who are we to say who should or shouldn't have nukes?

[guyver01]

 

[Gintaras]

North Korea treats its people great heh?

Have you ever read Erich Maria Remarque?

And what about:

"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"

 

[cybrsage]

What leaders do you believe to be insane, and what actions have they taken that make you think so?

The late Kim Jung Il is one of them. Achmedinajad is another, though he has no control over the military (the ruling Islamic council controls the military, and I do not think they are crazy enough to use nukes) so he is not really a threat.

Outside of those two major players on the world stage, there are a lot of small time dictators who would not hesistate to use a small scale nuke on their rebel opponents, as well as the rebels using them on their government opponents.

 

[cybrsage]

Under this scenario, who would approve of returning the favor on Tehran or another Iranian city? I am asking this under the context of MAD being discussed in this thread as a very useful deterrent. But for MAD to work, you have to return the favor, right?

I would think we would have to nuke them back. If you do not, then other nations will see nukes as a proper alternative. Any conventional war fought would not be fast enough to garner the proper results. The Iranian Supreme Council would have time to slip away and not be captured and killed, thereby encouraging others that they can nuke the US and live.

Nukes are useless if they will not be used. It would be terrible, but using a low yield nuke on the location where the ruling body is known to be is what we would have to do.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Which brings up an interesting question. Let us pretend a nuclear device is exploded in Chicago. It can be proven it was done by muslim terrorists with ties to Iran, AND the device is proven to have originated there.

heh

I just put this scenario together with some news I have read lately.

"The CIA believed that Israel's first bombs may have been made with highly enriched uranium stolen in the mid-1960s from the US Navy nuclear fuel plant operated by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, where sloppy material accounting would have masked the theft.[47][48]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

"Documents Reveal Israel Stole Uranium from U.S. Stockpiles In 1950s and 1960s*
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1876

So let's say Israel builds its nukes with US uranium.
Then you take a couple of these types of Israelis

"Report: Israeli company sold surveillance equipment to Iran "
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ment-to-iran-1.403107?localLinksEnabled=false

These guys sell some uranium to Iran, Iran passes it off in the ever dreaded suitcase form to Hez.
Hez lets one rip in Tel and the US gets the blame

 

[Craig234]

So you agree that our sanctions are useless, then. Glad to see that.

I'm not sad that the US probably isn't going to use their nukes. I'm sad that if it came time to use them, we probably wouldn't. Which will lead to great suffering on our own soil.

Call me immoral for placing the lives of fellow American Citizens before the lives of people who would do us harm if you want, but any rational person sees that kind of attitude being the downfall of the US in less than 50 years. We're more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks of us than we are with our own wellbeing. That's pretty fucked up, if you ask me.

Your comments are just delusional. They're like the Nazis saying their biggest mistake was not defending themselves against the Jews who wanted to wipe Germans out.

What is this 'when it comes time' to use nukes? What time is that?

Was it when senior US officials wanted to have a first strike against the USSR and China? Was it when we wanted to use nuclear weapons to defend out right to have nukes on the USSR's borders in Turkey, placed their first, but not let the USSR protect Cuba from a US invasion with nukes - an invasion the US had already tried and lied about and there was every reason to expect it to repeat? Was it when Nixon wanted to nuke the people of Vietnam? Is it when many Americans today love the phrase 'middle east parking lot'?

Some combination of ignorance and ideology has you talking like the US is the oppressed party under constant danger of being invaded and conquered by villains who you want to see nuked, when history says something quite different - as the US has been out being pretty aggressive in the world, assassinating and blocking democracy when it suits it to do so, something you fail to mention.

You whine about the US being concerned what the rest of the world thinks, when the problem is the other direction, the US has been all too happy to act badly at times.

The times the US has been at all concerned 'what the world thinks' have tended to be times it was good to do so. You just have no conception of morality, it appears.

If the US doesn't burn babies alive because it's not the right thing to do, you'll be there saying how that's 'the US worrying too much what the world thinks'.

It's hard to talk to someone who has such huge lack of understanding of what actually is going on in the world.

What was the US overthrowing democracy in Iran in 1953 to you, 'helping the people of Iran get rid of too much freedom'? What was the overthrow of democracy in Chile 20 years later to you, 'the US for once not worrying that world might think it was being an enemy of democracy and installing a dictator who would do the bidding of US corporations', and you say that's great?

That old saying 'power tends to corrupt' - it leaves people who screw others without any accountability free to say crap like you do denying they did anything wrong.

 

[spittledip]

I think we should just start handing out nukes to all the countries that don't have them to make the playing filed more even. This would be a great demonstration of our desire to get along with the other nations and to make peace. This would also eliminate the "nuke bully" factor.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I think we should just start handing out nukes to all the countries that don't have them to make the playing filed more even. This would be a great demonstration of our desire to get along with the other nations and to make peace. This would also eliminate the "nuke bully" factor.

The US by far should be the country leading the pack on getting rid of all nukes.
Your military is sooooooooooo HUGE you don't even need nukes anymore.
You live on a continent with no hostile neighbors.
Oceans away from any sort of enemies.
I know even with all that power, a lot of Americans are still scared and need more, but seriously

 

[fskimospy]

This is mostly relevant when plutonium based nuke goes off. Its not so usefull in order to find out who is responsible for Uranium235 based bomb.

It is not 'mostly relevant' for plutonium based bombs, it is just far faster because the list of people who can make a plutonium bomb is much smaller. It is absolutely useful to figure out who has made a uranium based bomb and where the uranium that was used came from.

 

[infoiltrator]

Building a nuke is relatively simple these days, which has nothing to do with easy.

Memory is hazy here, you need U235 separated out, of U238, which has to be refined to pure uranium first. So you need to process tons of material until weapons grade uranium is made, about 85% U235. You need to machine a couple precise hemispheres under extreme toxic conditions. say 12-16 lbs finished. U235 is about 0.8 % present in refined uranium ore.
This is much easier if a reactor is set up to produce U235, not sure of details.

Plutonium is preferred, less is needed for fission. Plutonium is much rarer in nature and is usually reactor produced. Much more toxic and lethal than uranium, which is bad.
Basically two hemispheres of fissible material have to be slammed together by explosive force. Very precisely.

Radiation degrades electronic components. Plutonium oxidizes fiercely must be kept in vacuum or inert conditions.

Bombs have to be "serviceable" hopefully without killing people replacing detonators, explosive, or electronics.

I seem to recall tubes are more resistant to radiation than electronics but I may be thinking EMP.

You need large numbers of people working under zero error conditions, secure storage, and routine maintenance.

There are shortcuts using modern technology, still involving care and time.

Most small nations use high risk, slow refinement. The high risk is frightening pollution wise.

Further nuclear bombs are a terror weapon, and in the hands of fanatic or delusional, or fractional governments scare hell out of me.

The US opposes the spread of nuclear weapons, meanwhile the Russians froth at the stationing of defensive missiles around them.

Worse threat is large range cargo aircraft can reach anywhere in the world carrying the "crude atomic devices", fleets of B-52s are not needed.

 

[Newbian]

You live on a continent with no hostile neighbors.

Clearly you never heard of the maple syrup wars.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Clearly you never heard of the maple syrup wars.

Nope, but I'll bet it involved Quebecers
I hear they got nukes too, so beware

 

[cybrsage]

The Quebequois are pretty pro-independence from Canada, but being French we do not have to fear if they obtain nukes...

 

[infoiltrator]

I'd worry about Texas more..

 

[Joepublic2]

We (and other countries with nukes) are the ones to say who should and shouldn't have nukes obviously. Morality becomes a formality at the level international politics; everybody works towards their own ends whether they openly advertise this fact or candy coat it.

I'd worry about Texas more..

Well as a texan it prides me to say that as we're one of the few states doing decently economically atm we're more worried about the fed doing something stupid and screwing it up for us.....

 

[Newbian]

Well as a texan it prides me to say that as we're one of the few states doing decently economically atm we're more worried about the fed doing something stupid and screwing it up for us.....

Except for the fact that it has the highest amount of adults without a high school diploma and the highest amount of people without health insurance.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Except for the fact that it has the highest amount of adults without a high school diploma and the highest amount of people without health insurance.

That's why I'm moving there.
Full of good plain simple folk

 

[Kadarin]

Simple: Islamic and Western cultural values are fundamentally incompatible, and the Islamic world is both expansionist and highly intolerant of that which is not Muslim. In a nutshell, I would not trust them to not use them on the West unilaterally, particularly as part of a terrorist action.

 

[Craig234]

Simple: Islamic and Western cultural values are fundamentally incompatible, and the Islamic world is both expansionist and highly intolerant of that which is not Muslim. In a nutshell, I would not trust them to not use them on the West unilaterally, particularly as part of a terrorist action.

It's kind of funny, and ironic, how you view them with this fear, and yet you are actually making yourself a threat to them, by demanding a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

Let's see, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It's not only a Muslim nation but one that's relatively 'radical' with fundamentalist, terrorist groups having a lot of power.

So are they 'nuking the west' for the reasons you say? No - they pose some risk for using nuclear weapons but it's almost entirely about non-religious conflict with India.

Now when you look at the history - it's the west that created the political structures for India and Pakistan that are greatly contributing to thier tensions; it's the west who has created nuclear weapons and refused to get rid of them, helping their proliferation; it's the west who has been aggressive to nations of the middle east, supporting repressive regimes to help them take the resources - even having a big role in supporting radical fundamental religious groups historically, to help them conquer the national governments a century ago.

So you point your finger at them and cry fear, but don't understand how they have a far better reason to do that at us. That's not saying you're entirely wrong - but that you aren't after peace, you are after the type of peace that comes from one group having power over another, not both having some equality, giving up nuclear weapons.

You don't understand that your legitimate concerns about Muslim government are brushed aside by your support for western monopoly that is free to screw them over.

If YOUR country were subjugated under a foreign-selected dictator, if YOUR country had its democracy taken, were invaded at will, by them, would you be listening to what they had to say about the flaws in your goverment of choice? No, you would not care about that and oppose the foreign interference and dominance and exploitation.

In other words, you are the cause as much or more than any 'Muslim tyranny' of the risks.

You may be chomping at the bit to defend your criticisms of the Muslim governments - not realizing I'm not disagreeing with you about that. Peace needs some justice, too.

So let's have some justice, let's get rid of nuclear weapons, AND let's oppose Muslim governments that are repressive.

You might find, like millions of Muslim Americans who live side by side with other Americans just fine, that that's the approach to have more peace and freedom.

That people are people. There's a reason Iranians love to watch American TV shows.

Rick Steves, the Europe travel advisor, did a tv show specifically for the west to show them that 'Iranian people are a lot more like us than you think'.

Here's a link to it - he made it for people like you:

http://www.ricksteves.com/iran/

 

[davmat787]

So it is not our business who should own nukes, but OMG if a US citizen wants a mag for his/her AR-15 that holds more than 10 rounds! They are the real threat.

edit: The point of my silly comment is that we all make judgements as to who and who should not own weaponry, and to what level.

 

[freegeeks]

I am just surprised that more nations have not invented nukes yet. Think about it, the US invented nukes back when vacuum tubes were high tech.

All western countries have the tech to develop nukes, they just choose not to do so

Countries like Belgium and The Netherlands are "unoffical" nuclear powers because they store USAF B61 bombs on their territory and have trained pilots and planes to deliver them if needed

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html

 

[micrometers]

I am just surprised that more nations have not invented nukes yet. Think about it, the US invented nukes back when vacuum tubes were high tech.

yes, it is weird how this works out. I mean, every day I carry around a computer in my iPod touch that is more powerful than a $10k cray machine in the 1980's.

 

[EXman]

We're the guys with nukes already.

/end thread

 

[Craig234]

yes, it is weird how this works out. I mean, every day I carry around a computer in my iPod touch that is more powerful than a $10k cray machine in the 1980's.

Nukes aren't about 'inventing' them.

They're about getting ahold of rare tightly controlled materials.

 

[infoiltrator]

Basically guarding access to existing nuclear material and weapons is a responsibility I fail to trust certain foreign interests in.
Anything the US has done internationally historically is minor compared to the deviltry of other nations past and present.
Which just makes the US less bad, a very important distinction.
Every nation, every government fights for its life and prosperity. If it cannot create wealth on its own terms, or the terms of their leaders they will steal, kill, and extort. Piracy? why not.

And please remember the revered Fidel Castro failed as a baseball player, became a doctor, was aided by the USA to overthrow a Dictator playing with the US mob, then turned into a murderous dictator all on his own.
Usually the easiest way to define a dictatorship is by who and how many want to leave.

It is easy for various extremists to define the USA and its actions as a threat.
For all intentsa and purposes Guandi let non violence in India to independence.
I still remember the USA civil rights movement.