0

There's a bit of a difference there I suppose.. V2 rockets can be detected and prepared for.. many died during the blitz.. but many also could seek shelter. Nuclear weapons on the other hand, cannot be prepared for.

i was replying in response to this statement

0

Midflight? Asymmetric is not symmetric.

If only part of this is true...
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/post390587.html#post390587

In the case of MAD. That is not the topic at current.

[edit]An interesting map.

Note, Josh, how different "experts" with similar intelligence (as in military-type intelligence) have different outlooks, interpretations, and recommendations. This same thing happens within the CIA and should be a concern. There has been a quite prominent and ongoing story in the news that offers a similar slant as well.

0

The decision(s) to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made because the best available estimates indicated that fewer people would die from Fat Man and Little Boy than would die if the allied forces (mostly meaning America in the Pacific Front) were to attempt to invade Japan. Yes, the bombs killed a great number of individuals. However, it was felt that more would have died had they not been used; the bombs were dropped in an effort to bring the war to its end without any more deaths than absolutely necessary.

Hm.. actually, you're completely wrong. The U.S. was island hoping, and it was taking way too long to reach mainland Japan. So, the military decided to get close enough to drop nukes, and therefore try to win the war quicker. We didn't gave a damn if civilians were hurt or not. And the reason we chose those two cities out of all the rest is b/c they had remained unscathed so far in the war.. other cities had been bombed previously, and already had damage. The U.S. wanted to show how powerful our new weapons were.. they could completely annihilate untouched cities.

So, the U.S. nuked Japan to end the war quicker, not to minimize civilian casualties... and those specific cities were chosen to prove out strength. Perhaps you should actually know and understand something before you post

You're thinking of the 80's era Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, aka 'Star Wars') program. To my knowledge, the laser-driven portion has not been tested. (Note to the real experts: If I'm wrong about this, please link me to the evidence so I can look at it.) As I understand it, the missle-shield portion has been tested, but in the same way that a sledgehammer could batter down a normal shield, a strong enough missle strike could overwhelm the missle shield.

Yea, AFAIK the U.S. has no working nuclear missile shield.

Theres the 3 minute warning, this was a big thing in the 50s and 60s but then kinda got phased out. Basically if the sirens sounded, you had 3 minutes to get to a fallout shelter

haha.. well that sure is nice of them to give you a 3 minute warning until you are completely obliterated. It's not like the people could do much..

[edit]afaik=As Far As I Know

0

About the shield and laser defences:
US have had the Star Wars program, however it has been abandoned for several years, until Bush restarted it. Most satelites the US have in space now are monitoring potential threats to US and are part of the star wars program.
Laser defense is not like the one you have seen on the movies like Star Wars, Star Trek and stuff like that. Laser defenses are used to pinpoint the location of a potential ballistic missile and keep it locked.
The shield that is most discussed now is a system of rockets and aircrafts connected to the laser system. The shield is the range that the missiles and aircrafts can cover.
This shield is based on the currently known technology of constructing a bomb. As far as I know nukes are composed of 2 components, that when mixed under high temperature produce the blast. The high temperature is achieved with conventional explosives, that mix the two components and heat them up to the temperature for a reaction.
The shield uses rockets that destroy the possible threat in the air, however, they are targeted in such way not to detonate the conventional charge inside the nuke. Nukes are set to explode above ground level where actually it will be the blast that devastates all, so the shield rockets should destroy it before it reaches its destination.
However, the problem is:
1. The shield has never been tested with a live nuke.
2. Although precise tracking systems exist, you never know where the nuke is headed to.

I heard the US army has a project for EMP weapons, however I have not read anything in detail. Do you know something?

0

Another problem is: it is damn hard to destroy a fast-moving nuke.. Even with the satellites, planes, and our own patriot missiles.. we probably wouldn't destroy the damn thing anyway.

0

Hm.. actually, you're completely wrong. The U.S. was island hoping, and it was taking way too long to reach mainland Japan. So, the military decided to get close enough to drop nukes, and therefore try to win the war quicker. We didn't gave a damn if civilians were hurt or not. And the reason we chose those two cities out of all the rest is b/c they had remained unscathed so far in the war.. other cities had been bombed previously, and already had damage. The U.S. wanted to show how powerful our new weapons were.. they could completely annihilate untouched cities.

Would you please point out your evidence on this for me? Everything I've seen on this elsewhere indicates that it was done in order to save lives...mostly American lives, I think. The decision, as I understood it, was this:
Projection: X Japanese die from Fat Man and Little Boy.
Projection: Invasion proper will cost the lives of Y Japanese before it ends.
Projection: Invasion proper will cost the lives of Z Allied soldiers before it ends.
Projection: Value X < Value (Y + Z).

And even with the 'end it quicker' bit, wouldn't that also have aided in saving lives? I never said it wasn't about defeating the Japanese war machine...in this case, by hammering at their resolve as well as everything else. I still hold that Dresden was, then, a good idea, and I still wish we'd been allowed by our own politicos to send bombers in over the worst portions of Iraq.

0

Would you please point out your evidence on this for me? Everything I've seen on this elsewhere indicates that it was done in order to save lives...mostly American lives, I think. The decision, as I understood it, was this:
Projection: X Japanese die from Fat Man and Little Boy.
Projection: Invasion proper will cost the lives of Y Japanese before it ends.
Projection: Invasion proper will cost the lives of Z Allied soldiers before it ends.
Projection: Value X < Value (Y + Z).

And even with the 'end it quicker' bit, wouldn't that also have aided in saving lives? I never said it wasn't about defeating the Japanese war machine...in this case, by hammering at their resolve as well as everything else. I still hold that Dresden was, then, a good idea, and I still wish we'd been allowed by our own politicos to send bombers in over the worst portions of Iraq.

Hm okay, From your previous post:

The decision(s) to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made because the best available estimates indicated that fewer people would die from Fat Man and Little Boy than would die if the allied forces (mostly meaning America in the Pacific Front) were to attempt to invade Japan. Yes, the bombs killed a great number of individuals. However, it was felt that more would have died had they not been used; the bombs were dropped in an effort to bring the war to its end without any more deaths than absolutely necessary.

you made it sound as if it would save the lives of the Japanese. Or, that's the way I took it anyway. The U.S., and allied forces were planning Operation downfall to invade Japan.. this would have taken much more time, resources, and would have resulted in severe casualties. The U.S. commanders decided that the Manhattan Project was ready, and a controlled nuclear explosion would help end the war quicker, reduce potential casualties, and demonstrate our newfound power to the Soviet Union.

0

hah.. I've actually seen them use that on some New army technologies television show.. Most of the equipment looked inadequate for immediate military use.

0

i know the americans have a working lazer on a battleship capable of burning a hole in a bunker. problem is it cost the same to fire as it costs to launch a space shuttle lol

0

About the Microwave tank, or whatever they call it. You have seen what happens if you put some frozen food packed in aluminum foil in the microwave - you've got a lot of bang and sparks, however it stays frozen.
So I was wandering what if the army tries this weapon on a bunch of Green Peace guys(nothing personal) all dressed up in alluminium foil or anti-radiation suits :D.
Hm....it will be....quite a spectacular riot :D, don't you think?

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.