Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: blackhole on August 16, 2008, 06:21:30 pm
-
Russia threatens nuclear attack
By Matthew Lee and Anne Gearan in Tbilisi
August 17, 2008 02:37am
RUSSIA warned Poland yesterday it faced a nuclear attack if it accepts a US missile interceptor base on its soil.
The ominous rhetoric came as Moscow signed a treaty to stop the fighting in neighbouring Georgia, another US ally which is seeking to join NATO like Poland.
US and Polish officials signed a deal on Thursday for Poland to host a system the US says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations, such as Iran.
But Moscow is convinced the base is aimed at Russia's missile force.
"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike; 100 per cent," General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.
He added that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons, if they in some way help them". General Nogovitsyn also said that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems.
President Dmitry Medvedev said the deal "absolutely, clearly demonstrates what we had said earlier: the deployment has the Russian Federation as its target".
But last night, Mr Medvedev signed the plan for a ceasefire in Georgia that his Georgian counterpart reluctantly agreed to a day earlier, setting the stage for a Russian troop withdrawal after more than a week of warfare.
The Russian leader signed the order in the resort city of Sochi, where the president has a summer residence, Mr Medvedev's spokesman Alexei Pavlov said.
The ceasefire plan calls for Russian forces to withdraw to the positions they held before the fighting broke out in Georgia's Russian-backed separatist province of South Ossetia. That appears to mean that hundreds of Russian soldiers who had been in South Ossetia previously as peacekeepers will be allowed to return.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the US agreed to help augment Poland's defences with Patriot missiles in exchange for placing 10 missile defence interceptors in the country.
Warning : Statement completely blown out of proportion.
The general appears to be saying that by accepting missile shield bases on its land Poland makes itself a target if the US and Russia ever start launching nukes at each other. Frankly I don't see anything the slightest bit surprising in him saying that. It's always been a common tactic of people trying to get France or the UK to unilaterally disarm. Point out that Poland is making itself a target for Russian nukes while getting **** all out of the deal and hope that the people are suitably annoyed by the idea that they tell the USA to stuff it.
And you could bet the Americans would say much the same if the Russians started putting their missiles in Cuba and Mexico. :D
-
Damn... it does seem like WWIII is getting rather closer
-
Ugh, how can world leaders be so stupid.
-
Hoooly mother of god, the ****'s really flying into the fan now.
Dude, it's like Russia's provoking to start World War III. Pardon, I'm going to buy some canned food and water to supply my vault.
-
The US isn't really helping either, but Russia really is being a dick,
It'd be one thing if they threatened to invade Poland, but nuke it?
-
Warning : Statement completely blown out of proportion.
The general appears to be saying that by accepting missile shield bases on its land Poland makes itself a target if the US and Russia ever start launching nukes at each other. Frankly I don't see anything the slightest bit surprising in him saying that. It's always been a common tactic of people trying to get France or the UK to unilaterally disarm. Point out that Poland is making itself a target for Russian nukes while getting **** all out of the deal and hope that the people are suitably annoyed by the idea that they tell the USA to stuff it.
And you could bet the Americans would say much the same if the Russians started putting their missiles in Cuba and Mexico. :D
EDIT: My spelling gets really bad after midnight. :rolleyes:
-
Warning : Statement completely blown out of proportion.
The general appears to be saying that by accepting missile shield bases on it's land Poland makes itself a target if the US and Russia ever start launching nukes at each other. Frankly I don't see anything the slightest bit surprising in him saying that. It's always been a common tactic of people trying to get France or the UK to unilaterally disarm. Point out that Poland is making itself a target for Russian nukes while getting **** all out of the deal and hope that the people are suitably annoyed by the idea that they tell the USA to stuff it.
And you could bet the Americans would say much the same if the Russians started putting their missiles in Cuba and Mexico. :D
Yes finally some sense. My thoughts exactly.
-
Warning : Statement completely blown out of proportion.
The general appears to be saying that by accepting missile shield bases on it's land Poland makes itself a target if the US and Russia ever start launching nukes at each other. Frankly I don't see anything the slightest bit surprising in him saying that. It's always been a common tactic of people trying to get France or the UK to unilaterally disarm. Point out that Poland is making itself a target for Russian nukes while getting **** all out of the deal and hope that the people are suitably annoyed by the idea that they tell the USA to stuff it.
And you could bet the Americans would say much the same if the Russians started putting their missiles in Cuba and Mexico. :D
Now we just need to get that quote to the hundreds of millions of other internet pplz. :doubt:
-
Still. . . I'm gonna build a nuclear skelter and put up a GTB Ursa grade shield over it.
-
lol at this thread's ads.
-
yayfinallynuklearwarrrr!
-
Russia's sure being happy-friendly lately.
-
Do not taunt Super Happy Fun Russia.
-
Uh-oh. Planet Earth is now going down everywhere if there is a WWIII.
Human population count preWW3: 6 billion.
Human Pop. Count postWW3 : 700
:nervous:
-
Do not taunt Super Happy Fun Russia.
You win.
:lol:
-
Time to move to south africa
-
lol at this thread's ads.
Mine's an ad for RussianEuro. Join free to browse photos now!
-
Do not taunt Super Happy Fun Russia.
You win.
:lol:
-
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb317/Tyrkeyz/Ifeelguilty.png)
-
Uh-oh. Planet Earth is now going down everywhere if there is a WWIII.
Human population count preWW3: 6 billion.
Human Pop. Count postWW3 : 700
:nervous:
Just hope it's me and 699 good looking babes.
-
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb317/Tyrkeyz/Ifeelguilty.png)
:wakka:
Uh-oh. Planet Earth is now going down everywhere if there is a WWIII.
Human population count preWW3: 6 billion.
Human Pop. Count postWW3 : 700
:nervous:
Just hope it's me and 699 good looking babes.
:eek2: PEDOPHILE!!! :ick:
-
Theres no i in "babes" Perverted, but hes not a pedo
-
anyhow... if i was the polish leader i would ignore the statement and see what russia does, if they nuke poland, it's their problem, however every single country who is against russia and including nato for russia nuking innocent civvies just because of some american defense, isn't worth nuking and mass genocide will be on Russia's hands. russia will be attacked from many sides in a war they can not win not matter how much land they have, unless they are all bark but no bite.
besides, russia should not be meddling in internal affairs of another country.
look at it like this, if many nukes explode on the planet, russia would not be able to live longer then 30-50 years before they die out because of a nuclear winter and nuclear fall out. so i do not think they are that stupid.
-
As I said, they don't consider it an internal affair though. These missiles have the capability to shoot down Russian missiles. It's like saying Russia shouldn't interfere with internal affairs if Poland decided to station all of their tanks on the Russian border.
Besides. read my earlier post if you think this actually means "You station the missiles and we'll nuke you immediately"
-
This is going to be epic! WWIII for real? Sweet.
Of course, it's not for real. :(
-
i dont think russia has the stomach to launch a nuke at poland, a dangerous game they put themselves in, so what a country can shoot a few nukes out of the sky, big deal.
i do not see why russia feels threatened by this, it's not like russia to just launch a nuke or some sort of icbm which they have never done, and poland has no reason to launch a missiles unless russia launches their stock. so which one comes first, the fire or the missile?
-
I think Russia's just making threats, nothing more. If they are actually planning something (or if indeed the Americans are planning something), both countries are screwed. And so are we.
-
Russia's primary defence are missiles. By placing those anti-missile things in Poland, you neutralise Russia's main defence. I don't think you'd want something like that done to your country, right?
-
Russia's primary defence are missiles. By placing those anti-missile things in Poland, you neutralise Russia's main defence. I don't think you'd want something like that done to your country, right?
It's really the same story as Cuba, ain't it?
-
With a fair bit of Able Archer 33 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Able_Archer) thrown in. In particular the Soviet response to SDI.
-
Russia's primary defence are missiles.
I think it's strategic nuklear submarines, just like U.S.A.'s.
-
As I said, they don't consider it an internal affair though. These missiles have the capability to shoot down Russian missiles. It's like saying Russia shouldn't interfere with internal affairs if Poland decided to station all of their tanks on the Russian border.
True, but those thanks are still inside Polands borders, right? It's withing every nations right to move troops round it's country however it pleases.
Now, if the border was crossed - that would be different.
Yes, interceptor missiles affect Russias offensive potential, but not by much (Russia has untold thousands of nukes).
There are offensive and defensive weapons, and there is a clear distinction between them - a missile who's only purpose it to shoot down missiles and protect and cannot be used to kill and a missile who's only purpose is to create as big a damage as possible with thousands of dead - again, a big difference.
This is speaking from a purely philospohical view. Political struggels and hunt for power dillute that difference.
-
Bah! In case of a nukewar is only nice to get the packet straight into the kitchen.
-
Russia's primary defence are missiles. By placing those anti-missile things in Poland, you neutralise Russia's main defence. I don't think you'd want something like that done to your country, right?
thats a null point because russia has many nukes, these missile defenses can not keep out all these missiles, which puts the question out of the window. don't mis underestimate anyone, because you do that you invite problems. i can think of many situations where someone has mis underestimated someone else and suffered as a consequence.
-
But do you really think Russia would fire its entire nuclear arsenal at America?
-
thats the bottom line isn't it. will ww3 happen or wont it happen, everyone will be asking themselves that. to ask me about it, my guess is as good as yours until russia reacts.
-
But do you really think Russia would fire its entire nuclear arsenal at America?
If they didn't do that during the Cold Wars, they won't do that now.
-
if you say so topace. both america and russia have the nukes and they will either be destroyed or used. one way or the other the nukes will be gone soon.
-
That I doubt. It's always good to have some nukes lying around for when the shivans come... :nervous: FS referances aside though, we're not going to get rid of our nuclear arsenal unless we first drop one and say "holy **** guys, this is ****ed up, we've got to stop this" I must also note a funny point Nuke made to me on AIM... Nukes need upkeep. You can't have them laying around for 50 years and expect them to work. It's entirely possible we'll fire our nuclear arsenal (and russia theirs) and nothing will happen :p. Also, has anyone noticed the date for the article was august 17th, when it was posted on the 16th? :wtf:
-
I don't have a clear opinion of basing missiles to Poland, but besides that:
True, but those thanks are still inside Polands borders, right? It's withing every nations right to move troops round it's country however it pleases.
That's pretty idealistic. In reality, you cannot do that without consequences.
Mika
-
It's like The Sum of All Fears :eek2:
-
That's pretty idealistic. In reality, you cannot do that without consequences.
Yup, but what consequences?
Threatening a country for installing DEFENSIVE devices, since they reduce your OFFENSIVE potential? It' jsut...wrong (not that it stopped any politicians in history so far)
There's the only saying Offense is the best defense. Nice, but it kinda misses the point that offense is defined differently from defense, ergo, they are not the same. It is therefore flawed.
-
Russia's primary defence are missiles. By placing those anti-missile things in Poland, you neutralise Russia's main defence. I don't think you'd want something like that done to your country, right?
That'd be true if the American Interceptor missiles were capable of dealing with the Russian nuclear arsenal. They aren't and they won't for a long time. The Russians retain a sophisticated nuclear deployment system with many missiles that are tipped with multiple warheads (MIRVs). The dozen or so American interceptor missiles could shoot down only a fraction of a full launch. The Russians are sabre rattling and using the missile shield as a political ball to toss around...its not a legitimate threat to the established nuclear status quo.
-
So they're threatening to nuke Poland why?
-
Russia's primary defence are missiles. By placing those anti-missile things in Poland, you neutralise Russia's main defence. I don't think you'd want something like that done to your country, right?
That's entirely silly.
They want to base five interceptors in Poland, Russia has hundreds of ICBMs still active, mobile and fixed, in addition to her SLBMs which are totally independent of her territory for launching coordinates. While, admittedly, the interceptors based there would be capable of shooting down missiles in their boost phase before they can deploy MIRVs, it's still only five missiles. If Russia was at all serious about using her nuclear weapons there would a launch of at least twenty just to cover a single major country in Europe.
As a practical matter, the interceptors really ought to be welcomed by them as an independent means of defense against the possiblity of one of their guys losing it and making a rogue launch, thereby triggering Armageddon.
However instead they've decided to make some sort of huge political issue of it because...they want to? They're still stuck in viewing Eastern Europe as their turf? They want to keep open the option of using nukes on their southern neighbors on a tactical scale? It's impossible to say.
-
Also, has anyone noticed the date for the article was august 17th, when it was posted on the 16th? :wtf:
Its an australian news site.
-
They want to base five interceptors in Poland
Thin edge. Very big wedge.
At least to the Russian mindset.
-
Threatening a country for installing DEFENSIVE devices, since they reduce your OFFENSIVE potential? It' jsut...wrong (not that it stopped any politicians in history so far)
Huh? That's what they have always done. Right and wrong do not have anything to do with that. It is also a question of expanding NATO. Though Russians could ask themselves why the countries surrounding mother Russia are so eager to ally with the nations opposing Russia.
At the moment I'm starting to see why Bush has been pushing for Pan-European army. More amazingly, EU seems to trust to Russia in energy questions. Time will show how wise move that one is.
I thought the interceptor missile could destroy ICBMs at the beginning stage of their ballistic trajectory, so that the nuclear heads are still in the same container. Not to mention take down quite an amount of aircrafts. But still, I thought Russia would nuke Poland in any case, so no harm done with the missile shield.
Mika
-
Talk about sensationalist reporting.
Big whoop.
Someone should put some in Greenland, and in every European country, China, Japan, and generally everywhere, so that whoever launches their **** gets their **** shot out of the sky. No missiles, no explosions.
-
Thin edge. Very big wedge.
At least to the Russian mindset.
Russia'd still have the SLBMs, so if they were willing to come into the 21st century with the rest of us, they would dispose of their land-based ballistic arsenal like pretty much every western country has. Russia's problem is they've pursued the concept of tactical use of ballistic platforms very far. Quite seriously Russian military doctrine advocates the tactical use of theater missiles with conventional payloads, and has for the last...forty years? More? Their doctrine on the subject is reasonably advanced from a technical standpoint and in and of itself, quite sound; similar to the way the US has employed Tomahawk strikes, but on a wider scale. But regardless, whenever they carry out exercises or engage in actual operations, they do not use this capablity because, since Russia is nuclear-capable, it must be assumed by the likely targets that any ballistic weapon launched has a nuclear tip. Their thinking on the subject is seriously schizophrenic and in all honesty they would do very well to abandon this doctrine and replace it with something based on cruise missiles. (Like the US did the moment they could.)
-
Talk about sensationalist reporting.
Big whoop.
Someone should put some in Greenland, and in every European country, China, Japan, and generally everywhere, so that whoever launches their **** gets their **** shot out of the sky. No missiles, no explosions.
Sounds like a plan to me.
-
I doubt that the system would target US nukes
-
Which is why Russia should develop their own defence system, rather than threatening everyone else for having one.
-
iirc Russia signed the ABM treaty? It didnt?
-
Man really, who cares. Let's just get it over with. I'm ready.
-
iirc Russia signed the ABM treaty? It didnt?
Russia is the only country in the world with more than a hundred operational ABMs and has been for more than thirty years. They're emplaced as defenses around Moscow.
-
The US has only just managed to get them to successfully take down missiles in transit... and the Russians have had them for 30 years?
-
You know, I'm still waiting until someone either drills off a piece of the moon or lassos a smaller asteroid, and throws it into an enemy. You can't get caught if the enemy thinks it was natural.
-
At least they didn't forget poland.
-
The US has only just managed to get them to successfully take down missiles in transit... and the Russians have had them for 30 years?
They're designed for end-stage interception of a ballistic target either by kinetic kill from direct contact (not easy to intercept, but eminently possible because nuclear reentry vehicles are about as tough as styrofoam) or small-yield nuclear airburst (very easy both ways), the latter being the most likely method, although by the terms of the arms control treaties from the '80s, none of the ABMs should currently be carrying nuclear warheads. (But see the Kursk for Russian compliance to the letter or the spirit of said treaties.)
The US has had the technology to develop a similar system for at least as long, but was prohibited by treaty from doing so. Shooting down a missile in the boost phase is child's play even by 1950's technology, and the reason it took the US so long to develop this one is because it's essentially the same thing as trying to shoot down a low-earth-orbit satellite to hit a missile in the mid-phase of ballistic transit. The problem of interception is not so difficult as the problem of actually reaching the thing.
-
The US has had the Patriot system for a while, but I don't like the statistics. At least, not with nukes.
I don't think the Moscow ABM system (or any ABM system for that matter) is something they'd want to depend on, really.
-
C'mon people, there's nothing wrong with this! Russia is merely stating, matter of fact, that Poland is making herself a target by erecting interceptors within her borders. As Kara said and as many of you seem to have glossed over; Russia isn't threatening to strike if the interceptors go up, they're merely laying down the cold, hard truth that ABM-systems make very, very attractive targets in the early phases of a nuclear exchange. Thereby, Poland is willingly painting a rather large, nuclear bullseye on themselves with little or no gain. Hell, Russia may be sabre-rattling, but at least she's got logic on her side!
Moreover, Russia's complaints are perfectly legitimate. There may only be 10 interceptor systems, but if Russia just lets them by without kicking up a fuss - as they are now - then NATO and the US will think that they can put as many ABM-systems as they like around Russia without any trouble at all. Whether or not they really would think that is debatable, but in the world of politics you have to do things like this or appear weak. That's just the way the world works.
The US has had the Patriot system for a while, but I don't like the statistics. At least, not with nukes.
Statistics nothing, the system's a joke. Recent modernizations have improved the system, but the Patriot is laughably spotty for how much it was championed during the early 90's.
-
The US has had the Patriot system for a while, but I don't like the statistics. At least, not with nukes.
Statistics nothing, the system's a joke. Recent modernizations have improved the system, but the Patriot is laughably spotty for how much it was championed during the early 90's.
Beg differ, Patriot is an excellent system since the PAC 3 upgrade...for theater missiles. They never pretended to be able to intercept a true ICBM. Considering its sucess ratio against the Scuds when it was neither designed nor programmed for it and that the PAC 3 upgrade changed both, Patriot's a great system if you need to knock down SS-21s.
-
Eeh, you've got a point there. I just really love airburst nuclear interceptors too darn much. There's fighting fire with fire, and then there's fighting nukes with nukes. Ain't war grand. :D
-
Let's look at it this way, What if Russia does something equally provocative in Central or South America?
-
put it like this, the united kingdom, france, ireland and spain were all targeted by russian forces with nukes, would you let them fly over into these countries without trying to stop them, or would devise a system to filter out as many or all these nukes? to debate this point would be like asking to erect a plastic roadblock to stop a hostile heavy tank instead of having some very well hidden AT mines.
-
Ignorant question here -
I remember reading something about a treaty that was supposed to allow one ABM system per side, the Russia had theirs in Moscow, and the NATO one was supposed to be somewhere else. Does anyone know what I'm talking about or what happened to it?
-
as i recall the united states withdrew from that treaty.
-
Honestly it sounds pretty stupid to my unsleeping brain (forgive me if that's totally stupid as it's 3:00 AM here here). A treaty against the development of ABM systems is kind of like a treaty against the development of body armor.
-
A treaty against body armour works just fine if only a few people control the guns and also make a treaty not to develop guns with armour piercing capabilities.
The alternative is an arms race with both sides simultaneously trying to develop better armour AND better guns.
-
I remember reading something about a treaty that was supposed to allow one ABM system per side, the Russia had theirs in Moscow, and the NATO one was supposed to be somewhere else. Does anyone know what I'm talking about or what happened to it?
I don't think NATO ever was allowed one; the Russians already had theirs and were allowed to keep it provided it was not expanded or modernized.
Either that or the ASAT treaty overrode it, because anything capable of knocking down a mid-phase ballistic attack can hit a satellite. Russia's ABMs are only suitable for stopping the end.
-
Yeah, I agree that the thread title should be renamed. This is far too sensationalist.
Snip
...although by the terms of the arms control treaties from the '80s, none of the ABMs should currently be carrying nuclear warheads.
Snip
Again I'm amazed that people think Russia would obey the treaties in the long run. Though I suspect the same from USA, looking at the land mine ban, MOAB, and interceptor missiles - but this is different, USA is on our side, right?
I recall reading that Russia then modified the warheads control system so that they are making a random movements around the target to burn off the interceptor missile's energy? And, I'm quite sure that the only ABM system Russians have thought is using nukes against nukes. On the other hand, seeing show like Dance with Death contains some of the most obvious history revisions for today's world that I have seen):
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related
makes one think if seemingly erratic warhead movement is simply a claim but there isn't anything truth behind it.
Mika
-
On the other hand, seeing show like Dance with Death contains some of the most obvious history revisions for today's world that I have seen):
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related
I guarantee most History Channel watchers wouldn't bat an eyelid.
-
it certainly gives an insight into russian tv and the way they think, in some cases it's similar to american histroy war tv shows. however, thats not missile vs nuke, but missile vs jet fighter.
-
Again I'm amazed that people think Russia would obey the treaties in the long run. Though I suspect the same from USA, looking at the land mine ban, MOAB, and interceptor missiles - but this is different, USA is on our side, right?
Which is why I mentioned the thing about the Kursk having had nuclear armament onboard. And, to be quite totally fair, the US is not a signatory to the land mine ban, reasonably, since we have both the resources and the willingness to actually clean up after ourselves. And I'm not sure what the MOAB point was.
-
...since we have both the resources and the willingness to actually clean up after ourselves.
Resources? Possibly. Willingness? That's debatable.
-
Resources? Possibly. Willingness? That's debatable.
I concede the second point, but not the first, since mine warfare is something we've put a lot of money into lately (as it's also applicable to the famous roadside IEDs).
-
I concede the second point, but not the first, since mine warfare is something we've put a lot of money into lately (as it's also applicable to the famous roadside IEDs).
That sounds fair. You're right, a lot of effort has gone into that area. The problem is seeing it trickle down into poorer regions after the larger powers lose interest. See; Laos.
-
A treaty against body armour works just fine if only a few people control the guns and also make a treaty not to develop guns with armour piercing capabilities.
The alternative is an arms race with both sides simultaneously trying to develop better armour AND better guns.
Except you don't really need bigger guns. Seriously, no one wants to start WW3..a.k.a. Armageddon.
I say that Poland did the right thing. Russia wont' go to war over this and IF a WW3 starts then everyone is pretty much f*** up regardless if he has interceptors installed or not. at least it gets something for it.
-
Except you don't really need bigger guns. Seriously, no one wants to start WW3..a.k.a. Armageddon.
And that's really going to stop people from making them?
-
Am I the only one getting advertisements for "North Korean Women" when viewing this topic?
---
Except you don't really need bigger guns. Seriously, no one wants to start WW3..a.k.a. Armageddon.
Neo-Nazis?
-
Except you don't really need bigger guns. Seriously, no one wants to start WW3..a.k.a. Armageddon.
And that's really going to stop people from making them?
In an idea world, yes. But then in an idea world no one would have nukes in the first place. :D
In the real world no one involved in an arms race is going to sit still and allow their enemies to develop better weapons and defences that neutralize their own.
-
I guarantee most History Channel watchers wouldn't bat an eyelid.
I actually watched some of the Dogfight series, found it quite entertaining, the narration in American style is a big minus (I don't want the god-damn dramatic cliffhangers everywhere and I don't want narrator reviewing the situation every two minutes and I especially don't like attempts to affect me emotionally), but otherwise from what I gather, it seems to be closer to the truth than the Russian show.
Propaganda? Yes, but less obvious than the Russian stuff. Also, makes me wonder what would have happened if Linebacker operations had been conducted in the beginning of the Vietnam War. Sidenote: they call a SAM system consisting of 20 trucks mobile?
Regarding armament treaties, I have always considered the land mine ban not really working since Russia, China or USA will not obey it. Cluster bomblets (10-20% DUD rate, IIRC) are basically mines, and I'm yet to see a superpower to cleaning them up. MOAB, is bordering to be illegal (by treaties).
Mika
-
And that's really going to stop people from making them?
There is nothing bigger than the Tzar bomb.
You don't need anything bigger to blow up a city or send another country to the stone age - it's just bad use of money and resources - stupid even for the milltiary.
an arms race is going into a different direction.
-
And just who said that the bombs would get bigger?
The point was that missile would get faster and have better jinking systems. Counter-missiles would also get faster and have better systems for dealing with jinking.
-
And that's really going to stop people from making them?
There is nothing bigger than the Tzar bomb.
You don't need anything bigger to blow up a city or send another country to the stone age - it's just bad use of money and resources - stupid even for the milltiary.
an arms race is going into a different direction.
Though larger bombs are more interesting in eviromental ways and for watching pleasure. Like, what happens when you fire a 500 GT bomb, at, say, New York?
-
There's a hole in my planet, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in my Planet, dear Liza, a hole.
-
500GT bomb? What a waste of money.
What the millitary should throw money at is SPACESHIPS.
-
So that we could go to space and come to the conclusion that it is dark, empty and a tad bit carcinogenic?
-
So that we could go to space and come to the conclusion that it is dark, empty and a tad bit carcinogenic?
No you foo! So we can have starships shoot beamzoorz at eachother.
-
So that we could go to space and come to the conclusion that it is dark, empty and a tad bit carcinogenic?
No you foo! So we can have starships shoot beamzoorz at eachother.
Oh, that. My bad.
-
Am I the only one getting advertisements for "North Korean Women" when viewing this topic?
---
Except you don't really need bigger guns. Seriously, no one wants to start WW3..a.k.a. Armageddon.
Neo-Nazis?
I bet that's an attempt at getting people into North Korea and capture them as Hostages increasing population there.
-
There is nothing bigger than the Tzar bomb.
Yeah, but remember the USA just blew up the Mother of all Bombs (the largest conventional bomb ever)? And then the Russians, a bit later, blew up the Father of all Bombs (the largest largest conventional bomb ever)?
-
To which the United States responded by blowing up the Alcoholic Uncle of All Bombs.
-
To which the United States responded by blowing up the Alcoholic Uncle of All Bombs.
So that's where Phoenix, Arizona went.
-
So.. any actual updates on this?
-
To which the United States responded by blowing up the Alcoholic Uncle of All Bombs.
Also known by its military name; DRUNKLE-46/B