Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How many conventional 1000 pound bombs are in the US arsenal and how many bombers are there to carry them to the one target? How many conventional bombs would be needed to replace the thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons?So why is using bombers to deliver 100,000 conventional bombs to a target unrealistic?
I don’t know; bombs aren't only delivered by planes ya know! And not all conventional bombs are 1000 pound bombs; the “Daisy cutter” for example is a 15,000 pound bomb.How many conventional 1000 pound bombs are in the US arsenal and how many bombers are there to carry them to the one target?
I don’t know how many conventional bombs would be needed to replace the thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons, but whatever the number, I’m sure they can be produced. If they were produced and replaced the entire nuclear arsenal, what would be accomplished by this?How many conventional bombs would be needed to replace the thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons?
Following on from the Trump era, it is reasonable to ask how much confidence should we place in the US?
From the outside we appear to be dealing with a government which may take on an extreme right wing complexion at the next election.
OB
I agree with point 5.I served in the US Navy for 5 years on submarines that were capable of carrying nuclear weapons (this was 30 years ago). That doesn't make me an expert on this topic at all, but perhaps I've thought about it a bit more than most have. Here are a few quick thoughts:
1. If I was given a magic button that could get rid of all nuclear weapons in the world and also get rid of the ability to make new ones and I was told I alone had to decide whether or not to push the button, I think I would almost certainly push it. But I thank God I'm not in that position, as I lack the wisdom and foreknowledge to make such a decision well.
2. We cannot now change the fact that nuclear weapons exist, nor that more can be made, nor that some nations possess these weapons that are evil nations (in terms of their governments actions, not in terms of their people being any more evil than other nations).
3. The US is far from a perfect nation, but in terms of freedoms for people and in terms of checks and balances on government power, we are, I think, one of the better nations in the world. I thank God that our military is probably the strongest military in the world.
4. I cannot see any better option than the US and our allies maintaining a strong nuclear force in order to deter nations like North Korea, China, and Russia from using nuclear weapons. The strategy of deterrence has been 100% successful for about 70 years now. For over 70 years, not a single nuclear weapon has been used in war. I wish there was a better option than deterrence through the maintenance of a strong nuclear arsenal and strong military, but I just don't see one.
5. The biggest risk I see is not that some other nation will gain a more powerful military and risk nuclear war (that is a real risk, but not the biggest one). The biggest risk is that the US will slide away from being a nation with the relatively strong moral foundation (through a lot of gospel light and Christian influence) necessary to maintain freedoms and effective checks and balances on government. If that happens, we might either let our guard down so that other nations feel free to risk using nukes, or we might even misuse them ourselves.
6. The US could tilt away from our relative goodness through either a radical right wing or left wing government. At this point, I feel like the threat from the left side is far greater.
7. What we need most is a change in the spiritual climate, a turning of the tide (what some call revival) where more and more people become more and more like Jesus. This would involve many people being born again, and many Christians becoming more devoted to Jesus and the gospel, and many people getting free from besetting sins, and an increase in the righteous fear of God throughout the land.
Those are my thoughts. May God help us.
That doesn't necessarily make the positions of Canada and Europe more right or moral.I'd probably agree with everything you said except for the highlighted part, considering that mainstream 'left-wing' politicians and policies in the US (i.e. the Biden administration) would be considered right-wing or centrist by the standards of many other developed nations, such as Canada and most of Europe.
That doesn't necessarily make the positions of Canada and Europe more right or moral.
What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?
The US did drop atomic bombs, but they were on cities considered military targets. How was using Atomic bombs on those cities considered worse than the conventional bombs used on Tokyo (also a military target) where far more people were killed?There's the case that those who own nuclear weapons have/are immoral in the extreme with the USA being the most immoral, as it is the only nation to explode a nuclear weapon over civilian populations... Twice.
You seriously telling everyone that conventional weapons are worse than nuclear. That's the most bizarre thing I've heard,. Certainly not based on fact.The US did drop atomic bombs, but they were on cities considered military targets. How was using Atomic bombs on those cities considered worse than the conventional bombs used on Tokyo (also a military target) where far more people were killed?
I never made such a claim. I simply asked; why is one considered worse than the other. Care to answer that question?You seriously telling everyone that conventional weapons are worse than nuclear. That's the most bizarre thing I've heard,. Certainly not based on fact.
I don't see how now that the genie is out of the bottle.Is there any alternative to using nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power?
I don't see how now that the genie is out of the bottle.
If some nation were able to create a a flawless missile defense system that could work as a neutralizing factor but to a nuclear threat but that would then set them up as a unipolar power as they would be invulnerable to others weapons while still in possession of their own.Could some new technology be developed that would make nuclear attacks no longer a significant threat?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?