Nuclear Weapons/Technology

[which doctor]

I have a question for the US Government: Why can't other nations research nuclear technology? Many of the countries just want safe and clean nuclear power, why can't they have it? We have nuclear weapons why can't other countries have them? They only want them to defend themselves verse other countries (United States)? We can't expect other countries to be peaceful when we are not? Please dismantle our nuclear weapons before you ask others to do so?

[codyvo]

I don't think any nation should be able to have them especially the US. I think every nation with nukes should disarm, but we all know that the US, wouldn't do it, they don't listen to foreigners or americans or anyone for that matter.

[KC]

Nuclear weapons are pointless. The United States (and maybe other countries go by this, I'm not sure) claim that the nuclear weapons they have are for a counterattack; in other words, they can detect when a nuclear missle is launched, and they can fire a nucler missle at wherever it came from and also at the missle itself.
The problem with this is that when one nuclear missile is launched, ALL of them are. Which would have a huge impact on the entire world. So if a country shoots a nuke, everybody dies. So what's the point of having nukes anyways? To counter attack? Nobody should have nuclear weapons as they just create a risk of destroying life as we know it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Its a funny thing the nuclear deterent as Blair, Bush and others call it. It "gives you the right" to attack countries who want it, without fear of attack yourselves. This seems to me a warped logic. Say for instance Wales or Scotland attacked England. England would nuke 'em. Daft, really as England would be as badly affected. However when leaders talk about it as a deterent they are effectively saying they would nuke someone who attacked us. Regardless of whether the agressors had a nuclear capability or not. Which shows what great humanitarians World leaders are. ;)

On this point, I was wondering whether any of the UK comrades are organising anything against the renewal of Trident. I would love to join in with some form of protest.

[Gust]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 25 2005, 05:42 PM
I have a question for the US Government: Why can't other nations research nuclear technology? Many of the countries just want safe and clean nuclear power, why can't they have it? We have nuclear weapons why can't other countries have them? They only want them to defend themselves verse other countries (United States)? We can't expect other countries to be peaceful when we are not? Please dismantle our nuclear weapons before you ask others to do so?
I have always wondered the same thing myself...


See this movie:

Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb

[Seeker]

They give enormous leverage in the game of realpolitik.

North Korea got their hands on a nuke, and now they can't have Wal-Mart forced on them.

Afghanistan - no nukes and no Bin Laden - invaded.
Pakistan - has nukes and houses Bin Laden - not invaded.

Israel has lots of nukes, and as a result we send them lots of money. Indonesia has no nukes, and as a result they send us lots of Nikes.

As greedy as the dogs in Washington are, they know better than to test someone who has their finger on the button. So they try and prevent access to that button.

[LSD]

I have a question for the US Government: Why can't other nations research nuclear technology?

Because it would make them a threat to US interests.

Understanding US foreign policy isn't hard. While it may not make sense from an objectively logical perspective, in the context of what's best for the US ruling class, it is actually quite logical.


Many of the countries just want safe and clean nuclear power, why can't they have it?

True enough, but unfortunately many of them want to build bombs.


We have nuclear weapons why can't other countries have them?

Sadly, because, believe it or not, there are countries even less responsible than the US.

You see, for all its faults, and there are many, the US rulling class has a decent sense of self-preservation. They are doing well, and want to keep doing well. Furthermore, they are guided by a sense of "rational self-interest", meaning that they, for the most part, tend to pursue their class aims with a fair bit of rational thought.

Unfortunately, this does not describe all of the world. There is a certain segment, mostly consisting of religious fanatics, who would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons tomorrow, even if it meant their death. They, simply, don't see death as a "problem".

Keeping appocalyptic technology away from such lunatics is important. As much as I distrust the US government, I distrust the government of Iran more ...and I distrust the radical "whahabists" even more than that. If they should ever get their hands on a significant amount of nuclear technology, watch out humanity!


Please dismantle our nuclear weapons before you ask others to do so?

I think there's very little danger of the current US government utilizing its weapons stock.

I think the real danger will come when the US is close to collapsing and finds itself a weakening and decaying power. It's the unstable and desperate nations that are always the most dangerous.

Also, should a true Christian fascist government emerge, it isn't above possibility, that it would use nucelar weapons to force "armageddon".


Israel has lots of nukes, and as a result we send them lots of money.

Yeah, but that's not why.

You send them lots of money because Israel serves as a tactical outpost for American interests in a strategically important region. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it.


Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb

Great movie.

[kingbee]

unfortunately, i dont think theres any clear way through this.

imagine, if everybody gave up their nukes, then imagine if some rogue/'terrorist' group developed them- everybody, to politely put it, would be fucked.

[piet11111]

ah if only everybody gave up nukes :D .
then we would just wage chemical/biological warfare instead.

i for one am one of those poeple that are gratefull for the almost suicidal usage of a nuclear weapon because of mutually assured destruction (M.A.D).
and then came president bush with the idea of a nuclear "bunker buster" to my knowledge he is the first president to order the manufacturing of nukes since the 60's (not counting the replacement of older nukes with modern one's) violating international treaties and signaling a change that nuclear weapons can be used in future battlefield.

in this light i find it perfectly acceptible for iran & north korea to manufacture their own nuclear deterrence because america is showing that nuclear weapons will apear on the battlefield in the future.

getting rid of nukes is a noble thought but reality makes it impossible to do.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Americas already using depleted Uraniam in Iraq. After the first Gulf War where around 400 tonnes were dropped cancer rates in Iraq went up 1000% in affected areas. Already in Iraq this time 90 tonnes have been used; And they wonder why theres an insurgency.

[Andy Bowden]

Haven't seen all of Dr Strangelove, but it is, from what I saw, brilliant :D


"You can't fight in here Gentlemen, this is the war room!"


On a more serious note, if the "Star Wars II " of George W Bush is successful, we can wave bye bye to MAD - and say hello to the prospect of pre-emptive nuclear strikes by the USA*.



*On Mecca if that Republican fuckwit gets his way as well.

[piet11111]

yes the depleted uranium is used in tankshells america is the only country in the world to use that $hit (well maybe the israeli's but i think they are smarter then that)

but the key word is "depleted" its not very radioactive but then again if we knew how to get rid of radioactivity we would not have a problem with nuclear waste.

could it be possible that saddams burning of the oilfields in kuweit caused this ? because i think america never faught in iraq itself after the first gulfwar.
so there should not be a great amount of tankshells being there but maybe there is another usage for depleted uranium in the airforce.
maybe the A-10 warthog's cannon fired uranium tipped shells ?

[Amusing Scrotum]

They fired it at the armoured vechicles as it the uranium tip penetrates them like a knife through butter.

And it doesn't much matter that its depleted, it still causes cancer and mutations; and has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

[Intifada]

How can the Americans be trusted with a nuclear bomb?

Anybody remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Seeker]

Depleted Uranium (DU) is used in all the big American guns.

Tanks use a pen-shaped rod of it, fired at very high speed out of a 105mm cannon, to blast a small hole in the opposing tank's armor. When the DU rod hits, it becomes a radioactive cloud of dust (the impact vaporizes it), and the tank's own armor goes flying inward. The immediate effect is similar to dropping a grenade inside, then closing the hatch, but that dust can be blown anywhere, even to the opposite side of the planet.

Armored Personnel Carriers use DU bullets in their 25mm guns, allowing them to kill enemy tanks at close range, or damage other hardened targets.

A-10's use DU rounds in their chaingun, as do attack helicopters.

Below our own tanks' anti-shaped-charge reactive armor is a layer of DU to protect against projectiles (such as an opponent's 110mm-fired DU dart).

The reason its use is so widespread is because it is both heavier and stronger than steel. The weight and stiffness lets it penetrate where a normal bullet would flatten out and stop.




All these rounds become radioactive dust on impact, which eventually works its way into the ground water where it kills for generations, or gets blown around the globe, spreading cancer in its path.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Exactly. It ain't to good.

Therefore the American Government lecturing people about having or using nuclear weapons holds no weight under scrutiny.

EXTREME HYPOCRICY. :angry:

[timbaly]

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can be used as an excuse as to why some nations are allowed to have nuclear arms and others are not. The United States is allowed to have them according to the treaty along with France, Russia, China and the UK. No other nations who signed are supposed to have any.

List of Signers, just scroll down the page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Proliferation_Treaty#Parties_to_the_treaty )

Funny enough Vatican City signed it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Haiti? :D

Great if the 5 countries had complied with the treaty and started to disband their weapons stock. Instead of increasing it.

"The Independent" recently ran a front page which showed who had nuclear weapons and capability. It was far more than 5.

Also if America and the West were serious about non-proliferation, they would call on Israel to disband their Nuclear Weapons program.

[Redvolution]

"Nuclear weapons create an irrational world."

Hell, the world almost ended about 40 years ago with the Cuban Missile Crisis. And the thing is, Castro would have used them if he could have! That's not a biased report, either, that came directly from his mouth, when former Secretary of State McNamara interviewed him for (I think it was an Oliver Stone or some other famous director's) documentary.

That's what scares me about Castro.

Anyway, nuclear weapons are also used by the US to bully countries. And LSD brought up some good points with certain groups/countries seeking nukes shouldn't get them!

[YoUnG192]

We have nuclear weapons why can't other countries have them?

How can someone ask that question. How does one living in the year 2005 cannot answer that question themself. Sure lets give away a couple of nukes to North Korea and Iran am sure us Americans will be very safe.

[Seeker]

A dictator goes about diplomacy differently than the agents of an Empire.

I don't know under what context Castro said that, but on its face it sounds like political posturing.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:32 AM

We have nuclear weapons why can't other countries have them?

How can someone ask that question. How does one living in the year 2005 cannot answer that question themself. Sure lets give away a couple of nukes to North Korea and Iran am sure us Americans will be very safe.
because even the most insane dictator want to stay in power if he uses nukes he dies.

even saddam sorta behaved to stay in power he played the cards he had very well.
thats why he destroyed his WMD's so that nobody would ever find evidence of their existance.
but he refused to openly say so because then he would loose face and thats something a dictator cant afford.
and seriously who would have believed him anyway bush wanted his war and he manufactured enough evidence to get it.