logo Sign In

Bush and Nuclear Proliferation

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
I was walking about my campus today, and saw some people registering students to vote/join the student Republican party. Now, I know full well that they are not there to debate...but I just had this nagging question, and I wanted to hear what they had to say.
So I walk over and ask if they would mind sharing their opinions - "What do you think about Bush supporting American development of new Nuclear weapons?"

One guy immediately says "If you are for unilateral disarm, it didnt work in the '80s and it wont work now!" and went back to handing out his fliers.
The other gent standing at the table said he didnt want to debate, and I told him i was just interested in hearing his opinion. He said that America has to defend itself, and its ok for us to have Nuclear weapons, but not for states like N. Korea, Iran, and *gasp* Iraq to have them. I didnt really think this made sense, and I guess he could tell...so he went on to say "I dont think its really that big of a deal."

I think Reg had/has a quote in his signiture about people believing a lie if its big enough and crammed down their throats enough...and this really drove that home for me.
Also, I just cant understand a person thinking that Nuclear proliferation is simply "not that big of a deal."

So maybe im overreacting, thats the purpose of this thread. Id like to know what you think. Not of Bush(specifically), not of Kerry. Dont tell me about WOMD in Iraq. I just want to know what you think of Nuclear Proliferation: IS it a big deal? Should any nation pursue the development of NEW Nuclear weapons? And finally, do you think any situation calls for the use of a Nuclear Weapon?
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
That would have to be one helluva big deal to warrant a nuclear weapon being launched against. As much as I didn't support it during the cold war, I can see why they existed. We had two of the world's largest nations gunning for each other. I think there might have been better ways of dealing with the Cold War, but the build up at the time helped avert a nuclear holocaust.

These days, however, with so many so-called "rogue" nations trying to build a nuclear arsenal, I think it's a bad idea for the U.S. to build up as well. If we do it, everyone else is going to want to and we're going to be aiming silos at thousands of locations on so damned many continents that it won't even be funny. While all of them just aim back at us. I really think that many of these smaller nations that want in on nuclear programs can be dissuaded through negotiation. We just have to try and be patient. We can't expect miracles, but a miracle is what we're gonna need if we use a nuke build up as a response.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Hmmnn...

I can see why a nation would want to defend itself - or have the capabiltiy or deterrent of a nuclear weapon to do so.

Obviously it's quite worrying that a potential enemy may have WMDs aimed at a country you live in - though there probably reasons as to why they are aiming at one country and not another.

At what point does another country decide that you can or cannot have nuclear weapons? Is it because you are their military allies which has provided personnel or bases to use in the past? Or have strong business and commercial links etc?

What if another country is so worried that another may be developing WMDs that they discredit that country with false and exaggerated information as a prelude to invasion and then install their values upon that nation?

Or that false infromation if given about WMDs in that country as a reason to interfere - what would happen after? - an apology with immediate withdrawl? Being shunned by the international community' or an emargo against the perpetrators?


^ what would you judge to be fair and reasonable?

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com - includes info on how to ask for a fan project and how to search for projects and threads on OT•com.

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

Take your time to look around this site before posting… Do NOT just lazily make yet another ‘link request’ post - or a new thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: oojason
What if another country is so worried that another may be developing WMDs that they discredit that country with false and exaggerated information as a prelude to invasion and then install their values upon that nation?


Oh, don't get me started on this one. I'm in complete agreement with the rest of the world (outside my own country) on this point and that we, being the U.S. gov't, screwed the pooch on this little iota.

For the record, I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so please don't push for an embargo against us because we f'd it all up. We all know the U.S. couldn't survive an embargo. All our shit (or at least the components necessary to make all our shit) come from the outside world. I'd be screwed and I didn't even do anything to deserve it. Honorary Canadian or Irish citizenship, here I come.

I am 100% against the attack on Iraq, but as Lethe said when he started this thread, we are not to talk about WMDs and the current war situation or Kerry v Bush, so let's move on.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
damn right its a big deal. when you have the power to distroy an entire city with the push of a botton it is a fuckin big deal. I thing the US government has forgotten about MAD. as long as the US has nuc's other states that feel threatened but them will try to build them to. if only the US has nuc's MAD does not exist.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, that comment that your little pamphlet boy said about it not really being a big deal is pretty ridiculous. I would definitely have to agree with Shimmy on that one. May as well just say that AIDS is no big deal.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
I don't think I phrased my post above too well...

'At what point does another country decide that you can or cannot have nuclear weapons?' - below that are reasons as why, for me, one or two countries should NOT be allowed to take control and implement military action - and not a dig on the situation with Iraq.

I know it parallels recent events, though I was trying to keep it hypothetical - but I suppose it's all in our subsconciouses at some point. What happens next time if intelligence suggests that a country may be developing a WMD program - at what point do you give trust to a country that has got it wrong before - let alone give military aid to it?


Should there come a time when the US are the country left with a nuclear arsenal - would they make steps to rid themselves of it? Would they rely on convential armed forces to defend itself?

If they refused to 'get rid' does that not send out a hypocritical message to the rest of the world - and ultimately the rearming of other countries would start all over again?

(sorry - too many questions :confused

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com - includes info on how to ask for a fan project and how to search for projects and threads on OT•com.

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

Take your time to look around this site before posting… Do NOT just lazily make yet another ‘link request’ post - or a new thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
Post link
I know that I said I wouldn't bring political discussions here again, but this is not realted to politics, bu to human life.

I still can't imagine why could anyone support any kind of nuclear armament, even those hardcore right wing conservatives. It's so stupid it's ridiculous. As Carl Sagan said, a cold war between two nuclear superpowers is like two persons dipped with gasoline to their waist, one with 2 matches, the other with five (the M.A.D. theory thing).

Watch "Dr Strangelove" if you want to see the abusrdity of nuclear war
Watch "Threads" or read "When the wind blows" (I'll post the link of it later) if you want to see the horror of nuclear war

Now, is there ANYONE here in favor of the USofA or any other country getting more nuclear weapons?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Im glad to see that we can reach agreement on this issue. Or it seems that way, I hate to speak for people.

The event really was a blow to my faith in my generation, as well as humanity in general.

At this point I think that a total disarmament is far off. Im not being a blind idealist. Some nations have Nukes, thats a fact. Other nations want in, or get in as a byproduct of developing nuclear power. I think the best course of action is anti-proliferation lead by the US and other key nations (most of which I would consider US allies, and willing to join the cause). If we are trying to instill in other nations that nuclear weapons are not necessary, we might try to lead by example (as others have said).
And my compliments for the references to MAD. A concept we discussed much in US History. I think that some persons have lost sight of that. I dont know of any conservatives directly supporting the development of NEW Nuclear Weapons. The poor sod on my campus today is just blissfully ignorant. He is too young, as im sure most of us here are, to have any recollection of Hiroshima or Nagasaki - but we have all been taught (on some level I hope) of that great atrocity. (ON that note, its peculiar that the US so vehemently opposes acts against humanity, and yet we are the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon on another, *ahem* TWICE). Perhaps the concept of MAD is completely foreign to him, who knows.

I do know that our standard ICBMs, Polaris missles in the US (I dont know the European counterpart names) are roughly 100 times stronger than the TWO bombs dropped on Japan combined. Honestly, how could we possibly need something new...do we need something stronger? And who in their right mind would ever authorize the use of that...which I can almost assure you would lead to the end of the human race as we know it.

As most of you agree, this isnt meant to persuade. Im still venting. Ive spent the afternoon since creating this thread trying to understand how a person could think the way that guy does...no success.
Thanks for the feedback guys, feel free to continue the commentary or change the subject. I would love to have a civil thread about semi-political/global questions.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Yeah, that comment that your little pamphlet boy said about it not really being a big deal is pretty ridiculous. I would definitely have to agree with Shimmy on that one. May as well just say that AIDS is no big deal.


lol AIDS is no big deal. if ppl can just control themselve the disease will be abolished. its unlike Nuclear power were a single person cantrol wheather they get AIDS or not.
Author
Time
Post link
forgive me for being stupid but what does "MAD" stand for?


As for Nuclear weapons. I wish we could get rid of them.

Should any nation have them? no Clearly the world is better off if no one has the power to destroy the planet.

Are there some nations better fit to have them than others? yes despite what you think of the U.S. imagine if Hitler had developed nukes first.

Is it wise to get rid of them while our enemies have them? no because our enemies would take advantage of us weakening ourselves.

As for the U.S. dropping Nuclear bombs on Japan in WWII. This is the reasoning that went into it. From the America's point of view Japan was not going to surender, they were going to fight to the last man and an invasion of Japan mainland would have meant many, many casualties on both sides. The use of the nukes got them to surrender much earlier(I know some say that Japan was ready to surrender but I don't know enough about those rumors/conspiracies to comment). The world in the WWII era were used to death and destuction so I don't think the idea of what these weapons would do had as much of an impact on them as it would on us. I also think people were sick and tired of the war and wanted it over asap, and the nukes did that. I'm not trying to justify it but that is the reasoning.

The ironic thing of about Nuclear Weapons is that by somtimes they prevent wars. Think about it, why is it that the cold war btw the USSR and the USA never became a full blown hot war? Because each side knew that if they went to war it, it would only end it one way by both sides firing their nukes and destroying both nations. There was no way a either side could win a war against the other and to go war with the other was to commit suicide. If the nukes weren't there, each side might have been more temped to go to war because there would have a chance of victory. I am not saying that that justifies the existence of these terrible devices but it is ironic.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
forgive me for being stupid but what does "MAD" stand for?




The ironic thing of about Nuclear Weapons is that by somtimes they prevent wars. Think about it, why is it that the cold war btw the USSR and the USA never became a full blown hot war? Because each side knew that if they went to war it, it would only end it one way by both sides firing their nukes and destroying both nations. There was no way a either side could win a war against the other and to go war with the other was to commit suicide. If the nukes weren't there, each side might have been more temped to go to war because there would have a chance of victory. I am not saying that that justifies the existence of these terrible devices but it is ironic.


Hehe, essentially you did all but spell out the acronym. Mutual Assured Destruction.

The only point on which I disagree is this: even if a rogue nation has a nuclear weapon, we are by no means weakening our defense by getting rid of our Nuclear Weapons and those of other willing nations. The clear question is this - if September 11th had been a nuclear strike by a terrorist organization (essentially only changing one element) would a Nuclear counter attack have been called for by the US? If so, on what nation? Do you see what im saying? Modern day Nukes are WAY stronger than the WWII era's Big Boy and Little Jon. There is no strategic use for Nuclear weapons now, aside from the afformentioned MAD war avoidance.

EDIT - With regard to my hypothetical situation about September 11th; I acknowledge that if it were a nuclear attack the situation would be completely different. It is sooooo far beyond reasoning what would have been done. I mean honestly, if it had been a modern Nuclear weapon detonated...the destruction would have been instantly in the hundreds of thousands (upwards of half a million I would venture) the climate of the ENTIRE world would change. I imagine even the French would concede that our retaliation would be necessary. Sorry, no offense intended there. But the question still exists of whether or not its intelligent, or even prudent, to retaliate with a nuclear weapon. Im not sure the effect of two modern nuclear weapons on the environment, but im pretty sure green-house gas would take a back seat.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
you know the thing i find funniest about nuc's. they are a subimission weapon. they would only ever be used to cause a larger amount of collateral damage in a war wear there was a stalemate in traditional arms. are there any other nation in the world that could lock arms with the US and cause a stalemate. the answer is NO not even china could do that. therefore the US has no need for nuc's ever. nuc's are a weapon used to destroy and fight nations not terrorist. terrorist will not stop fighting if the US nuc's every major city in the middle east.
Author
Time
Post link
Essencially i see no problem with continued research and upgrading of the current supply of nukes aka not making more bombs. I for one i suppose am jaded and all, but i dont think that certain world leaders concern themselves with building nukes, just because the US, or any other country has them, merely just to add to there own power. I certainly dont think Kim Jong Il, a man that is starving the majority of his own people, cares if anyone else has the nukes or not. But again maybe i am just jaded...

On a different note, a few years back while in school i remeber my US history prof sliding a grid on the overhead projector that illustrated the last "major" disarmerment treaty. Basically imagine a 8 1/2 by 11 piece of graphing paper filled up with dots, the dots representing 10 kilitons a pieace. Now image a circle with a 3/4" circumfrance surrounding some dots, this represents the disarmerment. Now if you are still with me imagine a 1/2" square, this repressents that amount of nuclear power to distroy earth population. Sad when you think about it, there are enough bombs on this earth to distroy the world 10 + times. I dont know anyone who likes this, but i know a lot of people who are thankful that we (US) have them, many of the people chatting on the board may not be here if we didnt...

WWII

I have never heard any convincing evidence that Japan was about to throw in the towel, though many of the civilians might have, but the military showed no signs, and seemed ready to pull a stalen and throw every avaliable person into harms way. Add this to the horrific battles of island hopping and you have a problem. Estimates of 5 million men needed for the first wave of an invasion. Another thing to remember is that this was a country that was behaving as brutal to the people around them, if not more so, than the germans. IIRC death estimates on the US side alone ranged from 1-5 mill. I have never seen stats on the Japanese side of the coin. Either way that is disturbing. Disturbing, but not as disturbing as the idea of Hitler having his own, which was under developement.

Something even scarrier is that there are things in developement across the world that are far worse than run of the mill nukes...

here is just a slice article...

also i think, and this is coming out of the very hazzy section of grey matter toward the back of my brain, that there are non-nuclear bombs that exist that are stronger/more effective than the bombs dropped during WWII.

Ok thats enough random incoherent babbling for me tonight...

Edit: Well maybe a little more babbling...

Shim: I think you are drastically over simplifing things there. If the US, went to war with China, it would be horrific on all side. Also who is to say that in the near future that other countries will not rise to the might of the US, or that the US shall fall. To simply throw away your trump card cause you currently hold the baddest hand doesnt make sense. Thing often change...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
I agree that Nukes don't work on terrorists. Terrorists have no nation so there is nothing to hit. As for getting rid of the Nukes. Suppose the U.S. got rid of our nukes? How would North Korea react? Iran? Think about it, if the U.S. has no nukes all N. Korea has to do is develope a lauch system for their nukes that could reach the U.S. and we are toast. They would be able to boss us around. "you do what we want or we blow up L.A." if have we have nukes that does work because if they were to blow up L.A. We would blow up N. Korea. I know alot of you think that U.S. is bossing everyone else around, but IMHO the leader of N. Koreo is 10 times the nut that Bush is. You don't want him to be able to boss nations around.

p.s. King Sama, that articule scares me.
Author
Time
Post link
Not to start politica bashing, but if we had Reagan's "StarWars" SDI, nuclear attacks by ICBMs would be a moot point.

Of course, that wouldn't stop ground-based nukes smuggled in, but it would go a long way into diffusing the power of crazy or truly evil people who have missile nukes.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah it scares me too...

I meant to add this to the last post, but it slipped my weary mind (worked 9 hours and skipped lunch, brain no liky).

I wish the us would get rid of a vaste majority of its nuclear weapons, as it stands we have enough to distroy the world several times over. We should retain enough to keep MAD up, and scrap the rest.

good point DC...

and you too warb. As much of a nut many of you think Bush is, he is heaven compared to most other word leaders...

Nothing more...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
I agree that Nukes don't work on terrorists. Terrorists have no nation so there is nothing to hit. As for getting rid of the Nukes. Suppose the U.S. got rid of our nukes? How would North Korea react? Iran? Think about it, if the U.S. has no nukes all N. Korea has to do is develope a lauch system for their nukes that could reach the U.S. and we are toast. They would be able to boss us around. "you do what we want or we blow up L.A." if have we have nukes that does work because if they were to blow up L.A. We would blow up N. Korea. I know alot of you think that U.S. is bossing everyone else around, but IMHO the leader of N. Koreo is 10 times the nut that Bush is. You don't want him to be able to boss nations around.

p.s. King Sama, that articule scares me.


well if te US goes forward an guilds starwars then they are set they really dont need nuks cus they can shoot oncoming ones down then buncker buster whoever shot it.
Author
Time
Post link
another lil tid -bit the nuks that Nkorean and other countries like india and pakastain have are not even in teh mega tons of strength, the are as powerful if not less powerful as hiroshima and nagasaky. The US will not alows the creation of intercontental rockets. they have ways of preventing that.

and in terms of antimatter. i look forward to anti matter because it is clean. you dont get radiation with anti-matter explosions. also here is a lil fact for you guys. the most anti matter ever created at one time was like 20000 atoms traveling at like 3/4ths the speed of light. and it existed for about 40 billionths of a second. so as far as i can see we are a long way off from makeing a bomb.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
I have never heard any convincing evidence that Japan was about to throw in the towel, though many of the civilians might have, but the military showed no signs, and seemed ready to pull a stalen and throw every avaliable person into harms way. Add this to the horrific battles of island hopping and you have a problem. Estimates of 5 million men needed for the first wave of an invasion. Another thing to remember is that this was a country that was behaving as brutal to the people around them, if not more so, than the germans. IIRC death estimates on the US side alone ranged from 1-5 mill. I have never seen stats on the Japanese side of the coin. Either way that is disturbing. Disturbing, but not as disturbing as the idea of Hitler having his own, which was under developement.


I have heard and read on inumerous ocasions the opposite, that Japan was ready to give up. The whole Japanese surrender agreement has been written before Hiroshima. In fact, all those evidences of the japanese military ready to give up were somewhat hidden of the general public so that the bombing seemed justified. OK, I agree that it might sound justified, a bomb that killed millions of inocent people in a horrible way so that other hundreds of thousands of blood thirst soldiers didn't die with a bullet in their heads, sure why not. But what sickens me is that some people are actually PROUD of the bombings. Proud.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Shimraa:

The problem with clean bombs is that they are usable bombs. One of the biggest reasons governments dont use Nukes is that fall out is terrible, and if you nuke your neighbor it will inevitably hurt you. Where as if you detinate a "clean" bomb that side effect is gone, and the bomb will most likely be used.


Ricarleite:

millions of people didnt die in the bombings, there werent even a million people in combined population of those cities.

check these sites:
Avalon project

Some other site.

that second site is actually a anti drop site, so you dont claim i am dropping biased information.

The estimate the casualties top be between 200.000 and 400,000
And not that all of the people were "innocent" there were military instalations at both locations, thats why they were choosen.

I say all of this not to come across as happy about the bombings, but to put it context.

As far as the surrender goes, my question is why didnt they do it, IIRC the US told them what was gonna go down, claiming to drop a new bomb on a different city every 3 days until Japan surrendered. Luckily they bought our bluff after two, seeing thats all we had, and surrendered.

As for the people that are proud of such things, that is the reason we need bombs, if some crazy moron who thinks like that take power and has access to nukes, some other not so bad guy needs access to them to hold them in check...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
So the US should eliminate their ability to uphold MAD, and let what ever happens, happens then... Thats a good, plan... So much for protecting the populace...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
I dont want to stifle some of the arguments here, but my original problem was Bush supporting the development of NEW Nuclear Weapons. Its been noted before that the current global stockpile could destroy the earth 10 times. IMO, thats certainly enough to maintain MAD. Money spent on new Nuclear Weapons now could be much more effectively spent elsewhere...if you want to keep it in context of defense, then how about our stumbling missle defense program.

Like I said, full disarmament is an ideal (a blind one currently). The important question is why we need NEW/MORE Nuclear Weapons?
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."