A good solution to solve the nuke problem?

[Aimster]

In exchange for their nukes the U.S will sell them new tanks and weapon systems. For countries like Iran the U.S/Europe can sell them commercial airplanes which they are in great need of.

In exchange they must allow inspectors to come in. Get rid of all their nuclear materials.

Wouldn't this be better than having nukes? Of course I doubt it could work because Russia sells to anyone who wants to buy. Iran is going to buy $8 billion of Russian arms next year and NK will probably be looking for an upgrade soon. This is saying that Russian arms are far less superior than that of the U.S.

Obviously my solution has flaws as I have never heard it before. What are they?

 

[cKGunslinger]

I say we get out of the business of telling other countries what they can and cannot do inside their own borders and instead use that money and effort to build a working Missile Defense System for our country and offer to build one for our allies for $$$. And I'm only half kidding.

 

[f95toli]

There is no such thing as a working missile defence system. It is simply impossible to build.

 

[biostud]

So what prevent them from going nucular after they've gotten "the good stuff"?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: f95toli
There is no such thing as a working missile defence system. It is simply impossible to build.

Incorrect.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: biostud666
So what prevent them from going nucular after they've gotten "the good stuff"?

UN Sanctions!




Edit: Woohoo! 1000 posts! I'm Golden, baby!

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: f95toli
There is no such thing as a working missile defence system. It is simply impossible to build.

Incorrect.

I think it would be impossible to build a reliable missle defence system. Simple because it would be easy for people launching the missles to change the deliver properties and defeat our missle defences.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: f95toli
There is no such thing as a working missile defence system. It is simply impossible to build.

Incorrect.

I think it would be impossible to build a reliable missle defence system. Simple because it would be easy for people launching the missles to change the deliver properties and defeat our missle defences.

Incorrect.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Aimster
In exchange for their nukes the U.S will sell them new tanks and weapon systems. For countries like Iran the U.S/Europe can sell them commercial airplanes which they are in great need of.

In exchange they must allow inspectors to come in. Get rid of all their nuclear materials.

Wouldn't this be better than having nukes? Of course I doubt it could work because Russia sells to anyone who wants to buy. Iran is going to buy $8 billion of Russian arms next year and NK will probably be looking for an upgrade soon. This is saying that Russian arms are far less superior than that of the U.S.

Obviously my solution has flaws as I have never heard it before. What are they?

iran has already said it won't give up their enrichment program for anything...

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: f95toli
There is no such thing as a working missile defence system. It is simply impossible to build.

um, its not impossible at all. In fact, it's likely it'll be completed in the next 10 years.

people said it was impossible to fly, they said it was impossible for the USA to win the revolutionary war, they said it was impossible to clone humans...but it's being done.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Aimster
In exchange for their nukes the U.S will sell them new tanks and weapon systems. For countries like Iran the U.S/Europe can sell them commercial airplanes which they are in great need of.

In exchange they must allow inspectors to come in. Get rid of all their nuclear materials.

Wouldn't this be better than having nukes? Of course I doubt it could work because Russia sells to anyone who wants to buy. Iran is going to buy $8 billion of Russian arms next year and NK will probably be looking for an upgrade soon. This is saying that Russian arms are far less superior than that of the U.S.

Obviously my solution has flaws as I have never heard it before. What are they?

iran has already said it won't give up their enrichment program for anything...

Yeah, but when Kerry gets in office, he'll wave his magic wand and they'll change their minds. Just like the Germans who say they won't send troops to Iraq. I know all this because I read his "plan."

 

[RabidMongoose]

For some reason I really doubt that these countries would absolutely give up their nuke programs, even if the world does what you just described.

 

[biostud]

Since nukes ATM is the only way to prevent beeing invaded by another country, it's what they want.

 

[SirStev0]

you know the us never gave up on star wars... i visited the naval academy when i was a senior and the one seminar was about the new weapons programs that the us and other countries are working on... comically enough the swiss are huge in weapon systems... so much for nuetrality... but anyway it is still a work in progress... for like 20 years...

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Aimster
In exchange for their nukes the U.S will sell them new tanks and weapon systems. For countries like Iran the U.S/Europe can sell them commercial airplanes which they are in great need of.

In exchange they must allow inspectors to come in. Get rid of all their nuclear materials.

Wouldn't this be better than having nukes? Of course I doubt it could work because Russia sells to anyone who wants to buy. Iran is going to buy $8 billion of Russian arms next year and NK will probably be looking for an upgrade soon. This is saying that Russian arms are far less superior than that of the U.S.

Obviously my solution has flaws as I have never heard it before. What are they?

iran has already said it won't give up their enrichment program for anything...

Yeah, but when Kerry gets in office, he'll wave his magic wand and they'll change their minds. Just like the Germans who say they won't send troops to Iraq. I know all this because I read his "plan."

kerry has a plan for everything. I wonder what his plan is for when he loses?

 

[Rainsford]

This worry about nukes is quite possibly the stupidest thing to worry about, IMHO. Who has more nukes than anyone else? That would be the US. And what's our policy if we are attacked by nuclear weapons? That's right, full nuclear retaliation. Now let's think about it for a second, is Iran really going to risk being reduced to a sheet of glass for the chance to destroy one of our numerous big cities? I kind of doubt it. They wouldn't attack us directly for that reason, and I doubt they'd sell anything to terrorists for fear if we were attacked we'd find out where they came from. It worked against Russia, a country with far more power than those dumbasses in Iran could ever dream of. And don't give me that "they are a bunch of crazy fanatics" junk. Yeah, the lower level peons might be, but the vast majority of leaders like being leaders and don't want to see their country destroyed no matter how much they might hate us.

You don't protect yourself by making sure no one can attack you, you protect yourself by making it obvious that attacking you will result in consequences your attacker doesn't want to face. To use my as always favorite bar analogy, I can't stop some drunk asshole from taking a swing at me, except by conveying to him that he will be getting the beatdown if he tries.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: f95toli
There is no such thing as a working missile defence system. It is simply impossible to build.

um, its not impossible at all. In fact, it's likely it'll be completed in the next 10 years.

people said it was impossible to fly, they said it was impossible for the USA to win the revolutionary war, they said it was impossible to clone humans...but it's being done.

The difference is that the laws of nature do not suddenly change whereas a human adversary can always adapt. I am not saying it is impossible to shoot down an incoming missile, but it is very, very difficult. Lets say you hava a PK of 80% (a very good number for a SAM system), that still means that if your enemy shoots 10 missiles at you 2 will hit, and 2 nukes is enough fo most purposes.

All I am saying is that you can never complettely rely on military defenses. A system like this would not stop someone from putting a tactical nuke on a small boat and sail that into the harbor of a large city, or why not fire the missile from a ship just a few miles from shore?

No defence system is perfect, we should have learned that by now.

 

[Veramocor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This worry about nukes is quite possibly the stupidest thing to worry about, IMHO. Who has more nukes than anyone else? That would be the US. And what's our policy if we are attacked by nuclear weapons? That's right, full nuclear retaliation. Now let's think about it for a second, is Iran really going to risk being reduced to a sheet of glass for the chance to destroy one of our numerous big cities? I kind of doubt it. They wouldn't attack us directly for that reason, and I doubt they'd sell anything to terrorists for fear if we were attacked we'd find out where they came from. It worked against Russia, a country with far more power than those dumbasses in Iran could ever dream of. And don't give me that "they are a bunch of crazy fanatics" junk. Yeah, the lower level peons might be, but the vast majority of leaders like being leaders and don't want to see their country destroyed no matter how much they might hate us.

You don't protect yourself by making sure no one can attack you, you protect yourself by making it obvious that attacking you will result in consequences your attacker doesn't want to face. To use my as always favorite bar analogy, I can't stop some drunk asshole from taking a swing at me, except by conveying to him that he will be getting the beatdown if he tries.

Its just the fact that we'd turn them into glass which makes the missle defense system such a joke. Even if it worked 100% it would be a joke. Lets assume the US had a fully operational missle defense system which can take out up to 15 missles, 99% success rate. Both Iran and NK know this. If they shoot a missle at us it gets shot down, then they die.

Now if your stupid you'd shoot a ballistic missle at the US, but I give our enemies a little more credit than ntzd and ckgunslinger do. Instead I'd smuggle a nuclear weapon onto a ship, Once its ported in the US, blow it up. No direct knowledge of who used the nuke. The US wouldnt be able to retaliate till it new who sent the nuke.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Actually, our old policy of deterrence has been turned on its head. There are those that see our attack on Iraq as stopping a country from having nukes as opposed to leaving N. Korea alone when they brag about their nukes means that we won't attack a country that already has nukes. If a country like Iran thinks it can develop them while we are bogged down in Iraq, we will be loathe to attack them.

GWB has also moved away from our long staanding policy that we will not use nukes on a country that does not have them too. He has made it clear that nuke bunker busters could be used in a pre-emptive strike. There is now no protection against U.S. nukes just because you don't have any.

GWB's actions and policies have made the world a much scarier place.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Veramocor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This worry about nukes is quite possibly the stupidest thing to worry about, IMHO. Who has more nukes than anyone else? That would be the US. And what's our policy if we are attacked by nuclear weapons? That's right, full nuclear retaliation. Now let's think about it for a second, is Iran really going to risk being reduced to a sheet of glass for the chance to destroy one of our numerous big cities? I kind of doubt it. They wouldn't attack us directly for that reason, and I doubt they'd sell anything to terrorists for fear if we were attacked we'd find out where they came from. It worked against Russia, a country with far more power than those dumbasses in Iran could ever dream of. And don't give me that "they are a bunch of crazy fanatics" junk. Yeah, the lower level peons might be, but the vast majority of leaders like being leaders and don't want to see their country destroyed no matter how much they might hate us.

You don't protect yourself by making sure no one can attack you, you protect yourself by making it obvious that attacking you will result in consequences your attacker doesn't want to face. To use my as always favorite bar analogy, I can't stop some drunk asshole from taking a swing at me, except by conveying to him that he will be getting the beatdown if he tries.

Its just the fact that we'd turn them into glass which makes the missle defense system such a joke. Even if it worked 100% it would be a joke. Lets assume the US had a fully operational missle defense system which can take out up to 15 missles, 99% success rate. Both Iran and NK know this. If they shoot a missle at us it gets shot down, then they die.

Now if your stupid you'd shoot a ballistic missle at the US, but I give our enemies a little more credit than ntzd and ckgunslinger do. Instead I'd smuggle a nuclear weapon onto a ship, Once its ported in the US, blow it up. No direct knowledge of who used the nuke. The US wouldnt be able to retaliate till it new who sent the nuke.

I agree that from an attacker's point of view, the latter option would be "better", but I think our intelligence agencies would eventually figure it out...and if they did, the country that made the bomb is boned. Regular retaliation is one thing, but who's going to risk being nuked back to the stone age?

 

[Jhhnn]

Neocon foreign and domestic policy demands the existence of "enemies", preferably of the puffed up variety. Which is why the Bush Admin went way out of their way to convince the DPRK and Iran to go nuclear- It serves the chest-thumping/ fearmongering campaign at home, helps fund NMD and other useless coldwar weaponry, fills the pockets of the military supply industry, cripples the treasury.

What are we going to do about it? absolutely nothing, other than pose as a toughguy and pander to fear. The situation is exactly what the Neocons want.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: biostud666
Since nukes ATM is the only way to prevent beeing invaded by another country, it's what they want.

Damn straight. I can't say I blame them for building nukes after we've proven ourselves to once again be trigger happy with the army. They know they can't beat us in a conventional war, so they really have no choice but to use nukes as a deterent.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This worry about nukes is quite possibly the stupidest thing to worry about, IMHO. Who has more nukes than anyone else? That would be the US. And what's our policy if we are attacked by nuclear weapons? That's right, full nuclear retaliation. Now let's think about it for a second, is Iran really going to risk being reduced to a sheet of glass for the chance to destroy one of our numerous big cities? I kind of doubt it. They wouldn't attack us directly for that reason, and I doubt they'd sell anything to terrorists for fear if we were attacked we'd find out where they came from. It worked against Russia, a country with far more power than those dumbasses in Iran could ever dream of. And don't give me that "they are a bunch of crazy fanatics" junk. Yeah, the lower level peons might be, but the vast majority of leaders like being leaders and don't want to see their country destroyed no matter how much they might hate us.

You don't protect yourself by making sure no one can attack you, you protect yourself by making it obvious that attacking you will result in consequences your attacker doesn't want to face. To use my as always favorite bar analogy, I can't stop some drunk asshole from taking a swing at me, except by conveying to him that he will be getting the beatdown if he tries.

Which is also exactly why they want nukes.

 

[CycloWizard]

I agree with CKG... Even if we give them whatever they want, the technology has already been developed and they can easily turn around and build more nukes. It's a never-ending cycle. It is possible to build a working missile defense. Only problem then is that non-missile-based nukes can still be smuggled into the country. We need to work on detection systems for such weapons, which is not out of the question either, though I'm hardly knowledgeable on the subject to the extent that I could render advice as to how we should do this other than by walking around with Geiger counters.

This all goes back to a statement I made a while ago. Nuclear development will likely eventually occur in every nation as time advances. This will either lead to world peace or world destruction. Given long enough time, it will inevitably lead to world destruction. Einstein knew this 60 years ago, which is why he said "I'd have been a watchmaker" if he had realized the implications of his theories being developed into nuclear weapons.

 

[ReiAyanami]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: f95toli
There is no such thing as a working missile defence system. It is simply impossible to build.

Incorrect.

Double Incorrent Backfire!! You can build a missile defence shield but it will probably only have 75%-90% accuracy (no good at all when the enemy is firing thousands of warheads at you).

So chances are we'll have to build 2 seperate missile defence shields and it will cost $400 billion total.

Now as for protecting against a single missile or two from a rogue nation like NK, unfortunately it also doesn't work. Because to have a 75% working missile shield and you shoot down both incoming Kim Jong Phallus Projectiles, then you have no capability to strike back with nukes. (no politician would allow wiping out millions of civilians if the threat has been eliminated beforehand)

Hence we would have to launch targeted strikes followed by a land invasion (against a ground army of 1 million North Korean Soldiers). Once we are weakened, China launches several thousand warheads against us destroying America (even if our shield works 99.9% thats enuff to destroy every major city).


Hence it is better to simply not have a missile shield and invest that $200-$400 billion in a colony on Mars for when World War III wipes out all civilization on Earth.