Four ways Trump is trying to be king.

Actually, I think there might even be an argument for going back to 1.2 megaton warheads on our ICBMs, when you consider that MIRVing a silo-based ICBM is inherently destabilizing during times of tension.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Actually, I think there might even be an argument for going back to 1.2 megaton warheads on our ICBMs, when you consider that MIRVing a silo-based ICBM is inherently destabilizing during times of tension.

Nothing like going back to the 1950s.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Nothing like going back to the 1950s.

Like Obama did with race relations?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Nothing like going back to the 1950s.

Your calendar is highly flawed. The W56 was the 1960s:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W56

This was the 1950s. A B-52 could carry two of them:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_36_nuclear_bomb

Anyway, single-warhead ICBMs may not be as modern as MIRVs, but they are a lot safer during times of tension. We should leave the MIRVs to the subs.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

BillRM wrote:
Nothing like going back to the 1950s.

Your calendar is highly flawed. The W56 was the 1960s:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W56

This was the 1950s. A B-52 could carry two of them:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_36_nuclear_bomb

Anyway, single-warhead ICBMs may not be as modern as MIRVs, but they are a lot safer during times of tension. We should leave the MIRVs to the subs.

As there is near zero military reasons to have nukes we should try to reach agreements to get ride of them.

If we feel a strong non-military reason to have terror weapons I suggest it would be cheaper and safer to go with stockpiling anthrax an such.

I hear that there is still an island off the English coast where it is unsafe to go to due to the testing of anthrax during ww2.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

There is very much a military reason for nuclear weapons. They are overwhelmingly more powerful than conventional weapons.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

There is very much a military reason for nuclear weapons. They are overwhelmingly more powerful than conventional weapons.

So what as a target is destroy or it is not destroy and it does not matter if there is still fine pieces of the former target laying around or if the target had been vaporize.

With our current technology of being able to place thousands of pounds warheads directly on a target there is zero need for megaton warheads to destroy targets. Such was useful before repeat before we could placed weapons within yards not thousands of yards of a target.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Nuclear weapons destroy much more than conventional weapons do.

A single precision bomb could damage one factory. A thermonuclear warhead could level all of the factories in an entire industrial area.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

And the added fact that hundreds of thousands of innocents would die would cause you have an orgasm.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Probably not. I doubt that I would take any notice at all.

But you made me laugh so I'll give you a thumbs up.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Nuclear weapons destroy much more than conventional weapons do.

A single precision bomb could damage one factory. A thermonuclear warhead could level all of the factories in an entire industrial area.

So you are claiming that all repeat all factories in an area is a legal target even if they are not manufacturing war materials?

More war crimes it would seems and if you would care to wiped out whole population centers once more the cheaper way would be to use such agents as
anthrax.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So you are claiming that all repeat all factories in an area is a legal target even if they are not manufacturing war materials?

What if the factories are manufacturing war materials?

BillRM wrote:

More war crimes it would seems

Destruction of industry is not a war crime.

BillRM wrote:

and if you would care to wiped out whole population centers once more the cheaper way would be to use such agents as anthrax.

Anthrax will not smash things.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Destruction of industry is not a war crime.

I think people have forgotten what an enemy is. We are so used to blaming ourselves it is hard to adjust.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

BillRM wrote:
So you are claiming that all repeat all factories in an area is a legal target even if they are not manufacturing war materials?

What if the factories are manufacturing war materials?

BillRM wrote:
More war crimes it would seems

Destruction of industry is not a war crime.

BillRM wrote:
and if you would care to wiped out whole population centers once more the cheaper way would be to use such agents as anthrax.

Anthrax will not smash things.

LOL the buildings can not be work in see how they needed to tear down the new National Enquirer building due to the Anthrax attack on it and the workers will mainly be dead in any case.

Far better then nukes.

Oh an fifty plus years after antrax testing on that English island they still needed to have it off limit.

Just check it was only 48 years before the island was consider safe to move back to an use for raising sheep once more.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island

On 24 April 1990, after 48 years of quarantine and four years after the solution was applied, junior defence minister Michael Neubert visited the island and announced its safety by removing the warning signs.[9] On 1 May 1990, the island was repurchased by the heirs of the original owner for the original sale price of £500.[11]

1 Reply

@BillRM,

We're going to keep our nuclear weapons.

And we're going to start deploying the world's only half-megaton warheads that are light enough to serve as MIRVs on a solid-fueled missile on our ICBMs.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

We are so used to blaming ourselves it is hard to adjust.

It's always best to automatically disregard leftist rants about how terrible America is.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Brandon, are you trying to come up with a defense of Trump disobeying possible a Supreme Court decision?

Just curious.

No, I'm asking rather clearly where it is stated in the Constitution the president must obey court decisions. I am not saying that the Constitution does not say that, I am trying to find out the relevant passage.

My motivation for wanting to know was the possibility of courts far below the Supreme Court overruling purely executive decisions, but the question is a very simple one. Would you care to have a stab at it?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

We're going to keep our nuclear weapons.

And we're going to start deploying the world's only half-megaton warheads that are light enough to serve as MIRVs on a solid-fueled missile on our ICBMs.

Given that a fool like Trump now have the football with the launch codes that not a happy thought or a sound sleep inducting one either.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
If a court, based on a law suit, ordered the president to commit suicide, do you think the president should appeal the decision, or would it make more sense to decide that the court was acting completely outside of its constitutional powers?

I would think that would be an easy appeal to win. Yes, the President should appeal and have the higher courts shut down the lunatic judge.

It would probably also be grounds for Congress to remove the judge from office.

I could go on responding to each point, but this is getting unwieldy and the point has been made. I will only say that if a judge were to rule that according to the law, the president must commit suicide, to actually appeal it to a higher court would be preposterous. Courts have no such jurisdiction. The court would simply be malfunctioning. No one in his right mind would dignify such a ruling with a formal appeal. There founders didn't intend the executive branch of the government to be crippled by having to cease its activities again and again as courts around the country ruled on presidential decision after presidential decision. That's why they made the three branches of government separate and equal.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

If the President ignores court rulings, he might find himself impeached and removed from office.

It seems to me like appeals are a safer option.

2 Replies

Four ways Trump is trying to be king.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know