NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/09/missile-cellucci050109.html

This latest pronouncement might just give us the resolve we'll need to demand the Libs take a stand and send this lunatic missile defense plan back down the toilet it crawled up out of.

Cellucci only manages to make Canadians surly. When will this wannabe-thug get rotated out? He must not realize that these things must go to a vote, and no way in hell is this going to pass without serious repercussions, i.e. a vote of nonconfidence, dissolution of Parliament, and another Federal election.

The only way we'll be signing on to this colossal turd of a 'plan' (plan to do what? Waste more money no-one has blowing shit up periodically? Wearing special badges and talking like walk-ons in a Tom Clancy film? What?) is for the Tories to take power.

Anyone who thinks that's going to happen anytime soon is in real need of strong meds.

Whenever Cellucci starts spouting the utterly foreign, Bushite social conservative/pro military-industrial agenda , it just makes us less likely to listen to America at all. We watch our leaders like hawks for signs of bending - and woe betide the Canadian politician who is seen as being in bed with Republicans.

What exactly did the ambassador say we were gonna do? I'm alright with a missle defense system on Canadian soil as long as it both works and doesn't cost any Canadians a dime. If the US is footing the bill, why should we object. I understand it is pretentious for a lowly (and possible drunk?) ambassador of the US of bullies to tell us what we're gonna do, but if we just let our retarded kid brother build us a missile defense program instead of running full tilt into a wall with a pot on his head while we continue to sit down and finish up our homework for tomorrow, whats bad about that. Its like someone saying "I'm making you a sandwich" why not say "Sure", you get a free sandwich.

Good old Paul Cellucci. Bailing out on us and leaving us with Jane Swiftly to the taxpayer-funded helicopters.

Good old Paul Cellucci. Bailing out on us and leaving us with Jane Swiftly to the taxpayer-funded helicopters.

Cellucci is from your stomping grounds?

Want him back?

DT.

Canada can't afford to fund its own navy, air force, or even army, much less any missile defense.

As long as it's free, though. And, if the US is willing to pay for leasing sites....

Hey, if anyone in Canada had a shred of business acumen, they could get the US to pay Canada for the whole thing.

Please, take him back! That means one less asshole-republican violating Canadian soil! :D

As long as it's free, though. And, if the US is willing to pay for leasing sites....

Hey, if anyone in Canada had a shred of business acumen, they could get the US to pay Canada for the whole thing.
First of all, lay off the degrading comment, please.

Second, some Canadians have moral opposition to this contraption who doesn't work properly, means the eventual militarisation of space and only work as a deterrent (and a bad one at that.)

Not to mention that we don't want to give some free political points to Bush who will claim that Canada agrees with his policies and whatnot. If the Bush administration want our contribution so badly, they could offer some gesture, like opening the border to our beef, drop the illegal tariff on lumber or any other situation where our two country are at odds right now.

And when Cellucci has the audacity to tell us what we should do, he's not helping the US's case. An ambassador has no business to go to the press and act like he does. Thank god he's leaving this spring.

Second, some Canadians have moral opposition to this contraption who doesn't work properly, means the eventual militarisation of space and only work as a deterrent (and a bad one at that.)

There are two systems that work just fine (although they won't be the ones deployed in Canada). PAC-3 and Standard are operational now, and have had a long run of successful tests.

The Airborne Laser will be operational at the end of this year - in low power tests it had no trouble hitting targets, and the tests this year will be at full power. They had full power operation demonstrated last month. There is no indication that the ABL will fail at all.

The last system, the GBI, which is what they're trying to peddle to Canada (I don't know why - probably just a ruse to get Canada to spend money on something they don't need, like 30 year old helicopters or rusting submarines), has had some test failures, and is probably the last one to be completed - it might be noted that the technical hurdles it faces are not dissimilar to the ones overcome by the Standard, so it is likely that it WILL work as advertised.

Given the very small numbers of missiles and lasers expected to be deployed by the US, one might think that it's not going to stop a Russian attack - and NO ONE IS SAYING IT WILL.

It will, however, be quite capable of stopping - not deterring - a North Korean missile attack. Given the number of PAC-3 already in place for boost phase intercept in North Korea, and given the positioning of two Standard armed cruisers off North Korea at all times, and given the presence of the Airborne Laser there at the end of this year, that will leave very little for the GBI to have to deal with - even assuming that North Korea has 100 times as many missiles as they are believed to have at present.

One may assume that even with a ridiculous failure rate, the GBI, as the measure of last resort, would have a good chance with 100 interceptors against a handful of incoming warheads.

I just hope that my goverment will say NO to this unworking missile shield.

And for sure it`s gonna cost us something the US will ask us to participate in the funding of this lunatic idea.

We don`t need a missile shield...not in Canada at least.If they want to spend billions on this,well it`s their choice. But don`t make me a part of this..my taxe dollars must be use for better things then a missile shield.

Anyway...where is the threat!!! It`s just another case of paranoia by our good crazy neighbor.

I just hope that my goverment will say NO to this unworking missile shield.

And for sure it`s gonna cost us something the US will ask us to participate in the funding of this lunatic idea.

We don`t need a missile shield...not in Canada at least.If they want to spend billions on this,well it`s their choice. But don`t make me a part of this..my taxe dollars must be use for better things then a missile shield.

Anyway...where is the threat!!! It`s just another case of paranoia by our good crazy neighbor.

Well, since the interceptors we have will be based in South Korea, off the North Korean coast, and in Alaska, and since the battle management software will know where the incoming North Korean missile will be landing, maybe we should put something in the software to note the following condition:

If the warhead is coming down in Canadian territory, don't try to intercept it. If Vancouver is the target, let it land.

I'm sure that if an errant North Korean missile aimed for Seattle comes down in Vancouver, and levels the place, someone will want to know who didn't shoot at it and why.

Always reminds mke of the Bomarc missile sheild. The system that didn't work, cost lots of money, and was devloped by the US. Oh, and did I mention that the US constantly said "Bomarc works!" over and over?
Oh, and another thing, that because of Bomarc, Canada was a nuclear power, illegally, for 20 years?
According to the treaty of non-proliferation, Canada is not alowed to posess or devlope nuclear weapons, and we normally don't want them, but American made (and sold to Canada) nuclear warheads armed Canadian Bomarc missiles from 1964 to 1984.

A bit of a rant..

But my point remains, any "Missile Defence" system the US tries to pressure Canada into should not be taken lightly, nor should it be considered quickly. This is an issue that should be voted on.
I also believe it should be voted against, but that's my opnion.

Always reminds mke of the Bomarc missile sheild. The system that didn't work, cost lots of money, and was devloped by the US. Oh, and did I mention that the US constantly said "Bomarc works!" over and over?
Oh, and another thing, that because of Bomarc, Canada was a nuclear power, illegally, for 20 years?
According to the treaty of non-proliferation, Canada is not alowed to posess or devlope nuclear weapons, and we normally don't want them, but American made (and sold to Canada) nuclear warheads armed Canadian Bomarc missiles from 1964 to 1984.


Well, if they didn't work then you were hardly an illegal nuclear power, were you? More a dumping ground for broken US projects.

Well, if they didn't work then you were hardly an illegal nuclear power, were you? More a dumping ground for broken US projects.


Lol, the nukes worked, the missiles didn't.

Kinda funny now that I really think about it, they were just nukes sitting there on delivery systems that wouldnt work.

Lol, the nukes worked, the missiles didn't.

Kinda funny now that I really think about it, they were just nukes sitting there on delivery systems that wouldnt work.


So they're more... decorative nukes, really. Ornaments of Mass Destruction.

Having seen a Bomarc intercept off Newport News as a child, I'm wondering where you get the idea that it doesn't work against its intended target - a slow-flying bomber.

Certainly not a shield against much else.

Having seen a Bomarc intercept off Newport News as a child, I'm wondering where you get the idea that it doesn't work against its intended target - a slow-flying bomber.

Certainly not a shield against much else.

You forget that the Bomarc was put into action AFTER the ICBM took over the role of the bomber. Bomarc was obsolete the moment it was put into service. Add to that the fact that manned interceptors being devloped by both Canada and the US were more capable of taking down slow moving bombers then the Bomarc system.
When Bomarc was put into service, it's objectives changed from bombers to any general nuclear threat comming over the North Pole, which meant by that time, missiles; something it could not handle.

Also, they made a wonderful conversation piece when that nice Mr Darcy comes round for tea.

You forget that the Bomarc was put into action AFTER the ICBM took over the role of the bomber. Bomarc was obsolete the moment it was put into service. Add to that the fact that manned interceptors being devloped by both Canada and the US were more capable of taking down slow moving bombers then the Bomarc system.
When Bomarc was put into service, it's objectives changed from bombers to any general nuclear threat comming over the North Pole, which meant by that time, missiles; something it could not handle.

Well, then someone was dumb enough to buy it. It wasn't designed to handle anything else.

Kinda like the various forms of missile defense. Some, at this point, work. Some are not working yet, but given enough money, will probably work.

But they wouldn't work against anything except an incoming missile warhead. Certainly no good against a warhead hidden in a shipping container on an ordinary cargo ship.

Well, then someone was dumb enough to buy it. It wasn't designed to handle anything else.

Kinda like the various forms of missile defense. Some, at this point, work. Some are not working yet, but given enough money, will probably work.

But they wouldn't work against anything except an incoming missile warhead. Certainly no good against a warhead hidden in a shipping container on an ordinary cargo ship.


Exactly, which is why I am adamant about this new missile defence being throughly investigated, and then voted on before it is adopted. neither of which has yet been done by the Canadian government.

Exactly, which is why I am adamant about this new missile defence being throughly investigated, and then voted on before it is adopted. neither of which has yet been done by the Canadian government.

If I was to buy something, certainly I would want it to work.

It's quite well proven that the Standard ABM works. I would buy those, but only if I thought I would be a target. I think that Canada would only be an accidental target of North Korea (the idea being that they build junk, and junk doesn't always fall in Seattle where you want it).

So, I might put one Standard site in Vancouver. Other than that, I don't see a Canadian need for it.

I also believe it only starts an arms race for those with the technological and economic wherewithal to compete. North Korea can hardly compete, and I believe that's the primary goal - to force them to bankrupt themselves trying to defeat a fairly marginal missile defense system.

I also believe it only starts an arms race for those with the technological and economic wherewithal to compete. North Korea can hardly compete, and I believe that's the primary goal - to force them to bankrupt themselves trying to defeat a fairly marginal missile defense system.

Why not just leave them alone for a couple of weeks? They'll manage it themselves soon enough, and it's a lot cheaper.

And do you think Seattle would be a primary target for N. Korea? Given their newer missiles can hit western Europe as well as the Western US, and they don't exactly have a massive nuclear arsenal... compared to, say, the number of fingers on a hand...

If I was to buy something, certainly I would want it to work.

It's quite well proven that the Standard ABM works. I would buy those, but only if I thought I would be a target. I think that Canada would only be an accidental target of North Korea (the idea being that they build junk, and junk doesn't always fall in Seattle where you want it).

So, I might put one Standard site in Vancouver. Other than that, I don't see a Canadian need for it.

I also believe it only starts an arms race for those with the technological and economic wherewithal to compete. North Korea can hardly compete, and I believe that's the primary goal - to force them to bankrupt themselves trying to defeat a fairly marginal missile defense system.


Worked on the USSR.

Of course, no one cares about Vancouver.
And seriously, Diefenbaker was an idiot anyway.

Why not just leave them alone for a couple of weeks? They'll manage it themselves soon enough, and it's a lot cheaper.

And do you think Seattle would be a primary target for N. Korea? Given their newer missiles can hit western Europe as well as the Western US, and they don't exactly have a massive nuclear arsenal... compared to, say, the number of fingers on a hand...

Ah, but they do have a few missiles already, and by their own admission during one UN tour, have a "device". Whether that's all together and working is a big question (of course, anyone opposed to doing anything about North Korea will never give them credit for being able to do so much as make paper plates).

They aren't close enough to complete economic collapse. They can be bled completely white and will have to stay that way for a decade or so, with a million or so dying of starvation every year until they finally gasp their last.

Quite unlike the USSR - which couldn't keep up with the spending, and whose people were quite unwilling to starve to keep up.

I have the very bad feeling that the strategy of making them keep up will result in only a million or so North Koreans surviving the long term starvation - and in the end, if they have any devices at all, they will deliver them in any way they can to any target they can rationalize.

It's rather like teasing a venomous snake to death with your hands. Yes, the snake will become exhausted eventually, and maybe even die. But you may get bit before the end.

I think we have to accept that whatever happens in North Korea, at least half the population are likely to die in some way or another. They've managed to get things so hopelessly screwed up, and yet they're light-years ahead of anyone in advanced indoctrination (even the catholic church. At least they wait a few days before the baptism), so internal revolt (usually the best end for an utterly insane regime) is hugely unlikely (notice how I've managed three whole sets of brackets in one sentence? This set's not even any relevance or use!).

Like the snake analogy.

And I'm opposed to involvement in North Korea, but I do accept that they are capable of producing missiles capable of reaching the US, and have tested suchlike. But they've not tested a nuke. Why not? I'd think Kimmie would want everyone to know if he's got a real nuke lying about. Not that I'm trying to say he's not, since finding out ANYTHING that's going on in Korea is pretty hard...

Cellucci is from your stomping grounds?

Want him back?

DT.

He used to be governor of Massachusetts. He took over after Bill Weld bailed out on us to try to become the ambassador to Mexico. That failed, and we were stuck with Celluci until he bailed out on us to actually become the ambassador to Canada, which left us with Jane Swift, the woman who thought it was a wise use of taxpayer money to fly people around in helicopters.

Well, since the interceptors we have will be based in South Korea, off the North Korean coast, and in Alaska, and since the battle management software will know where the incoming North Korean missile will be landing, maybe we should put something in the software to note the following condition:

If the warhead is coming down in Canadian territory, don't try to intercept it. If Vancouver is the target, let it land.

I'm sure that if an errant North Korean missile aimed for Seattle comes down in Vancouver, and levels the place, someone will want to know who didn't shoot at it and why.


Sure I totally agree..Let it Land!!!

If an errant North Korean missile hit`s Canada or even if it was their target, then and only then we are entilte to defend our country.

But until then there is no threat for any of us...Even if we have doubts about a country it`s just not worth the cost for us.

Well, we could make Celluci the ambassador to North Korea.

Well, we could make Celluci the ambassador to North Korea.

And what, have North Korea sign onto the Missile Defence plan?
That would be funny, kinda like the USSR and the US jointly producing nuclear missile subs durring the cold war.

I'm aware that was an unlikely and worthless idea. But think about it, it's funny.

The idea is that if we all share the costs, the war can go on forever...

The idea is that if we all share the costs, the war can go on forever...

And that, in the end, is the fun of it.
Like your snake example, sure you may be bitten, but that's the fun.
Why else would you do that to a deadly venamous snake unless it was for the thrill and fun of possibly getting away with it?

This guy's on my government's payroll? Whaa?

The whole plan to place missles on Canada and the U.S to shoot down rogue missles is all a huge pile of shit. It will cost way to much money and not worth it at all. The people we should be worrying about is the United States who has 10,000 missles on 24 hour standbye. Nobody ever talks about them disarming.

Well, since the interceptors we have will be based in South Korea, off the North Korean coast, and in Alaska, and since the battle management software will know where the incoming North Korean missile will be landing, maybe we should put something in the software to note the following condition:

If the warhead is coming down in Canadian territory, don't try to intercept it. If Vancouver is the target, let it land.

I'm sure that if an errant North Korean missile aimed for Seattle comes down in Vancouver, and levels the place, someone will want to know who didn't shoot at it and why.

Right, because everybody wants to bomb Canada. The only time I've ever heard bombing Canada as a possibility was in the South Park movie. I'm guessing the guy I quoted was an American? Well go ahead, we don't need your missile protection system as only a paranoid American would think that Canada was in danger of being bombed. The chances of someone shooting a missile at America is far far greater than the chances of the same happening to Canada, and that hasn't happened, has it?

No, no one wants to bomb Canada. If you'll read carefully, I said it's a possibility that something intended for the US could land there instead.

Remote possibility. With a politically unacceptable outcome if it does happen.

So, promise me that you won't blame anyone if it actually does happen by accident.

Not that I'll miss Vancouver.

Right, because everybody wants to bomb Canada. The only time I've ever heard bombing Canada as a possibility was in the South Park movie. I'm guessing the guy I quoted was an American? Well go ahead, we don't need your missile protection system as only a paranoid American would think that Canada was in danger of being bombed. The chances of someone shooting a missile at America is far far greater than the chances of the same happening to Canada, and that hasn't happened, has it?

Your absolutly right, the odds are stacked against America. They have a way higher chance of being hit by a missle strike than Canada has. If we became a part of the defense sheild wouldn't that bring more attention onto ourselves in the first place since we would be firing rockets at theirs? I think it's best to keep out of the whole defense idea and remain as we always have semi-neutral in foreign politics and let America reap the supposed "benifits" of this shield.

First, I don't really support it. Since the Missle shield would be screwed over to begin with. Next, A missle hitting either Canada or the US would cause problems for both Countries. Radiation doesn't stop at the borders. So, that idiot who was talking about letting a missle hit Vancouver, instead of Seattle doesn't seem to realize that the radiation would travel down, and into the US.

But more importantly. I personally feel that the best idea would be to get the 6 or so nuclear powers, to meet with each other. Each agrees to donate so much of a percentage towards an Missle Program. Next, they all decide on several countries that are 'neutral'. These countries design, build and launch an in Space Anti-Missle system. Laser or otherwise. An Anti-Missle Satellite Network. No offensive capabilites, only missles it has are completely useless against ground based targets, but can knock a missle out of the air.

So then you have a neutral based Satellite Network that knocks down the missles of anyone who launches them, enough Satellite's cover's the world, and the world can't kill itself. After that, the only option is to move them in by truck, and let it go off. Which can be stopped. This would neutralize everyone's nuclear capabilites, including the US, Russia, and China.

Naturally, it'd be impossible probably to stop every missle, if they were all launched, but you don't need to stop all of them, just the majority of them.

But more importantly. I personally feel that the best idea would be to get the 6 or so nuclear powers, to meet with each other. Each agrees to donate so much of a percentage towards an Missle Program. Next, they all decide on several countries that are 'neutral'. These countries design, build and launch an in Space Anti-Missle system. Laser or otherwise. An Anti-Missle Satellite Network. No offensive capabilites, only missles it has are completely useless against ground based targets, but can knock a missle out of the air.


The PAC-3, Standard ABM, Airborne Laser, and the GBI, are not offensive weapons. They can only shoot down missiles.

No, no one wants to bomb Canada. If you'll read carefully, I said it's a possibility that something intended for the US could land there instead.

Remote possibility. With a politically unacceptable outcome if it does happen.

So, promise me that you won't blame anyone if it actually does happen by accident.

Not that I'll miss Vancouver.

Yes that is a possibility. Think of the other outcomes though. We would basically become another Turkey for the U.S or a Cuba for the Soviets. A sattelite for the United States.

The PAC-3, Standard ABM, Airborne Laser, and the GBI, are not offensive weapons. They can only shoot down missiles.

But they are largely US based weapons. The idea is to neutralize everybody's capability. You'll only create more problems if you unbalanced the balance of power.

First, I don't really support it. Since the Missle shield would be screwed over to begin with. Next, A missle hitting either Canada or the US would cause problems for both Countries. Radiation doesn't stop at the borders. So, that idiot who was talking about letting a missle hit Vancouver, instead of Seattle doesn't seem to realize that the radiation would travel down, and into the US.

But more importantly. I personally feel that the best idea would be to get the 6 or so nuclear powers, to meet with each other. Each agrees to donate so much of a percentage towards an Missle Program. Next, they all decide on several countries that are 'neutral'. These countries design, build and launch an in Space Anti-Missle system. Laser or otherwise. An Anti-Missle Satellite Network. No offensive capabilites, only missles it has are completely useless against ground based targets, but can knock a missle out of the air.

So then you have a neutral based Satellite Network that knocks down the missles of anyone who launches them, enough Satellite's cover's the world, and the world can't kill itself. After that, the only option is to move them in by truck, and let it go off. Which can be stopped. This would neutralize everyone's nuclear capabilites, including the US, Russia, and China.

Naturally, it'd be impossible probably to stop every missle, if they were all launched, but you don't need to stop all of them, just the majority of them.

If the nuclear powers of the world were that rational they probably wouldn't be building and aiming them at each other either would they? At least I think they wouldn't. By the way, who are the nuclear powers of the world?

The PAC-3, Standard ABM, Airborne Laser, and the GBI, are not offensive weapons. They can only shoot down missiles.

How about we try to defuse situations before talking about some country shooting missles at us. North Korea has said it will disarm is the U.S sends it guaranteed shipments of food and monetary aid. The U.S has declined saying it will not negotiate. Where does the blame lie then?

If the nuclear powers of the world were that rational they probably wouldn't be building and aiming them at each other either would they? At least I think they wouldn't. By the way, who are the nuclear powers of the world?

United States. Britain. France. China. India. Pakistan. Israel (maybe). Russia. North Korea. I think there are more as well, any takers?

How about we try to defuse situations before talking about some country shooting missles at us. North Korea has said it will disarm is the U.S sends it guaranteed shipments of food and monetary aid. The U.S has declined saying it will not negotiate. Where does the blame lie then?
They said that in 1994, too.

How about we try to defuse situations before talking about some country shooting missles at us. North Korea has said it will disarm is the U.S sends it guaranteed shipments of food and monetary aid. The U.S has declined saying it will not negotiate. Where does the blame lie then?

No, that's not their demand, if you'll read the North Korean news.

They want a guarantee that the US will never attack them, even in defense of South Korea, even in defense of Japan, even in defense of the US.

They want an unconditional guarantee that the US will never attack them under any circumstance.

We've made agreements with them before for food, aid, money, nuclear power plants, etc. They reneged FIRST on each and every one of them.

Would you negotiate further without asking for some guarantees yourself? All we're asking in exchange for food, aid, etc., is to let us put monitors at their nuclear power plants. That's it. They don't want to even discuss that. They want a solid, no exceptions guarantee that even if they commit an aggressive act, that we will NEVER attack them.

How are you supposed to think that's the US fault? Who sounds unreasonable? Have you ever read the NKPA news?

Get a clue.

If the nuclear powers of the world were that rational they probably wouldn't be building and aiming them at each other either would they? At least I think they wouldn't. By the way, who are the nuclear powers of the world?

Anyone with a US base
North Korea
China
India
Pakistan
Russia
Possibly Iran, no-one knows. Probably not. But we're not sure. Probably best to invade them and bomb the hell out of them, and then blame the BBC.

First, I don't really support it. Since the Missle shield would be screwed over to begin with. Next, A missle hitting either Canada or the US would cause problems for both Countries. Radiation doesn't stop at the borders. So, that idiot who was talking about letting a missle hit Vancouver, instead of Seattle doesn't seem to realize that the radiation would travel down, and into the US.

But more importantly. I personally feel that the best idea would be to get the 6 or so nuclear powers, to meet with each other. Each agrees to donate so much of a percentage towards an Missle Program. Next, they all decide on several countries that are 'neutral'. These countries design, build and launch an in Space Anti-Missle system. Laser or otherwise. An Anti-Missle Satellite Network. No offensive capabilites, only missles it has are completely useless against ground based targets, but can knock a missle out of the air.

So then you have a neutral based Satellite Network that knocks down the missles of anyone who launches them, enough Satellite's cover's the world, and the world can't kill itself. After that, the only option is to move them in by truck, and let it go off. Which can be stopped. This would neutralize everyone's nuclear capabilites, including the US, Russia, and China.

Naturally, it'd be impossible probably to stop every missle, if they were all launched, but you don't need to stop all of them, just the majority of them.

Yes that is a good idea and you are correct about radiation not stopping at the borders it would spread. Just as if a missle where destroyed in mid flight it would spread with the wind and cover an entire continent for example. Just saying.

United States. Britain. France. China. India. Pakistan. Israel (maybe). Russia. North Korea. I think there are more as well, any takers?

Ouch, I trust Britain and France to be responsible, I trust Russia to keep selling them into pieces and I might trust India and Pakistan to keep sitting and pointing them at each other a-la Cold War. That leaves North Korea, US, and China. I don't know shit about NK or China. I fear the US the most because it has shown itself to be a paranoid bully.

Anybody see the Family Guy where the German guy at the food festival was all paranoid and taking over the other stands. Thats what the US reminds me of.

Yes that is a good idea and you are correct about radiation not stopping at the borders it would spread. Just as if a missle where destroyed in mid flight it would spread with the wind and cover an entire continent for example. Just saying.

The US detonated well over 100 nuclear devices in Nevada - above ground.

Are we all dead? Hmm?

No, that's not their demand, if you'll read the North Korean news.

They want a guarantee that the US will never attack them, even in defense of South Korea, even in defense of Japan, even in defense of the US.

They want an unconditional guarantee that the US will never attack them under any circumstance.

We've made agreements with them before for food, aid, money, nuclear power plants, etc. They reneged FIRST on each and every one of them.

Would you negotiate further without asking for some guarantees yourself? All we're asking in exchange for food, aid, etc., is to let us put monitors at their nuclear power plants. That's it. They don't want to even discuss that. They want a solid, no exceptions guarantee that even if they commit an aggressive act, that we will NEVER attack them.

How are you supposed to think that's the US fault? Who sounds unreasonable? Have you ever read the NKPA news?

Get a clue.

No I have never read the NKPA news I have no idea what the hell that is. You don't understand who you are dealing with North Korea is a sad little country who's people are starving while the government spends all it's money on it's military. They are paranoid and their nuclear weapons are the only bargaining chip they have with the U.S. Imagine if North Korea fired a missle at the U.S it would cause tremendous destruction. But imagine what sort of revenge the U.S would lay out in retaliation. A ground invasion. Bombing campaigns. Possibly a missle strike of it's own. North Korea feels isolated and alone and they are China is their only friend at present. The United States on the other hand has over 10,000 missles on 24 hour standby. It has muclear submarines all over the world prowling around. It has produced Biological and chemical weapons as well. Yet no one ever mentions this fact. Why is it may I ask that the United States is allowed to posses these tremendous weapons while others may not. In a perfect world nobody would be allowed to have these weapons but why is the United States somehow entititled to them?

The US detonated well over 100 nuclear devices in Nevada - above ground.

Are we all dead? Hmm?

From what I know, America detonated TEST devices in Nevada. That means thay they were detonated to see if they would work and to study stuff and things about it. They weren't trying to blow the mother loving hell out of Nevada. I think 100 nukes would be enough to make Nevada a sheet of black glass that glowed a lovely shade of green at night (or at least to kill everybody there). A test nuclear device would have a much lower yield than what would be thrown at the US and the US would be throwing back.

The US detonated well over 100 nuclear devices in Nevada - above ground.

Are we all dead? Hmm?

no your right we are not all dead but that radiation has to count for something wouldn't you think? Cases of all sorts of cancer are up all around the world and especially in the United States, it's considered just another cause of death. Even if the person doesn't smoke or live a so called "reckless" lifestyle. Why is it that with the increase of bomb testing, cancer rates go up? We aren't dead yet but we soon will be.

From what I know, America detonated TEST devices in Nevada. That means thay they were detonated to see if they would work and to study stuff and things about it. They weren't trying to blow the mother loving hell out of Nevada. I think 100 nukes would be enough to make Nevada a sheet of black glass that glowed a lovely shade of green at night (or at least to kill everybody there). A test nuclear device would have a much lower yield than what would be thrown at the US and the US would be throwing back.

We're talking about aboveground detonations from 18 to 100 kilotons. One of them, Sedan, was an intentional ground excavating blast that threw tons of fallout into the air.

They weren't little. Certainly larger than anything the North Koreans will use (since they only have atomic, and not thermonuclear weapons).

Um, as for nuclear powers..
The ones who officially acknowladge their nuclear aresenel, and have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty are:
United States
Russia
Enited Kingdom
France
China

Also, India and Pakistan are known to have them, freely admit it, but are not a part of the NNP treaty.
Israel has yet to either confirm or deny it, but they do tend to use the idea that they might have it to enough extent to warrent them on this list, besides, I've heard reports that Israel burried nuclear mines in the Golan Heights in the 1980's.
Iran has yet to be either confirmed or denied, however they are know to be working on them, same with North Korea.

The problems we have here are more complicated then you may think.
India and Pakistan are in a cold war, they're standing off against eachother, which might be good or bad, depending on wether or not they ever use their nukes.
Israel will be very pissed if Iran has nukes, in fact, Israel sent in SF troops to Iraq to destroy a nuclear power plant project to keep Iraq from having anything nuclear. Israel does not want any unfreindly Arab nation to have nukes, since it's nuclear demeanor is one of the major factors keeping it around, if everyone knows Israel has nukes, they won't mess with them.
North Korea, as already mentioned, has a big beef with Japan, South Korea, and the US, add to that the fact that the Korean war never officially ended, and the US and NK are still officially at war.

Finally, Britian has been reducing it's nuclear aresonol, it's a last resort to them, and only really around to keep them a world power.
France would never use nuclear weapons in war, they have said so themselves. They keep nukes around as a deterrant, specificly against Germany I bet.

An excellent movie to watch about the Cold war era and Nuclear testing is Atomic Cafe. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in these subjects.

We're talking about aboveground detonations from 18 to 100 kilotons. One of them, Sedan, was an intentional ground excavating blast that threw tons of fallout into the air.

They weren't little. Certainly larger than anything the North Koreans will use (since they only have atomic, and not thermonuclear weapons).

Don't you get it? All of that fallout gets into the atmosphere settles into the fields of food that you eat. The water you drink. seeps into your skin and body, making you sick. Not to mention all the nuclear waste that has been burried in the ground. That land is unusable and will remain unusable for the next 100 years.

Let me get this straight... The US wants to place missiles that don't work, in a country that doesn't want them, in places that don't need them? That sounds like a brilliant plan. Canada should be proud of the fact that it too can now have cover-ups of airliners being accidentally shot down by the Americans. :rolleyes:

An excellent movie to watch about the Cold war era and Nuclear testing is Atomic Cafe. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in these subjects.

"Dawns Early Rising" is awesome, it's about a USSR-US nuclear war.
Very very nice movie.

We're talking about aboveground detonations from 18 to 100 kilotons. One of them, Sedan, was an intentional ground excavating blast that threw tons of fallout into the air.

They weren't little. Certainly larger than anything the North Koreans will use (since they only have atomic, and not thermonuclear weapons).

Right, but which cities were these devices tested in? How many people live on the land that was bombed, or if its still military land, could anybody live or even walk around there? A bomb dropped on land at the border would kill the people there and spread radioactive fallout across the border. (A drop on Vancouver would cause contamination of Seattle).

They keep nukes around as a deterrant, specificly against Germany I bet.[/QUOTE]

The country everyone has to worry about the least is Germany. They've had enough of war, I think they've learned their lesson I don't think other countries have though. By the way I think it's time the U.S got out of Germany the war has been over for 60 years and the Soviets aren't around anymore.

Right, but which cities were these devices tested in? How many people live on the land that was bombed, or if its still military land, could anybody live or even walk around there? A bomb dropped on land at the border would kill the people there and spread radioactive fallout across the border. (A drop on Vancouver would cause contamination of Seattle).

It's about an hour from Las Vegas.
A couple of hours from St. George, Utah, where people still live today.

Fallout did cause some problems, but not nearly as many deaths or cancers as was wildly predicted.

Right, but which cities were these devices tested in? How many people live on the land that was bombed, or if its still military land, could anybody live or even walk around there? A bomb dropped on land at the border would kill the people there and spread radioactive fallout across the border. (A drop on Vancouver would cause contamination of Seattle).

just to put it into perspective Hiroshima and Nagasaki still have trace amounts of radioactivity. It usually lasts for about 40-50 years to fully pass.

Right, but which cities were these devices tested in? How many people live on the land that was bombed, or if its still military land, could anybody live or even walk around there? A bomb dropped on land at the border would kill the people there and spread radioactive fallout across the border. (A drop on Vancouver would cause contamination of Seattle).


Um, I'd like to point out now.
Bikini Atol is STILL unusable, and that's where the first H-Bomb was tested.

The US has tested devices as large as 15 mega tons in New Mexico, and the land they tested their weapons on there is also still unusable (granted, they tested some 100 bombs of various sizes in the exact same general area).

Finally, the islands off Northern Russia where the USSR tested it's bombs are also uninhabitable, not like they were before, but now they are internationaly restricted zones, same with the French testing zone in French Polynesia and the British testing zone off Australia.

Finally, I'd like to point out that Chernobyl put more radiation into the atmosphere then all nuclear weapon tests before it combined. That is why cancer rates have soared.

It's about an hour from Las Vegas.
A couple of hours from St. George, Utah, where people still live today.

Fallout did cause some problems, but not nearly as many deaths or cancers as was wildly predicted.

And if the wind was blowing the wrong way during any of those tests the fallout in nearby Vegas would have been a hell of a lot worse. They chose the dates that the tests were done on and knew the wind conditions before hand. If anything, NK could wait until the wind is blowing hard south to shoot at Vancouver/Seattle. If their aiming at Vancouver, Seattle woudl be screwed, if aiming at Seatte (much more probable) it would be a courtesy to Canada to not spread fallout to us.

It's about an hour from Las Vegas.
A couple of hours from St. George, Utah, where people still live today.

Fallout did cause some problems, but not nearly as many deaths or cancers as was wildly predicted.

How are some deaths or defomities acceptable? We shouldn't be testing these things at all. What is there to test other than to see if it works when you set it off and for how big you can make it (how many people it could respectively kill).

Um, I'd like to point out now.
Bikini Atol is STILL unusable, and that's where the first H-Bomb was tested.


False. People have been relocated there now.

The US has tested devices as large as 15 mega tons in New Mexico, and the land they tested their weapons on there is also still unusable (granted, they tested some 100 bombs of various sizes in the exact same general area).

False. None in New Mexico, and none in the 15 megaton range. The largest bomb ever tested by the US was 15 megatons in the Pacific Test Range, and was the Castle Bravo shot. All US-based shots were in Nevada, most above ground, and none in the megaton range.

They keep nukes around as a deterrant, specificly against Germany I bet.

The country everyone has to worry about the least is Germany. They've had enough of war, I think they've learned their lesson I don't think other countries have though. By the way I think it's time the U.S got out of Germany the war has been over for 60 years and the Soviets aren't around anymore.[/QUOTE]


Nah, France would keep them to deter Germany because the two countries have a long viloent history with eachother. The French have been paranoid of Germany since long before the atomic bomb, the tank, the repeating rifle, or even the steam engine. I honestly can't blame them for wanting to have a permanant German-Invasion deterrance now.
Plus, it can help build relationships, since they won;t go to war now they can (and do) spend their energies on more productive things.

Um, I'd like to point out now.
Bikini Atol is STILL unusable, and that's where the first H-Bomb was tested.

The US has tested devices as large as 15 mega tons in New Mexico, and the land they tested their weapons on there is also still unusable (granted, they tested some 100 bombs of various sizes in the exact same general area).

Finally, the islands off Northern Russia where the USSR tested it's bombs are also uninhabitable, not like they were before, but now they are internationaly restricted zones, same with the French testing zone in French Polynesia and the British testing zone off Australia.

Finally, I'd like to point out that Chernobyl put more radiation into the atmosphere then all nuclear weapon tests before it combined. That is why cancer rates have soared.

Exactly!!! This stuff isn't just about a big explosion this stuff hangs around for years and years. Causing death, destruction, deformaties etc. It's not nice stuff. And the countries that kicked out all the people so they could test their bombs were given almost no second thought.

How are some deaths or defomities acceptable? We shouldn't be testing these things at all. What is there to test other than to see if it works when you set it off and for how big you can make it (how many people it could respectively kill).

There's a lot more to nuclear testing that your limited imagination is capable of imagining.

False. People have been relocated there now.

False. None in New Mexico, and none in the 15 megaton range. The largest bomb ever tested by the US was 15 megatons in the Pacific Test Range, and was the Castle Bravo shot. All US-based shots were in Nevada, most above ground, and none in the megaton range.

I think it's time for you to start walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. I am willing to buy you a plane ticket to Bikini Atoll right now!

There's a lot more to nuclear testing that your limited imagination is capable of imagining.

Trust me, both of us don't know what it's really like to present at a nuclear test. I've seen footage and read books but that's it. I want to talk to you about this, but I won't lower myself to making personal jabs at people like you are :)

There's a lot more to nuclear testing that your limited imagination is capable of imagining.

Thats not a nice or accurate thing to say. If you want to present an arguement, do it. If you want to call names go elsewhere.

I think it's time for you to start walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. I am willing to buy you a plane ticket to Bikini Atoll right now!

http://www.bikiniatoll.com/

"Today, while the people of Bikini have yet to resettle their homeland, the island is populated by Bikini Atoll Divers employees (some of whom are Bikinians), Bikini Project Department construction workers, and some U.S. Department of Energy staff. There is, however, a large population of Bikinians living elsewhere in the Marshall Islands and overseas who hope to have the ability to return to their homeland someday soon."

So there are people living there.

Trust me, both of us don't know what it's really like to present at a nuclear test. I've seen footage and read books but that's it. I want to talk to you about this, but I won't lower myself to making personal jabs at people like you are :)

Thank you for not lowering yourself. It brings a smile to my face, all of us standing up here and looking at him rolling around in the mud and taunting us ot join him.

http://www.bikiniatoll.com/

"Today, while the people of Bikini have yet to resettle their homeland, the island is populated by Bikini Atoll Divers employees (some of whom are Bikinians), Bikini Project Department construction workers, and some U.S. Department of Energy staff. There is, however, a large population of Bikinians living elsewhere in the Marshall Islands and overseas who hope to have the ability to return to their homeland someday soon."

So there are people living there.

Basically they are waiting for all the radiation to disperse because if they lived there they would all get cancer and die. good point but it still doesn't justify testing there.

France would never use nuclear weapons in war, they have said so themselves. They keep nukes around as a deterrant, specificly against Germany I bet.
Actually the reason they got nukes in the first place was because of the US. After the Americans backstabbed them during the Suez crisis France realised it couldn't count on the US as a reliable ally. And when Britain abondend it's nuclear program to buy polaris missiles from the US instead France saw this as Britain surrendering to it´s former colony. So in order to prevent that happening to France as well they created the Force de frappe. The French nuclear forces.

Basically they are waiting for all the radiation to disperse because if they lived there they would all get cancer and die. good point but it still doesn't justify testing there.

It's rather astonishing, especially considering the large number of devices that went off there.

It's rather astonishing, considering that most people would say, "oh, that would render it totally uninhabitable forever".

Not true. The number of excess deaths due to cancer can be calculated today BECAUSE the tests were conducted - something that even Sakharov admits was not previously possible. We can say to a fine point how dangerous a detonation of a certain size and type will be - and we know now that the detonation we're talking about (a hypothetical one by North Korea accidentally landing in Vancouver) is not as radiologically dangerous as anyone here on this thread believes.

Not that it's perfectly safe - it's just not as dangerous as you think. And the note about Chernobyl is right - that was far, far more dangerous than any nuclear test ever was.

Basically they are waiting for all the radiation to disperse because if they lived there they would all get cancer and die. good point but it still doesn't justify testing there.

Maybe they all wouldn't get cancer and die, but they definitelly see the risks of increased rate of cancer as outweighing the benifit of moving back home.

The point remains that countries with nuclear capabilities have ruined countless small islands and natural areas while testing their bombs. The purpose of which I feel is to flex their muscles off to the world and others. Just like the United States did to bomb Japan in the second world war. This was a political move to show the Russians that "we have the bomb so don't fuck with us". This testing isn't right but unfortunatly won't be stopped any time soon.

Maybe they all wouldn't get cancer and die, but they definitelly see the risks of increased rate of cancer as outweighing the benifit of moving back home.

Yes your right, they do view it as detremental to their health. Somthing that is to be avoided.

The point remains that countries with nuclear capabilities have ruined countless small islands and natural areas while testing their bombs. The purpose of which I feel is to flex their muscles off to the world and others. Just like the United States did to bomb Japan in the second world war. This was a political move to show the Russians that "we have the bomb so don't fuck with us". This testing isn't right but unfortunatly won't be stopped any time soon.

There has been no aboveground nuclear test (i.e., island based test) by the US since 1962.

You can blame France and China for all the aboveground tests since that date.

There have been no underground nuclear tests by the US since 1992.

So, why do you say it won't be stopped any time soon? The US seems to have stopped.

False. People have been relocated there now.

False. None in New Mexico, and none in the 15 megaton range. The largest bomb ever tested by the US was 15 megatons in the Pacific Test Range, and was the Castle Bravo shot. All US-based shots were in Nevada, most above ground, and none in the megaton range.


Um.. to start off, Bikini Atol is unuseable because the fish are too iradiated to eat. It's been like that for a long time.

Also, the first nuclear device deatonated was deatonated in the New Mexico desert outside of Alamagordo Air Base. And they continued testing there, as well as in the South Pacific for a long time.

The US has deatonated nuclear weapons in Alaska, Alamagordo New Mexico, Nevada, Marshal Islands, Bikini Atol.

Also, now that I remember, Japan was reported to have deatonated a nuclear weapon in Korea on Augest 12th 1945. And South Africa is said to have deatonated a nuclear device in the Indian Ocean in 1979.

Canada can't afford to fund its own navy, air force, or even army, much less any missile defense.

As long as it's free, though. And, if the US is willing to pay for leasing sites....

Hey, if anyone in Canada had a shred of business acumen, they could get the US to pay Canada for the whole thing.


Where do you base this on? You sound as nuts as dobbs town.

Of course canada can afford a navy air force etc etc. It just would not be as large as the USA 's navy of course. The suggestion that we could not is very silly.

Um.. to start off, Bikini Atol is unuseable because the fish are too iradiated to eat. It's been like that for a long time.

Also, the first nuclear device deatonated was deatonated in the New Mexico desert outside of Alamagordo Air Base. And they continued testing there, as well as in the South Pacific for a long time.

The US has deatonated nuclear weapons in Alaska, Alamagordo New Mexico, Nevada, Marshal Islands, Bikini Atol.

Also, now that I remember, Japan was reported to have deatonated a nuclear weapon in Korea on Augest 12th 1945. And South Africa is said to have deatonated a nuclear device in the Indian Ocean in 1979.

I suggest that if you want an unbiased and ACCURATE accounting of nuclear detonations, that you go to the High Energy Weapons Archive (google the name). No Japanese nuclear detonation. Sorry.

And after the Trinity test, no tests in New Mexico. The Nevada Test Range is in Nevada.

It's rather astonishing, especially considering the large number of devices that went off there.

It's rather astonishing, considering that most people would say, "oh, that would render it totally uninhabitable forever".

Not true. The number of excess deaths due to cancer can be calculated today BECAUSE the tests were conducted - something that even Sakharov admits was not previously possible. We can say to a fine point how dangerous a detonation of a certain size and type will be - and we know now that the detonation we're talking about (a hypothetical one by North Korea accidentally landing in Vancouver) is not as radiologically dangerous as anyone here on this thread believes.

Not that it's perfectly safe - it's just not as dangerous as you think. And the note about Chernobyl is right - that was far, far more dangerous than any nuclear test ever was.

But why even bother. The United States used it on Japan and ended the war by dropping two of them. Why do we somehow strive to build larger and more destructive bombs capable of destroying humanity? Did you know that at the apex of U.S and Soviet Nuclear power both countries together had the ability to destroy the earth 100 times. Is that even comprehensable? I personally don't think we should have any of these weapons, but why do we need that many if we are to have any at all?

Let me get this straight... The US wants to place missiles that don't work, in a country that doesn't want them, in places that don't need them? That sounds like a brilliant plan. Canada should be proud of the fact that it too can now have cover-ups of airliners being accidentally shot down by the Americans. :rolleyes:
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn´t it?

There has been no aboveground nuclear test (i.e., island based test) by the US since 1962.

You can blame France and China for all the aboveground tests since that date.

There have been no underground nuclear tests by the US since 1992.

So, why do you say it won't be stopped any time soon? The US seems to have stopped.

Because they have removed themselves from the ABM's treaty and have not taken steps to reduce the amount of missles they have. There is not "threat" from Russia so why have this massive stockpile?

Because they have removed themselves from the ABM's treaty and have not taken steps to reduce the amount of missles they have. There is not "threat" from Russia so why have this massive stockpile?

You obviously are not up on the START treaties, nor up on the reduction of the US stockpile VOLUNTARILY below the treaty limits.

While it may have been true at one time during the Cold War that the US had over 30,000 warheads - we now have less than 3000.

This massive stockpile you're talking about does not exist. We have taken drastic steps to reduce the stockpile.

And our missile intercept weapons, unlike the ones from 1968, do not use nuclear warheads.

You obviously are not up on the START treaties, nor up on the reduction of the US stockpile VOLUNTARILY below the treaty limits.

While it may have been true at one time during the Cold War that the US had over 30,000 warheads - we now have less than 3000.

This massive stockpile you're talking about does not exist. We have taken drastic steps to reduce the stockpile.

And our missile intercept weapons, unlike the ones from 1968, do not use nuclear warheads.

Again I'm afraid that's not true as I've said before the United States has 10,000 missle on 24 hour standby with chemical and biological missles in stockpile. They do not want to be hindered by any treaty that is why they have removed themselves from the ABM's treaty. Who knows exactly what they want to do but the point remains that the U.S has not reduced their warhead count drastically enough.

The US detonated well over 100 nuclear devices in Nevada - above ground.

Are we all dead? Hmm?

That was in the middle of a desert with a limited chance of the radiation spreading.

While it may have been true at one time during the Cold War that the US had over 30,000 warheads - we now have less than 3000..

Again if what you say is true and the U.S has 3000 missles. Why should they have them in the first place and worry about a country that has 2 lets say? Why should the U.S be entitled and another country not be? is the U.S and more accountable to the world body that Iran or North Korea? The U.S has proved they are not willing to be accountable and do not respect the U.N at all calling it "outdated" should such a powerfull country be allowed these dangerous weapons? Who determines who should and should not have the?

Again I'm afraid that's not true as I've said before the United States has 10,000 missle on 24 hour standby with chemical and biological missles in stockpile. They do not want to be hindered by any treaty that is why they have removed themselves from the ABM's treaty. Who knows exactly what they want to do but the point remains that the U.S has not reduced their warhead count drastically enough.

The US does not have any chemical or biological weapons in the stockpile.

Here's the rundown on the roughly 2000 nuclear weapons we do have:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

And, to assure you that we don't have chemical or biologicals, and have complied with that treaty in every respect, including the destruction of those weapons:

In 1985, the Congress passed Public Law 99-145 directing the Army to destroy the US stockpile of obsolete chemical agents and munitions. Recognizing that the stockpile program did not include all chemical warfare materiel requiring disposal, the Congress directed the Army in 1992 to plan for the disposal of materiel not included in the stockpile. This materiel, some of which dates back as far as World War I, consists of binary chemical weapons, miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel, recovered chemical weapons, former production facilities, and buried chemical warfare materiel. In 1992, the Army established theNonstockpile Chemical Materiel Program to dispose of the materiel.

In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002.

The United States has met and surpassed the 29 April 2000 disposal milestone of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). By this date, participating CWC nations must have destroyed one percent of their Category 1 chemical weapons (this amount includes stockpiled as well as certain other chemical weapons known as non-stockpile chemical materiel). The United States has destroyed over 15 percent of its Category 1 chemical weapons since the CWC entered into force, far surpassing the disposal milestone. The next CWC milestone was April 29, 2002, when nations must have destroyed 20 percent of their Category 1 chemical weapons.

And for US biological weapons:

Subsequently, the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction was developed. The treaty was ratified in April, 1972, and went into effect in March of 1975.

In anticipation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, President Nixon terminated the United States offensive biological weapons program by executive order. The United States adopted a policy to never use biological weapons, including toxins, under any circumstances whatsoever. National Security Decisions 35 and 44, issued during November 1969 (microorganisms) and February 1970 (toxins), mandated the cessation of offensive biological research and production, and the destruction of the biological arsenal. Research efforts were directed exclusively to the development of defensive measures such as diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapies for potential biological weapons threats. Stocks of pathogens and the entire biological arsenal were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973 under the auspices of the US Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Departments of Natural Resources of Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Small quantities of some pathogens were retained at Fort Detrick to test the efficacy of investigational preventive measures and therapies.

Factors influencing the decision to terminate the offensive biological program included pragmatic as well as moral and ethical considerations. Given the available conventional, chemical, and nuclear weapons, biological weapons were not considered essential for national security. The potential effects of biological weapons on military and civilian populations were still conjectural, and for obvious ethical and public health reasons, could not be empirically studied. Biological weapons were considered untried, unpredictable, and potentially hazardous for the users as well for those under attack. Field commanders and troops were unfamiliar with their use. In addition, the United States and allied countries had a strategic interest in outlawing biological weapons programs in order to prevent the proliferation of relatively low-cost weapons of mass destruction. By outlawing biological weapons, the arms race for weapons of mass destruction would be prohibitively expensive, given the expense of nuclear programs.

After the termination of the offensive biological program, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) was established in order to continue the development of medical defenses for US military members against potential biological attack. USAMRIID conducts research to develop strategies, products, information, and training programs for medical defense against potential biological weapons. Endemic or epidemic infectious diseases due to highly virulent pathogens requiring high-level containment for laboratory safety are also studied. USAMRIID is an open research institution; no research is classified. The in-house programs are complemented by contract programs with universities and other research institutions.

I suggest that if you want an unbiased and ACCURATE accounting of nuclear detonations, that you go to the High Energy Weapons Archive (google the name). No Japanese nuclear detonation. Sorry.

And after the Trinity test, no tests in New Mexico. The Nevada Test Range is in Nevada.


I have written extensive essays on nuclear weapons over the years (granted it was a middle school/high school thing, but I'm a nerd with too much free time).
I have read ex-USSR battlefeild nuclear tactical manuals.
I have more information on my shelves about nuclear weapons then I want anymore.
I think you're living in a dream world, or confusing my argument somewhere.

To begin, I love nuclear weapons, I think tactical nukes should be mkore common place. I'm not a big fan of stratigic weapons, but that seems to be what everyone knows about.
Secondly, notice the word "reported", that means unconfirmed. I think you should take a look at more then just one countries "unbiased" accounts, I've had to dig through more then what the US propaghanda machine to find this information. Both the South African and Japanese claims can not be confirmed, but there have been reports of them. Espically for the South african incident, where all the after effects of a nuclear test were detected by US and Russian satalites, no actual test was observed, and the South African government has not confirmed it.
Third, granted the US dumped more nuclear power into Nevada then anywhere else, but the South Pacific, but they still tested in both Alaska and New Mexico. In fact, all three of the US space/atmospheric tests were done in Alaska.

While it may have been true at one time during the Cold War that the US had over 30,000 warheads - we now have less than 3000.

This massive stockpile you're talking about does not exist. We have taken drastic steps to reduce the stockpile.

And our missile intercept weapons, unlike the ones from 1968, do not use nuclear warheads.

About 2870 to be more precise, and that's including tactical weapons.

As for missile intercept systems not using nuclear warheads since 1968, wrong, they havn;y used nuclear warheads since 1974. And even then, only in the continental US, sites in Germany, Canada, and tons of other places retained the nuclear warheads until 1984 because the US decided to keep them there.

They still posses them if what you say is correct and are in the process of destroying them. Compare that to Iraq that's one of the reasons why they were invaded is it not? I propose that countries all around the world invade the United States and disarm them of their illegal weapons.

Oh, and can people PLEASE STOP confusing missiles and warheads. A Missile is the delivery system, the warhead is the bomb.

The US has close to 10,000 missiles on standby, this included sub launched, silo based, and unfixed (truck based usually) missiles.
They also only have less then 3000 nuclear weapons.

They still posses them if what you say is correct and are in the process of destroying them. Compare that to Iraq that's one of the reasons why they were invaded is it not? I propose that countries all around the world invade the United States and disarm them of their illegal weapons.

The problem you would have is that they are not under Army control - they are under the control of treaty inspectors who are observing their destruction.

They are no longer in weapon systems. They are at plants where they are in line to be burned under treaty inspector supervision.

Not exactly like Iraq, now is it? The whole thing completely open to foreign inspection at any time, under any condition? Completely transparent?

Oh, and can people PLEASE STOP confusing missiles and warheads. A Missile is the delivery system, the warhead is the bomb.

The US has close to 10,000 missiles on standby, this included sub launched, silo based, and unfixed (truck based usually) missiles.
They also only have less then 3000 nuclear weapons.

What truck based missile?

All the Pershing missiles were confirmed destroyed by Russian observers on site.

Again if what you say is true and the U.S has 3000 missles. Why should they have them in the first place and worry about a country that has 2 lets say? Why should the U.S be entitled and another country not be? is the U.S and more accountable to the world body that Iran or North Korea? The U.S has proved they are not willing to be accountable and do not respect the U.N at all calling it "outdated" should such a powerfull country be allowed these dangerous weapons? Who determines who should and should not have the?


Wow we have nuts like on the right + nuts on the left.

I would much rather have a country like the USA in control of nukes than iran or n korea. Are you crazy?

what do you think will happen if Iran gets its hands on a nuke? Gee could a terrorist cell get its on on said nuke? Bye bye isreal!

I would add that under all the disarmament treaties we ever signed with the Russians, the destruction also involves the delivery system - the missile.

Part of the procedure is to fire the booster on the ground and then have the booster body crushed so that it can't be used.

This has to be witnessed in person by the other nation's inspectors. They have to account for every scrap of booster.

What truck based missile?

All the Pershing missiles were confirmed destroyed by Russian observers on site.


Pretty much any American sirface-to-air missile that has to be moved on trucks or tracked vehicles can carry a nuclear warhead. Same with the Tomahawk, Sea Sparrow, Patriot, or any other Cruise missile, surface-to-air, air-to-surface and surface-to-surface missile.
Most missiles have been designed to take a nuclear warhead by the US for many many reasons. So they are counted, this does not mean they're armed with them.