Is there a good reason more nations should have Nuclear weapons?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Every nation should have ONE.

Agree. If someone uses their Nuke, every other Nation in the world has the opportunity to use theirs on the first to shoot, and get their 1 Nuke replaced.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Yeah, as long as the US stays strong, no one will dare to openly attack. But giving Iran's President a nuke, who says that Israel should be wiped off the map, would not be good.

And if 3 countries have enriched their own uranium, and we DON'T know the nuclear fingerprints of those reactors, and one day a shipping container with a bomb explodes in NY harbor - what are we going to do?

Suppose we even KNOW which country likely did it - and they say they have 3 more bombs already in place near major metro areas in the US, to be used if we retaliate. Then what?

Remember those 70 virgins for followers of jihad? Or imagine a North Korean dictator dying of cancer anyway. If the right nutjob is in power, retaliation might not even be a feared response...

Future Shock

 

[techs]

"There are 550 million guns in the world. That means there is one gun for every 12 people. The real problem is how to get guns to the other 11."
Nicholas Cage as Yuri Orlov-The Lord of War.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Cruise51
The only way nukes will ever be outlawed is if the 3 big powers, Russia, China, and the USA agree on it (which is nearly impossible). Until then you can't play favorites. IMHO nukes create stability only when everyone in the sand box has one, nobody is crazy enough to attack a counrty with nukes in their arsenal.

Unless someone in the sandbox is crazy. You do realize that if Iran wants to deliver a nuke to Israel, they don't need to send a missile, which will be immediately traced by Israeli air defense, and will be followed by a reply which will turn most of Iran into glass.

They just need to let a warhead "slip" through their fingers, and wind up in the hands of terrorists. Oops.

And after a terrorist act - who's going to find out where the bomb came from!

Especially if they enrich their own uranium - the characteristics of the final nuclear fuel will be unknown to the west, and thus its radioactive signature won't be positively identified.

Every deposit in the world has it's own signature, no matter what you do it can still be traced.

Deposit, or reactor? I always thought it was the reactor or enrichment process that gave it the fingerprint, not the basic uranium deposit. I am very curious to know what ratios would remain unchanged during an enrichment process, or worse, a fast breeder process to create plutonium. You may have a lot more detailed knowlege than most of us, so please continue your thoughts on this...

Future Shock

 

[Cruise51]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Cruise51
The only way nukes will ever be outlawed is if the 3 big powers, Russia, China, and the USA agree on it (which is nearly impossible). Until then you can't play favorites. IMHO nukes create stability only when everyone in the sand box has one, nobody is crazy enough to attack a counrty with nukes in their arsenal.

Unless someone in the sandbox is crazy. You do realize that if Iran wants to deliver a nuke to Israel, they don't need to send a missile, which will be immediately traced by Israeli air defense, and will be followed by a reply which will turn most of Iran into glass.

They just need to let a warhead "slip" through their fingers, and wind up in the hands of terrorists. Oops.

And after a terrorist act - who's going to find out where the bomb came from!

Especially if they enrich their own uranium - the characteristics of the final nuclear fuel will be unknown to the west, and thus its radioactive signature won't be positively identified.

Every deposit in the world has it's own signature, no matter what you do it can still be traced.

Deposit, or reactor? I always thought it was the reactor or enrichment process that gave it the fingerprint, not the basic uranium deposit. I am very curious to know what ratios would remain unchanged during an enrichment process, or worse, a fast breeder process to create plutonium. You may have a lot more detailed knowlege than most of us, so please continue your thoughts on this...

Future Shock

Both leave a permanent signature if I've been told correctly.

 

[rchiu]

the less nuke there is, the better off we are. The thing is, countries who own nuke themselves telling other countries not to try and get one is just being hypocrites.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: rchiu
the less nuke there is, the better off we are. The thing is, countries who own nuke themselves telling other countries not to try and get one is just being hypocrites.

You assume we all play in the same sand box. We don't.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Cruise51
The only way nukes will ever be outlawed is if the 3 big powers, Russia, China, and the USA agree on it (which is nearly impossible). Until then you can't play favorites. IMHO nukes create stability only when everyone in the sand box has one, nobody is crazy enough to attack a counrty with nukes in their arsenal.

Unless someone in the sandbox is crazy. You do realize that if Iran wants to deliver a nuke to Israel, they don't need to send a missile, which will be immediately traced by Israeli air defense, and will be followed by a reply which will turn most of Iran into glass.

They just need to let a warhead "slip" through their fingers, and wind up in the hands of terrorists. Oops.

And after a terrorist act - who's going to find out where the bomb came from!

Especially if they enrich their own uranium - the characteristics of the final nuclear fuel will be unknown to the west, and thus its radioactive signature won't be positively identified.

Every deposit in the world has it's own signature, no matter what you do it can still be traced.

Deposit, or reactor? I always thought it was the reactor or enrichment process that gave it the fingerprint, not the basic uranium deposit. I am very curious to know what ratios would remain unchanged during an enrichment process, or worse, a fast breeder process to create plutonium. You may have a lot more detailed knowlege than most of us, so please continue your thoughts on this...

Future Shock

Both leave a permanent signature if I've been told correctly.

The signatures are the proportions of other nuclides in the uranium. If a nation wanted to build an untraceable nuclear weapon, or worse, one that would appear to have come from someone else, they'd simply have to alter the ratios of nuclides according to the information they obtained about other deposits/reactors.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

it gives us a reason for a nuclear first strike.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20

Ah, that works/worked well in days gone by, but, allow Iran, Syria, or the likes of al Quada to gain access to them and all bets are off. They can talk people into walking into or near a building loaded with explosives and detonate themselves because they will be awarded with 70 virgins (or whatever). The right radical gains access to nuclear warheads and watch the nukes fly! Israel already knows they are marked and the sad thing is, they are equipped to take most if not all of the middleast with them!

How sad it is when your education comes solely from Fox News and Scott McClellan's ramblings. Even sadder is that the current administration's policy seem to be formulated by people with your intelligence and knowledge.

 

[conehead433]

The only real problem currently with countries having nuclear weapons is that G. W. Bush is only a hair trigger away from actually using them.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Cruise51
The only way nukes will ever be outlawed is if the 3 big powers, Russia, China, and the USA agree on it (which is nearly impossible). Until then you can't play favorites. IMHO nukes create stability only when everyone in the sand box has one, nobody is crazy enough to attack a counrty with nukes in their arsenal.

Unless someone in the sandbox is crazy. You do realize that if Iran wants to deliver a nuke to Israel, they don't need to send a missile, which will be immediately traced by Israeli air defense, and will be followed by a reply which will turn most of Iran into glass.

They just need to let a warhead "slip" through their fingers, and wind up in the hands of terrorists. Oops.

And after a terrorist act - who's going to find out where the bomb came from!

Especially if they enrich their own uranium - the characteristics of the final nuclear fuel will be unknown to the west, and thus its radioactive signature won't be positively identified.

The reactors are Russian made so there goes your theory of it being untraceable.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Originally posted by: rchiu
the less nuke there is, the better off we are. The thing is, countries who own nuke themselves telling other countries not to try and get one is just being hypocrites.

You assume we all play in the same sand box. We don't.

Well actually the nuclear nations have gone back on their promises as of late and that is one of the reasons are we are seeing the NPT begin to fail. They promised to disarm themselves, but claimed it would take time... now it is 30 years later and we all still have nuclear weapons.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Originally posted by: rchiu
the less nuke there is, the better off we are. The thing is, countries who own nuke themselves telling other countries not to try and get one is just being hypocrites.

You assume we all play in the same sand box. We don't.

Are you sure about that?

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: SMOKE20

Ah, that works/worked well in days gone by, but, allow Iran, Syria, or the likes of al Quada to gain access to them and all bets are off. They can talk people into walking into or near a building loaded with explosives and detonate themselves because they will be awarded with 70 virgins (or whatever). The right radical gains access to nuclear warheads and watch the nukes fly! Israel already knows they are marked and the sad thing is, they are equipped to take most if not all of the middleast with them!

How sad it is when your education comes solely from Fox News and Scott McClellan's ramblings. Even sadder is that the current administration's policy seem to be formulated by people with your intelligence and knowledge.

Hmm, that's awfully funny, all these years I was under the assumption my education on subjects like this came from an aeronautic engineers degree from UMR, 12 years in the USAF based at WAFB Knob Knoster MO and 7 years working for a civilian contractor based in St. Louis as a consultant. What's your education/work background again? LOL!

As far as my choices of news/information, I prefer Rueters/BBC/CNN if it's any of your business. Oh, and since you're interested, I didn't vote for a Bush at any time in my life. I can base a lot of answers concerning this and other military matters and political/social matters on actually being there and seeing/studying these matters.....can you?

I didn't think so..........:roll:

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: SMOKE20

Ah, that works/worked well in days gone by, but, allow Iran, Syria, or the likes of al Quada to gain access to them and all bets are off. They can talk people into walking into or near a building loaded with explosives and detonate themselves because they will be awarded with 70 virgins (or whatever). The right radical gains access to nuclear warheads and watch the nukes fly! Israel already knows they are marked and the sad thing is, they are equipped to take most if not all of the middleast with them!

How sad it is when your education comes solely from Fox News and Scott McClellan's ramblings. Even sadder is that the current administration's policy seem to be formulated by people with your intelligence and knowledge.

Hmm, that's awfully funny, all these years I was under the assumption my education on subjects like this came from an aeronautic engineers degree from UMR, 12 years in the USAF based at WAFB Knob Knoster MO and 7 years working for a civilian contractor based in St. Louis as a consultant. What's your education/work background again? LOL!

As far as my choices of news/information, I prefer Rueters/BBC/CNN if it's any of your business. Oh, and since you're interested, I didn't vote for a Bush at any time in my life. I can base a lot of answers concerning this and other military matters and political/social matters on actually being there and seeing/studying these matters.....can you?

I didn't think so..........:roll:

Funny stuff Having Libs own other libs making assumptions and such lol

lol nice poll!

Sorry I just went with my feelings... 😉

 

[Worlocked]

You can't undo the invention of the bomb, and not everyone is going to disarm. That's sad, but fact. So yes I believe everyone should have a bomb. I think it has proven to be more of a deterrent of destruction than a proponent of it.... Most people can agree that the bombing of hiroshima and nagisaki prevented more loss of life than it caused.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Worlocked
You can't undo the invention of the bomb, and not everyone is going to disarm. That's sad, but fact. So yes I believe everyone should have a bomb. I think it has proven to be more of a deterrent of destruction than a proponent of it.... Most people can agree that the bombing of hiroshima and nagisaki prevented more loss of life than it caused.

Who is talking about disarmament? No one.

Do you need more deterrents? If everyone has a deterrent what is left then? Use them sparingly to deter others? Let me get this right you want

So yes I believe everyone should have a bomb.

Have you been to a history class ever? Heard of any countries by chance being led by complete but jobs that think genocide is a political tool? How about corrupt governments? Or just really poor countries looking to make some cash by selling naughty weapons to unsavory neopseudofundamentalistfascist types out to end your way of life(NK)?

hmmmm....

Would you like to review your world view on proliferation of nuclear weapons?

 

[LumbergTech]

how about why should anyone be allowed to own them..

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Worlocked
You can't undo the invention of the bomb, and not everyone is going to disarm. That's sad, but fact. So yes I believe everyone should have a bomb. I think it has proven to be more of a deterrent of destruction than a proponent of it.... Most people can agree that the bombing of hiroshima and nagisaki prevented more loss of life than it caused.

Who is talking about disarmament? No one.

Do you need more deterrents? If everyone has a deterrent what is left then? Use them sparingly to deter others? Let me get this right you want

So yes I believe everyone should have a bomb.

Have you been to a history class ever? Heard of any countries by chance being led by complete but jobs that think genocide is a political tool? How about corrupt governments? Or just really poor countries looking to make some cash by selling naughty weapons to unsavory neopseudofundamentalistfascist types out to end your way of life(NK)?

hmmmm....

Would you like to review your world view on proliferation of nuclear weapons?

hollow points....the nations that are the most likely to use them are the ones that have them and we have them..so i guess that makes us pretty bad in your logic

 

[Polish3d]

What is this false justification that somehow because one country in a collection of nations called "the middle east" has a nuclear weapon, it is somehow now acceptable and "only fair" for all nations in "the middle east" to have them?

Where does that come from?


Well, since it's totally nonsensical on its own, I tend to think it comes from contrarians who are more concerned with siding against the US, Bush, Israel or whatever than actually formulating wise policy ideas of their own.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Cruise51
The only way nukes will ever be outlawed is if the 3 big powers, Russia, China, and the USA agree on it (which is nearly impossible). Until then you can't play favorites. IMHO nukes create stability only when everyone in the sand box has one, nobody is crazy enough to attack a counrty with nukes in their arsenal.

Unless someone in the sandbox is crazy. You do realize that if Iran wants to deliver a nuke to Israel, they don't need to send a missile, which will be immediately traced by Israeli air defense, and will be followed by a reply which will turn most of Iran into glass.

They just need to let a warhead "slip" through their fingers, and wind up in the hands of terrorists. Oops.

And after a terrorist act - who's going to find out where the bomb came from!

Especially if they enrich their own uranium - the characteristics of the final nuclear fuel will be unknown to the west, and thus its radioactive signature won't be positively identified.

Every deposit in the world has it's own signature, no matter what you do it can still be traced.

Deposit, or reactor? I always thought it was the reactor or enrichment process that gave it the fingerprint, not the basic uranium deposit. I am very curious to know what ratios would remain unchanged during an enrichment process, or worse, a fast breeder process to create plutonium. You may have a lot more detailed knowlege than most of us, so please continue your thoughts on this...

Future Shock

Both leave a permanent signature if I've been told correctly.

Reactors may leave unique signatures on the spent fuel that might be traceable assuming the owner doesn't mix and match. The enrichment process might leave a trace in some cases. For example U.S. enriched uranium contains a trace of Tc-99 as we fed re-processed fuels back into the enrichment stream in the 60s and 70s thus contaminating our enrichment plants. In general signatures might be based on relative ratios of U-238/U-239 which are altered as a side effect of enriching U-235 and I can see where each plant might leave a unique signature (or not, not all feedstock follows the same path through an enrichment plant so diferent paths may equal different ratios which when blended leave no reliable signature). Fluorine only has a single isotope so there wouldn't be any way to trace from that end. More traceable components (ceramics, U-oxides, metal casing, etc.) would probably be added post-enrichment during fuel assembly manufacturing.

 

[Gamer X]

Originally posted by: Frackal
What is this false justification that somehow because one country in a collection of nations called "the middle east" has a nuclear weapon, it is somehow now acceptable and "only fair" for all nations in "the middle east" to have them?

Where does that come from?


Well, since it's totally nonsensical on its own, I tend to think it comes from contrarians who are more concerned with siding against the US, Bush, Israel or whatever than actually formulating wise policy ideas of their own.

So how do you expect countries of the middle east to stop Israel from intimidating them with its large nuclear arsenal; AK 47s ?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Aimster
One day Muslims will reclaim it.

The day that comes close to a reality is the day that Mecca and Medina and probably another 200 cities in the ME become glass factories.