Nuclear Weapons.

Options we have:

1) Globalization takes its role, somewhat of a cohesive world government, those who refuse will be met with economic sanctions and ostricization, or war (looking at you middle east). Eventually, they'll be disarmed (at least 100 years from now, IMO)

2) In an effort to disarm, nuclear war, some countries nearly destroyed. There will be rallying in the wake of the horror, and true disarmament will begin.

3) Total nuclear war, bye-bye earth and humanity.

In all honesty, I doubt 3 will happen.

Also, I know next to nothing about the subject. My common sense is tingling, though.

micky wrote: nuclear weapons just aren't going to go away... unless we find a better way to kill mass quantities of people then we are right back where we were... nor should they....  while some are guided by morality and regard for human life.... others we know well are not.. and the only thing really stopping  them from getting and using the ULTIMATE weapon of terror is the knowledge that the country that support the wackos in getting to build and deliver a nuclear device will ...forget ideology of politics.. the American public... any country would demand.. retaliation in kind.

Heh, it seems to me that the best way to stop crazies blowing up the world is for there not to be a way to blow up the world, rather than the vague threat of retribution which said crazies aren't necessarily going to care about. Seriously, MAD isn't a very good guarantee of safety, in my view.

micky wrote: oh deterrence DOES work.... trust me... if they could get one... don't think for a second they wouldn't use one.  No country has..or would dare offer the resources only a nation-state could provide for a terrorist group and construct and deploy a nuclear device.  We couldn't strike back at a shadow organization any better than we have.. but ask Afghanistan just what we'd do... would your country would do.. if a nation-state directly supported mass murderers.

The Cuban missile crisis suggests otherwise... two events right there when nuclear war was prevented by, essentially, chance. Do I like having to trust the same brand of US government (not just the US... the political idiots here, the new Putin regime, Berlusconi... just about anyone, really) that took such a knee-jerk (though, in a way, understandable) reaction to 9/11 to avoid brinksmanship or unneeded, or misdirected, retaliation? Not really.

All the system's waiting for is someone in a position of power who a) doesn't care about self-preservation or b) thinks they can win the mass-nuclear-destruction game. I think that it's just about inevitable that some nuclear weapon will get into the hands of terrorists one day... what the world really doesn't need is a  USA (or well, anywhere) with ridiculous-nuclear-destruction-power when that happens.

micky wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: micky wrote: oh deterrence DOES work.... trust me... if they could get one... don't think for a second they wouldn't use one.  No country has..or would dare offer the resources only a nation-state could provide for a terrorist group and construct and deploy a nuclear device.  We couldn't strike back at a shadow organization any better than we have.. but ask Afghanistan just what we'd do... would your country would do.. if a nation-state directly supported mass murderers.   The Cuban missile crisis suggests otherwise... two events right there when nuclear war was prevented by, essentially, chance. Do I like having to trust the same brand of US government (not just the US... the political idiots here, the new Putin regime, Berlusconi... just about anyone, really) that took such a knee-jerk (though, in a way, understandable) reaction to 9/11 to avoid brinksmanship or unneeded, or misdirected, retaliation? Not really. No.... I disagre... it wasn't chance...  what it was brinkmanship taken the n-th degree.  Someone was going to back down. It was prevented .. not by chance.. but by the knowledge on both sides that Nuclear War is unwinable and thus not worth getting into..not .over Cuba.  The Soviets flinched..and I think our Government knew they would.  A bluff is no good if you fold  as soon as an opponent calls your bluff.. you raise the stakes.. until they forced to either fold... or show their cards.  The Soviets did fold...because they held a hand that was not a winner. They knew it.. so did we.  anda knee jerk reaction to 9/11?.... oh come on .. if we HAD dropped nuclear weapons over Kabul in response.  THAT is knee-jerk. I think you forget that much like the Gulf War... that was done in the name of  united world opinion. All the system's waiting for is someone in a position of power who a) doesn't care about self-preservation don't stay up at night waiting for a person in power that is NOT concerned about self-preservation hahah or b) thinks they can win the mass-nuclear-destruction game. Only the Chinese might think that.. in that.. they are ..and have been the real nuclear nightmare I think that it's just about inevitable that some nuclear weapon will get into the hands of terrorists one day... what the world really doesn't need is a  USA (or well, anywhere) with ridiculous-nuclear-destruction-power when that happens.  Sorry... I might be a political sissy.. a flaming liberal... but it does well the enemies of this country.. that if anyone detonated a nuke here..even in your country... I'd be the first to say 'nuke the sh*t out of the b*****ds.. those that did it if we can trace them.. or those that provided them the weapon.  That is an act of war...and you don't fight a war with one hand tied around your back. It is that rediculous destruction power that will be the reason that a nuclear device, God willing,  is never detonated by terrorists.  They won't fear us of course.. but those that provide the weapon.. those are the ones of power and privilage.. who would then feel the wrath of a united world.  Not just us.

A bluff is no good if you fold  as soon as an opponent calls your bluff.. you raise the stakes.. until they forced to either fold... or show their cards.  The Soviets did fold...because they held a hand that was not a winner. They knew it.. so did we. 

On the CMC... brinkmanship it certainly was. Thing is, the US didn't actually know there were armed warheads there... they were gambling without knowledge of the facts - didn't really know they were on the brink. Reasons war didn't break out - the 2nd/3rd (don't remember which) in command of a Russian nuclear submarine which was being depth-charged refused permission (quite an amazing act of restraint), and the Kennedy gov't didn't carry out its planned agenda of action on a couple of occasions. There were several occasions when the planned actions of both sides would have led to nuclear war if not for, essentially, dumb luck... McNamara has said as much.


anda knee jerk reaction to 9/11?.... oh come on .. if we HAD dropped nuclear weapons over Kabul in response.  THAT is knee-jerk. I think you forget that much like the Gulf War... that was done in the name of  united world opinion.

The Gulf war is a completely different kettle of fish... in my view, the reaction to 9/11 was rash and knee-jerk, if you think it wasn't, I'm not going to change your mind.

'on't stay up at night waiting for a person in power that is NOT concerned about self-preservation hahah'
There are people who aren't concerned about self-preservation around... I figure it's just a matter of time.

'Only the Chinese might think that.. in that.. they are ..and have been the real nuclear nightmare'
McCarthy? I think he estimated 10% losses for America in the case of a nuclear war/pre-emptive strike and considered that justifiable.. I think the real safety measure there is economic... Chinese interests are too linked to the rest of the world economically. Nowadays, I think, it has got to the point where safety concerns are so much noone thinks they can win... maybe more precision-based nuclear warheads could get used in the Middle East.

Sorry... I might be a political sissy.. a flaming liberal... but it does well the enemies of this country.. that if anyone detonated a nuke here..even in your country... I'd be the first to say 'nuke the sh*t out of the b*****ds.. those that did it if we can trace them.. or those that provided them the weapon.  That is an act of war...and you don't fight a war with one hand tied around your back. It is that rediculous destruction power that will be the reason that a nuclear device, God willing,  is never detonated by terrorists.  They won't fear us of course.. but those that provide the weapon.. those are the ones of power and privilage.. who would then feel the wrath of a united world.  Not just us.

I can't see what such a retaliatory strike would achieve except massive civilian casualties and hitting the wrong people, and potentially getting China very angry. Sure, I'd understand any response at the right people (and if you can't find the right people, will the anger not lead to the wrong people getting hit). I understand it, but I still think it wouldn't achieve anything except more destruction, and I think the real threat of nuclear weapons isn't a terrorist strike, but the response to it.

Anyway, sure I come off as more anti-US than I am... I just don't think having nuclear weapons (in the possession of any country, not specifically the US) is a good option for the world, and I think MAD isn't a great concept to have underpinning world peace.

I agree with TGM:-Orb. The real danger is someone who is a leader of a state that has this weapon. The second gulf war is a good example of doing the wrong thing (to both sides) by a state. We should remember nuclear weapon was used only by states.

tszirmay wrote: Since Hiroshima, the US (for all their follies ) was involved in military conflict over Berlin, Korea, Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia), Grenada, Panama, Irak, as well as a few Defcon hair-raisers (Iran (Truman), Cuba, Yom Kippur war, Korean Airlines) and never nuked again. I must agree with Micky that over-reacting is when you OBLITERATE everything!  As far as MAD is concerned , how can it not be perceived as successful when 2 superpowers totally ignorant of one another did not come to blows all silos aglow ! Sadly, I lived all my 52 years under the threat of imminent nuclear attack (no not the Greg lake song!) and I have seen no mushroom clouds (thanks to whom or what?) . Interestingly, no Arab country has bothered to invade Israel (and toss them into the ocean) ever since Vannunu announced to the world that Israel had the bomb (a very clever ploy BTW) . The sign "Beware of Dog" is still the best alarm system in the world. Frankly, I am stunned that we haven't destroyed our planet yet with nukes but that is not luck but rather logic. There are no winners , only losers. I fear that states that eliminate nukes will become hostages to unseen individuals who know how to use them and will . BTW, do you know how easy it is to make one? Childsplay, only getting ALL the parts is hard.

As I mentioned, there were two incidents in the CMC alone when there was really nothing but chance in the way of a nuclear war (not my views - those of the man who was US defence secretary at the time...). Thing is, if the MAD system breaks once... it only requires one 'slip' and there really is no learning curve and second chance.

Dean wrote: The problem with MAD is it that it is not mutual, nor is it assured and only applies to superpowers that have significantly more weapons than are required. The nightmare option is not losing but winning, not dying but surviving.   Unfortunately we cannot unmake the technology, even if disarm every nation on the planet, the knowledge and raw materials to make more still exists and I don't trust any nation to dismantle their weapons and not keep the component parts hidden away.   The only reason we don't fight wars with spears and arrows is because that technology was surpassed by missiles and bullets; the only way nuclear weapons will be scrapped is when a better technology replaces them, or when we nuke ourselves back to the Stone Age and simply haven't the technology to launch any more.   We live in a world that thinks it's okay to throw lumps of depleted uranium at each other, where collateral damage is a valid military term, where terrorism and suicide bombing is the road to victory and attack is the best form of defense. Those mindsets have to change before we can consider any form of disarmament, and once we've achieved that then there is no reason to stop at just nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it will never happen because man is a pack-animal, our nature is geared to the preservation of the "tribe" not the individual.

not as long as I am stockpiling them

Dean wrote: omri wrote: Dean wrote: The problem with MAD is it that it is not mutual, nor is it assured and only applies to superpowers that have significantly more weapons than are required. The nightmare option is not losing but winning, not dying but surviving.   Unfortunately we cannot unmake the technology, even if disarm every nation on the planet, the knowledge and raw materials to make more still exists and I don't trust any nation to dismantle their weapons and not keep the component parts hidden away.   The only reason we don't fight wars with spears and arrows is because that technology was surpassed by missiles and bullets; the only way nuclear weapons will be scrapped is when a better technology replaces them, or when we nuke ourselves back to the Stone Age and simply haven't the technology to launch any more.   We live in a world that thinks it's okay to throw lumps of depleted uranium at each other, where collateral damage is a valid military term, where terrorism and suicide bombing is the road to victory and attack is the best form of defense. Those mindsets have to change before we can consider any form of disarmament, and once we've achieved that then there is no reason to stop at just nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it will never happen because man is a pack-animal, our nature is geared to the preservation of the "tribe" not the individual.     The question is : Do we need so many bombs ? or can we leave just some of these and at least stop producing more bombs ? How many bombs do we need to feel secure ? As tzirmay said, the Arab countrys (knowing Israel has nuclear weapon many years before Vanounou) never felt offended by that fact cause they know very well that Israel will never dare to use it. There is no magic optimal number - each nation feels it needs enough to defend itself, but that is false logic - what they actually want is enough to destroy their enemies. If it were truly a deterrent then all that is required is 203 - one for every nation on the planet.   Deterrent only works when it is accepted as the ultimate deterrent. When one nation is convinced that another will never use the weapons then its effect as a deterrent is void. But when someone thinks they can win a nuclear war and cares little for the consequences (ie has no intention of clearing up the mess afterwards), or feels that it is the only option, then the threat is both real and valid. The fear is in using as a weapon of aggression - the question is not whether the one nation trusts another not to use the nuclear option, but whether the rest of the world will react when one is used.

micky wrote: Blacksword wrote: US & Russia could probably successfully negotiate significant arms reductions, as indeed they have in the past. However, I cant see China coming along to this 'ban the bomb' party any day soon. Also, I cant imagine Iran or NK scrapping their nuclear programme, and Israel is certainly not going to give them up, while it is surrounded by countries, who they think are plotting their destruction. The technology is there. The genie is out of the bottle, and he is too fat to squeeze back in. Face it, we're stuck with them. yep...

Thanks for the edit, Micky I guess you're right.