- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Navy Missile Sub Has Begun Its First Patrol Armed With Controversial Low Yield Nukes
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:12 pm
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:12 pm
LINK
What’s yalls thoughts? I’m against this. It disrupts the equation in MAD thus making the world significantly more dangerous.
What’s yalls thoughts? I’m against this. It disrupts the equation in MAD thus making the world significantly more dangerous.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:13 pm to DavidTheGnome
If it keeps bad people who want to kill Americans at bay, then I'm for it.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:14 pm to tiggerthetooth
It doesn’t keep anyone at bay, it just raises the chances of a nuclear war.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:14 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Low Yield Nukes
..really nothing you can put in front of Nukes that makes them sound better.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:16 pm to DavidTheGnome
Quit being a pussy and let’s lock and fricking load. Exert our will on the world. To hell with Breton Woods. We run this shite
In all seriousness, these will never be used. There will not be a war again where any public tolerates complete and total obliteration of civilian cities killing hundreds of thousands or millions of non combatants.
This is a dick measuring move and it’s like everyone else is getting out of the ice bath and we are getting out of the hot tub
In all seriousness, these will never be used. There will not be a war again where any public tolerates complete and total obliteration of civilian cities killing hundreds of thousands or millions of non combatants.
This is a dick measuring move and it’s like everyone else is getting out of the ice bath and we are getting out of the hot tub
This post was edited on 1/29/20 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:17 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:How does it increase it any more than the current situation involving nukes?
It doesn’t keep anyone at bay, it just raises the chances of a nuclear war.
We are already able to strike anywhere on the planet without these subs.
This post was edited on 1/29/20 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:18 pm to DavidTheGnome
Only in this day and time would folks deem “low yield” nukes a bad thing.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:18 pm to Scruffy
Thanks for injecting some logic into this garbage thread, Scruffy.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:19 pm to DavidTheGnome
I'm against it. Yeah, nukes exist, but let's keep them to MAD purposes. Once a spade is played, suddenly the game becomes wide open for someone to drop the ace of spades.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:19 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:Again, in what way does this actually change things?
I'm against it. Yeah, nukes exist, but let's keep them to MAD purposes. Once a spade is played, suddenly the game becomes wide open for someone to drop the ace of spades.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:20 pm to geauxbrown
Low yield nuclear devices are kind like mild AIDS.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:22 pm to Scruffy
quote:
How does it increase it any more than the current situation involving nukes?
We are already able to strike anywhere on the planet without these subs.
Nobody used nukes because they were too powerful so they looked for a way to make them not too powerful. Having this is tempting to use and once it’s used even though it’s low yield the big brother is soon to follow. It spurs arms races into other nuke tech.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:22 pm to DavidTheGnome
In the eyes of the world a nuke is a nuke
Might as well have 500 kt baws on there
Might as well have 500 kt baws on there
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:23 pm to Cosmo
quote:Exactly.
In the eyes of the world a nuke is a nuke
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:24 pm to DavidTheGnome
It's amazing how few people understand MAD and think nuclear arms are a race and not a critical balance.
If we don't allow Russia to at least believe they have 2nd strike capability we risk an accidental launch on warning. It's amazing it hasn't happened already.
If we don't allow Russia to at least believe they have 2nd strike capability we risk an accidental launch on warning. It's amazing it hasn't happened already.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:25 pm to DavidTheGnome
if you are going to do it....do it right.
F all that low yield creap. Leave a mark
F all that low yield creap. Leave a mark
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:27 pm to DavidTheGnome
Good. All those shithole countries that thought we wouldn’t nuke them cause of collateral damage can suck a big, hairy American Dick.
We’re coming just for you shitheads. Only you and you’re family are gonna melt in a nuclear firestorm.
Your neighbors just have to worry about the wind direction.
MAGA
We’re coming just for you shitheads. Only you and you’re family are gonna melt in a nuclear firestorm.
Your neighbors just have to worry about the wind direction.
MAGA
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:27 pm to DavidTheGnome
3 countries have the capability to destroy the world 3x times just by themselves. At this point traditional nuclear weaponry seems like a dick measuring contest.
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:32 pm to BottomlandBrew
It is a interesting subject. I think the only situation where this is feasible is lets say some Iranian sponsored terrorist set off a suitcase nuke in Times Square or at a sporting event or some overseas base. No doubt thousands would be killed and suffer radiation poisoning. Would proper response be to turn Tehran into a sheet of glass and also infect neighboring countries with radiation fall out or a small strike as a warning that next will be to make Iran a part of histories past. I see a need for these but not in a large quantity.
Popular
Back to top


25










