Moron #1 : CAPT Brad

Lead is expensive and heavy. I mean sure, it works, but you can't protect an entire city with lead.

The best plan for radiation shielding i've heard of is for Mars (where the atmosphere doesn't provide much shielding from solar radiation) and it is pretty simple. Build a bubble, then cover it in soil.

Most nuclear shelters are deep underground to provide precisely the same type of protections.

I actually think we're better off learning how to process nuclear fallout, so that an effective cleanup can occur after any potential attack.

Actually, yes lead is expensive at around $1 a pound. Shielding a whole city cannot be done realistically. And an absurd waste of resources to try. But any shielding is going to be heavy because it has to be dense to interact with the radiation to block it. That's just the physics
There are really two issues: blocking the radiation and blocking the radioactive particles. You likely need to do both

And no, we haven't any clue how to clean up any fallout. That clean up is mostly "abandon the site for ten thousand years". Roughly it is like cleaning up soil atom by atom. Absurd!

As usual, better not to spray the shit around in the first place. Prevention is pretty much always cheaper than clean up.

Interestingly that's a basic economic fact that libertarians never seem to understand. Thus, they want to let everyone do whatever, meaning a company earns a thousand dollars by polluting ( which they pocket) and the society has to shell out millions to clean up the mess, leaving the economy worse off. Conservatives of course are fine with making society poorer as long as their rich friends get richer.

Thats all great but even if you save buildings how are you gonna save groundwater, air, crops, and soil from contamination. Not to mention insects and animals. You cant.

Any system ever created encourages lying, that's not saying anything. If someone is dumb enough to outright say they want nukes for offensive capabilities (North Korea, Iran), that just gives us a justification for preventing them from obtaining such weapons.

Even if they were to get their hands on some though, I wouldn't be too worried about it. I'm with you on believing they wouldn't make good on their bluffs because then they would surely die from a counter strike, I don't think they are willing to give up their lives and that of everyone in their countries. Their lives are too good from preying on their populace with their oppressive governments for it to be worth it.

Not wanting nukes because they could misfire doesn't make sense. That is like saying you don't want to live in a house/apartment etc. because the building could catch fire. Or you don't want to drive a car because you could crash. We shouldn't take actions on the possibility of rare events happening. Especially when the chance of those rare events is negligible because of proper safeguards being put in place (which is definitely the case when it comes to nukes).

@Brainbomb

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-defense-20140615-story.html

@Orathaic

you're exactly right when you say that there's stuff out there with potential of great nuclear shielding beyond a wall of lead. this why it's a field we need to look closer at. sadly in the 1980s we say nuclear technology fall way back to people starting up in the bioengineering industry and of course the eventual cumulation to the HGP, and pharmaceuticals and biotech today. nuclear research is best spearheaded in europe right now. still, you'll find some small mostly university based research if you look into the matter

https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/07/rabiei-foam-rays-2015/

it has potential (though it still fails against lead). i'll try to find an link to a study out of Princeton (citation Definitely needed) where they were trying to negate the effects of gamma radiation altogether without using physical material, but cancelling them out instead... i don't remember great success but the concept was interesting.

in any case, a missile defense system that could stop 99% of missiles i personally would LOVE to have. the ice oaf stopping nuclear arms means that once blown up the immediate fallout is over the home nation who deployed it. that means it's a singularly assured destruction, and for the aggressor.

and let's say your mail-in-a-nuke scheme were actually feasible... or some variant of it, then how on earth are we stopping that right now? what i want is a system in place so i a rogue state (perhaps one full of martyrs?) gets there hands on a ballistic nuclear weapon, we have a strong contingency plan.

@Ogion

i wasn't referring to lead shielding, i was saying we need to advance science and find better ways to combat radiation. there's actually some interesting results refracting radiation with some metamaterials, and there's still research of laser catalysed fission in relation to shielding, but as i said: there are all WELL in their infancy.

i'd much rather never see another nuke go off, but even more than that i'd rather see science progress so that a nuclear explosion would be tantamount to a fireworks show in terms of danger.


i'm starting to think i'm pushing this conversation into a much more theoretical-physics oriented realm and i know i'm going to get shit for that, but it's better to look at science than pretend that nuclear disarmament is some brilliant long term solution that's infallible over the course of the century.

that there's *not much* stuff

also **ice oaf** idfk what i just wrote. just... delete all of that

oh orathaic, such a clever cutdown. oh! i am cut to the quick! you bozo

@"If someone is dumb enough to outright say they want nukes for offensive capabilities (North Korea, Iran), that just gives us a justification for preventing them from obtaining such weapons. "

I disagree, they are lying about wanting to use them (the want diplomatic leverage), and youare not using this as a reason (the reason nobody wants them to have nukes is to prevent them gaining this leverage).

The lies are just propoganda to justify what is obviously in the 'national interest' of either party.

@Manwe, yes, you shouldn't take actions which have a small chance of ending the world (if someone accidentally fires off a nuke because the radar picked up some birds and they were misinterpreted as a pre-emptive russian strike).

It is a serious existential threat, and so i would use this reason for stopping NK and everyone else from having any.

As i've said, i'd love to see the US and Russia halve their stockpiles.

@JY - interesting links, thanks i shall have a looksee.

@"and let's say your mail-in-a-nuke scheme were actually feasible... or some variant of it, then how on earth are we stopping that right now"

First, i think we have suitcase sized nukes. I also think we're using MAD to stop this kind of attack right now, and trying to make sure smaller terrorist organisation don't get their hands on any weapons. (China, and Russia both have ICBMs which are most likely a far more effective delivery system at present).

There are also checks in every shipping facility which will detect (unshielded) nuclear material, and thus i suspect the only targets you would easily be able to hit are those port cities on the coast (which would be devastating, but would not stop any current nuclear power from retaliating... Assuming you could tell who sent the weapon..)

Most shielding is heavy and expensive, so i imagine our current detectors would be fairly good, but if we do manage to develop really effective shielding, then that would open up a number of threats.

I'd love to see some amazing new shielding technique, i think we can build gamma ray lenses (they are actually lead grids, which let some gama through and stop others, but in a way where the constructive interference focuses it to a point - just like a lense) that also means we could build a kind of gamma diffuser which would reduce the intensity by redirecting the gamma rays, and spreading them out more...

But again, lead seems to be the main material i'm aware of.

really such breakthroughs in these fields would matter less to us, and be a MASSIVE relief for Japan and South Korea.

While a defense system to take out nuclear bombs would be fantastic in that it would relieve the world of a possible nuclear war, it is a double edged sword in that it would throw the world back into the chaos of conventional warfare. It's as I said before, the world has only been largely at peace since WW2 because you can not attack a country with nuclear bombs. With so many large and powerful nations possessing those, most countries are safe from large scale conflict.. I fear that as soon as nukes becomes obsolete however, WW3 will follow shortly thereafter.

Most people I should say, not most countries (because the countries with them have large populations).

Manwe, think about this for a second. The main reason nobody has used Nuclear weapons in anger since world war 2, is not hecause the people with haven't wanted to harm each other (thry went on several proxy wars) it is because they fear retaliation from the other.

So if one side, any side, gets defensive technology which can protect them from retaliation. What do you think happens to the chances of a nuclear war???

Oh, i see the rest of what you did... some interesting analysis. I disagree. I think a world without nuclear weapons is a peaceful globalised trading world. Where nobody wants to risk losing their biggest trading partner - who happens to also be their biggest rival.

I think we have had huge technological advances in the last 50 years alone, like the shipping container, and high speed jets. A lot more has changed in the peace since 1945 than just the development of nuclear weapons.

Only the allied countries were permitted legally but russia d China stole the technology to create them. Countries like isreal India Pakistan and North Korea are restricted by a nuclear proliferation treaty as it's a domino affect

You realise Russia and China were allied to the US right up until 1945, right?

New treaty voted on today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-Weapon-Ban_treaty#Vote

122 countries in favour, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention

All nuclear weapons states and all NATO members except the Netherlands boycotted the vote. Is it really that surprising that a majority of countries with little to no military of their own want to get rid of the military of other nations that do have one?

Nice use of the "STAR WARS" font in the "BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS" posters.

I suppose it's not a horrible thing for non-nuclear nations to come up with a treaty like this. No nuclear power will ratify it any time soon, but they may accede to it later.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/us-thaad-missile-defense-test/index.html?sr=fbCNN071117us-thaad-missile-defense-test0730AMVODtop

Towards the end of the article, it states we have the capability to shoot down ICBMs approximately 50% of the time for anyone who was interested.

Thanks Manwe, i think i guessed 60% above, but i was assuming the tech had gotten better.

I know the US designed missile interceptor systems (firing missles to bring down an ICBM) and however effective they are, the Russians counters by adding fins so their missiles could turn while in flight (allowing them easily dodge any interceptors) - it was, i believe, a very cheap modification for the russians, compared to billions invested bt the US.