Started By
Message
locked post

Navy Missile Sub Has Begun Its First Patrol Armed With Controversial Low Yield Nukes

Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:12 pm
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
31597 posts
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.
Posted by tiggerthetooth
Big Momma's House
Member since Oct 2010
64691 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:13 pm to
If it keeps bad people who want to kill Americans at bay, then I'm for it.
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
31597 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:14 pm to
It doesn’t keep anyone at bay, it just raises the chances of a nuclear war.
Posted by SEClint
New Orleans, LA/Portland, OR
Member since Nov 2006
49487 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:14 pm to
quote:

Low Yield Nukes


..really nothing you can put in front of Nukes that makes them sound better.
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
42767 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:16 pm to
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
This post was edited on 1/29/20 at 7:23 pm
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
78041 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:17 pm to
quote:

It doesn’t keep anyone at bay, it just raises the chances of a nuclear war.
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.
This post was edited on 1/29/20 at 7:19 pm
Posted by TigerBalsagna
tRedStick
Member since Jan 2015
958 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:17 pm to
I like it.
Posted by geauxbrown
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
28019 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:18 pm to
Only in this day and time would folks deem “low yield” nukes a bad thing.
Posted by Kcrad
Diamondhead
Member since Nov 2010
68427 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:18 pm to
Thanks for injecting some logic into this garbage thread, Scruffy.
Posted by BottomlandBrew
Member since Aug 2010
30209 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:19 pm to
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 by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
78041 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:19 pm to
quote:

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.
Again, in what way does this actually change things?
Posted by TigerstuckinMS
Member since Nov 2005
33687 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:20 pm to
Low yield nuclear devices are kind like mild AIDS.
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
31597 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:22 pm to
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 by Cosmo
glassman's guest house
Member since Oct 2003
132658 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:22 pm to
In the eyes of the world a nuke is a nuke

Might as well have 500 kt baws on there
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
78041 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:23 pm to
quote:

In the eyes of the world a nuke is a nuke
Exactly.
Posted by Cfrobel
Member since Nov 2019
340 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:24 pm to
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.
Posted by Jimmy2shoes
The South
Member since Mar 2014
11004 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:25 pm to
if you are going to do it....do it right.
F all that low yield creap. Leave a mark
Posted by tigerinthebueche
Member since Oct 2010
38235 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:27 pm to
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
Posted by SHOtime Tiger
Member since Aug 2019
1361 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:27 pm to
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 by Ponchy Tiger
Ponchatoula
Member since Aug 2004
50038 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 7:32 pm to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram