NationStates Jolt Archive

More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. What can the international community do about these things, including staunching the spread of nuclear technologies?

The end of the Cold War has not led to the end of nuclear weapons being used as deterrents. The concept of possessing nuclear weapons to deter another nuclear-power from instigating a nuclear strike has in fact been the root of proliferation.

The Cold War saw both the US and USSR build-up nuclear arsenals in a bid to make it too costly for each other to offensively use a nuclear weapon—and it worked. Since the construction of nuclear weapons, major world wars have been avoided and not a single nuclear weapon has been used since WW2.

However, because the nuclear powers maintain their stockpiles of nuclear devices, other nations feel the need to obtain such capabilities; hence the problem. North Korea appears to have nuclear weapons and Iran appears likely to get them unless some miraculous diplomacy can manufacture satisfactory concessions.

Not allowing Iran, for example, to have nuclear weapons is somewhat contradictory. For if the US and China, again as examples, are able to possess these weapons as deterrents, where is the harm in allowing Iran to also have a deterrent. Subsequently, why then can all nations not have nuclear weapons if they are such a boon for peace?

Firstly, the more nations that obtain nuclear capability increases the likelihood of one actually being used, and consequently, of retaliations, in a worst-case scenario, that could wipe out humankind.

Secondly, if a terrorist group manages to take possession of a device, the principle of mutually assured destruction is rendered obsolete: a terrorist group will have no nation to be concerned with losing.

Therefore, global nuclear proliferation is not a tenable option and the current regime has been illustrated as unworkable. Abolition remains a choice. For this to work all nuclear powers must democratically agree to be rid of all nuclear capability. There must be the creation of a body much like the International Atomic Energy Agency, with much stronger powers to enter nations and act if there is evidence of a nuclear weapons program. This is because if there is complete abolition, it becomes possible for one to build weapons and then hold the globe ransom to demands.

Finally, a program such as the US’s nuclear-defence technology presents another solution. It has thus far proved unworkable; yet, if it were to become feasible, although perhaps making the US safer, it could have disastrous effects on the rest of the world. It may induce arms races in other regions, thus destabilising global security.

It seems abolition is the logical option, but despite living in a proclaimed rational world, it seems an unlikely outcome.

Any thoughts???

Well, the only practical use of nuclear weapons (except against ships at sea) is to commit genocide, directly or indirectly.

One can presume, then, that any nation which has nuclear weapons in any quantity, or intends to acquire them, has, as one of the policy situations, the commission of genocide, even if only in retaliation.

Funny how many nations that adds up to.

CND. right now.

Sad but true...

You know what we should do with them? Put Bush on a desolate island, then fire every nuke in existence at him.:p

You know what we should do with them? Put Bush on a desolate island, then fire every nuke in existence at him.:p

Oh, did Bush create the nuclear weapons in the US? Or anywhere else?

Or did every US President since Truman tacitly accept that the US has a planned response of genocide in the event of nuclear war?

And every British Prime Minister since the UK acquisition of nuclear weapons?

And every other similar country?

You know what we should do with them? Put Bush on a desolate island, then fire every nuke in existence at him.:p

Sounds really practical...:headbang: Why didn't I think of that?:rolleyes:

Deal with any Nation that tries to unsettle the balance of power.
The hard way.

Liasia']CND. right now.

eh?

eh?
Complete nuclear disarmament. Not particularily practical perhaps, but definately the best way to go or at least head towards.

You know what we should do with them? Put Bush on a desolate island, then fire every nuke in existence at him.:p


Yay. More anti-Bush shite. :rolleyes:

Yay. More anti-Bush shite. :rolleyes:
You would think that Bush was the only world leader worth bitching about.

You would think that Bush was the only world leader worth bitching about.

Let the record show: wasn't me.

Sorry, had your acronym confused with something else (calling number display) - i work in telecommunications and it was at the top of my mind.

Anyway, yeah, I agree, but I can't see it happening unless the US takes the lead.

Do you think US citizens, in general, would vote a president in who had this as one of his election promises?

Abolition remains a choice. For this to work all nuclear powers must democratically agree to be rid of all nuclear capability. There must be the creation of a body much like the International Atomic Energy Agency, with much stronger powers to enter nations and act if there is evidence of a nuclear weapons program. This is because if there is complete abolition, it becomes possible for one to build weapons and then hold the globe ransom to demands.


It seems abolition is the logical option, but despite living in a proclaimed rational world, it seems an unlikely outcome.

Any thoughts???

I totally agree with your points and have to say that I can't imagine a feasible solution to this problem. Once people have the technology to do something you can't go back to not having the technology.

The question I ask, is how can abolition work if not all countries agree with this, which is, i would imagine, exactly what would happen.

would we then be in a position to go to war on these countries, overthrough the current government and install one more favourable to those who wish to abolish nuclear weapons?

You would think that Bush was the only world leader worth bitching about.

I swear, I could start a thread here about what flowers I like to plant in my garden, and some dumbass would post something in the thread about Bush sucking. Fucktards, the lot of 'em.

Sorry, had your acronym confused with something else (calling number display) - i work in telecommunications and it was at the top of my mind.

Anyway, yeah, I agree, but I can't see it happening unless the US takes the lead.

Do you think US citizens, in general, would vote a president in who had this as one of his election promises?
Mucho doubt it. I'd vote for one, but im not a USA citizen and i think i'd be in the minority regardless:p

Sorry, had your acronym confused with something else (calling number display) - i work in telecommunications and it was at the top of my mind.

Anyway, yeah, I agree, but I can't see it happening unless the US takes the lead.

Do you think US citizens, in general, would vote a president in who had this as one of his election promises?

Well, we would have to get everyone else to stop making nuclear weapons.

I'm sure some countries could be negotiated into doing it, and others would have to be invaded and subjugated.

So, would you vote for a US President who said, "not only are we going to get rid of our nuclear weapons, but we'll negotiate the dismantling of others, and invade anyone who won't negotiate".

It's only a matter of time until a defence against nukes is developed. Might be 100 years, might be 10. When it is tho, there's gonna be some trouble methinks.

Liasia']It's only a matter of time until a defence against nukes is developed. Might be 100 years, might be 10. When it is tho, there's gonna be some trouble methinks.

We are building defenses against conventional delivery systems (missiles, aircraft).

There isn't any defense against having one sneaked in on a cargo ship, or driven across the border in a commercial vehicle, short of turning the whole country into a police state.

Liasia']It's only a matter of time until a defence against nukes is developed. Might be 100 years, might be 10. When it is tho, there's gonna be some trouble methinks.

A defense against them already has been developed, albeit limited.

Deal with any Nation that tries to unsettle the balance of power.
The hard way.

ok for those that live in the states.

how long before the states says to the world, fuck you, i'm not af=greeing to do anything that the states does not want to do, such as reducing pollutants released into the atmosphere through industy, and if you try and make us we'll invade your country or better still, nuke yo ass.

Not allowing Iran, for example, to have nuclear weapons is somewhat contradictory. For if the US and China, again as examples, are able to possess these weapons as deterrents, where is the harm in allowing Iran to also have a deterrent.
Simple - Iran has publicly announced its intention to 'wipe Israel off the map'. China and the US have made no similar announcements.

We are building defenses against conventional delivery systems (missiles, aircraft).

There isn't any defense against having one sneaked in on a cargo ship, or driven across the border in a commercial vehicle, short of turning the whole country into a police state.
Well, there isn't now. But who knows? 150 years ago people thought flight was impossible, and now humanity has been to the moon. With the internet and everything developing so fast, anything could be developed really.

The laser defence thing they've got going is quite cool- a high powered laser attached to a boeing which can shoot down ICBMs.

I totally agree with your points and have to say that I can't imagine a feasible solution to this problem. Once people have the technology to do something you can't go back to not having the technology.

The question I ask, is how can abolition work if not all countries agree with this, which is, i would imagine, exactly what would happen.

would we then be in a position to go to war on these countries, overthrough the current government and install one more favourable to those who wish to abolish nuclear weapons?

Well, that's the million dollar question. But it has to start somewhere. If the US citizens can see a safer world for the next generations through the process of abolition, that's a start. Then before the US begins abolishing stockpiles, it must get buy-in from the other nuclear powers. That is the hard part. But if the world sees a president elected in the Us on the promise of doing this, I think that would be the only way to take a first step in this direction.

Otherwise, we have to be resigned to the fact that a nuclear strike by a terrorist group will one day become reality.

A defense against them already has been developed, albeit limited.
America should have gone ahead with the starwars program, just cause it was cool.

ok for those that live in the states.

how long before the states says to the world, fuck you, i'm not af=greeing to do anything that the states does not want to do, such as reducing pollutants released into the atmosphere through industy, and if you try and make us we'll invade your country or better still, nuke yo ass.

Which part of no changes to the balance of power is hard to understand?

Inasmuch as the alternative seems to be nuclear war, I'm firmly in favour of turning global politics into an obedience-issue.

If that means a Pax Americana, so be it.

Others don't have to like it, they merely have to obey.

I'm sure some countries could be negotiated into doing it, and others would have to be invaded and subjugated.

.

and there it is

and there it is
Reasonable:rolleyes:

Liasia']Reasonable:rolleyes:

The purpose isn't reasonability, the purpose is to avoid a nuclear holocaust.

Within that context, Sicher Nbiw is quite acceptable.

Which part of no changes to the balance of power is hard to understand?

Inasmuch as the alternative seems to be nuclear war, I'm firmly in favour of turning global politics into an obedience-issue.

If that means a Pax Americana, so be it.

Others don't have to like it, they merely have to obey.

ok, do you understand the word, terrorism?

The only real tactical uses for a nuclear weapon are as a deterant, against ships at sea and against spaceborn threats, ei asteroids, aliens.

The purpose isn't reasonability, the purpose is to avoid a nuclear holocaust.

Within that context, Sicher Nbiw is quite acceptable.
Thing is, would you say that if it was your country being invaded to remove it's nuclear arsenal? Would you want chinese troops in your streets even if it was for a good cause?

Liasia']America should have gone ahead with the starwars program, just cause it was cool.
Essentially we have.

The Airborne Laser will be operational later this year.
The enhanced version of the Standard missile (for ships) is operational and tested against ballistic missiles successfully.
The ground based interceptor missile is still in testing and development, but some have already been deployed.

The only real tactical uses for a nuclear weapon are as a deterant, against ships at sea and against spaceborn threats, ei asteroids, aliens.

Would a terrorist organisation use them as a deterent?

The only real tactical uses for a nuclear weapon are as a deterant, against ships at sea and against spaceborn threats, ei asteroids, aliens.
LOL i bet that was the military's main reason for investment in a nuclear deterrent.

ok, do you understand the word, terrorism?

Do you understand the following?

'Anyone who takes action against the status quo is hereby notified it does so at their utmost peril'

Essentially we have.

The Airborne Laser will be operational later this year.
The enhanced version of the Standard missile (for ships) is operational and tested against ballistic missiles successfully.
The ground based interceptor missile is still in testing and development, but some have already been deployed.
Not spacey tho is it? That was the cool bit about the starwars program

Liasia']Thing is, would you say that if it was your country being invaded to remove it's nuclear arsenal? Would you want chinese troops in your streets even if it was for a good cause?

exactly

Liasia']Thing is, would you say that if it was your country being invaded to remove it's nuclear arsenal? Would you want chinese troops in your streets even if it was for a good cause?

I don't believe the chinese are in the running.

Would a terrorist organisation use them as a deterent?
I meant for a developed nation, we should torture the known terrorists so they don't get a nuke.

I meant for a developed nation, we should torture the known terrorists so they don't get a nuke.

I don't know if you were trying to be funny but I just pissed myself laughing when I read that...

I don't believe the chinese are in the running.
Huh? They have nukes, and a larger military than the US's, which is only going to get bigger. In what way are they not?

Personally, i think the U.S. should dispose of most of it,s large nukes and replace them with small tactical ones.

I don't believe the chinese are in the running.

eh?

Liasia']Huh? They have nukes, and a larger military than the US's, which is only going to get bigger. In what way are they not?

Lack of the ability to project power. No aircraft carriers. No air-to-air refuelling capability.

Lack of the ability to project power. No aircraft carriers. No air-to-air refuelling capability.
Give em ten years. They can always slowly deploy, and just march and use troop ships.

Liasia']Give em ten years. They can always slowly deploy, and just march and use troop ships.

Nah...

More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. What can the international community do about these things, including staunching the spread of nuclear technologies?

The end of the Cold War has not led to the end of nuclear weapons being used as deterrents. The concept of possessing nuclear weapons to deter another nuclear-power from instigating a nuclear strike has in fact been the root of proliferation.

The Cold War saw both the US and USSR build-up nuclear arsenals in a bid to make it too costly for each other to offensively use a nuclear weapon—and it worked. Since the construction of nuclear weapons, major world wars have been avoided and not a single nuclear weapon has been used since WW2.

However, because the nuclear powers maintain their stockpiles of nuclear devices, other nations feel the need to obtain such capabilities; hence the problem. North Korea appears to have nuclear weapons and Iran appears likely to get them unless some miraculous diplomacy can manufacture satisfactory concessions.

Not allowing Iran, for example, to have nuclear weapons is somewhat contradictory. For if the US and China, again as examples, are able to possess these weapons as deterrents, where is the harm in allowing Iran to also have a deterrent. Subsequently, why then can all nations not have nuclear weapons if they are such a boon for peace?

Firstly, the more nations that obtain nuclear capability increases the likelihood of one actually being used, and consequently, of retaliations, in a worst-case scenario, that could wipe out humankind.

Secondly, if a terrorist group manages to take possession of a device, the principle of mutually assured destruction is rendered obsolete: a terrorist group will have no nation to be concerned with losing.

Therefore, global nuclear proliferation is not a tenable option and the current regime has been illustrated as unworkable. Abolition remains a choice. For this to work all nuclear powers must democratically agree to be rid of all nuclear capability. There must be the creation of a body much like the International Atomic Energy Agency, with much stronger powers to enter nations and act if there is evidence of a nuclear weapons program. This is because if there is complete abolition, it becomes possible for one to build weapons and then hold the globe ransom to demands.

Finally, a program such as the US’s nuclear-defence technology presents another solution. It has thus far proved unworkable; yet, if it were to become feasible, although perhaps making the US safer, it could have disastrous effects on the rest of the world. It may induce arms races in other regions, thus destabilising global security.

It seems abolition is the logical option, but despite living in a proclaimed rational world, it seems an unlikely outcome.

Any thoughts???
I think we should get rid of all of our {nuclear} weapons.
*ducks under desk*

I see China being more of an ally then an enemy to the U.S. It is becoming more democratic and capitalist by the day. Besides NASA still owns space.

Nah...
There are always alliances. If the entire globe was disarmed except for the US, then the EU, Russia etc would all likely get involved. I don't know, but i suspect that even now China could take on the US.

I see China being more of an ally then an enemy to the U.S. It is becoming more democratic and capitalist by the day. Besides NASA still owns space.

I think that China and the Us being allies is yet to be seen. I think neither nation trusts one another, and hold deep suspicions about each others intentions. I think a lot more work needs to be done to build mutual interests before we can call these countries allies.

Personally, we need to disarm. However, there does need a way to destroy a large target. So, what I propose is a: BIg, fricking huge Guass cannon. If we can get the ISS up, and operational, we can get a guass cannon. Imagine a 1 ton steel block, going at, I dunno, really damn fast. When that sucker hits, it's gonna hit BIG. Wipes out whatever it needed to, and that's it. No messy radiation to deal with.

Liasia']There are always alliances. If the entire globe was disarmed except for the US, then the EU, Russia etc would all likely get involved. I don't know, but i suspect that even now China could take on the US.
China's military is slow to mobalize though, so the U.S. would likely have a head's up about whats going on.

I think that China and the Us being allies is yet to be seen. I think neither nation trusts one another, and hold deep suspicions about each others intentions. I think a lot more work needs to be done to build mutual interests before we can call these countries allies.
The US economy relies almost completely on china. That alone means they can't go to war.

Wow...this discussion got ignorant right quick -- even for NS General.

China's military is slow to mobalize though, so the U.S. would likely have a head's up about whats going on.
Yes, but there is only so much you can do against an almost limitless number of troops-which is what china has at its disposal. Wheras the US is struggling to recruit people now

Liasia']The US economy relies almost completely on china. That alone means they can't go to war.

Absolutely true, but that doesn't make them allies.

I think that China and the Us being allies is yet to be seen. I think neither nation trusts one another, and hold deep suspicions about each others intentions. I think a lot more work needs to be done to build mutual interests before we can call these countries allies.
There not allies but lets not forget that without a U.S. market then the Chinese economy would collapse. So although there not allies they still need eachother.

Liasia']Yes, but there is only so much you can do against an almost limitless number of troops-which is what china has at its disposal. Wheras the US is struggling to recruit people now
That's because the U.S. doesnt draft troops. The Chinese still needs to supply and train those limitless soldiers so the U.S. has an advantage there with more expireinced troops and commanders.

Wow...this discussion got ignorant right quick -- even for NS General.
:p Sorry, just having a bit of fun.

There not allies but lets not forget that without a U.S. market then the Chinese economy would collapse. So although there not allies they still need eachother.
And visa-versa of course.

That's because the U.S. doesnt draft troops. The Chinese still needs to supply and train those limitless soldiers so the U.S. has an advantage there with more expireinced troops and commanders.
Mmmm *shrugs*. i'm not a military guy. I don't know.

I'm a multilateralist.

Having treated people who have radiation poisoning, I can tell you just how awful some of these nuclear experiments can be. And a bomb is several thousand times more powerful.

Lack of the ability to project power. No aircraft carriers. No air-to-air refuelling capability.

Why waste time and money attcking the US? Just withdraw all the Chinese money invested in US companies and then pick over the corpse of the nation after its' complete economic collapse.

Liasia']And visa-versa of course.
Indeed, which means both sides would work towards peace, which would probably lead to better results.

Liasia']Mmmm *shrugs*. i'm not a military guy. I don't know.

I sorta am, having covered the military as a journalist for nearly a decade. In my not-so-humble opinion, China's no threat to the US for at least 20 years. The PRC's real focus is on getting Taiwan back, and that mindset is what directs their military development, not a confrontation with the US.

I sorta am, having covered the military as a journalist for nearly a decade. In my not-so-humble opinion, China's no threat to the US for at least 20 years. The PRC's real focus is on getting Taiwan back, and that mindset is what directs their military development, not a confrontation with the US.
Cool. Which agency/paper/thingies have you worked for?

Why waste time and money attcking the US? Just withdraw all the Chinese money invested in US companies and then pick over the corpse of the nation after its' complete economic collapse.
However the Chinese would also have a complete economic collapse without a U.S. market.

Liasia']Huh? They have nukes, and a larger military than the US's, which is only going to get bigger. In what way are they not?

Question was answered before I could get back ;)

Liasia']Cool. Which agency/paper/thingies have you worked for?

Up until about two weeks ago, when the company for which I worked decided to stop publishing it, I was a reporter and managing editor of a magazine that covered military technology.

Up until about two weeks ago, when the company for which I worked decided to stop publishing it, I was a reporter and managing editor of a magazine that covered military technology.
Awesome. I worked for six months in a burgerking, hence no military experience.:p

Liasia']Awesome. I worked for six months in a burgerking, hence no military experience.:p

But you must know a lot about food hygiene or summat?
*giggles*

But you must know a lot about food hygiene or summat?
*giggles*
I know how to ignore food hygiene. That's about it, oh and making whoppers.

Liasia']I know how to ignore food hygiene. That's about it, oh and making whoppers.

Uhm, yeah, but I wanted to sound jocular rather than offensive.

With the current level of air superiority that the US can attain, even over China, formations of troops become targets. The Air Force likes to call it, "irrevocable denial of assets".

More massive formations of men, who are largely truckborne infantry, are very soft targets.

An example of how bad it can get is best exemplified by an air attack during the invasion of Iraq.

Two Republican Guard armored divisions were stationed just southeast of Baghdad. As the Marines moved in column up the road towards Baghdad, the two Republican Guard divisions moved out down the road to meet them.

Three B-52 bombers, each loaded with CBU-97 submunition dispensers made a SINGLE pass over the two divisions.

As each submunition dispenser reached a preset altitude after drop, each opened up to throw out 40 "smart" cluster munitions that each deployed a tiny parachute, and homed in on vehicles.

In that single pass, two divisions lost eighty percent of their vehicles, with those vehicles' occupants killed or wounded.

Liasia']Awesome. I worked for six months in a burgerking, hence no military experience.:p

We've all had jobs like that, amigo. You work your way up. :)

Uhm, yeah, but I wanted to sound jocular rather than offensive.
I know, i was too:p

With the current level of air superiority that the US can attain, even over China, formations of troops become targets. The Air Force likes to call it, "irrevocable denial of assets".

More massive formations of men, who are largely truckborne infantry, are very soft targets.

An example of how bad it can get is best exemplified by an air attack during the invasion of Iraq.

Two Republican Guard armored divisions were stationed just southeast of Baghdad. As the Marines moved in column up the road towards Baghdad, the two Republican Guard divisions moved out down the road to meet them.

Three B-52 bombers, each loaded with CBU-97 submunition dispensers made a SINGLE pass over the two divisions.

As each submunition dispenser reached a preset altitude after drop, each opened up to throw out 40 "smart" cluster munitions that each deployed a tiny parachute, and homed in on vehicles.

In that single pass, two divisions lost eighty percent of their vehicles, with those vehicles' occupants killed or wounded.
...and the U.S. now has the Raptor fighter jet that could easily take on any Chinese jets.

Liasia']I know, i was too:p

*hi-five*

PS: Vote 4 Myrth!

We've all had jobs like that, amigo. You work your way up. :)
:) me= future president of the world *nods*

*hi-five*

PS: Vote 4 Myrth!
Sure... i'll get right on it:confused:

Liasia']Sure... i'll get right on it:confused:

Check any poll made by Straughn...

However the Chinese would also have a complete economic collapse without a U.S. market.

Would they? How much of their export market is in Europe and Asia? The US is only one country, however large it may be. Gotta put out a big woot to the US administration for allowing their economy to become so fragile it is shored up by money from a country that they're not on the best of terms with.

Check any poll made by Straughn...
Oh that. Yes. Ok.

Would they? How much of their export market is in Europe and Asia? The US is only one country, however large it may be. Gotta put out a big woot to the US administration for allowing their economy to become so fragile it is shored up by money from a country that they're not on the best of terms with.
Alot of Chinese goods are sold on U.S. markets, so it probably wouldnt be in there best interests, not to mention U.S. allies in europe that would turn on China. I agree with you that the U.S. shouldnt have put there economic survival in other countries, good move.

Alot of Chinese goods are sold on U.S. markets, so it probably wouldnt be in there best interests, not to mention U.S. allies in europe that would turn on China. I agree with you that the U.S. shouldnt have put there economic survival in other countries, good move.
It's called gloablisation.

Liasia']It's called gloablisation.
It's also called 'outsourceing' which is dumb.

It's also called 'outsourceing' which is dumb.

Why is outsourcing dumb? If it is dumb, why do successful companies do it?

Alot of Chinese goods are sold on U.S. markets, so it probably wouldnt be in there best interests, not to mention U.S. allies in europe that would turn on China. I agree with you that the U.S. shouldnt have put there economic survival in other countries, good move.

US allies in Europe? You have to remember that the US has burned alot of political bridges recently and most of the major European govts. would enjoy seeing them brought down a peg or two. Anyway, Europe likes it's cheap shirts and socks too much to let a little thing like the emasculation of the US get in the way of imports, in fact it may be in Europes best interest as prices of Chinese goods would drop even further due to supply outstripping demand.

It's also called 'outsourceing' which is dumb.
Outsourcing made that computer your'e typing on possible, so it's obviously not that bad.

Alot of Chinese goods are sold on U.S. markets, so it probably wouldnt be in there best interests, not to mention U.S. allies in europe that would turn on China. I agree with you that the U.S. shouldnt have put there economic survival in other countries, good move.

i wouldn't count on that.

I'm pretty sure that Europe wouldn't hold a grudge when it comes to a global war, Bush would probably be out of office by then and although alot of my property is made overseas I say it is stupid for a nation to really on other nations for its economic success and that those big companies are only taking advantage of another nations cheap/child/slave labor.
but lets get back to nukes.

I'm pretty sure that Europe wouldn't hold a grudge when it comes to a global war, Bush would probably be out of office by then and although alot of my property is made overseas I say it is stupid for a nation to really on other nations for its economic success and that those big companies are only taking advantage of another nations cheap/child/slave labor.
but lets get back to nukes.

Blood is thicker than water.

Don't let Iran get them. Don't let any unstable turd world gov't get them, and we should be good. Oh, and don't let Alqaeda or some terrorist group get them either.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]Well, the only practical use of nuclear weapons (except against ships at sea) is to commit genocide,


I thinthat deterrance is one too?

i personally am in favour of fusion bombs

D-T fusion is something i love because it provides much energy

The problem with nuclear proliferation is that once you know how to build them, then it becomes only a question of obtaining plutonium (uranium in a pinch *Love that pun*). You really can't prevent any nation from learning how to build them when that Information is just about freely available.

The really frightning thing is how simple nuclear bombs really are. No nation need spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a nuclear program to obtain them. As long as you have the fissionables, all you need is some high explosives, a containment devise, and a timer.

that is a good point well put, and i don't have a good reply to it. well done!

but i still love fusion!

it is not possible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle.

logically, technological advancement will only serve to engender new and unusual ways of killing each other. i can think of a complete annihilation technology that puts nukes to shame, for instance, antimatter weapons. bio weapons based on new insights into the human genome are also pretty interesting. think the chinese are a threat? a bioweapon exists which targets specific gene pools. it's a rather compelling negotiation tool.

what needs to happen to remove the threat of nuclear war?

humanity as a whole needs to "grow up"

we are children with dangerous toys, and now some of the older children are getting a little paranoid about the younger ones, perhaps rightfully so.

so?

perhaps 'walk the talk' of loving each other, realizing we are all connected/one, and that to hurt another hurts ourselves.

when we reach this level of emotional maturity, all self-inflicted threats to our existance will dissolve.

but yes, that's a long shot for some people, especially these days.

one very probable outcome is a limited exchange nuclear war, where the superpowers take the opportunity to wipe out the less intelligent nationstates once and for all. nuclear weapons (and bios) will proliferate to the point where we're pretty sure *everyone* has them, at which time nobody will dare use them because everyone else will not hesitate to wipe them off the map.

at this point, when it becomes clear we've almost destroyed the biosystems of the planet, we will start to "grow up" a little bit as we start the massive cleanup.

doesn't have to be that way, but the probability is greater than 0.5.

alternatively, start living the way jesus and mohammad taught you, and the way that the buddhists already do -- LOVE ONE ANOTHER!! this shouldn't be too hard even if you consider yourself atheist or whatever. consider it self-survival if you must.

it is not possible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle.

logically, technological advancement will only serve to engender new and unusual ways of killing each other. i can think of a complete annihilation technology that puts nukes to shame, for instance, antimatter weapons. bio weapons based on new insights into the human genome are also pretty interesting. think the chinese are a threat? a bioweapon exists which targets specific gene pools. it's a rather compelling negotiation tool.

what needs to happen to remove the threat of nuclear war?

humanity as a whole needs to "grow up"

we are children with dangerous toys, and now some of the older children are getting a little paranoid about the younger ones, perhaps rightfully so.

so?

perhaps 'walk the talk' of loving each other, realizing we are all connected/one, and that to hurt another hurts ourselves.

when we reach this level of emotional maturity, all self-inflicted threats to our existance will dissolve.

but yes, that's a long shot for some people, especially these days.

one very probable outcome is a limited exchange nuclear war, where the superpowers take the opportunity to wipe out the less intelligent nationstates once and for all. nuclear weapons (and bios) will proliferate to the point where we're pretty sure *everyone* has them, at which time nobody will dare use them because everyone else will not hesitate to wipe them off the map.

at this point, when it becomes clear we've almost destroyed the biosystems of the planet, we will start to "grow up" a little bit as we start the massive cleanup.

doesn't have to be that way, but the probability is greater than 0.5.

alternatively, start living the way jesus and mohammad taught you, and the way that the buddhists already do -- LOVE ONE ANOTHER!! this shouldn't be too hard even if you consider yourself atheist or whatever. consider it self-survival if you must.

Tough to love someone who wants to cut your head off (aswell as everyone you know.)

And Christ never said to bend over and be a pansy. Love your enemies, but do your job.

Mohammed went around and conquered half the ME forcing people to Islam. Christ went around Teaching to people, healing, and doing miracles. Most violent thing he ever did was chase the money changers out of the temple..

It's simply impractical for the US to disarm all of their nukes. Besides, it would be impossible to do so without every other country doing the same.

Tough to love someone who wants to cut your head off (aswell as everyone you know.)

And Christ never said to bend over and be a pansy. Love your enemies, but do your job.

Mohammed went around and conquered half the ME forcing people to Islam. Christ went around Teaching to people, healing, and doing miracles. Most violent thing he ever did was chase the money changers out of the temple..

this is the problem, right here.

as long as we maintain the historical "eye for an eye" mentality, violence will reign, as it does today.