How come US can make nukes but other nations can't?

[BoomerD]

Because most third-world countries are too unstable to have nukes...many are just one coup away from having governments not too much different than Saddam Hussein, Iran, and others...many of whom would either deliver the nukes themselves...or sell/give them to terrorists to deliver.

Like many Americans, I think the "Nuk-u-ler Club" is already too dammed big.

Unlike many, I wish NO ONE had them...but that cat's out of the bag already...

The ONLY thing nukes are good for is deterrent. Not for actual use.
(although they did a bang-up job on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!)

I hope that in my children's lives and their great-grand-children's lives, no one ever sees another nuclear weapon used.

And THAT's a BIG part of why little unstable countries should be prohibited from having them.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
Let us look at history of mankind and who deployed actual nukes...

Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes to mind...

:roll:

Point? First off their damage isn't even as large as modern non-nuclear weapons on capable of.

Second, it was at the end of one of the worlds most deadly conflicts of all time, in which it reduced the amount of causalities that would of ensued by an order of magnitude much higher and by creating an example acted as a nuclear deterrent for future generations.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the Usa has a nuke or two, deployed on it's bases in Australia
- you know a sour grapes weapon, for when it's creditors come for their money! hahaa
the next few years are going to be fun.

I doubt it, since we have all those handy nuclear subs carrying Trident missiles, land based ballistic missiles, and probably still have a ton of nukes we can dumb into B-2 and B-52 bombers.

Yup, this is OT but US has shit tons of $$$$$ and biggest military budget known to mankind.

They don't need a physical place like Australia. They have hundreds of behemoth-class subs with nukes hiding all over the five seas.

Hahaha... hundreds of subs? Exaggerate by just a little?

According to Wikipedia:
18 Ohio class ballistic missile subs in commission with 4 of those converted to guided missile subs
45 Los Angeles attack subs (don't carry nukes) in commission
3 Seawolf class in commission - attack subs, no nukes
5 Virginia class attack subs (with 4 under construction/ordered and up to 9 more planned) - no nukes

That means that there are about 14 nuclear armed submarines in the US navy at this point.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Navy#Submarines

Yea it was an exaggeration to make a point.

Ignorance doesn't make a great point.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Because most third-world countries are too unstable to have nukes...many are just one coup away from having governments not too much different than Saddam Hussein, Iran, and others...many of whom would either deliver the nukes themselves...or sell/give them to terrorists to deliver.

Like many Americans, I think the "Nuk-u-ler Club" is already too dammed big.

Unlike many, I wish NO ONE had them...but that cat's out of the bag already...

The ONLY thing nukes are good for is deterrent. Not for actual use.
(although they did a bang-up job on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!)

I hope that in my children's lives and their great-grand-children's lives, no one ever sees another nuclear weapon used.

And THAT's a BIG part of why little unstable countries should be prohibited from having them.

Agreed. To compare it to the current financial situation, the United States, China, most of the first world nations are "too big to fail". Due to this we have the resources, fore sight, and regime stability to protect and properly care for our nuclear arsenal.

While it would be great for no one to need them, it is simple not practical if you really look at mankind's nature. Eventually I see missile interception technology advancing to the point where long range (but still, most likely not short and maybe not medium range) nuclear missiles will just be money sinks.

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the Usa has a nuke or two, deployed on it's bases in Australia
- you know a sour grapes weapon, for when it's creditors come for their money! hahaa
the next few years are going to be fun.

I doubt it, since we have all those handy nuclear subs carrying Trident missiles, land based ballistic missiles, and probably still have a ton of nukes we can dumb into B-2 and B-52 bombers.

Yup, this is OT but US has shit tons of $$$$$ and biggest military budget known to mankind.

They don't need a physical place like Australia. They have hundreds of behemoth-class subs with nukes hiding all over the five seas.

Hahaha... hundreds of subs? Exaggerate by just a little?

According to Wikipedia:
18 Ohio class ballistic missile subs in commission with 4 of those converted to guided missile subs
45 Los Angeles attack subs (don't carry nukes) in commission
3 Seawolf class in commission - attack subs, no nukes
5 Virginia class attack subs (with 4 under construction/ordered and up to 9 more planned) - no nukes

That means that there are about 14 nuclear armed submarines in the US navy at this point.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Navy#Submarines

Yea it was an exaggeration to make a point.

Ignorance doesn't make a great point.

What ignorance? I made a statement that was conceptually true- that subs can deploy nukes at any five seas and are not confined to keeping nuke sites at Australia like the other poster pondered.

I'm sorry if I did not disclose a full blown thesis on the details. :roll: Is this the point where the P&N gets sour like many of the OT ppl warned about?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the Usa has a nuke or two, deployed on it's bases in Australia
- you know a sour grapes weapon, for when it's creditors come for their money! hahaa
the next few years are going to be fun.

I doubt it, since we have all those handy nuclear subs carrying Trident missiles, land based ballistic missiles, and probably still have a ton of nukes we can dumb into B-2 and B-52 bombers.

Yup, this is OT but US has shit tons of $$$$$ and biggest military budget known to mankind.

They don't need a physical place like Australia. They have hundreds of behemoth-class subs with nukes hiding all over the five seas.

Hahaha... hundreds of subs? Exaggerate by just a little?

According to Wikipedia:
18 Ohio class ballistic missile subs in commission with 4 of those converted to guided missile subs
45 Los Angeles attack subs (don't carry nukes) in commission
3 Seawolf class in commission - attack subs, no nukes
5 Virginia class attack subs (with 4 under construction/ordered and up to 9 more planned) - no nukes

That means that there are about 14 nuclear armed submarines in the US navy at this point.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Navy#Submarines

Yea it was an exaggeration to make a point.

Ignorance doesn't make a great point.

What ignorance? I made a statement that was conceptually true- that subs can deploy nukes at any five seas and are not confined to keeping nuke sites at Australia like the other poster pondered.

I'm sorry if I did not disclose a full blown thesis on the details. :roll: Is this the point where the P&N gets sour like many of the OT ppl warned about?

Actually it's more that you tend to take it as some kind of fact that the United States is the primary player in the game of nuclear arms, as you've posted all throughout the threads. We've done worlds of good to help safeguard the world from nuclear disaster, and would never start a conflict, unlike many countries who cannot be trusted with that responsibility.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
... Is this the point where the P&N gets sour like many of the OT ppl warned about?

Don't be a pussy. Be daring. Fight for what you believe in. Change what you believe in if you discover something better.

 

[Carmen813]

Cause we invented them and patented it. Stop ripping off our ideas and invent your own weapon of total annihilation.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cause we invented them and patented it. Stop ripping off our ideas and invent your own weapon of total annihilation.

Low Orbit Ion Cannon?

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cause we invented them and patented it. Stop ripping off our ideas and invent your own weapon of total annihilation.

Low Orbit Ion Cannon?

Hadron collider is my vote.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Craig234
...
It seems to me that the US doesn't have a good case for claiming the exclusive right to nukes. If a ban can be implemented and ensured by monitoring, that seems the right policy - and reportedly, Obama has committed to that goal at the G20 summit (which is not as new as many Americans may think - the US ha spledged that before, but did not keep its word.)

Nations that have nukes:
u.s.
france
great britain
germany (u.s. controlled?)
russia
various former ussr states
israel
pakistan
india
china
japan?
others not declared?

Is the u.s. demanding that these countries get rid of theirs?

It seems that banning weapons grade nuclear material is a pipe dream unless all nuclear material (and all knowledge) is eliminated - including nuclear power plants and submarines.

Yes, I was speaking about the principle, not the specifics of how many other countries have nukes. Of course any plan to get rid of them would need all countries to do so.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
I also think many of the Americans don't understand why South Koreans have lots of anti-American sentiments. I know why. I understand both sides actually as a Korean-American. SK is very grateful for US helping us against NK & China in Korean War. But I also know it wasn't an act of self interest. It was a puppet war between Russia and US, Communism vs Democracy, or winning the last era of Cold War. Do you think US intervened out of sheer good will? USA is not world police.

Since the end of Korean War 60 years ago to today, US just won't let go of South Korea to be on their own (That's how SKs feel now). US also has many restrictions on South Korea.. even though SK is now more than capable to defend on their own.

In 80s, South Korea wanted to make nukes themselves. Not because they're crazy, insane and evil just like NK. That's the portrayal of western media, just as we see how crazy China biases news to their own people. SK, India, or ANYONE wants to make nukes because of the VERY SAME REASON United States have- a political advantage.

i have to disagree w/ this part of your post. I'm currently living in Seoul & Tokyo (travel back & forth for work), and i dont think its as simple as saying SK have anti american sentiment because america is'nt letting Korea be on its own. You left korea when u were 13, u hardly qualify to speak for SK sentiments now and even when u were 13 u would've been too young to understand SK sentiments towards the US.

Tokyo recieved a whole lot more damage than Seoul 65 years ago (infact, it was literally a parking lot after WW2 bombing of Tokyo, more civilians were killed in the air raids in Tokyo than Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED, some 350, 000 i believe), but there's hardly any Anti american sentiment there now. Americans have also stationed just as many troops in Japan and yet there still isnt anti american sentiment there. The difference is where these soldiers are stationed. The soldiers are stationed away from major cities in Japan, whereas in Seoul the soldiers are stationed right smak dab in the middle of downtown Seoul (itaewon, which is basicly an american part of Seoul). So, koreans see the crimes and billigerence of soldiers firsthand, whereas Japanese dont. Okinawa (southern island of Japan) is a perfect example of this. The marines are stationed there, and anywhere infantry are stationed violent crimes follow (for a host of reasons i dont care to get into). Bar brawls break out, taxi drivers get stabbed for their cab fare, gang rapes occur (two ~13 year olds were gangraped in the span of 2-3 months before the marines imposed a curfew on soldiers), and a very strong anti american sentiment builds up (these soldiers are the image of Americans the locals get, not Tom Cruise/Jennifer Lopez etc that the youth in the big cities get).

I also think korea's history (loong before the korean war) w/ foreigners make them very distrustful towards foreigners, american or any other, because they've always been exploited as a small nation in East asia. There's a reason they call S korea the Ireland of the far east (and not just because of the drinking!).

As for S Korea wanting to acquire nukes in the 80's, it was a dictatorship back then, supported by the US, but if they acquired nukes N korea would've aquired nukes from the Soviet Union or China, who would've been much more willing to help if they knew an American proxy state had them.

I think the arguement against america that they do things for self interest is a pretty shallow arguement, because then we ALL do things for self interest. eg why do they give foreign aid to other countries? because those countries benefit and wont be as much as a threat as a well to do country, hecne america doesnt REALLY want to help the country, they're doing it so they're safe at the end of the day. It's pretty ridiculous arguement to make & would mean every action we make is done for self interest. I think S Korea would be just as well off as N korea today if America didnt help and continue to help during the Cold War. I'm not a fan of American foreign policy, read any of my posts here, but what they did post war korea & japan was commendable, infact they're 2 success stories of america's foreign policy, very different from Iraq & Vietnam & the host of insurrections/dictatorships they funded throughout South America & the Middle east.

just my .02 cents. Ok ok, more like a 1.50!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Craig234
Long post deleted to save space.

Would you agree that it is in the US' interests to keep the nuclear club small and, if it were possible, have the US as the sole nuclear power?

On the flip side, it appears to be in every other nation's interest to obtain nukes for the exact same reasons it is in the US' interests to see that they don't. (Understanding that the costs of obtaining nuclear weapons is the underlying reason so few states have pursued them.)

Well, that's a harder question than it appears. Of course in a simple sense the answer is yes, but there's a more complicated answer. There are unintended consequences.

The cold war itself was largely a harmful, unnecessary project, IMO. It was a powerful nation largely inventing the threat of an enemy wanting to take over the world, which resulted in policies to protect against that which had all kinds of harmful effects, justified in the name of protecting the freedom of the world. It's pretty easy to justify the burtal dictator here and there in the name of the defense of freedom. What are 2 million Vietnamese lives against the world's freedom?

Yes, it gives the US more power - but that doesn't mean it's actually good for the US, much less the world.

But my comments were more from the global perspective and what's fair than what is in the selfish interest of the US, though they're not necessarily different here. It's debatable.

My points were more about things such as how most Americans don't appreciate the view of non-nuclear nations towards the nuclear powers having them.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cause we invented them and patented it. Stop ripping off our ideas and invent your own weapon of total annihilation.

Low Orbit Ion Cannon?

Hadron collider is my vote.

Actually if the female population of the world continues going up faster than the male population that could lead to world peace...

 

[Pocatello]

Most countries in the world don't want nuclear weapons. They are not very practical, expensive to make and to maintain, and nobody wants a race where there is no winner. If Japan develops nuclear weapons, S. Korea will too, China won't be sitting still. Neighbors rarely trust each other, if your neighbor has nukes, you better have nukes. When Iran has nukes, Egypt and other Arabs aren't going to sit around. The US may object, but there isn't a lot we can do to stop a country from manufacturing nukes.

 

[poohbear]

lol alot of folks are mentioning japan and they're completely ignorant of the fact that japan's constitution explicitly forbids the ownership of any nukes or even having nukes on japanese soil (american bases are forbidden from holding nukes, which is a why alot of anger erupted when a nuclear sub was stationed at one of the american bases there to refuel).

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cause we invented them and patented it. Stop ripping off our ideas and invent your own weapon of total annihilation.

"The first fission weapons, also known as "atomic bombs," were developed jointly by the United States, Britain and Canada during World War II in what was called the Manhattan Project. "

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cause we invented them and patented it. Stop ripping off our ideas and invent your own weapon of total annihilation.

"The first fission weapons, also known as "atomic bombs," were developed jointly by the United States, Britain and Canada during World War II in what was called the Manhattan Project. "

Possession is 9/10th of the law!

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
I'm new to P&N so take it easy on me. I think this topic that's been on my mind is a good start in this forum.

Let me tell you little bit about myself. I was born in South Korea and immigrated here when I was 13 in 1994. I'm 27 now and just acquired US citizenship. I am god damn proud of being an American and have immense pride. And thanks to my heritage, in my opinion, I also have a healthy view of US as an outside-looking-in kind of deal.

I think we all know that every country censors/downplays/omits/minimizes certain news to make themselves look better to the people. You see extreme measures of censorship like seen in middle east or even China. This makes the citizens biased toward their own country, that's fine.

US does it too. I mean you'd be a fool to truly think USA acts for the best interest of the world. At the end of the day, it's all politics, power play and self interest (which is fine).

Now I'll get straight to the point.

How come US can make and own nukes but can tell rest of the world to not do it? Sure, it holds some water to stop crazies like middle east and North Korea because they're outright malicious. But US have no biz telling rest of the countries what to do, especially they hypocritically own tons themselves.

I remember last year there was news about India trying to build nukes. Then the news broke out here in a very negative light. WTF is wrong with India wanting to build nukes? What makes India any different than US? And who the hell is US to tell India what not to do?

I also think many of the Americans don't understand why South Koreans have lots of anti-American sentiments. I know why. I understand both sides actually as a Korean-American. SK is very grateful for US helping us against NK & China in Korean War. But I also know it wasn't an act of self interest. It was a puppet war between Russia and US, Communism vs Democracy, or winning the last era of Cold War. Do you think US intervened out of sheer good will? USA is not world police.

Since the end of Korean War 60 years ago to today, US just won't let go of South Korea to be on their own (That's how SKs feel now). US also has many restrictions on South Korea.. even though SK is now more than capable to defend on their own.

In 80s, South Korea wanted to make nukes themselves. Not because they're crazy, insane and evil just like NK. That's the portrayal of western media, just as we see how crazy China biases news to their own people. SK, India, or ANYONE wants to make nukes because of the VERY SAME REASON United States have- a political advantage.

Sure, arms race is a very bad thing. But as it stands today, US is the one holding all the nukes while telling others not to do it.

I think the only answer I've heard about this is only a self-righteous one- US can make them because they're the good guys and others can't because they will use it for bad things. Bull-fucking-shit. That's like a Christian telling an atheist his religion is true because his own bible tells him so.

South Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1975. At that point, they agreed to not produce nuclear weapons, and shut down all research in that area.

Your topic is a little misguided since the U.S. hasn't developed a new nuclear weapon since the 80s. In fact, we are the only nuclear power that hasn't/isn't currently modernizing it's nuclear weapons, nor do we even have the current capability to produce new nuclear warheads. Russia and China are both hard at work at modernizing and developing new weapon systems.

We also aren't the only nation that gets involved with trying to prevent more countries from developing nuclear weapons. Even though the U.S. and Russia account for 95% of the world's nuclear weapons, we arent "the one holding all the nukes while telling others not to do it." Seven nations have operational nuclear arsenals, and none of them would agree it's a good idea to add more to the list.
As far as involvement in trying to prevent other nations from producing them goes, it has very little to do with having a political advantage, and a lot to do with simply trying to avoid yet another Cold War type era. We want to continue to disarm, as we have been doing for 20+ years, and dont need more reasons for us and others to keep them.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: poohbear
lol alot of folks are mentioning japan and they're completely ignorant of the fact that japan's constitution explicitly forbids the ownership of any nukes or even having nukes on japanese soil (american bases are forbidden from holding nukes, which is a why alot of anger erupted when a nuclear sub was stationed at one of the american bases there to refuel).

The Japanese Constitution was written by the US. If only we could write the constitution for every country . Most the Japanese don't want nukes, like I said, most countries don't want nukes. If Japanese feel threatened, they will change their mind. That's why we don't want a nuke race in Asia. Constitutions are not written in stone, so to speak.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cause we invented them and patented it. Stop ripping off our ideas and invent your own weapon of total annihilation.

LoL.. word. Post of the day.

 

[wwswimming]

It's called American exceptionalism -

The US & Israel don't have to play by the rules.

 

[geno]

Inflation.

If everyone has nukes, we're back to square one

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
It's called American exceptionalism -

The US & Israel don't have to play by the rules.

what rules might those be oh wise one?>???

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

South Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1975. At that point, they agreed to not produce nuclear weapons, and shut down all research in that area.

Your topic is a little misguided since the U.S. hasn't developed a new nuclear weapon since the 80s. In fact, we are the only nuclear power that hasn't/isn't currently modernizing it's nuclear weapons, nor do we even have the current capability to produce new nuclear warheads. Russia and China are both hard at work at modernizing and developing new weapon systems.

We also aren't the only nation that gets involved with trying to prevent more countries from developing nuclear weapons. Even though the U.S. and Russia account for 95% of the world's nuclear weapons, we arent "the one holding all the nukes while telling others not to do it." Seven nations have operational nuclear arsenals, and none of them would agree it's a good idea to add more to the list.
As far as involvement in trying to prevent other nations from producing them goes, it has very little to do with having a political advantage, and a lot to do with simply trying to avoid yet another Cold War type era. We want to continue to disarm, as we have been doing for 20+ years, and dont need more reasons for us and others to keep them.

I always find the NPT argument to be sort of poor. True plenty of countries have signed the NPT, which in theory should prevent non-nuclear nations from pursuing nuclear weapons. That part is talked about and enforced all the time. The thing is that the treaty also calls upon the nuclear nations to take concrete steps to eliminate their arsenals... which of course we never do.