Entire-Pa...9818751&sr=1-1

soopaman2 · 10-28-11, 11:29 AM

Do we really need as many nukes as we have? We only built up to counter a post war Russia that we convinced the world wanted to conquer Europe.

Technology changes. What used to do from land with nukes, we can do from submarines and Ticonderoga missile cruisers.

MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction. We all know that acronym. I am not educating anyone here with that.

That was why we built as many as we did. Mankind has moved beyond B-52 delivered bombs. We have much more effective ways to deliver nukes at short range. Like "Boomer" subs and missile bearing ships, like my favorite the Ticonderoga class.

Platapus · 10-28-11, 06:12 PM

That is the important question. How many nukes do you really need, when the objective is to never use them?

Even if we go to a nuclear war, at what point is the decision made that if we launch more nukes we just doom the entire planet to slow extinction with the exception of the cockroach?

Having nukes is like keeping a hand grenade in your bedroom to protect yourself against someone breaking into your house.

The answer is that you need enough nukes to ensure that after the first strike goes against you, you still have enough nuclear capability (one of many nice euphemisms) to convince your adversary that they really shouldn't have done that first strike in the first place.

The problem is that our adversaries are pretty rude and not forthcoming with that number. Also what may deter one adversary on one instance may not be enough with another adversary in a different instance (or even the same adversary in a different instance).

So how many nukes do we need? - all of them appears to be the answer. The good news is that maintaining nukes is relatively inexpensive. It is maintaining the delivery systems for the nukes that costs mega bucks.

TLAM Strike · 10-28-11, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

So how many nukes do we need? - all of them appears to be the answer. The good news is that maintaining nukes is relatively inexpensive. It is maintaining the delivery systems for the nukes that costs mega bucks.

I did the math once and found that we could have two and half Polaris nuclear missiles complete with warheads for the price of 1 F-22 Raptor (inflation adjusted to be equal).

The price savings for nuclear weapons is huge. Honestly I could see the world's militaries arming a lot of platforms with sub-kiloton nuclear warheads; specifically fighters.

10-28-11, 11:29 AM	#33
soopaman2 Der Alte Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 3,316 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	Do we really need as many nukes as we have? We only built up to counter a post war Russia that we convinced the world wanted to conquer Europe. Technology changes. What used to do from land with nukes, we can do from submarines and Ticonderoga missile cruisers. MAD Mutually Assured Destruction. We all know that acronym. I am not educating anyone here with that. That was why we built as many as we did. Mankind has moved beyond B-52 delivered bombs. We have much more effective ways to deliver nukes at short range. Like "Boomer" subs and missile bearing ships, like my favorite the Ticonderoga class. __________________ If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill- The most fascinating man in the world.

10-28-11, 06:12 PM	#34
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	That is the important question. How many nukes do you really need, when the objective is to never use them? Even if we go to a nuclear war, at what point is the decision made that if we launch more nukes we just doom the entire planet to slow extinction with the exception of the cockroach? Having nukes is like keeping a hand grenade in your bedroom to protect yourself against someone breaking into your house. The answer is that you need enough nukes to ensure that after the first strike goes against you, you still have enough nuclear capability (one of many nice euphemisms) to convince your adversary that they really shouldn't have done that first strike in the first place. The problem is that our adversaries are pretty rude and not forthcoming with that number. Also what may deter one adversary on one instance may not be enough with another adversary in a different instance (or even the same adversary in a different instance). So how many nukes do we need? - all of them appears to be the answer. The good news is that maintaining nukes is relatively inexpensive. It is maintaining the delivery systems for the nukes that costs mega bucks. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

10-28-11, 09:39 AM	#31
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Reminds me of when they were doing dummy bomb drops over Orford Ness with the Victors, they lined up for a bomb run but the doors jammed shut and so the bomb didn't drop. So they aborted to the nearest airfield which was RAF Woodbridge, landed and parked up, then managed to pry the door open...and the dummy bomb promptly fell out onto the concrete. Turns out it had been resting on the doors all the way back, and since it had been dropped if it was real then it would have armed itself, and then probably exploded as the aircraft descended for landing. Needless to say, adjustments were made to protocols.