Putin's headache

ASTRALdragon said:
I'm sorry if my knowledge acquired in upper division nuclear chemistry and mechanical engineering classes aren't up to par as your vast and infinite wisdom on all that is true. I guess American universities just don't teach us young 'uns the same thing they taught the older generations huh?
Click to expand...

I really do not care how old you are, I've seen the insides of Nuclear Weapons, did your School bring some in for show and tell so you could brush up on them for your final?
Tell me what School that would be?.....
I'll check back.
 
IN FACT, the only way a nuclear bomb becomes toxic is when to the two pieces of radio active material (i.e. uranium or plutonium) crash together, as one is shot towards the other with a precise speed at a precise moment. In order for this to happen, the trigger has to be activated, and this cannot happen from the weapon being hit or even destroyed.
Click to expand...

Since a trigger for a fusion bomb usually consists of a implosion fission device containing plutonium which is highly toxic in itself (and the fusion bomb may contain a plutonium rod as well) surely this means that a high speed collision could compromise the integrity of the warhead and in a worst case scenario distribute fragments of this material over a wide area. There may also be U238 tamper which isn't a particularly pleasant substance either. I expect most Europeans would prefer a nuclear device (not directed at them) not to be intercepted over their territory at all!
 
Last edited:
A Nuclear detonation over someone else if I know the average European! that is why I added
I expect most Europeans would prefer a nuclear device (not directed at them) not to be intercepted over their territory at all!
Click to expand...
Another problem is the defence missiles then become targets.
 
You guys over on the other side of the Atlantic need to test your water.

We are ALLIES! Whether you like the current President or not, it still doesn't change the fact that for damn near seventy years in some cases we have been allied to and fighting a war on the same side as most of Western Europe, whether it be France, the UK, West Germany, Italy, etc. The rest of the world knows this. Do you think Al Qaeda would be satisfied with the complete destruction of the United States? NO! Next they would target Europe, which they are already doing. Same goes with a lot of other terrorist organizations and "rogue states". Consider this, Russia is the only nation in the world we aren't allied to with the ability to hit the United States with an ICBM, China can hit Hawaii, maybe the West Coast, North Korea can hit South Korea and Japan, Pakistan and India can hit each, France and the United Kingdom have no desire to nuke us and Israel's survival is dependent on the United States. As I already said, any full-scale attack on the United States will likely target Europe also and if a nation like Iran does somehow acquire the means to hit the United States they would have to fire their missiles over Europe if their target is the East Coast, which it most likely would be, and therefore the best chance to intercept said missile would be over Europe. Well, the best chance would be over Iran, but I don't see them letting us build a missile defense system in their nation.
 
Gator said:
I really do not care how old you are, I've seen the insides of Nuclear Weapons, did your School bring some in for show and tell so you could brush up on them for your final?
Tell me what School that would be?.....
I'll check back.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa and I don't really care if you've seen the insides of every nuke the Russians have ever built. I just didn't like how you pranced in here discrediting what most of us had to say about nukes and the way they work. Were any of the info posted about nukes in this thread wrong? If so, then please by all means point it out. To my knowledge, people were just explaining how the process of nukes work, which can be learned in high school if you took the right classes.

Last time I checked, it was the school-types that designed these nukes not to mention the FIRST nuke! I don't remember Fermi, Einstein, or Oppenheimer with titles of General, Lt., or Col. but rather Doctor. Let it be clear that you as a military personell was taught how to use that nuke and fix it by a school-type. So, you may have seen the inside of a nuke, but I'm willing to bet it looked no different than the inside of a clock radio to you huh?
 
As I already said, any full-scale attack on the United States will likely target Europe also and if a nation like Iran does somehow acquire the means to hit the United States they would have to fire their missiles over Europe if their target is the East Coast, which it most likely would be, and therefore the best chance to intercept said missile would be over Europe. Well, the best chance would be over Iran, but I don't see them letting us build a missile defense system in their nation.
Click to expand...

The UK is almost as hated as much as the US in the Middle East and is far nearer. However why should the likes of France or Germany and many other European countries get embroilled in a defence sheild against Iran to protect the UK and US after they have kept there hands largely clean of Middle Eastern controversy? It is not in Iran's interest to target these countries, better to divide their loyalties from the UK and US.

With regards to Russia who is going to be supplying most of Europe's energy? Putin hardly requires missiles he can use energy as a weapon.
 
ASTRALdragon said:
Whoa whoa and I don't really care if you've seen the insides of every nuke the Russians have ever built. I just didn't like how you pranced in here discrediting what most of us had to say about nukes and the way they work. Were any of the info posted about nukes in this thread wrong? If so, then please by all means point it out. To my knowledge, people were just explaining how the process of nukes work, which can be learned in high school if you took the right classes.

Last time I checked, it was the school-types that designed these nukes not to mention the FIRST nuke! I don't remember Fermi, Einstein, or Oppenheimer with titles of General, Lt., or Col. but rather Doctor. Let it be clear that you as a military personell was taught how to use that nuke and fix it by a school-type. So, you may have seen the inside of a nuke, but I'm willing to bet it looked no different than the inside of a clock radio to you huh?
Click to expand...

You will now be placed on Ignore, you are, in my own opinion, not worthy of any discussion, on any topic.
 
perseus said:
However why should the likes of France or Germany and many other European countries get embroilled in a defence sheild against Iran to protect the UK and US after they have kept there hands largely clean of Middle Eastern controversy?
Click to expand...

Link
Link
Link
Link

Western Europe is in more danger of terrorist attacks than some people seem ready or willing to admit. Besides, the Czech Republic is in Eastern Europe, so I ask you, why is Western Europe embroiling itself in this issue? I realize that Europe is a small place, but missile will be shot down over Eastern Europe and I am willing to bet the US will put boots on the ground ASAP to find these nukes because we don't want nuclear warheads falling into the hands of some crazed terrorist group or any of the governments of Eastern Europe.

Edit: Umm, I don't think the last link actually has anything to do with Western Europe as the targets, while in Germany, were Israeli and not German. But it happened in Germany so umm, how bout that weather?
 
Last edited:
I think ASTRALdragon made some good points, but he could have used a bit more tact. If I remember correctly, as a forum moderator or not, a lact of tact was used when telling me. and i quote that my comments were "annoying as hell".
 
No nukes for Lithuainia? Aw c'mon, they're totally West-oriented. I don't think they liked having their country plundered and forced to assimilate Russian very much.
 
Putin's Headache


Just having looked through some of this week's comments, I have the feeling this discussion is getting more political if not to say personal, rather than dealing with the military problems caused by unstable weaponry such as ballistic missiles.
Apart from Optio's mention of "Depleted uranium armour piercing shells" in Serbia which also caused radio active pollution, there of course the natural causes of Zyklotrons, which do not require a man made trigger. This would therefore underline the arguments of those who correctly point out, that the fragments of a warhead can also be most unpleasant.
Reading Damien435's comment " You guys over on the other side of the Atlantic need to test your water." With what he also writes about " We are ALLIES!, whether you like the current President or not," and so on, together with posts from other viewers who claim "any full-scale attack on the United States will likely target Europe also," I wonder how much Damien is nearer to the truth than he can really know.

It is my opinion that the poisoning or pollution of drinking water reservoirs, (for example), by the many radical Islamists already living inside Europe, is a far greater potential danger for us, than rocket attacks from the Middle East will ever be. They are more likely to come from the Far East or Russia after the West has weakened itself fighting enemies it need not have made.
 
To me it's a trade off between most likely to occur and most devastating. For example, a terrorist sneaking a bomb into one of our ports on board a cargo ship is much more likely than a nation launching a massive nuclear assault on the United States and our allies, however the latter option would be far more devastating as an entire country could be destroyed versus an entire city. We need to defend against both possibilities. This missile defense system may just be an attempt to use Europe as a shield, but even then when looked from the planet as a whole wouldn't it be better for a few thousand people to get radiation poisoning and possibly die against a few million people being vaporized? I wouldn't back this system if I thought it was merely causing the death of somebody else in my place, unless that somebody were the ones who launched the missiles. I don't see this system as being a "bring the missiles down on Europe instead of us." sort of thing but rather it's the closest point to the likely launch point that we can build in at this point (Whether it be the Middle East or Russia). Ultimately I think even this system is only a short term implement, the Air Force is putting a laser on a 747 that can destroy ICBM's mid-flight, how much longer till we figure out how to put these things in orbit? Personally I can't wait for the day when nukes are made obsolete, not by something more destructive, but by something that can neutralize an ICBM.
 
Putin's headache 4
When bulldogg, (Milforum's Bouncer ) writes " Lance Corporal, em if they can't take a joke" one could ask what sort of humour he has.
Some might find it a joke, for example, that British soldiers fighting alongside USA forces, have more fear of friendly-fire than they do of the enemy. For those concerned, it is certainly no joke!
Its all a question of point of view.
 
Are you hijacking your own thread or is the painter next door using laquer thinner again? What's the subject here again?? Putin's headache, oh yeah, missile defense and your insinnuation about the US armed forces being incompetent... I fail to see the connection. Someone fire off some illumination rounds ASAP.
 
LCPLSMITH said:
I think ASTRALdragon made some good points, but he could have used a bit more tact. If I remember correctly, as a forum moderator or not, a lact of tact was used when telling me. and i quote that my comments were "annoying as hell".
Click to expand...

Heh my girlfriend tells me the same thing; I lack tact. Hey, what can I say, I'm a straightforward kind of guy :smile:.
 
Damien and Perseus

I don't know if any of you are aware of the shock waves Jacques Chirac comments caused last year when he said if Iran were to use terrorism against Europe he would respond with Nuclear weapons.

I think that is the most effective type of missile shield, it certainly sent a chill up Iran's spine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top