Obama Takes the Prize..

[Juan_Bottom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we ... ted_States

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page.

The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). It maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52, B-1B, and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[18] Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.[19][20]

Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions ("SORT"), the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired or dismantled by then.[21]

The future nuclear stockpile under SORT will be based on:

* 450 Minuteman-III ICBM with 500 warheads. 400 with a single warhead and 50 with 2 MIRVs. There will be 200 W78 warheads and 300 W87 warheads.
* 12 operational Ohio-class submarines with another 2 in overhaul. Each has 24 Trident-II missiles with 4 MIRV warheads of the W76 and W88 warheads, that will be a total of 1152 warheads. There will be 384 W88 and 768 W76 warheads for submarines.
* 94 B-52 and 20 B-2 strategic bombers with 540 warheads of the AGM-86 and B61 and B83. There will be 528 nuclear AGM-86B cruise Missiles with 300 active and 228 in reserve. Along with the 528 ALCM there will be 120 B61-7, 20 B61-11 and 100 B83 nuclear bombs for the bomber fleet.

That doesn't disprove anything I said, though...

It was just ment to add to the discussion.

My points still stand. Many nukes would be destroyed before or during launch.

After launch missals are extremely difficult to shoot down. I remember that the west coast missal defense shield of the late 90s had a one in ten chance of scoring a hit.
It's probably easier to destroy them on the ground?

This is related to the topic on hand though:

On April 3 2009, U.S. president Barack Obama announced that he would outline details of a goal of "a world without nuclear weapons".[22] To that goal, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a preliminary agreement on July 6, 2009, to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons to 1,500 from 1,675. The exact count differs based on what the parties will decide to include in the count.[23]

[TeletubbyPrince]

After launch missals are extremely difficult to shoot down. I remember that the west coast missal defense shield of the late 90s had a one in ten chance of scoring a hit.
It's probably easier to destroy them on the ground?

Yes, that's correct, very few would be shot down. Destroying nukes before launch would be much easier, but still difficult since many have mobile launch things (idk what a broad term for them is). If you remember the part in Goldeneye where Alex, That General and the crazy-strangulation-chick are fleeing in a train from James Bond, the train was actually an old mobile launch pad from the Soviet era (which explains why it was so funky looking).

A despite the odds of intercepting a nuke, a substancial number would never reach their destination.

[notyou2]

If the missles are destroyed in their silos or launch pads, enroute, or hit their targets, that still means they each throw a cloud of radioactive material into the atmosphere. This means the end of life as we know it. Yes some insects and/or plants may survive, but it still the end of us and all mammals on the earth and in the seas.

Its madness.

[TeletubbyPrince]

but it still the end of us and all mammals on the earth and in the seas.

Its madness.

Not true.

[notyou2]

but it still the end of us and all mammals on the earth and in the seas.

Its madness.

Not true.

Are you telling me that you believe humans will survive through nuclear winter?

I have some land for sale.

[TeletubbyPrince]

but it still the end of us and all mammals on the earth and in the seas.

Its madness.

Not true.

Are you telling me that you believe humans will survive through nuclear winter?

I have some land for sale.

It's not a belief, it's a fact. You aren't grasping the size of the world and the effect nukes have on it. Thousands of nukes have been detonated for testing purposes and they haven't caused any global effects. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass, if you're only going to bring hippy trivia you're better off not posting.

[notyou2]

No one can say with certainty what will happen when 10 - 20 thousand nuclear warheads go off what will happen. However, I believe the majority of testing to date has been done underground. Also, many of the above ground tests, at least the US ones, were early technology warheads and not exploded at optimum height in the atmosphere.

I would rather not find out if you are correct, but I believe you are speaking out of your ass.

Please provide proof to back up the fact you stated in your last post.

[GabonX]

but it still the end of us and all mammals on the earth and in the seas.

Its madness.

Not true.

Are you telling me that you believe humans will survive through nuclear winter?

I have some land for sale.

It's not a belief, it's a fact. You aren't grasping the size of the world and the effect nukes have on it. Thousands of nukes have been detonated for testing purposes and they haven't caused any global effects. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass, if you're only going to bring hippy trivia you're better off not posting.

* A minor nuclear war (such as between India and Pakistan or in the Middle East), with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. This is only 0.03% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal.
* This same scenario would produce global ozone depletion, because the heating of the stratosphere would enhance the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.
* A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet.
* The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Yes there have been tests, but these have been done under controlled circumstances. This is much different than having an abundance of nuclear detonations go off at one time..

There is a reason that thisexists.

[notyou2]

Thanks Gabon.....teletubby where is your proof that you reference

[john9blue]

I find it hard to imagine that any less than, say, 100 nukes would have a worldwide effect capable of eliminating life. Nature is ridiculously sturdy and humans are extremely adaptive. Can you give me a reliable source that says 100 or less nukes would mean the end of humanity?

[TeletubbyPrince]

but it still the end of us and all mammals on the earth and in the seas.

Its madness.

Not true.

Are you telling me that you believe humans will survive through nuclear winter?

I have some land for sale.

It's not a belief, it's a fact. You aren't grasping the size of the world and the effect nukes have on it. Thousands of nukes have been detonated for testing purposes and they haven't caused any global effects. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass, if you're only going to bring hippy trivia you're better off not posting.

* A minor nuclear war (such as between India and Pakistan or in the Middle East), with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. This is only 0.03% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal.
* This same scenario would produce global ozone depletion, because the heating of the stratosphere would enhance the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.
* A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet.
* The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Yes there have been tests, but these have been done under controlled circumstances. This is much different than having an abundance of nuclear detonations go off at one time..

There is a reason that thisexists.

There would be drastic consequences, however the effects are hard to predict and there are many varying theories. There's even a "Criticism of the Nuclear Winter Theory" section in that wikipedia article. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of nuclear winter myself. It's an outdated idea and for the most part it's only backed up by pseudo-science. While there would be climatic effects, there is no reason for me to believe that they'd be as severe as many scare-mongering sources suggest.

What can be said with certainty, is that a nuclear war wouldn't end human life. Your article doesn't even bring up any causes that could end human life. The one making the claim (you) should be the one backing it up, not the one disputing it (me).

That's a good article and it adds to the discussion, but it doesn't defeat anything I've said.

[notyou2]

"It's not a belief, it's a fact."

"What can be said with certainty, is that a nuclear war wouldn't end human life."

I did state that it would be the end of life for humans and mammals. I can't prove this obviously, but I believe it would. I believe somethink like the "nuclear winter" described will occur. Read up on the climactic effects of Krakatoa. I think something similar would occur only for longer periods.

Please provide the "facts" and articles to back up your "certainty" you mention. Or, are you simply passing hot air?

[TeletubbyPrince]

"It's not a belief, it's a fact."

"What can be said with certainty, is that a nuclear war wouldn't end human life."

I did state that it would be the end of life for humans and mammals. I can't prove this obviously, but I believe it would. I believe somethink like the "nuclear winter" described will occur. Read up on the climactic effects of Krakatoa. I think something similar would occur only for longer periods.

Please provide the "facts" and articles to back up your "certainty" you mention. Or, are you simply passing hot air?

You're arguing about semantics. Whether or not your claims are simply 'beliefs' doesn't matter. You made them, you defend them. As someone else said, humans are creative and life is persistant; it's not unfair to dispute your claim that "all life would end" in a nuclear show down.

My original point was about the effectiveness of maintianing a large nuclear arsenal. You've brought this on a very large tangent, so no way in hell am I going to dig up some retarded wikipedia article to appease your demands for citation.

[GabonX]

In a big enough nuclear showdown it would absolutely happen. The question is, how big would it have to be?

You are arguing against common knowledge and general scientific consensus. The obligation to support your claims, which are the radical ones by virtue of how few people subscribe to them, lies upon you.

You've already been given a number of sources which refute your position and you've provided no empirical evidance to support it.

[notyou2]

Hes out of gas

[TeletubbyPrince]

In a big enough nuclear showdown it would absolutely happen. The question is, how big would it have to be?

You are arguing against common knowledge and general scientific consensus. The obligation to support your claims, which are the radical ones by virtue of how few people subscribe to them, lies upon you.

You've already been given a number of sources which refute your position and you've provided no empirical evidance to support it.

You've given me a single wikipedia article, that didn't refute anything and even provided a counter argument to itself.

And it's not common knowledge, or a scientific consensus. It's a public misconception at most.

Nothing about your post is true, I give you 1/10 for effort.

[notyou2]

You don't even know who started this tangent. I believe, but could be wrong, that I was the last person to post on topic.

[GabonX]

In a big enough nuclear showdown it would absolutely happen. The question is, how big would it have to be?

You are arguing against common knowledge and general scientific consensus. The obligation to support your claims, which are the radical ones by virtue of how few people subscribe to them, lies upon you.

You've already been given a number of sources which refute your position and you've provided no empirical evidance to support it.

You've given me a single wikipedia article, that didn't refute anything and even provided a counter argument to itself.

And it's not common knowledge, or a scientific consensus. It's a public misconception at most.

Nothing about your post is true, I give you 1/10 for effort.

The counter argument is extroardinarily weak. It also still claims that millions will die in the aftermaths of the blasts rather than the blasts themselves.

1980s criticisms
The original work by Sagan and others was criticized as a "myth" and "discredited theory" in the 1987 book Nuclear War Survival Skills, a civil defense manual by Cresson Kearny for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.[34] Kearny described nuclear winter mostly as a propaganda story, and said the maximum estimated temperature drop would be only about by 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and that this amount of cooling would last only a few days (though he did not address the question of whether a lesser amount of global cooling might linger for years, or whether there might be greater localized cooling in agricultural areas, as predicted by the 2007 study). He suggested that a global nuclear war would indeed result in millions of deaths from hunger, but primarily due to cessation of international food supplies, rather than due to climate changes.[34]

Kearny, who was not a climate scientist himself, based his conclusions almost entirely on the 1986 paper "Nuclear Winter Reappraised" by Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider. However, a 1988 article by Brian Martin in Science and Public Policy[28] states that although their paper concluded the effects would be less severe then originally thought, with the authors describing these effects as a "nuclear autumn", other statements by Thompson and Schneider[35][36] show that they "resisted the interpretation that this means a rejection of the basic points made about nuclear winter". In addition, the authors of the 2007 study state that "because of the use of the term 'nuclear autumn' by Thompson and Schneider [1986], even though the authors made clear that the climatic consequences would be large, in policy circles the theory of nuclear winter is considered by some to have been exaggerated and disproved [e.g., Martin, 1988 [8][9], Muzafarov and Utyuzhnikov, 1995 [32]]. In 2007 Schneider emphasized the danger of serious climate changes from a limited nuclear war of the kind analyzed in the 2006 study below, saying "The sun is much stronger in the tropics than it is in mid-latitudes. Therefore, a much more limited war [there] could have a much larger effect, because you are putting the smoke in the worst possible place."[37]

Yes, this is the general scientific consensus. This is such common knowledge that I'm amazed the debate is going on.

The fact is you don't have any support for your claims, rather you feel that it is the case.

Prove me wrong..

[Frigidus]

The one thing to bring together the polarized CC forum to common ground: whether or not nukes are devastating. Crazy stuff.

[TeletubbyPrince]

The one thing to bring together the polarized CC forum to common ground: whether or not nukes are devastating. Crazy stuff.

Says Mr. 'I-don't-think-nukes-are-useful'.

Your not the only one who can make straw man arguments, you know

[notyou2]

Your not Canadian

[TeletubbyPrince]

Hey man, let's not say things we're going to regret

[thegreekdog]

Honestly, the reason that President Obama won the Nobel Prize really was because he was not President Bush.

President Obama, ostensibly, has tried to cultivate peace in the Middle East (while at the same time prosecuting two wars in the area... I personally think that's relevant, but I guess no one else does) while President Bush virtually ignored the Middle East (while prosecuting two wars there). President Obama also made some concessions to Russia and (I think) is unilaterally reducing our nuclear arms stockpile.

I don't have a major problem with President Obama winning the award, although I'd like to see some more of that diplomacy and the potential conflict between Israel and Iran should provide an interesting backdrop to President Obama's foreign policy.

[Juan_Bottom]

Honestly, the reason that President Obama won the Nobel Prize really was because he was not President Bush.

Hey man! Saying that he won the award by not being a jackass, and saying that he won the award by cultivating world peace is two different things!!!

President Obama also made some concessions to Russia and (I think) is unilaterally reducing our nuclear arms stockpile.

I posted that a the end of the Wiki I posted. Both sides are reducing their "ready to fire" pile by about 100 missals/bombs. thanks to Obama.

Your not Canadian

Hey man, let's not say things we're going to regret

Ah, Canadians.


What I want to know, is if Nuclear Winter will kill us all... then why do we have Nuclear Winter Shelters?

[thegreekdog]

Hey man! Saying that he won the award by not being a jackass, and saying that he won the award by cultivating world peace is two different things!!!

Not really.

I would argue that, apart from the nuclear de-proliferation (not a word), President Obama has not done anything markedly different that President Bush. Further, I would argue that President Obama's policy vis-a-vis Iran may do more to hurt peace than help it. Simply put, the international community hated President Bush and they (right now) like President Obama. That's really the explanation here, sadly.

That being said, as gottonkaed has continually indicated, I have no idea who the other nominations went to, so I can't really argue with President Obama's win here.