Trying to ressurect the cold war?

[Hesten]

Gotta love the dual morality in the US. If another (non US friendly) country consider making nuclear weapons, they get threatened with sanctions.
But its perfectly OK for the US to do it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_ ... ompetition

[Aruman]

Gotta love the dual morality in the US. If another (non US friendly) country consider making nuclear weapons, they get threatened with sanctions.
But its perfectly OK for the US to do it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_ ... ompetition

Do you bother to read entire articles... or do you only see what you want to see...

Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.
[/b]

I guess the meaning of deterrent and reducing stockpiles just doesn't register with you.

Iran doesn't have the weapons yet. North Korea might have them. You can't seriously tell me that you have more confidence in those two countries regarding the use of nuclear weapons than countries that already possess them.

Sure, if every country could eliminate all nuclear weapons (which I think will happen in time) it would be great. Problem is Iran and North Korea have extremist leadership, and I highly doubt that there would be the same level of checks and safeguards that the US has. I would think with the kind of leadership these two countries have, it would be relatively less difficult to launch their nuclear weapons on a whim.

[Kylere]

Nuclear Weapons contain uranium or plutonium, it rusts. Well they call it spalling but it is oxidation. It causes the weapon to lose reliability. Letting nukes rot while performing surface maintenance is NOT going to keep them functional. Then add in that most of our arsenal was built in the 60's and 70's and any sane person would want them to upgrade rather than store multiple decade old nukews all over the country.

[Hesten]

Gotta love the dual morality in the US. If another (non US friendly) country consider making nuclear weapons, they get threatened with sanctions.
But its perfectly OK for the US to do it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_ ... ompetition

Do you bother to read entire articles... or do you only see what you want to see...

I have read the article, but it seems that you only read what you want to see. Ill specify below.

Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.

I guess the meaning of deterrent and reducing stockpiles just doesn't register with you.

Iran doesn't have the weapons yet. North Korea might have them. You can't seriously tell me that you have more confidence in those two countries regarding the use of nuclear weapons than countries that already possess them.

Sure, if every country could eliminate all nuclear weapons (which I think will happen in time) it would be great. Problem is Iran and North Korea have extremist leadership, and I highly doubt that there would be the same level of checks and safeguards that the US has. I would think with the kind of leadership these two countries have, it would be relatively less difficult to launch their nuclear weapons on a whim.

Deterrent, that means having weapons to try to intimidate others from doing something. That is the exact same way they were used during the cold war, that both sides had enough to hope neither would be stupid enough to fire them. As in a VERY dangerous situation. Do you REALLY think that having nuclear weapons on both sides to try and scare eath other will make the world a safer place?

As for the "reducing stockpile", try to read it again. Ill even highlight it for you:

Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.
[/b]

Read the only part of this that you decided to not focus on. The US got around 6000 nuclear bombs, that will be POTENTIALLY UNRELIABLE in 15 years. As in not to be counted on, and thus have to be dismantled.
But instead of this way using the fact that the bombs will become unreliable to actually do some good and get the stockpile reduced this way, you spend MORE cash on making even more deadly bombs to make sure you can MAYBE scare countries into not being stupid enough to use nuclear weapons agains you (and totally disregarding that the most likely source for a nuclear attack on US soil are terrorists who dont care, since you cant use nukes to stop them, nuking a country will just create even more potential terrorists).

Sure, if every country could eliminate all nuclear weapons (which I think will happen in time) it would be great. Problem is Iran and North Korea have extremist leadership, and I highly doubt that there would be the same level of checks and safeguards that the US has. I would think with the kind of leadership these two countries have, it would be relatively less difficult to launch their nuclear weapons on a whim.

Hmm, arent you confusing yourself here? The one second you think its great you are making more nuke, the other second you think that nukes will dissapear over time. I got a newsflash: If the US keep making nukes, they wont go away.

Yes, it will probably be more difficult for Iran or North Korea to launch than for the US, but the US still got more bombs than anyone else, and ATM the president are not that far from what i could call extremist leadership. It dont make it better just because it happen to be God he believe in.
And he is in control of WMDs, and now wish to build more. AND try to look at the requirements for nuclear launch (taken from http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... _12fc2.pdf):

• An enemy threating to use or using WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.
  To prevent an imminent biological attack.
  To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target US or its allies.
  To stop enemy potentially overwhelming conventional forces.
  To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.
  To make sure US and international operations are successful.
  To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.
  To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against US and international forces or civilians.

The way i read that, he get pretty free hands. Note the "to rapidly end a war on favorable US terms". That could be translated to "bomb the hell out of Iraq", if they didnt have oil, since that would end the war unfavorably if the US loose the chance for oil.

The "To make sure US and international operations are successful." arent exactly great either, US operations can again give pretty free hands.

And the last one are the best "To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs." So in case can you bomb Iraq to try to deter Iraq from making nuclear weapons?

[Aruman]

I pity the country that first uses nukes, because they are going to get a shit sandwich crammed down their collective throats by those capable of kicking them dead square in the ass. This is deterrence.

Notice also, that this document doesn't say President Bush anywhere. ANY US President has that authority. Heck, if I had to pick a President who would have been most likely to use nukes, I would have said President Reagan, but his popularity was huge, and he was a major sabre rattler. He was quite adept at deterrence in his actions and words, not by waving some document around. President Reagan must have really had you scared.

I personally don't think President Bush would be stupid enough or have the 'nads to use nukes as a first strike. If you seriously put President Bush on the same level as those whackos in Iran or North Korea you obviously aren't using your brain.

From the same document:

The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons. Maintaining US ambiguity about when it would use nuclear weapons helps create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries, deterring them from taking hostile action.

This calculated ambiguity helps reinforce deterrence. If the US clearly defined conditions under which it would use nuclear weapons, others might infer another set of circumstances in which the US would not use nuclear weapons. This perception would increase the chances that hostile leaders might not be deterred from taking actions they perceive as falling below that threshold.

US nuclear forces deter potential adversary use of WMD and dissuade against a potential adversary’s development of an overwhelming conventional threat. The decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires the explicit decision from the President.

To maintain their deterrent effect, US nuclear forces must maintain a strong and visible state of readiness. Strategic nuclear force readiness levels are categorized as either operationally deployed or as part of the responsive capability. US Operationally Deployed Strategic Nuclear Warheads will be limited to 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012.

Sure, if every country could eliminate all nuclear weapons (which I think will happen in time) it would be great. Problem is Iran and North Korea have extremist leadership, and I highly doubt that there would be the same level of checks and safeguards that the US has. I would think with the kind of leadership these two countries have, it would be relatively less difficult to launch their nuclear weapons on a whim.

Hmm, arent you confusing yourself here? The one second you think its great you are making more nuke, the other second you think that nukes will dissapear over time. I got a newsflash: If the US keep making nukes, they wont go away.

I guess the word if is also confusing to you.

As far as Iran goes... you are turning a blind eye to what a Jihad is. Suicide means nothing to these people. If some whacko(fanatic?) leader believes it is permissible due to religious reasons, and has no qualms about being martyred(sp?), why wouldn't they do it when their religion (in their eyes) permits it? That's the difference betwen US religious culture and fanatics who don't mind being martyred in support of a Jihad. The US sees nuclear weapons or any WMD as something to avoid being used at all costs.

[Nick]

I wonder which countries actually killed the most innocent people in..you know...reality.

Nevertheless, nukes as deterrence suck, plain and simple and everyone would be better off if we didn't have them, but we do and that's life.

I'd prefer the US to have them over Iran.

If Israel stopped giving people legitimate reasons to want to bomb the shit out of them (applies to the US and Britain too) that would be a pretty good fucking deterrent without having to make horrific nuclear weapons that have not one single positive use in a humane world.

[Dregor Thule]

If Israel stopped giving people legitimate reasons to want to bomb the shit out of them (applies to the US and Britain too) that would be a pretty good fucking deterrent without having to make horrific nuclear weapons that have not one single positive use in a humane world.

I think that's a pretty naive view of things. Idealy, yes, it'd be great if everyone got a long all shiny and perfect, but in the real world the vast differences in ideologies makes the thought of this an absurd dream. Maybe one day, far far far into the future, when humans stop letting religions, culture, and centuries of history rule their views and perceptions, maybe then we'll be able to realize that hope.

And then the Vulcans can teach us how to fly through space, zoooooom.

[Kylere]

As long as Israel has nukes the world is a safer place with the US having more, but I do not blame the Israelis to be honest, I would have put as much into bomb development as I could have running Israel.

I still think a 6 day war rematch would be over in three.

[Nick]

I think it's called hopeful, being naive is assuming change is impossible.

[cadalano]

I wonder which countries actually killed the most innocent people in..you know...reality.

Tell us Nick

[Nick]

Make a shitheaded remark Cadalano

[Wulfran]

If Israel stopped giving people legitimate reasons to want to bomb the shit out of them (applies to the US and Britain too) that would be a pretty good fucking deterrent without having to make horrific nuclear weapons that have not one single positive use in a humane world.

I agree that the Israelis don't do themselves any favours but that still won't stop groups like Hamas, Al Qaida or the Iranians from wanting to wipe them off the face of the planet.

[Nick]

Just like the IRA weren't going to quit until they got a United Ireland? It's the same thing on a bigger scale, but the proof that positive change can come is evident everywhere where terrorism has been brought under control by comprimise and negotiation.

As for Al Quida, yeah, they should be caught, instead of being allowed to wander about free from fear of capture because the US military is too busy in recreating vietnam.

As for Hamas, well, they are the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, so if you or anyone else is such a lover of Democracy the quicker they are recognised officially and we start open reasonable discussion with them the better. Compare the amount of people the Israeli state has killed compared to how many Palestinian Militants have, coupled with the human rights abuses and tell me who the real terrorists are.

[Aabidano]

Why can't we all just get along?

[kyoukan]

I pity the country that first uses nukes

woops! about 60 years too late on that statement, charlie.

[Aruman]

I pity the country that first uses nukes

woops! about 60 years too late on that statement, charlie.

Well, let's see, looking at my clock and calendar... it is June 14, 2006. What do you know...

Am I somehow transported back to pre-August 1945 when I make posts about current events?

I would say you missed 60 years somewhere kyoukan.

[Kylere]

Just like the IRA weren't going to quit until they got a United Ireland? It's the same thing on a bigger scale, but the proof that positive change can come is evident everywhere where terrorism has been brought under control by comprimise and negotiation.

As for Al Quida, yeah, they should be caught, instead of being allowed to wander about free from fear of capture because the US military is too busy in recreating vietnam.

As for Hamas, well, they are the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, so if you or anyone else is such a lover of Democracy the quicker they are recognised officially and we start open reasonable discussion with them the better. Compare the amount of people the Israeli state has killed compared to how many Palestinian Militants have, coupled with the human rights abuses and tell me who the real terrorists are.

Don't feel bad Nick, the acts of the IRA pale (lol) next to that of England overall. Like a 2 month old waving a rattle next to the Hulk. Ask India, or Africa, or North America, or wait for it... South America, or even hrm, Europe, Australia suffer and Asia has been stomped on by the brits for every BS thing they can think of, if the US stays around another 300 years we might match their atrocities, but only if we keep trying. If there had been 'wogs' in Antartica, I am sure the Brits would have made warmer clothes marked in Red and invaded.

[Nick]

the acts of the IRA pale (lol)

/groan

[Siji]

Why can't we all just get along?

Cause not everyone swallows..