What do you think Space Warfare will actually be like? Thread

Fail assaultman, the link don't work.

 Anyways, here's what I found:

En.wikipedia.org
An accidental event that involves nuclear weapons or nuclear components but which does not create the risk of nuclear war, known as a Broken Arrow in United States military terminology.
The United States code for calling in all available aircraft or artillery for an airstrike and/or artillery strike very near a friendly position which has been overrun by the foe, and therefore creating a high probability of'Blue-on-Blue'. An example of this use was shown in the 2002 movie We Were Soldiers, a true story during which a Broken Arrow was called in by Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore in 1965 while leading his men through the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam.

Therefore we are both right. By the way though, it's not lost nukes, it's a nuclear weapons accident.

Well then, Broken Arrow is not the right code. A Broken Arrow is a nuclear weapon accident, not a missing nuclear weapon. That's talking about lost nukes sort of isn't it? A lost nuke is "Empty Quiver."

Mutant time controlling babies FTW and chaotic AI

Apparently the Term "Broken Arrow" (US Military) is used for any kind of 'Nuclear Accident' (Including Loss of a weapon or component damage etc.) that doesn't result in effecting an increased threat to Nuclear War! So, basically both of you are correct there!

Another use of the term has in the past been to call in an Artillery and/or Airstrike near friendly territory.

Nuclear power is amazing, and we need to tell the environmentalists to shut up about problems which did exist in the bad old days of Soviet reactors, but which with realistic appraisal and funding could provide the world's energy for at least long enough for us to master renewable energy.

I'm all for nuclear power plants, if they are away from residential areas (safety obviously).  They are very environmentally friendly, and we should have more. It's also very economical too, though the original investment is expensive. The environmentalist should instead of complaining about all our high pollution coal/oil plants and do something to encourage nuclear energy instead.

Ok guys fuck that, you dont even have the slightest clue about nuclear power it seems. Economical? Enviroment friendly? Get your facts straight.

I have a master's degree in physics. They're correct, and you're an ignorant dick.

It is stored and/or reprocessed. The various techniques available are safe and environmentally low-impact.

The fact is, while of course it's not perfect, it's not nearly as bad as people like you (at the risk of acting on stereotypes) seem to think. It's a damn sight better than any other 'conventional' power source. It's even arguably better than some types of renewables, such as hydroelectric which can play havoc with ecosystems.

EDIT: For the record, the point of telling you about my qualifications was to show that I have more than the slightest clue about nuclear power, and that therefore your assertion that they don't based on the fact that they disagree with you is ignorant and arrogant.

Edited by: Six_Ways

Umm... okay. Economical.

Environmentally friendly.

And another environmental, showing that in some cases nuclear power is in fact 'cleaner' than the nature is to start with

I'm sure we can keep at this all day whilst you spout studies and pseudoscience from Greenpeace. Simple fact is that although nuclear isn't perfect, does have a cost and will one day run out it is the cleanest and most effective solution to power generation in the medium to long term.

Edited by: jacksonj04

Assaultman67 wrote:
In layman's terms, It would be sorta like seeing if you can shift out of 5th gear without using the clutch or taking your foot off the gas ... just to see if you can can make it up a hill purely with momentum.

That's a brilliant metaphor!