Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Big Nuclear booms Come?  (Read 39636 times)
AC8MS
Member

Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: July 14, 2012, 11:32:02 AM »

I can't see any plausible scenario where the U.S. would be involved in anything remotely resembling the massive nuclear exchange possible up to the early '90's could happen in 2012. First off, during the cold war there were only two major players-NATO (The U.S.) and The Soviet Union (Russia). We are no longer enemies locked into an ideological struggle. I was a member of a nuclear unit at the height of the cold war over two decades ago, we avoided it then and while nothing is impossible, I don't lose any sleep over it today-although I once did. A simple count of the warheads remaining is misleading because most of these warheads are low-yield short-range tactical weapons, not 5-20 megaton ICBMs. The few rouge nations who posses warheads lack the delivery systems to hit us. As an example, even if North Korea had a few ICBMs that didn't self-destruct shortly after launch as their last one did, do you really believe the could make to U.S. soil before being shot down or rendered nothing more than an unguided dirty bomb (no EMP here) by a close-proximity defensive nuke? NORAD was prepared to track and counter hundreds to thousands of ICBMs from the USSR-I doubt we have lost the ability to deal with a handful at most that could be launched by suicidal lunatics. A limited exchange in the Middle-East is possible (it would be VERY limited since The Israelis would be involved) , but the EMP won't affect anyone in the U.S. I think a realistic risk assessment would reveal that there are more realistic concerns to consider such as an outbreak of hemorrhagic fever, a virus affecting the food supply, a state-sponsored cyber-attack or global warming's affect on our climate.  The cold war as it relates to nukes is over. I don't understand why people would still obsess over it, but everybody need a hobby.
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: July 14, 2012, 01:23:18 PM »

I can't see any plausible scenario where the U.S. would be involved in anything remotely resembling the massive nuclear exchange possible up to the early '90's could happen in 2012. First off, during the cold war there were only two major players-NATO (The U.S.) and The Soviet Union (Russia). We are no longer enemies locked into an ideological struggle. I was a member of a nuclear unit at the height of the cold war over two decades ago, we avoided it then and while nothing is impossible, I don't lose any sleep over it today-although I once did. A simple count of the warheads remaining is misleading because most of these warheads are low-yield short-range tactical weapons, not 5-20 megaton ICBMs. The few rouge nations who posses warheads lack the delivery systems to hit us. As an example, even if North Korea had a few ICBMs that didn't self-destruct shortly after launch as their last one did, do you really believe the could make to U.S. soil before being shot down or rendered nothing more than an unguided dirty bomb (no EMP here) by a close-proximity defensive nuke? NORAD was prepared to track and counter hundreds to thousands of ICBMs from the USSR-I doubt we have lost the ability to deal with a handful at most that could be launched by suicidal lunatics. A limited exchange in the Middle-East is possible (it would be VERY limited since The Israelis would be involved) , but the EMP won't affect anyone in the U.S. I think a realistic risk assessment would reveal that there are more realistic concerns to consider such as an outbreak of hemorrhagic fever, a virus affecting the food supply, a state-sponsored cyber-attack or global warming's affect on our climate.  The cold war as it relates to nukes is over. I don't understand why people would still obsess over it, but everybody need a hobby.
You can tell your self all that until, a nuke goes off in New York Harbor. "Cartoon" ***Flash***  Today A. Nuclear bomb  was detonated in New York Harbor , causing major destruction to most of the city.  Homeland security reported that the device was likely abroad a docked ship in the harbor. The blast occurred at 8:15 AM EST this morning, as the president was visiting the NY . "Cartoon- end" I hope this will serve to walk up some of you?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 01:24:50 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
AC8MS
Member

Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: July 14, 2012, 03:00:58 PM »

N5RWJ,

This post started as "Big Nuclear Booms (Plural) Come." I was simply addressing the concerns most of the posters to this thread had about a large scale "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" scenario. I said in the first sentence "I can't see any plausible scenario where the U.S. would be involved in anything remotely resembling the massive nuclear exchange possible up to the early '90's could happen in 2012."  I never discounted the very real threat of a single shipboard bomb detonated in a major harbor. Perhaps if you read my post again you will see the issue I was addressing. Nuclear WW3, not terrorist attack. I just think too many people still believe we face the same nuclear issues we did during the cold war, when clearly we do not.
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: July 15, 2012, 12:19:23 PM »

N5RWJ,

This post started as "Big Nuclear Booms (Plural) Come." I was simply addressing the concerns most of the posters to this thread had about a large scale "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" scenario. I said in the first sentence "I can't see any plausible scenario where the U.S. would be involved in anything remotely resembling the massive nuclear exchange possible up to the early '90's could happen in 2012."  I never discounted the very real threat of a single shipboard bomb detonated in a major harbor. Perhaps if you read my post again you will see the issue I was addressing. Nuclear WW3, not terrorist attack. I just think too many people still believe we face the same nuclear issues we did during the cold war, when clearly we do not.
I think we do.
Logged
KB2FCV
Member

Posts: 1139


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2012, 11:55:16 AM »

I also feel there is no longer the threat of a "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" scenario anymore since the cold war ended. I do still think there will always be a threat of a terrorist scenario that would target some place of significance.
Logged
N0SYA
Member

Posts: 309




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2012, 07:18:06 AM »

No. We'll get nuked and the resident would probably surrender immediately.
Logged

If you have a clumsy child, you make them wear a helmet. If you have death prone children, you keep a few clones of them in your lab.
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5855




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: July 21, 2012, 07:56:09 AM »

N5RWJ,

This post started as "Big Nuclear Booms (Plural) Come." I was simply addressing the concerns most of the posters to this thread had about a large scale "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" scenario. I said in the first sentence "I can't see any plausible scenario where the U.S. would be involved in anything remotely resembling the massive nuclear exchange possible up to the early '90's could happen in 2012."  I never discounted the very real threat of a single shipboard bomb detonated in a major harbor. Perhaps if you read my post again you will see the issue I was addressing. Nuclear WW3, not terrorist attack. I just think too many people still believe we face the same nuclear issues we did during the cold war, when clearly we do not.


I think we do.

Yes, the threats are still there, but from a different group.  Now its the radical Islamists such as in Iran and the North Koreans.  The good news is that the countries that were formerly the threat are sort of sided with us now even though relations can be frosty sometimes.  The scale of the the so called opposition has been reduced drastically, but technology has advanced to the point that the threat itself could well be just as large as it used to be.
Logged
N0SYA
Member

Posts: 309




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: July 22, 2012, 01:41:53 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Yury_Dolgorukiy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulava_(missile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2PM_Topol

Nothing to worry about.

Cheesy
Logged

If you have a clumsy child, you make them wear a helmet. If you have death prone children, you keep a few clones of them in your lab.
LA9XSA
Member

Posts: 376




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: July 22, 2012, 02:14:03 PM »

Just to sum up

In a strategic MAD scenario:
Shutting down amateur radio won't make much difference since the preferred delivery vehicle is the intercontinental ballistic missile, launched from submarines or silos, instead of the strategic bombers of yesteryear, and electronic navigation has come a long way since the days of CONELRAD.

In case of terrorists or rogue states smuggling in devices and detonating them on the ground:
Shutting down amateur radio would be pointless, and would even be counter-productive since trained amateur radio volunteers could be useful if the detonation results in a communication emergency and/or a damage assessment effort is needed.
An exception could be if the terrorists use amateur frequencies to detonate the bombs, but (at least for conventional terrorist bombs) timers or cell phones seem more popular.

In case of terrorists or rogue states flying the devices in on a small number of planes:
In this case, it might be useful to shut down aeronautical navigational aids, GPS, broadcasters, and other radio transmitters. This to deny the attacking planes the opportunity to use radio direction finding to locate their targets (by locking on to a broadcast station or very active ham station in the target city).
This would have a substantial impact on air traffic and communications, so I'd imagine it would be a temporary measure until the threat could be eliminated.
Logged
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 2260




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: August 04, 2012, 03:57:11 PM »

Just a reminder that there are no immediate credible nuclear threats against the US presently.

-North Korea, can't reliably detonate a bomb.  The've had two 2kton fizzles.  They have no missile capable of reaching the US.

-Iran, no bomb, no missile.

-Al Qaida, no bomb, no missile, no leader, no money

no other countries represent philosophical enemies.

**I you are still intent on scarying yourself silly, then at least make a foil hat and cod piece!
Logged
LA9XSA
Member

Posts: 376




Ignore
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2012, 11:59:24 AM »

Just a reminder that there are no immediate credible nuclear threats against the US presently.
The probability of a nuclear or radiological threat is low, but it's a contingency that should be planned for. Thankfully, many of the preparations for dealing with a low scale nuclear or radiological attack would be useful in case of a nuclear plant accident, tornadoes, chemical spills, etc.
-North Korea, can't reliably detonate a bomb.  The've had two 2kton fizzles.  They have no missile capable of reaching the US.
North Korea doesn't represent a threat to hardened targets in the contiguous United States, but what if they put a couple of small devices on a civilian plane or ship, and directed it at civilian population centers? While the ICBM is the preferred delivery method of the principal nuclear powers, it's not the only way to use it.
-Iran, no bomb, no missile.
Not for lack of trying, but it seems they are preoccupied with keeping Assad in power in Syria these days.
no other countries represent philosophical enemies.
That depends on the political stability of all countries with nuclear weapons. Other powers might feel forced to intervene if nuclear stockpiles are perceived to be out of control in a coup or other unstable domestic situation .
Logged
KD0REQ
Member

Posts: 849




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2012, 02:36:20 PM »

who cares about zillion megaton bombs?  we all know how things work today.

the smart, cheap, clever adversary will put a few little bombs in the upper atmosphere and use the EMP to fry the communications networks and all our little microchipped toys.  we're all fat, lazy Americans with bum thumbs from fiddling phones and too-small eToys, right?

burn out all the RF/IF coils in your tube rigs, too.
Logged
N0SYA
Member

Posts: 309




Ignore
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2012, 06:20:56 PM »

"Just a reminder that there are no immediate credible nuclear threats against the US presently"

Oh really?


"In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.

The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/01-08-2012/121804-russia_army_base-0/
Logged

If you have a clumsy child, you make them wear a helmet. If you have death prone children, you keep a few clones of them in your lab.
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5855




Ignore
« Reply #73 on: August 07, 2012, 05:57:34 AM »

It has been said that those who keep the security of this country (the US) in the forefront of everyones mind are the only reason that this country and the rest of the free world hasn't been overrun by all sorts of malcontents.

It can also be said that those same "security keepers" ARE the malcontents.  These days, the only thing that about 95 percent of the world's population want is to live in peace with the rest of the world,  It is the five percent who still insist on playing the 'we must be secure' card that is causing the turmoil that the rest of the world has to guard against.
Logged
W4KVW
Member

Posts: 472




Ignore
« Reply #74 on: August 07, 2012, 05:27:19 PM »

Don't sweat the stuff you can NOT control.We ALL are going to DIE anyway so have FUN while you are here & spend ALL of your money BEFORE you are gone! {:>) You will NOT be needing it in the next chapter wherever you end up! LOL  Cool

Clayton
W4KVW
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!