History has proven we don't need a centralized standing army.

[Nebor]

Whoever thinks we can unilaterally dismantle our nuclear arsenal and not have our security suffer for it is living in a dream world.

 

[hal2kilo]

Whoever thinks we can unilaterally dismantle our nuclear arsenal and not have our security suffer for it is living in a dream world.

The genie is out of the bottle, and even though we can work toward a reduction in the number of weapons, it is a fantasy to think we could completely disarm ourselves.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not arguing with either of those conclusions - I'm arguing with the underlying premise that we can actually achieve global abolition of nuclear munitions. There are simply too many people that know how to build them for this to ever be accomplished. While monitoring can be used to detect a large nuclear program, a one-off, low-yield device could be built in someone's bathroom with minimal equipment by someone with the right skillset. Nuclear prohibition would fail for the same reason as alcohol prohibition.

You're assuming. Check the facts. The knowledge how to build one is out, but the items needed to build one are not so easy as I said.

People like McNamara did not advocate this unaware of the issue of whether the risk of someone being able to do it and not get caught was there.

As far as developing anything like a 'wipe out the country' threat, it's even more clearly impractical. For just one thing, there's a reason nations test the weapons...

 

[Aegeon]

2. the capitol burned to the ground in 1812 because we tried to invade canada.

There is quite a bit of evidence that some key US decision makers knew permanent territorial gains in Canada was an unlikely outcome of the war, with many figuring any temporary gain would mostly be a bargaining chip for negotiations. In other words, conquering Canada was not the reason for the US going to war.

To be clear, the US forces were mostly not in Canada when the British launched their attack upon Washington D.C.

It was specifically about British ships impressing stopping US merchant ships and impressing US sailors into British naval service. (I.E. forcing to have them join against their will, specifically with the claim they were really British subjects.) The other major factor was the Royal Navy blockade preventing the US from trading with most of the continental European powers. The other factor was the British were encouraging raids by Native American tribes against US settlers to some degree to slow down US expansion in the Northwest territories, and the US wanted this stopped.

British behavior during the period was to a significant degree caused by US military weakness. If the US had a reasonable centralized standing army and a stronger navy in 1812, its virtually certain the British would have quickly agreed to at least stop impressment at sea, which would presumably have been sufficient to avoid war. (Especially because the war started in June of 1812 which was prior to Napoleon suffering his huge setbacks in Russia particularly with Moscow and the retreat during that winter.)

For that matter, European powers leaving the US alone after this period during the 19th century was at least partially about the US generally keeping a stronger navy as well as at least a certain sized army. As noted, the rules today are clearly different in key respects because a force really heavily based off just civilian held guns (with with potentially non-standardized ammunition at that) is clearly not going to cut it against a sufficiently ruthless enemy.

Incidentally its exceedingly probable that Japan would have at least taken Hawaii eventually on top of the US's other Pacific holdings if there was no standing US military to worry about. A related issue would be the likelihood of Hitler going after the US eventually if he triumphed against the UK and the USSR. (Standing US military assets and production designed to assist them did play a role here including things such as military aircraft sent and the 50 destroyers the US gave to the UK to assist them in the Battle of the Atlantic prior to actual US entry into the war.)

In general on top of ignoring key historical realities as well as what is needed to ensure even an effective US military defense of the country itself, you're ignoring the realistic consequences in a globalized world if the US actually pretty much ruled out foreign intervention under any circumstances. (How often can be questioned, but pure isolationism is clearly flawed.)

 

[Craig234]

The genie is out of the bottle, and even though we can work toward a reduction in the number of weapons, it is a fantasy to think we could completely disarm ourselves.

Link to any expert saying this? Have you learned about the issue, the extremely limited sources for needed materials and how they're controlled, before posting?

I'll repeat what I said previously, people are assuming as they comment.

Check the facts.

 

[CycloWizard]

You're assuming. Check the facts. The knowledge how to build one is out, but the items needed to build one are not so easy as I said.

People like McNamara did not advocate this unaware of the issue of whether the risk of someone being able to do it and not get caught was there.

As far as developing anything like a 'wipe out the country' threat, it's even more clearly impractical. For just one thing, there's a reason nations test the weapons...

In McNamara's day, you were probably right - the knowledge and tools to make it happen were not widespread, but they certainly are now. There are plenty of people with the knowledge needed to singlehandedly build a low-yield device, and plenty more idiots with the money and insanity needed to supply them with the motivation and supplies. You're living in fantasy land if you really think there aren't enough engineers out there with the know-how to make a low-yield device. I can buy vastly improved versions of all of the tech used in the early bombs at Radio Shack at this point. How tight a leash do you really think we can keep on the world uranium market that someone can't score a pound or two? What if that crazy bastard has $10 million to pay for it? It's ridiculous to suggest that you can control every ounce of material everywhere in the world, but that's what you're suggesting.

 

[hal2kilo]

Link to any expert saying this? Have you learned about the issue, the extremely limited sources for needed materials and how they're controlled, before posting?

I'll repeat what I said previously, people are assuming as they comment.

Check the facts.

You kill me sometimes Craig. Have a nice time living in Namby-Pamby land.

 

[Aegeon]

Link to any expert saying this? Have you learned about the issue, the extremely limited sources for needed materials and how they're controlled, before posting?

I'll repeat what I said previously, people are assuming as they comment.

Check the facts.

Its not like there is any dispute among those willing to actually rationally seriously look at this issue. (Its just that allot of people simply are not willing to do this.) All you need is one county such as Russia or China cheating and they can blackmail other other country militarily in mostly getting whatever they want for quite awhile, assuming other countries at least are smart enough to develop weapons again once the violation is apparent to prevent this situation lasting forever. (I.E. they know they can get away with invading and conquering certain countries with no real consequences and certainly no international military reaction.) They also could in fact quite quickly aggressively expand their nuclear arsenals at that point, even if they had previously publicly appeared to comply with all the international rules.

For that matter, there is the practical issue that a country like Japan has the infrastructure, and would basically keep this even with stronger international standards to possibly secretly develop a nuclear weapons program rather quickly. It may be true Japan won't do this due to internal political reasons, but assuming no-one ever will is another thing entirely. For that matter, the situation with Iran shows all a country need to do is keep some level of denial and uncertainty about what they are doing and they could secretly develop nukes before the world would really do anything to actually stop them. Once they do so, the political picture radically changes and the country has a massive piece of blackmail material at a minimum. (In key respects North Korea is even more glaring since they have been pursuing more nuclear weapons quite openly.)

Rhetoric about an eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is one thing and generally harmless and possibly useful from a pr perspective, going so far as to actually try to genuinely truly implement it given the practical problems and human nature is something else. (We only might get rid of them once we have more powerful weapons available and they are mostly obsolete.)

 

[Karl Agathon]

A nuclear deterent is now needed to deter future agression from Red China.

 

[TridenT]

A nuclear deterent is now needed to deter future agression from Red China.

You mean the thousands of nukes we already have that could carpet bomb the world a few times?

 

[Karl Agathon]

You mean the thousands of nukes we already have that could carpet bomb the world a few times?

Thats what I meant, no way should the U.S. significantly take away its current nuclear forces capability. Russia and escpecially China sure as hell wont.

 

[Nebor]

You kill me sometimes Craig. Have a nice time living in Namby-Pamby land.

Yup. He needs to be robbed at knife point and stabbed a couple times. It'd fix his world view.

 

[fskimospy]

In McNamara's day, you were probably right - the knowledge and tools to make it happen were not widespread, but they certainly are now. There are plenty of people with the knowledge needed to singlehandedly build a low-yield device, and plenty more idiots with the money and insanity needed to supply them with the motivation and supplies. You're living in fantasy land if you really think there aren't enough engineers out there with the know-how to make a low-yield device. I can buy vastly improved versions of all of the tech used in the early bombs at Radio Shack at this point. How tight a leash do you really think we can keep on the world uranium market that someone can't score a pound or two? What if that crazy bastard has $10 million to pay for it? It's ridiculous to suggest that you can control every ounce of material everywhere in the world, but that's what you're suggesting.

What you're saying just isn't correct. If any person sufficiently motivated can do so, why haven't they done it? The possession of even a low yield nuclear device would be such an enormously powerful bargaining tool for any terrorist organization or even any individual that they would build one tomorrow if they could.

So the question is, if its so easy, why haven't they done it? You don't think Al Qaeda wants a low yield nuke? Do you honestly think that someone is going to build a uranium enrichment centrifuge system in their basement? That's a fantasy.

Come on guys, use your heads.

 

[TridenT]

Thats what I meant, no way should the U.S. significantly take away its current nuclear forces capability. Russia and escpecially China sure as hell wont.

Wut was that?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/02/06/nuclear-treaty.html

 

[alkemyst]

Armed citizens with semi-auto AR-15's are no match for a foriegn country's armed forces, let alone China's. Professional army's exist so that citizens can, you know, be citizens and stuff.

If you want me, the citizen, to be your army, may I ask your opinion on gun rights? At what level would we be allowed to arm and prepare for China?

Also, I think you are discounting the role standing militaries play in national and regional disasters.

well in reality if an "invading" force came then they'd not care who they level.

Our right to bear arms is more about keeping our local forces at bay.

However, in the end just having each citizen able to bear arms does pose a difficult problem to any invasion.

*wink wink* though, the US is trying hard to remove that and as our dollar slides our "humble" leaders are seeking new alliances.

 

[davmat787]

Wut was that?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/02/06/nuclear-treaty.html

This, START, is a continuation of what Reagan started in 1984. It does however limit each country to 1550 strategic warheads, down from 2200.

 

[davmat787]

well in reality if an "invading" force came then they'd not care who they level.

Our right to bear arms is more about keeping our local forces at bay.

However, in the end just having each citizen able to bear arms does pose a difficult problem to any invasion.

*wink wink* though, the US is trying hard to remove that and as our dollar slides our "humble" leaders are seeking new alliances.

Oh don't get me wrong, I am all for some AR-15 fun BUT if it came down to citizens vs. a professional army, your @#$%ed.

Besides, if the US had no standing military as implied, how long would it take for a country, *cough* Mexico *cough* to come a 'knockin? Do you think our borders would be more respected than they are now? Or does the OP think we should have open borders because that is what you would end up with. :biggrin:

 

[Karl Agathon]

Wut was that?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/02/06/nuclear-treaty.html

What was what? The treaty is great, but Russia still has a huge nuclear arsenal

 

[alkemyst]

Oh don't get me wrong, I am all for some AR-15 fun BUT if it came down to citizens vs. a professional army, your @#$%ed.

Besides, if the US had no standing military as implied, how long would it take for a country, *cough* Mexico *cough* to come a 'knockin? Do you think our borders would be more respected than they are now? Or does the OP think we should have open borders because that is what you would end up with. :biggrin:

Really depends on if leveling the area is worthwhile.

I think the armed american will provide a big stumbling block during our takeover in the future if we keep supporting our weakest links instead of letting them die out.

 

[Aegeon]

This, START, is a continuation of what Reagan started in 1984. It does however limit each country to 1550 strategic warheads, down from 2200.

It also says nothing about tactical nuclear weapons of which Russia has thousands.

To put things in perspective the US's own "tactical" nuclear weapons include bombs with payloads of at least up to 170 kilotons, or over 9 times more powerful than the bomb used on Hiroshima.

The reality is both countries retain very formidable nuclear arsenals even once the latest treaty reductions are implemented.

 

[davmat787]

Really depends on if leveling the area is worthwhile.

I think the armed american will provide a big stumbling block during our takeover in the future if we keep supporting our weakest links instead of letting them die out.

I agree that an armed citizenry would be beneficial, I just disagree with the notion of it being "good enough", and thus not needing a standing military.

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with that.

Also, I think for the average citizen, knowing they are the frontline defense would be detrimental to their psyche and production. Maybe ending up with bunker mentality type groups?

 

[CycloWizard]

What you're saying just isn't correct. If any person sufficiently motivated can do so, why haven't they done it? The possession of even a low yield nuclear device would be such an enormously powerful bargaining tool for any terrorist organization or even any individual that they would build one tomorrow if they could.

So the question is, if its so easy, why haven't they done it? You don't think Al Qaeda wants a low yield nuke? Do you honestly think that someone is going to build a uranium enrichment centrifuge system in their basement? That's a fantasy.

Come on guys, use your heads.

It is correct. People could easily carry things onto a plane that would take it down as well, as the current security measures are a complete joke. Why haven't they? Good question. There are a couple of obvious possible answers:
1. Terrorists are very uneducated and, most likely, stupid to begin with, which is why they become terrorists.
2. No one educated/intelligent enough to pull it off has the motivation to do it.

How many engineers and physicists currently work on nuclear arms just in the US? What about Russia, China, India, Pakistan? Thousands. Uranium is cheap - about $70/pound from what I see online. Little Boy used about 141 pounds of uranium. What were the complex bits used in that bomb that would be hard for an engineer to throw together today? How many engineers or physicists do you think it would take to throw something together? Even Wikipedia agrees with me - the simple design of the earliest bombs would be easy to reproduce today. You and Craig are obviously not engineers or you'd have realized that before making an ass of yourself.

 

[Aegeon]

Uranium is cheap - about $70/pound from what I see online. Little Boy used about 141 pounds of uranium.

You appear to actually be preposterously underestimating the difficulty of building a nuclear bomb at this point. Regular uranium is basically useless directly as far a building a nuclear bomb goes. You could have 100,000 pounds of regular uranium and it won't do you any good for actually constructing a nuclear bomb. (At best you can basically use it for the bomb casing and the like.)

What you need is highly enriched uranium, which historically involved the US consuming a huge amount of resources and considerable time to produce enough enriched uranium for one atomic bomb of this type in time to drop on Hiroshima. (The test one and the one dropped on Nagasaki were plutonium based.) While more modern enrichment techniques such as what Iran is believed to be using makes things somewhat easier, Iran currently is believed to have somewhat over 8,000 centrifuges that it has been using to try to produce enough enriched uranium to create several nuclear bombs within a few years. (It looks like Iran may need more installed to managed this, and this was before the recent computer worm appears to have seriously set back the program.)

The point is this still takes a great amount of resources to produce even one viable nuclear bomb using this route. Its not something a couple of terrorists could quietly produce working together in someone's basement regardless of their qualifications. (Scenarios with small numbers of people producing a bomb basically require them to have acquired the right sort of plutonium or already highly enriched uranium from someone else.)

Its fairly easy for some countries to potentially quietly manage to produce nuclear bombs if they want to, but not so easy for anyone to accomplish.

 

[Hacp]

It is correct. People could easily carry things onto a plane that would take it down as well, as the current security measures are a complete joke. Why haven't they? Good question. There are a couple of obvious possible answers:
1. Terrorists are very uneducated and, most likely, stupid to begin with, which is why they become terrorists.
2. No one educated/intelligent enough to pull it off has the motivation to do it.

How many engineers and physicists currently work on nuclear arms just in the US? What about Russia, China, India, Pakistan? Thousands. Uranium is cheap - about $70/pound from what I see online. Little Boy used about 141 pounds of uranium. What were the complex bits used in that bomb that would be hard for an engineer to throw together today? How many engineers or physicists do you think it would take to throw something together? Even Wikipedia agrees with me - the simple design of the earliest bombs would be easy to reproduce today. You and Craig are obviously not engineers or you'd have realized that before making an ass of yourself.

Well, the hardest part would be getting the necessary equipment to "purify" the uranium. Those centrifuges are hard to build I guess.

 

[CycloWizard]

You appear to actually be preposterously underestimating the difficulty of building a nuclear bomb at this point. Regular uranium is basically useless directly as far a building a nuclear bomb goes. You could have 100,000 pounds of regular uranium and it won't do you any good for actually constructing a nuclear bomb. (At best you can basically use it for the bomb casing and the like.)

What you need is highly enriched uranium, which historically involved the US consuming a huge amount of resources and considerable time to produce enough enriched uranium for one atomic bomb of this type in time to drop on Hiroshima. (The test one and the one dropped on Nagasaki were plutonium based.) While more modern enrichment techniques such as what Iran is believed to be using makes things somewhat easier, Iran currently is believed to have somewhat over 8,000 centrifuges that it has been using to try to produce enough enriched uranium to create several nuclear bombs within a few years. (It looks like Iran may need more installed to managed this, and this was before the recent computer worm appears to have seriously set back the program.)

The point is this still takes a great amount of resources to produce even one viable nuclear bomb using this route. Its not something a couple of terrorists could quietly produce working together in someone's basement regardless of their qualifications. (Scenarios with small numbers of people producing a bomb basically require them to have acquired the right sort of plutonium or already highly enriched uranium from someone else.)

Its fairly easy for some countries to potentially quietly manage to produce nuclear bombs if they want to, but not so easy for anyone to accomplish.

If you're trying to build a real bomb like Little Boy, then you're right. If you just want to make a big mess and piss off a lot of people using something that fits in a suitcase, it's not nearly as difficult. I'm not going to discuss the details here because I think I hear black helicopters, but anyone with an internet connection, a lot of money, and access to some decent engineers could pretty easily turn an urban area into a hot mess.