Nuclear Weapons

[jjackkrash]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]

This aggressiveness of which you speak…of which you desire so nobly and platitudinously…tell me what you think it will accomplish with let’s say, North Korea, China and Iran.

Also, be more precise, kinda like:

USA: “Hey North Korea, _______________________________________.”

NK: [anticipated response] “Well, USA, ___________________________________.”

USA: “Oh yeah? Well, _____________________________________________.”

Etc.

Lay it out for me, Jack. Be as specific as you can.[/quote]

I think it is interesting that the guy who starts this thread:

Government Lunacy

trusts Obama and Putin and our mutual governments–or any government–with the power to bring about species extinction with the push of a button and reacts with hostility at the thought of even broaching or pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament with the other great powers.

[Legalsteel]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.

[/quote]

Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]

Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?

[/quote]

I would say that the Chiese are more accurately thought of as autocratic capitalists. China is also one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, a de jute nuclear weapons state under the NPT, and a great power. The DPRK went nuclear to deter against regime change, and if Iran decides to actualize its breakout capacity, it will be for the same reason. [/quote]

Although China has allowed some private enterprise since the end of the cultural revolution they are very far from laissez afire capitalism. The government owns all land, all the media and almost all of the banks.
[/quote]

They are command-centred capitalism. Ugh, just saying that gave me the urge to rinse my mouth out… Or burn my fingertips, given that I am typing.

[SexMachine]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]

This aggressiveness of which you speak…of which you desire so nobly and platitudinously…tell me what you think it will accomplish with let’s say, North Korea, China and Iran.

Also, be more precise, kinda like:

USA: “Hey North Korea, _______________________________________.”

NK: [anticipated response] “Well, USA, ___________________________________.”

USA: “Oh yeah? Well, _____________________________________________.”

Etc.

Lay it out for me, Jack. Be as specific as you can.[/quote]

I think it is interesting that the guy who starts this thread:

Government Lunacy

trusts Obama and Putin and our mutual governments–or any government–with the power to bring about species extinction with the push of a button and reacts with hostility at the thought of even broaching or pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament with the other great powers.
[/quote]

He didn’t say he trusts Obama or Putin. He said he doesn’t trust North Korea to multilaterally disarm. And it follows that if North Korea, China, Russia etc won’t engage in multilateral disarmament in good faith then the US has no option but to keep its nuclear weapons. Pretty simple stuff.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s impossible to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Nuclear weapons are relatively simple to design. The amount of unclassified literature on the subject is substantial. With it, intelligent but untrained individual could design a weapon equal in yield to the Hiroshima bomb. The most difficult obstacle for potential proliferators to overcome is not a technical one, but obtaining enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium.

[/quote]

Just because we have a technology doesn’t mean we are required to weaponize it and keep it ready to fire at the push of a button. There is currently a greater-than-zero chance that we cause species extinction caused by: (1) a war that escalates; (2) catastrophic accident; (3) terrorist plot; or (4) the insanity of a key leader. The fact that someone else might build or acquire a “Hiroshima” yield bomb doesn’t justify having a submarine armed with enough nukes to reduce the altitude of Asia by 30 or so feet, or normalizing the risk of species extinction by claiming that it helps us all get along. [/quote]

Are you suggesting the US should unilaterally disarm in the face of North Korea, Russia, the red Chinese etc?

[/quote]

I would say that the Chiese are more accurately thought of as autocratic capitalists. China is also one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, a de jute nuclear weapons state under the NPT, and a great power. The DPRK went nuclear to deter against regime change, and if Iran decides to actualize its breakout capacity, it will be for the same reason. [/quote]

Although China has allowed some private enterprise since the end of the cultural revolution they are very far from laissez afire capitalism. The government owns all land, all the media and almost all of the banks.
[/quote]

They are command-centred capitalism. Ugh, just saying that gave me the urge to rinse my mouth out… Or burn my fingertips, given that I am typing. [/quote]

They’re still pinkos.

[mbdix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]

This aggressiveness of which you speak…of which you desire so nobly and platitudinously…tell me what you think it will accomplish with let’s say, North Korea, China and Iran.

Also, be more precise, kinda like:

USA: “Hey North Korea, _______________________________________.”

NK: [anticipated response] “Well, USA, ___________________________________.”

USA: “Oh yeah? Well, _____________________________________________.”

Etc.

Lay it out for me, Jack. Be as specific as you can.[/quote]

Push do you feel that North Korea, Iran have the right to Nuclear Weapons?[/quote]

Be more specific. Do you mean:

Can I see why they want them?

Do they have an inalienable right to possess them?

Should the other countries of the world allow them to possess them?[/quote]

Do you think those countries have an inalienable right to possess them?

[Bismark]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]

This aggressiveness of which you speak…of which you desire so nobly and platitudinously…tell me what you think it will accomplish with let’s say, North Korea, China and Iran.

Also, be more precise, kinda like:

USA: “Hey North Korea, _______________________________________.”

NK: [anticipated response] “Well, USA, ___________________________________.”

USA: “Oh yeah? Well, _____________________________________________.”

Etc.

Lay it out for me, Jack. Be as specific as you can.[/quote]

I think it is interesting that the guy who starts this thread:

Government Lunacy

trusts Obama and Putin and our mutual governments–or any government–with the power to bring about species extinction with the push of a button and reacts with hostility at the thought of even broaching or pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament with the other great powers.
[/quote]

I think it’s interesting that you have assumed I oppose multilateral nuclear disarmament. With hostility at the mention of it even. Where did I write that exactly? Humanity went from two world wars within a generation to no great power war since 1945. Perhaps nuclear weapons had something to do with it.

[Bismark]

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]

This aggressiveness of which you speak…of which you desire so nobly and platitudinously…tell me what you think it will accomplish with let’s say, North Korea, China and Iran.

Also, be more precise, kinda like:

USA: “Hey North Korea, _______________________________________.”

NK: [anticipated response] “Well, USA, ___________________________________.”

USA: “Oh yeah? Well, _____________________________________________.”

Etc.

Lay it out for me, Jack. Be as specific as you can.[/quote]

Push do you feel that North Korea, Iran have the right to Nuclear Weapons?[/quote]

Be more specific. Do you mean:

Can I see why they want them?

Do they have an inalienable right to possess them?

Should the other countries of the world allow them to possess them?[/quote]

Do you think those countries have an inalienable right to possess them?
[/quote]

They legally relinquished developing or procuring nuclear arms when they became party to the Treaty on the Non-Prolifertation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), although the DPRK withdrew before they became a nuclear state. Iran has the legal right to nuclear energy, but not nuclear weapons. Only the P5 (US, Russia, UK, France, China) have a legal right to maintain nuclear arsenals.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

No. But we need to do more and be more aggressive about multilateral disarmament, IMO, and work to change the paradigm that we need the threat of species extinction to stabilize international relations.
[/quote]

This aggressiveness of which you speak…of which you desire so nobly and platitudinously…tell me what you think it will accomplish with let’s say, North Korea, China and Iran.

Also, be more precise, kinda like:

USA: “Hey North Korea, _______________________________________.”

NK: [anticipated response] “Well, USA, ___________________________________.”

USA: “Oh yeah? Well, _____________________________________________.”

Etc.

Lay it out for me, Jack. Be as specific as you can.[/quote]

I think it is interesting that the guy who starts this thread:

Government Lunacy

trusts Obama and Putin and our mutual governments–or any government–with the power to bring about species extinction with the push of a button and reacts with hostility at the thought of even broaching or pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament with the other great powers.
[/quote]

I think it’s interesting that you have assumed I oppose multilateral nuclear disarmament. With hostility at the mention of it even. Where did I write that exactly? Humanity went from two world wars within a generation to no great power war since 1945. Perhaps nuclear weapons had something to do with it. [/quote]

Click the link. I wasn’t talking about you.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Humanity went from two world wars within a generation to no great power war since 1945. Perhaps nuclear weapons had something to do with it. [/quote]

In the short run I don’t necessarily disagree. But what is the actual risk-of-deterence-failure rate over the long term? The consequences of a deterrence failure would be unimaginably catastrophic and potentially be an extinction-level event. What is the acceptable level of risk you would tolerate in exchange for short-term prevention of a great power conflict?

http://nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf

[jjackkrash]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jack, in some respects I’m with you. I think there is little chance nukes won’t be detonated in acts of war and/or terrorism in our lifetimes.

In other words, it’s gonna happen, I’d bet. It’s inevitable.[/quote]

It is tough to wrap your head around because the consequences are too hideous to imagine. And I don’t really have any solutions to offer that I actually think would result in disarmament. If the shit hits the fan I just hope its quick.

[beachguy498]

Who are we to tell anyone else that they can or cannot have nukes… anyone recall an incident or two with Japan in 1945?

Especially with places like Pakistan having them… like little kids with a bag of M80s… sooner or later they’re gonna set one off.

Rob

[SexMachine]

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Who are we to tell anyone else that they can or cannot have nukes… anyone recall an incident or two with Japan in 1945?

[/quote]

The decision to use the bomb was calculated to save lives - both Japanese and American - by ending the war quickly without the necessity of invading Japan. The planned invasion of Kyushu was estimated to result in up to 280,000 American casualties. The nuclear bombs killed less people than some of the incendiary raids on Japanese cities. The Japanese high command were resolved to fight to the bitter end and had an invasion been necessary it would’ve resulted in an absolute blood bath.

[beachguy498]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Who are we to tell anyone else that they can or cannot have nukes… anyone recall an incident or two with Japan in 1945?

[/quote]

The decision to use the bomb was calculated to save lives - both Japanese and American - by ending the war quickly without the necessity of invading Japan. The planned invasion of Kyushu was estimated to result in up to 280,000 American casualties. The nuclear bombs killed less people than some of the incendiary raids on Japanese cities. The Japanese high command were resolved to fight to the bitter end and had an invasion been necessary it would’ve resulted in an absolute blood bath.[/quote]

I hear ya… and we needed to beat the Russians to the punch. That was their next stop after ransacking Germany for military secrets.

My point was that we were the first and only ever to actually use one in war. And it was a show stopper even though it took the 2nd one to do the job.

Look at the firebombing that proceeded it… Lemay annihilated way many more citizens then our 2 nukes did.

Rob