NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: The nuclear cat is out of the bag and now everyone wants their very own nuclear weapon: the religious fanatics in Iran, the racist ethnocentrics in North Korea, and for all anyone knows, the guy down the street who thinks aliens will get him if he doesn't wear a tinfoil hat!

This is one of the best, and certainly one of the most frightening articles I have ever read. Do yourself a favor and read the entire four pages. This seemingly intractable problem increases the liklihood that the human race will become a mere blip on the map of geological time.


Restraints Fray and Risks Grow as Nuclear Club Gains Members (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/world/asia/15nuke.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th)


By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: October 15, 2006
The declaration last Monday by North Korea that it had conducted a successful atomic test brought to nine the number of nations believed to have nuclear arms. But atomic officials estimate that as many as 40 more countries have the technical skill, and in some cases the required material, to build a bomb.

That ability, coupled with new nuclear threats in Asia and the Middle East, risks a second nuclear age, officials and arms control specialists say, in which nations are more likely to abandon the old restraints against atomic weapons.

The spread of nuclear technology is expected to accelerate as nations redouble their reliance on atomic power. That will give more countries the ability to make reactor fuel, or, with the same equipment and a little more effort, bomb fuel — the hardest part of the arms equation.

[ This excellent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/world/asia/15nuke.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th) is four pages long. ]


http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7141/countriesnuclearsb1.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Best not look at it twice then.

Meh. It's not as though I ever felt especially confident with any nation possessing nukes to begin with.

It's the same old, same old. Duck and cover, kids.

Best not look at it twice then.

Making like an ostrich accomplishes nothing. :(

Meh. It's not as though I ever felt especially confident with any nation possessing nukes to begin with.

It's the same old, same old. Duck and cover, kids.

How very fatalistic of you. :p

heh. let them all have nukes. if one country has them, all should have them. I would rather none than all, but as it is today that is not possible therefore I am not scared by states or countries getting them.

How very fatalistic of you. :p

It's been a very fatalistic 61 years.

trying to control which countries have nuclear weapons is like trying to control kids from having sex.
no matter how hard you try, some are still going to do it.

trying to control which countries have nuclear weapons is like trying to control kids from having sex.
no matter how hard you try, some are still going to do it.

One can only hope they use protection.

One can only hope they use protection.

Like I said:

Duck and cover, kids.

Making like an ostrich accomplishes nothing. :(
Come on, let me have my joke :p

Like I said:

Duck and cover, kids.

*dons tinfoil everything*

Like I said:

Duck and cover, kids.

i would prefer the "go dowm 20 floors to my super bunker that is capable of withstanding even the rapture" idea better myself

argh Business make it legal,to build it,
You don't want to know how many people work for war industries
Be scare because it will only become worse

heh. let them all have nukes. if one country has them, all should have them. I would rather none than all, but as it is today that is not possible therefore I am not scared by states or countries getting them.

Dude! Imagine an entire neighborhood where every house has a 1,000 pounds of high explosive buried under it, and every single neighbor has a detonator for it. That doesn't scare you? You obviously have no children. :(

I can see something wrong with that map; Australia has one nuclear power plant.

One can only hope they use protection.

Makes a really good argument for "Star Wars" doesn't it! :p

N.Korea and Iran will continue their nuke programs. So it's either invade or allow. The only possibility to stop N. Korea is China invading them. I don't think there is any chance of anyone invading Iran.

But using them is a different thing. You launch: You die! Your people,culture, history religion and beliefs: ERASED! DELETED! GONE FOREVER!

America, Russia and China, finally aquired this level of understanding. It's probably a safe bet that others will too.

Best not look at it twice then.

Of course it, spossibly it kills him half each time, so the second time it'd scare another quarter to death, and the third time an eigth.

Be afraid... be very afraid...

N.Korea and Iran will continue their nuke programs. So it's either invade or allow. The only possibility to stop N. Korea is China invading them. I don't think there is any chance of anyone invading Iran.

But using them is a different thing. You launch: You die! Your people,culture, history religion and beliefs: ERASED! DELETED! GONE FOREVER!

America, Russia and China, finally aquired this level of understanding. It's probably a safe bet that others will too.

Hmmm Iran probably wouldn't give a shit, it considers itself the embodiement of sheer Islam and would probably happily be a martyr. North Korea would never use nukes Kim loves the high life to much to spend the rest of his time in an underground bunker.

Of course it, spossibly it kills him half each time, so the second time it'd scare another quarter to death, and the third time an eigth.

Not necessarily. Let's say Eut was scared x amount. x happens to be half to death for Eut. Thus being scared 2x would scare Eut to death.

Hmmm Iran probably wouldn't give a shit, it considers itself the embodiement of sheer Islam and would probably happily be a martyr.

Yes! But a martyr for whom? The most likely scenerio would be a nuclear exchange between Iran and Isreal. When it was over, the Middle East would most likely become unihabitable.

Yes! But a martyr for whom? The most likely scenerio would be a nuclear exchange between Iran and Isreal. When it was over, the Planet Earth would most likely become unihabitable.

Fixed :(

Damned MAD.

Yea, that too! :(

Fixed :(

Damned MAD.

Israel and Iran are never going to have enough weapons to make the entire planet uninhabitable.

Israel and Iran are never going to have enough weapons to make the entire planet uninhabitable.

Nope, but their allies do.

Dude! Imagine an entire neighborhood where every house has a 1,000 pounds of high explosive buried under it, and every single neighbor has a detonator for it. That doesn't scare you? You obviously have no children. :(

nope I have no children (thankfully) and I don't care. Lets blow eachother up.

nope I have no children (thankfully) and I don't care. Lets blow eachother up.

Since you don't care couldn't we just blow you up?

Meh. It's not as though I ever felt especially confident with any nation possessing nukes to begin with.

It's the same old, same old. Duck and cover, kids.

And hope that you're either far enough away just to see the flash over the horizon, or close enough that you'll never know what happened.

Since you don't care couldn't we just blow you up?

you could.

N.Korea and Iran will continue their nuke programs. So it's either invade or allow. The only possibility to stop N. Korea is China invading them. I don't think there is any chance of anyone invading Iran.

But using them is a different thing. You launch: You die! Your people,culture, history religion and beliefs: ERASED! DELETED! GONE FOREVER!

America, Russia and China, finally aquired this level of understanding. It's probably a safe bet that others will too.

That theory of "retaliation response" works with most, but some societies worship death. Osama bin Laden once told a Western Reporter that, "You in the West are in love with life. We are in love with death/"

Not exactly who I would like to have possession of nuclear weapons. :(

Not necessarily. Let's say Eut was scared x amount. x happens to be half to death for Eut. Thus being scared 2x would scare Eut to death.

How very pleasant you two are, especially considering that I'm already under a death sentance. :p

Since you don't care couldn't we just blow you up?

Excellent idea! :D

Not necessarily. Let's say Eut was scared x amount. x happens to be half to death for Eut. Thus being scared 2x would scare Eut to death.

Unless the second time isn't 2x, but x^2

you could.

[ nukes Babelistan ]

Eh, bring it. Humanity is doomed to destroy itself sooner or later. I'll be the one laughing because I knew that it was coming.

There's no star trek in our future, kids.

And hope that you're either far enough away just to see the flash over the horizon, or close enough that you'll never know what happened.

What makes you think Iran or North Korea are anymore likely to use nuclear weapons than the USA or Britain? Seriously.

I really don't understand why people are afraid of nuclear power. Nuclear weapons yeah, they burn you to a crisp with radiation, flatten everything else with a shockwave, and fry unprotected electronics. But they could also be putting cargo into space and propelling astronauts to nearby planets. That cargo could be used to make large stations (big enough for a good gravity ring), large solar arrays (they work much better without that pesky atmosphere in the way), and much more. I'd rather see them be used for exploration than be dismantled because of unfounded fears or be used for war.

I want a nuke, that way I wouldnt have to pay for electricity anymore.

What makes you think Iran or North Korea are anymore likely to use nuclear weapons than the USA or Britain? Seriously.

Because silly. Everyone knows white people are less likely to nuke something than Asians or Persians. Its not like the US has ever used nukes....oh wait:eek:

I want a nuke, that way I wouldnt have to pay for electricity anymore.
Wrong isotope I think.

Because silly. Everyone knows white people are less likely to nuke something than Asians or Persians. Its not like the US has ever used nukes....oh wait:eek:
Iran, not so much. But I have little desire to trust my future to Kim Jong-Il, best known for starving his own people to death while feeding them lies about how the Korean communists beat the US on their own, and how they are the happiest, richest people in the world.

It has nothing to do with white people, black people, yellow or red people. Nobody has said that it does (well, Eut almost did, but not really). It has to do with incredible destructive potential being put in the hands of people who might use it in a first-strike capacity.

The United States' use of nuclear weapons is one of those things that gets dredged up whenever someone doesn't like US policy with regards to nuclear weapons. The (extremely well known) fact is that neither the scientists, the government nor the generals knew precisely how much damage a nuke would do. The less well known fact is that the alternative to a nuclear attack was an invasion of the Home Islands, one which would have been very much like the Vietnam conflict or Iraq today in that the Japanese people adhered to the code of Bushido. A person's life is less important that the service that he may do to his Emperor and his nation, something that made the IJA very difficult to defeat, and remarkably fanatical.

When you do the math, estimated casualties on both sides would have been higher in the event of an invasion than as a result of the nuclear attack.

Yes! But a martyr for whom? The most likely scenerio would be a nuclear exchange between Iran and Isreal. When it was over, the Middle East would most likely become unihabitable.

Actually all of the mullahs praying will make the missiles bounce off of Iran and return to Israel because the power of Allah.

Wrong isotope I think.

But you could make someone else pay it if you had a nuke:cool:

The United States' use of nuclear weapons is one of those things that gets dredged up whenever someone doesn't like US policy with regards to nuclear weapons. The (extremely well known) fact is that neither the scientists, the government nor the generals knew precisely how much damage a nuke would do. The less well known fact is that the alternative to a nuclear attack was an invasion of the Home Islands, one which would have been very much like the Vietnam conflict or Iraq today in that the Japanese people adhered to the code of Bushido. A person's life is less important that the service that he may do to his Emperor and his nation, something that made the IJA very difficult to defeat, and remarkably fanatical.

Perhaps the first, but you can't really suggest that they had no idea what effect the second one was going to have (I know it was a different type but it's unlikely to be a huge difference). Won't get into argument regarding whether USA changed requirements for peace with Japan before and after nukes.

COMMENTARY: The nuclear cat is out of the bag and FEAR FEAR COLD WAR FEAR FEAR ZOMG!!!111! etc


None of those are as scary as those crazy americans who seem to have gone all Ghengis-Khan on the rest of us.

Yeah, this is totally more scary than any of the rest of the more pertinent scary shit going on. By which I do not mean terrorists.

I say allow nuclear power (we have to save the Earth :D ) and give those who announce nuclear programmes a stern talking to!

I also fail to see why North Korea needs nukes surely the potential for massive artillery strikes on Seoul is good enough (and I for one would be more worried about it) I guess nobody worries about conventional arms anymore :(

I find it great however that after living decades on the doorstep to nuclear catastrophe Europe is now pretty safe (take that Soviet successor states!)

The less well known fact is that the alternative to a nuclear attack was an invasion of the Home Islands, one which would have been very much like the Vietnam conflict or Iraq today in that the Japanese people adhered to the code of Bushido. A person's life is less important that the service that he may do to his Emperor and his nation, something that made the IJA very difficult to defeat, and remarkably fanatical.
Right answer, wrong reasoning.

Perhaps the first, but you can't really suggest that they had no idea what effect the second one was going to have (I know it was a different type but it's unlikely to be a huge difference). Won't get into argument regarding whether USA changed requirements for peace with Japan before and after nukes.
Actually, for Hiroshima, they were very surprised. They forgot to take into account the fireball + most Japanese structures at the time were made from wood and that Hiroshima is ringed by mountains, which had the effect of echoing back and intensifying the blast. Nagasaki did not have the same mountain setup and excaped with less damage.

And no one knew of the long term effects.

I say allow nuclear power (we have to save the Earth :D ) and give those who announce nuclear programmes a stern talking to!
I agree. But security must be very tight in hostile nations. UN, US, UK, and Russian troops sehould be stationed at a nuclear power facility in Iran until they stop threatening to kill all the Jews. Reactors on heavily guarded barges (probably want a couple destroyers and a cruiser) could be sailed to the coast of NK and send power inland. That solves the security issues and lets these two nations get what they're after. Seems reasonable to me. If they reject proposals like that then they probably aren't in it for the environment or civilian energy or some other peaceful endeavor.

I also fail to see why North Korea needs nukes surely the potential for massive artillery strikes on Seoul is good enough (and I for one would be more worried about it) I guess nobody worries about conventional arms anymore :(
It's ironic that so many fear one kind of fire but embrace another. Conventional explosives destroyed much more of Japan than the two did. Firebombs can do a lot to paper walls. What set the two apart was that they could do in seconds what would take hours. Japan could not repel firepower of that magnitude and surrendered, saving millions while sacrificing thousands. And because of what was witnessed those great and terrible weapons have not been used since.

I find it great however that after living decades on the doorstep to nuclear catastrophe Europe is now pretty safe (take that Soviet successor states!)
Bombs and missiles need someone to push the button. So long as there was no one willing to die we were safe. That is what set the soviets apart from the powers that seek this knowledge and power today; the soviets, as misguided as they were, at least understood the power they held and the consquences of their actions.

I can see something wrong with that map; Australia has one nuclear power plant.

And that's just a research reactor, not a power/weapons grade enrichment plant. I think the map probably refers to the British nuclear weapons research & detonations that were conducted at Maralinga in the 50s & 60s.

And that's just a research reactor, not a power/weapons grade enrichment plant. I think the map probably refers to the British nuclear weapons research & detonations that were conducted at Maralinga in the 50s & 60s.

It'd be easily within our capability to develop a weapon within a couple of years, i'd say (the same with most first-world countries). We have the engineering and technological expertise as well as the natural resources to do so.

[ nukes Babelistan ]

*dies peacefully*

Ironically, the threat is probably less than during the cold war. NK's missiles are, as far as we can tell, shit, and they depend on China.

If China pulls the plug on aid, the North Korean government doesn't last a month.

Of course, convincing China to play along is the challenging part. However, China isn't happy with Elvi- er... Kim Jong Il, and if we use the right bargaining chips, it may not be difficult.

That, by the way, is why multilateral talks are critical.

I agree. But security must be very tight in hostile nations. UN, US, UK, and Russian troops sehould be stationed at a nuclear power facility in Iran until they stop threatening to kill all the Jews. Reactors on heavily guarded barges (probably want a couple destroyers and a cruiser) could be sailed to the coast of NK and send power inland. That solves the security issues and lets these two nations get what they're after. Seems reasonable to me. If they reject proposals like that then they probably aren't in it for the environment or civilian energy or some other peaceful endeavor.

Do the same thing to the US until they stop threatening every other country and stop influencing the people to believe all Muslims are evil terrorists. See how that goes over, skippy.

Many nations think that getting nuclear weapons gives them some level of immunity from the international community. One way to combat the spread of nuclear weapons is to make it known and make a couple of examples out of N.Korea and Iran that nuclear weapons make it more, not less likely that the US will hammer you into shit.

We need bombing campaigns against Iran and crippling sanctions against N. Korea while making it understood that if China doesn't search N. Korean cargo it faces the loss of Sudanese and Iranian oil. We could liberate Darfur and in the process cut off oil exports and we could cripple Iranian oil production with our bombing. Before doing anything so drastic we could threaten to eliminate Chinese Most Favored Nation status.

Now that's just my angry, hot-headed reaction. I'm sure others have better ideas, but we need to do something. If not nuclear terrorism and large-scale nuclear war are inevitable. Some pissant nation like North Korea or Iran will end up triggering the end of human civilization as we know it through stupidity, greed, or religious douchebaggery. I'd much rather see North Korea and/or Iran lose millions of citizens than see even one tiny nuclear weapon go off in New York or Los Angeles. I'd certainly rather see Iran or N. Korea bombed back into the stone age than see a nuclear world war between multiple nations.

People seem to get really worked up about this. North Korea's nuke, if it was a nuke, was what - half a kiloton? That's about enough to renovate Corby Town Centre, and significantly less than some of my farts. Just being a nuke doesn't intrinsically make it capable of ending All Life On Earth.

Even if they did pile it on a truck and drive it somewhere we knew or cared about, detonating it isn't going to cause the US to launch an all-out strike on Russia and China, signalling the end of the world. They'll just find out where it came from, and pound North Korea into the ground.

Don't panic, really. But if you want a nuclear war, play DEFCON (http://www.everybody-dies.com).

The less well known fact is that the alternative to a nuclear attack was an invasion of the Home Islands, one which would have been very much like the Vietnam conflict or Iraq today in that the Japanese people adhered to the code of Bushido. A person's life is less important that the service that he may do to his Emperor and his nation, something that made the IJA very difficult to defeat, and remarkably fanatical.

Which is why every person on the High Council advocated surrender except for the military leaders. If we kept pressuring them, the military members of the High Council would likely have ended up dead, leaving the rest of the council free to surrender.

*sigh* I never thought I'd say this but, it's only a matter of time now. Sure, you may say that with more countries having nuclear weapons, it acts as a detterent for other countries to fire their own nukes.

But it only takes one crazy dictator who thinks he's a divine entity to push that button and the world goes kablooey thanks to everyone's itchy trigger fingers.

But it only takes one crazy dictator who thinks he's a divine entity to push that button and the world goes kablooey thanks to everyone's itchy trigger fingers.
No it doesn't! Most countries with nuclear weapons simply don't have enough of them to cause any significant global damage. Only the US, Russia and perhaps China have that kind of power.

Neither of those three - or any of the other major nuclear powers - are going to launch a full-scale attack on some random third party because one nutter sets off one or two bombs. And that's all it would be - Iran and NK aren't going to be destroying the US with a barrage of MIRV ICBMs ever.

No it doesn't! Most countries with nuclear weapons simply don't have enough of them to cause any significant global damage. Only the US, Russia and perhaps China have that kind of power.

Neither of those three - or any of the other major nuclear powers - are going to launch a full-scale attack on some random third party because one nutter sets off one or two bombs. And that's all it would be - Iran and NK aren't going to be destroying the US with a barrage of MIRV ICBMs ever.

Very well, I stand corrected and humbled. Thank you for that post, it put my fears to rest, for the moment, anyway. (I really couldn't be arsed reading the entire thread, so if what you said has been said before then I apologise)

But one thing unnerves me still. If NK decides to launch a nuke, it is most likely going to be aimed at the US. Even if it only manages to fire one before it is decimated by the retaliation, how many people do you think would die, from the initial explosion and the after-effects? (In both the US and the NK civilians) Too numerous to count.

But one thing unnerves me still. If NK decides to launch a nuke, it is most likely going to be aimed at the US. Even if it only manages to fire one before it is decimated by the retaliation, how many people do you think would die, from the initial explosion and the after-effects? (In both the US and the NK civilians) Too numerous to count.

Well, they couldn't "launch" it at the US as such - they'd have to put it on an aeroplane or a boat and take it there. They just don't have any missiles big enough.

If it was the same size as the "nuke" they tested (people aren't even sure it was a nuclear bomb yet - various reports say they've detected no radiation that would be expected from a nuclear blast) then it'd be about 1/24th the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima which killed about 150,000 people. Most people in the US don't live in wooden houses, which would help reduce casualties, but population density may be higher.

It'd be a shitty day to be a North Korean when they figured out where the bomb came from, though...

But it only takes one crazy dictator who thinks he's a divine entity to push that button and the world goes kablooey thanks to everyone's itchy trigger fingers.

Oh come on. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but he ain't a dictator.