- Feb 12, 2001
No doubtBut it is inevitable that the development of the new propulsion systems will spark controversy from anti-nuclear groups.
They opposed the launching of Nasa's Cassini probe to Saturn in 1997. The spacecraft uses plutonium to generate electricity for its onboard instruments.
They feared a launch failure or an accidental re-entry could have led to widespread contamination.
Cool. I'm glad you and I agree on this. We also agree that no weapons of mass destruction should be put in orbit for any reason. It's just too dangerous, and a bit stupid. I might go for a lazer up there if it could be proven that it could stop an ICBM, but with all the counter measures these days, that'd probably just be a waste of sky.Originally posted by pyritechips:
I was merely outlining some history. The nuclear treaty didn't discriminate between non-agressive nulclear propulsion for space vehicles and nuclear warheads. It was easier, negotiation-wise to just ban everything outright.
I support the use of nuclear propulsion for space research. The umbrella treaties of the past stymied that usage for 20 years. I say it's time to allow it.
How about: Let's not go for any weapons up there? The last thing we need is another escalation of weaponry on any possible "theatre".I might go for a lazer up there if it could be proven that it could stop an ICBM
Well, the LAST thing we need is nuclear ICBM's landing in NY, Chicago, and LA. But space weapons scare the hell out of me as well.Originally posted by pyritechips:
How about: Let's not go for any weapons up there? The last thing we need is another escalation of weaponry on any possible "theatre".
Actually, many of them were dismantled, both before and after the "cold war".Originally posted by LANMaster:
The cold war may be over, but I'd like to find out where all the long-range ICBM's went. At one time there was about 3500 missiles in the former Soviet Union. Each having about a dozen nuclear warheads attached. Nobody's claiming to have dismantled them. And last I heard, they were targeted at key Western cities.
You are an American and understandly speak from that perspective. But I try to make my viewpoint a more universal one. I don't want nuclear weapons of any nations landed on any city or country. And isn't the American military the possessor of the largest stockpile of Weapons of mass destruxtion on the planet?Well, the LAST thing we need is nuclear ICBM's landing in NY, Chicago, and LA.
The cold war may be over, but I'd like to find out where all the long-range ICBM's went
So true. JUst a couple of days ago I saw a news story stating that 50% of the former Soviet Union's massive stockpile of chemical and nuclear weapons are not monitored or catalogued.Navy vessells.
Lots of naval vessels are nuclear powered.
When they get old, and a bit 'dodgy'
the cheapest way to get rid of them is to
take them to somewhere out of the way
and scuttle them.
There are so many nuclear wrecks rotting away
that the seas are now almost registering
on geiger counters
Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.
If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.
Join over 807,865 other people just like you!