Man … Sure beats my Lenovo desktop!
The machines will give the U.S a security edge and can help develop nuclear weapons.
Are we developing new and improved nuclear weapons?
It’s been my observation that nuclear weapons are obsolete. Any nation that actually uses one in war for anything other than the most absolutely last-ditch, do-or-die situation will be strongly condemned and ostracized by the rest of the world. Even in that case, history would be rewritten later to prove its use was unnecessary.
But there’s another reason. We can detonate a 500 pound conventional bomb within ten feet of any target on earth. With that accuracy, what do you need a nuke for?
Targets bigger and/or harder than a 500 lb. bomb can take out. As to them being obsolete, I don’t believe it for a second. Ostracizing is a poor defense against an evil tyrant bent on taking over the world. Nukes are rather more effective.
I’ll also add that ostracizing is no deterrence against Muslim zealots like Iran. For religious reasons, they want World War III.
By the way, when I saw the thread title, my first thought was: “Did they put a 350 in it?”…
Wars are won by breaking the will of your enemy, targeted strikes against strategic targets can help cripple an enemies ability to fight effectively but to win the enemy must surrender.
Nukes can break the will of an enemy like nothing else ever devised by man, they will be a desired commodity in every military and every Terrorist group for as long as humans exist.
a la Japan; they weren’t about to surrender until the atomic bombings.
For religious reasons, they want to win their war with the Sunnis. That doesn’t happen if Iran is liquidated by superior firepower.
Them launching a nuke that takes out one country, only to be answered with a counter strike that destroys them return, is them losing that fight. In their ideology, Allah will not be pleased, because a loss is a loss, and they did it in his name.
Yes, yes, I totally agree with the use of atomic weapons against Japan in WWII.
But we didn’t have GPS-guided or laser-guided bombs back then. Imagine if we had detonated one 500 pound bomb on the bridge of every aircraft carrier, battleship and cruiser in the Nipponese Navy plus one in the offices of most top generals and admirals. Not to mention the strategic military targets we did bomb, but this time with pinpoint accuracy. Each bomb would be dropped from above any fighter’s maximum altitude or delivered by cruise missile fired from well offshore.
I don’t know. It’s hard to second guess the psyche of that nation from years ago where each man, woman and child was willing to fight to the death. But the ultimately DID surrender unconditionally. So I think there may have been more than one path to that end, had the technology been available.
And had that happened, we wouldn’t have quite as many ill-informed people today claiming we were evil to use the weapons we used.
Another thread tells me that you guys are keen on solutions from the world of sci-fi, even if totally impractical, so fancy this.
When we develop transporter technology, a la Star Trek, we can simply beam belligerent world leaders and generals into jail cells in a nondescript warehouse, location unknown to the enemy. Whoever’s in charge when an attack happens, just beam him into a cell.
After a while there would be no one willing to give the order. Then you keep them there with no contact until they surrender. There! You won the war literally without firing a single round.
I think a nearer-term thing that’ll happen is satellite-based weaponry, which will eventually evolve into pin-point lasers.
At that point, you could surgically strike virtually anything, anywhere, with the only control on time being how long it takes you to get a given satellite into position.
We’ll end up using it more than drone strikes.
They didn’t have any warships of note by August of '45, and as you noted, we bombed the tar out of everything else; yet they didn’t surrender until two atomic bombings.