Originally Posted By Sport Goofy President Obama made a strong statement at the UN Security Council yesterday about the elimination of nuclear weapons among all countries. Is this just rhetoric or a chance to achieve nuclear disarmament in our lifetime? I'm skeptical, but hopeful. I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of this.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Do you really think Iran is planning Nukes for "medical" reasons? <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092500289_pf.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/..._pf.html</a> Alas, the Genie is out of the bottle, and won't be going back in it anytime soon. I wish that more attention was placed on Nuclear Energy, as if well designed, can replace a bunch of oil, and is actually greener! Now, if only Nevada would allow us to place spent nuclear material in the middle of the desert.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's a nice thought, but I just don't see it ever happening. Especially when countries like Iran are working to build nuclear weapons. Total disarmament would take such a huge global meeting of the minds and shared purpose unlike anything in the history of the world. Short of divine intervention of some kind, what could bring about such a global shift? Even if major countries chose to disarm, it isn't like the technology can be unlearned. It would remain a threat that terrorists or rogue nations could rearm regardless of whatever treaties and agreements were put in place. I never like to say never, but total nuclear disarmament will never happen, certainly not in our lifetime.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Placing nuclear waste in the desert does not solve the problem. The desert is an active living ecosystem vital to the overall health of the planet, whether or not people inhabit it. But I guess ecosystems without human habitation aren't important to you, therefore, totally expendable. If you want nuclear energy, DB, you should be willing to store it in YOUR backyard, say, the California Mojave desert between OC and Vegas. NIMBY Syndrome is alive and well on Planet GOP.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I wish that more attention was placed on Nuclear Energy, as if well designed, can replace a bunch of oil, and is actually greener! >> Actually, de-emphasizing nuclear energy would go a long way to stopping nuclear weapons proliferations. There are so many alternatives to nuclear energy in the world of energy, that it is really not a necessary way for power generation and much more expensive than several renewable sources. Then, there's also the reality that we can eliminate our need for new energy sources by simply focusing on energy efficiency and reduced consumption as far more effective measures than promoting the myriad sources of power generation. We can cut our energy usage in half easily with efficiency measures that have zero impact on our quality of life.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Total disarmament would take such a huge global meeting of the minds and shared purpose unlike anything in the history of the world. Short of divine intervention of some kind, what could bring about such a global shift? >> Economics. Nuclear arms are simply too expensive for most countries to maintain arsenals anymore. We're not in a bipolar world anymore, so it makes no sense for the U.S. and Russia to maintain enormous arsenals of weapons pointed at each other. Rogue states, like Iran, could only ever afford a handful of weapons -- enough to wreak some havoc but not enough to win a war against a more capable opponent. Why enable the rogue states to cause havoc by proliferating weapons? I actually think we have a greater chance of succeeding in this than most. It won't happen overnight, but could happen by mid-century if there is a new cooperative spirit among the large powers.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>Rogue states, like Iran, could only ever afford a handful of weapons -- enough to wreak some havoc but not enough to win a war against a more capable opponent.<< Huh? How can a "more capable opponent" defeat Iran if it does have Nuclear Weapons in its Arsenal? Are you saying that Iran could nuke the entire State of Isreal with a few bombs, and then have a few tanks and morter bombs be used as a response? Sorry, but if one person has them, then most folks will have them... Have to agree with K2M, alas, not in our lifetime, or even the next few gentations.....
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Are you saying that Iran could nuke the entire State of Isreal with a few bombs, and then have a few tanks and morter bombs be used as a response? >> It would take more than a few nukes to destroy the entire territory of Israel. Israel also has some pretty capable allies, who I am fairly certain would pretty much destroy Iran if they launched a nuke attack there (or anywhere else). But, you proved my point. Is proliferation worth the devastation that a rogue state can perform on a few targets, when they ultimately will be defeated in the end?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer You will have to ask Iran, North Korea, etc.... But I am glad to know that folks like the USA have Nuclear Weapons in case they need to be used as a "response" to another country (or terrorists) launching them first. I hope that none of them will ever be used, but glad they are there, especially the Submarines patrolling the world. And yes, heck, if there is a "suitable" area in California, I have no problems with long term Nuclear Storage in the desert. But the "experts" said that Yucca Mountain was the best location.... If Yucca Mountain was in California, I would happily vote for it to be the main storage facility.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But I am glad to know that folks like the USA have Nuclear Weapons in case they need to be used as a "response" to another country (or terrorists) launching them first. >> Glad you are not working at the Pentagon. Nuclear weapons are generally considered a deterrent against a peer or near peer military competitor. You don't respond with nukes against a country like Iran or North Korea. If those countries launch a nuclear attack, they've likely expended their entire resource. What good is it to respond with a weapon that just destroys a population and infrastructure without attacking the actual government's source of power? The same goes for terrorists. This is why nuclear proliferation is bad and the major powers need to get rid of nuclear aresenals altogether.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If those countries launch a nuclear attack, they've likely expended their entire resource.<< Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe, while everyone else is disarming, they are building up an arsenal. It is not uncommon for nations to spend a disproportionate amount on military/weapons. And even if they launch an attack and have nothing else left, imagine the devastation. It might not directly be the US they hit. But Israel? London? I'd like to believe that we will evolve to a point where war is seen as an insane option and that human beings will get to a point where we don't need to worry about nukes. But I just don't see it happening when you have screwballs like Amedenijhad (sp?) running around.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I'd like to believe that we will evolve to a point where war is seen as an insane option and that human beings will get to a point where we don't need to worry about nukes. But I just don't see it happening when you have screwballs like Amedenijhad (sp?) running around.>> I think the nukes are being created as leverage for economic gain. These countries are impoverished, their citizens are starving. By building the nukes, they hope to use them in bartering for goods their countries need to keep their citizens alive and in control. I highly doubt any of these leaders are stupid or psychotic enough to actually use the weapons. If they're smart enough to know how to rig an election and get away with it, they're smart enough to know that launching nukes will totally annihilate their countries. They want the nukes to use as bargaining chips in providing goods and services they cannot give their citizenry any other way.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They want the nukes to use as bargaining chips in providing goods and services they cannot give their citizenry any other way.<< Oh, there are other ways. They could stop supporting terrorism and making insane declarations that the Holocaust never happened. Maybe then removing economic sanctions could be considered. Yes, there are many other ways to help the impoverished people in their countries, IF that were the true goal. It isn't.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Maybe, while everyone else is disarming, they are building up an arsenal. >> Non-nuclear countries don't have the capability to build arsenals without the direct support of the developed countries that already have the nuclear technology and weapons material. Iran can't develop weapons by itself. It has to obtain nuclear material from another state with the technology. If the big players would agree to disarm, the small players go out of business, too. These are big ifs, and I'm not 100% convinced. It's worth pursuing, though, and I do think it is achievable with a lot diplomatic effort.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But I am glad to know that folks like the USA have Nuclear Weapons in case they need to be used as a "response" to another country (or terrorists) launching them first.*** How nonsensical is this? First of all Darkbeer, lest you forget atomic weapons are EXTREMELY harmful not only to the city in question but to the entire region where they're detonated. If N.K. does blast Honolulu are we going to drop a big one on Pyongyang and just say "oh, sorry China and South Korea, hope the radiation doesn't piss you off TOO much!". Duh. So, even *if* a rogue country did manage to detonate a bomb (and dared do so), why would "a nuke for a nuke" be a better retaliation than a coalition of forces conventionally bombing their country into a parking lot? Your argument holds no water here (but it is nice to see you actually contributing your thoughts instead of cut/paste).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nuclear-showdown-with-iran-escalates-1793483.html" target="_blank">http://www.independent.co.uk/n...483.html</a> >>The crisis in relations with Iran escalated ominously yesterday after the leaders of the US, Britain and France accused the regime in Tehran of operating a secret uranium enrichment facility buried deep in a mountain bunker near the ancient religious city of Qom. Barack Obama called Iran's activity "a direct challenge" to the international community. The accusations were made public in an extraordinary joint statement by the US President, flanked by Gordon Brown and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy before the start of the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh. Iran had previously insisted that its plant at Natanz, which is open to international inspection, was the only one involved in enrichment. The new revelation sharply raises the stakes at a time when Israel has been signalling that military strikes against Iran are on the table. << Like Iran cares about the area around Israel.....
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Your argument holds no water here*** And that goes for you, too, K2M. As a deterrent, perhaps it worked for a while (you wipe us out, we'll wipe you out), but against a rogue country or terrorists what difference does it make whether or not the super-army they're fighting against kills them with a nuke or with 100 patriot missiles? Would they chose to use or not use their weapon based on whether or not America has nukes, when they can see the aircraft carrier fleet right out their through their binoculars? No, I totally agree with the President. Time to go for it, while we still have a modicum of sanity left in the world.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I wonder how much money Darkbeer would like to spend in a war with Iran?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer NONE, but if Iran starts a war with Israel, the USA needs to step in and protect its ally.... But then, we already are spending BILLIONS due to an agreement that President Carter made back in the 70's... <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362402,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.ynetnews.com/articl...,00.html</a> >> Israel, long since the US' top recipient of foreign aid, will receive USD 2.4 billion. Since 1979 and the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel has annually received up to USD 3 billion in aid. As part of with an initiative by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the civilian aid has been steadily decreased over the course of the past 10 years, going from USD 1.2 million to being completely cancelled this year. At the same time military aid to Israel has increased from USD 1.8 billion to USD 2.4 billion. Egypt received the second largest aid package from the US and will receive USD 1.3 billion in military aid as well as USD 415 million in civilian aid. Jordan will receive USD 264 million in economic aid as well as USD 200 million in military aid. <<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And that goes for you, too, K2M.<< And my little dog, too! And the horse I rode in on! Please tell me how disarmament will work, in specifics. It's a nice thing to hope for, I would love for it to happen, I'm not a lover of nuclear arms. But let's talk brass tacks -- who goes first with getting rid of nukes? Will every country that currently has nuclear weapons be on board? How will it be verified... and what happens if a nation is out of compliance? Convince me how it can happen, how it will work. I'd love to support the idea but I'm going to need to know a lot more about how it will work. I mean, I enjoyed "War Games" as much as the next guy, but it wasn't exactly the most complete answer.
