American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems
Discussion
HRC said:
But here's the deal, the bottom line on nuclear weapons is, that when the president gives the order it must be followed. There's about 4 minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so
https://vid.me/hJuYDuring the debate Hillary announced how long it takes for a US nuclear response. Is that public information? Is that supposed to be classified?
Seems like something you wouldn't go around telling everybody willy nilly
amusingduck said:
HRC said:
But here's the deal, the bottom line on nuclear weapons is, that when the president gives the order it must be followed. There's about 4 minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so
https://vid.me/hJuYDuring the debate Hillary announced how long it takes for a US nuclear response. Is that public information? Is that supposed to be classified?
Seems like something you wouldn't go around telling everybody willy nilly
rscott said:
amusingduck said:
HRC said:
But here's the deal, the bottom line on nuclear weapons is, that when the president gives the order it must be followed. There's about 4 minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so
https://vid.me/hJuYDuring the debate Hillary announced how long it takes for a US nuclear response. Is that public information? Is that supposed to be classified?
Seems like something you wouldn't go around telling everybody willy nilly
Surely this cant be right. I would have thought they could be disabled/destroyed in flight almost certainly no?
They certainly cannot be recalled.
They could send a signal to ensure that the nuclear warheads don't arm themselves so they wouldn't detonate on impact.
However, they probably would scatter fissile radioactive material when they hit the ground. Even if the rocket was detonated by a range safety officer, the warhead would probably survive intact although it wouldn't undergo a nuclear detonation.
They could send a signal to ensure that the nuclear warheads don't arm themselves so they wouldn't detonate on impact.
However, they probably would scatter fissile radioactive material when they hit the ground. Even if the rocket was detonated by a range safety officer, the warhead would probably survive intact although it wouldn't undergo a nuclear detonation.
I think defcon must be raised to the highest level before president decides on nuclear strike, he can't say "let's launch nukes" just out of nowhere, the same principle is valid in Russia and China, could be different in NK though.
So unless there is a conventional war where US is badly losing or tactical nukes already came into play there is no reason to worry.
So unless there is a conventional war where US is badly losing or tactical nukes already came into play there is no reason to worry.
AreOut said:
I think defcon must be raised to the highest level before president decides on nuclear strike, he can't say "let's launch nukes" just out of nowhere, the same principle is valid in Russia and China, could be different in NK though.
So unless there is a conventional war where US is badly losing or tactical nukes already came into play there is no reason to worry.
...so why all the brouhaha about "Hillary is leading us into nuclear war" earlier in this thread...?So unless there is a conventional war where US is badly losing or tactical nukes already came into play there is no reason to worry.
hairykrishna said:
I don't think nuclear armed ICBMs have a command destruct option. Once they're on their way that's it.
Why wouldn't they? Most rockets have a "self destruct" mechanism attached which allows somebody like a range safety officer to destroy the missile in flight. As I said earlier though, the warhead would most likely survive the missile detonating. But it wouldn't mean that you would get a nuclear explosion. The warhead has to be armed for that to happen.schmunk said:
...so why all the brouhaha about "Hillary is leading us into nuclear war" earlier in this thread...?
because enforcing NFZ would inevitably lead to either side losing and getting desperate to use tactical nukes to retrieve its positiononce when you engage in war against Russia there is no going back unless you think she'll say "OK we tried and lost 50 planes but it's OK now we can continue with business as usual"
that just doesn't happen in real world and only deluded people like her think it could be possible
http://rare.us/story/isnt-hillary-clintons-syria-n...
AreOut said:
schmunk said:
...so why all the brouhaha about "Hillary is leading us into nuclear war" earlier in this thread...?
because enforcing NFZ would inevitably lead to either side losing and getting desperate to use tactical nukes to retrieve its positiononce when you engage in war against Russia there is no going back unless you think she'll say "OK we tried and lost 50 planes but it's OK now we can continue with business as usual"
that just doesn't happen in real world and only deluded people like her think it could be possible
http://rare.us/story/isnt-hillary-clintons-syria-n...
Those in power are beyond wealthy and wont do anything to affect their position.
You are mental.
Eric Mc said:
hairykrishna said:
I don't think nuclear armed ICBMs have a command destruct option. Once they're on their way that's it.
Why wouldn't they? Most rockets have a "self destruct" mechanism attached which allows somebody like a range safety officer to destroy the missile in flight. As I said earlier though, the warhead would most likely survive the missile detonating. But it wouldn't mean that you would get a nuclear explosion. The warhead has to be armed for that to happen.Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 20th October 16:17
Eric Mc said:
Are they not?
Why not toss Infowars in, too. I guess in today's climate, where outright bias is the all the rage (and even sought out), we can include just about anyone when it suits our agenda. There was a time when people were outraged by Fox, for example, now CNN and MSNBC have modeled themselves after Fox.
Journalistic ethics and standards are old hat, apparently.
FN2TypeR said:
He's going to need to win more than Utah (6 electoral votes) to stop Clinton reaching the 180 required to win & hand it to congress to decide who he hopes will pick him. Although if his plan worked and that did happen, pretty sure that would make him more Mr Brexit than Trump ever could be! 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff