Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Tough Question for you to Think About

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    As I retired from a major Aerospace company, I do know that the US has the technology to track missles from other countries, and destroy them before they ever hit the US. This is technology I was aware of about 6 years ago, and I am sure there is alot more that has been done since 911 throughout all Aerospace companies.


    Thanks to Bronco4Life and Medford Bronco for signature

    Rest in Peace - Darrent (27) and Damien (29

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Denver Native
      As I retired from a major Aerospace company, I do know that the US has the technology to track missles from other countries, and destroy them before they ever hit the US. This is technology I was aware of about 6 years ago, and I am sure there is alot more that has been done since 911 throughout all Aerospace companies.
      That's another question that I had in my initial reply to this post. What would be the delivery method? If it's a missile fired by a foreign nation into our borders, then we'd be able to stop it before it reached us, most likely. I have to believe that we have spy satellites focused on every major nuke site in the world. That means that the weapon would most likely have to be smuggled into the country in a suitcase or truck.

      If that's the case, good luck figuring out who detonated the bomb unless someone steps forward to claim responsibility for the attack.
      HEAR ME ROAR!
      sigpic
      Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
        That's another question that I had in my initial reply to this post. What would be the delivery method? If it's a missile fired by a foreign nation into our borders, then we'd be able to stop it before it reached us, most likely. I have to believe that we have spy satellites focused on every major nuke site in the world. That means that the weapon would most likely have to be smuggled into the country in a suitcase or truck.

        If that's the case, good luck figuring out who detonated the bomb unless someone steps forward to claim responsibility for the attack.
        Call Jack Bauer.
        Thanks, Reid!
        sigpic
        Click on my sig to read JetRazor's and my story. Or PM me with any questions.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by LordTrychon
          Call Jack Bauer.
          Jack Bauer is like duct tape. If you can't fix it with duct tape, then you just aren't using enough.
          HEAR ME ROAR!
          sigpic
          Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SM19
            That's actually very doubtful as we really don't have the ability to shoot down incoming enemy ballistic missiles. In the few tests they've done, even hitting dummy missiles when we know exactly where they're going has been an iffy proposition.
            Oh yes we do. I can tell you there are many top secret technologies out there that we are not going to broadcast as having. The only problem would be is if someone within the US could be bought off to talk.


            Thanks to Bronco4Life and Medford Bronco for signature

            Rest in Peace - Darrent (27) and Damien (29

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by NJBRONCOSFAN
              I'm not sure what i'd do.
              I know two things though.
              I wouldnt surrender.
              I wouldn't fight back with nuclear weapons..there'd be no humans left on earth shortly.
              Thats why the question is though. But I'm glad you see my dilemma



              :salute:

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Eldritch
                I'm going to go all Kobiyashi Maru on everyone, and I'd deflect the bomb to France!

                Well, that's not Kobiyashi Maru for everyone.

                Not everybody likes France.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by The Dark Knight
                  Well, that's not Kobiyashi Maru for everyone.

                  Not everybody likes France.
                  Okay, I think we're miscommunicating here....
                  Victory and defeat are matters of the temporary force of circumstance.



                  Thanks, Snk16!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Eldritch
                    Okay, I think we're miscommunicating here....
                    I don't even get the Kobiyashi thing, anyhow...
                    HEAR ME ROAR!
                    sigpic
                    Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
                      I don't even get the Kobiyashi thing, anyhow...
                      Without blatantly exposing the reference, it is essentially a way of saying I am going to change the premise. That's why for me, the bomb didn't explode in the US. I was able to redirect it to blow up France and make everything better.
                      Victory and defeat are matters of the temporary force of circumstance.



                      Thanks, Snk16!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Eldritch
                        Without blatantly exposing the reference, it is essentially a way of saying I am going to change the premise. That's why for me, the bomb didn't explode in the US. I was able to redirect it to blow up France and make everything better.
                        Without blatantly exposing my wiki... er source, you're a major geek
                        HEAR ME ROAR!
                        sigpic
                        Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals
                          Without blatantly exposing my wiki... er source, you're a major geek
                          Curses!!


                          Eh, yeah. I'm a geek, never denied it. Besides, dropping references like that makes me sound worldly.
                          Victory and defeat are matters of the temporary force of circumstance.



                          Thanks, Snk16!!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Eldritch
                            Curses!!


                            Eh, yeah. I'm a geek, never denied it. Besides, dropping references like that makes me sound worldly.
                            No worries. I'm a major geek too. I just was never big on the original series. Next Generation (minus that little dork Wesley) was my fav.

                            But yeah, nuking France? Hmmm... can we like, dig up their vineyards and move them first?
                            HEAR ME ROAR!
                            sigpic
                            Thanks to Freyaka for the great sig!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Bronco_f1
                              So, I was thinking about this last week, and I was planning to post this here.

                              Here's the Dilemma. Imagine you would be the President of the United States, and for some reason, a country with nuclear power which does not have excelent relations with the US (China, Russia, Pakistan, India) would throw an atomic bomb into one of the states.

                              After this attack, you would have to face a very difficult choice, to attack back ot to surrender. Now, remember that countries that produce nuclear bombs now have missiles that could destroy an area as large as the entire US, some even have some missiles that could destroy the world, so if you would be to attack back, you might take the risk of getting attacked again. Remember that these countries move their missiles into different territories, not always in their own country.

                              So what would you do? Attack back or surrender.

                              I know, its a difficult decision, but I want to know your opinions
                              You have to launch... There's simply no choice. The whole reasoning behind not using nuclear weapons is that you can be sure that if you drop one, you will have one in your lap in no time.

                              Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. It is also cited by gun control opponents as the reason why crime rates sometimes tend to be lower in heavily armed populations. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome
                              www.wikipedia.org

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Bronco_f1
                                So, I was thinking about this last week, and I was planning to post this here.

                                Here's the Dilemma. Imagine you would be the President of the United States, and for some reason, a country with nuclear power which does not have excelent relations with the US (China, Russia, Pakistan, India) would throw an atomic bomb into one of the states.

                                After this attack, you would have to face a very difficult choice, to attack back ot to surrender. Now, remember that countries that produce nuclear bombs now have missiles that could destroy an area as large as the entire US, some even have some missiles that could destroy the world, so if you would be to attack back, you might take the risk of getting attacked again. Remember that these countries move their missiles into different territories, not always in their own country.

                                So what would you do? Attack back or surrender.

                                I know, its a difficult decision, but I want to know your opinions
                                Attack. We are the most powerful nation in the world right now. If we alowed other countries to do whatever they feel like we would not be that anymore. If we attacked wure it would mean lives. But if we didn't it would mean our country.
                                Long live the Broncos
                                Member of lagpa.

                                Thanks Reid!
                                My adopt-a-bronco!!! I used to be very proud now that has all changed. Now I am perfect!
                                John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever beleiveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X