What do you think?...As for me, I think that all countries with nukes understand that if they nuke another country they will be signing their own death warrant. IMHO, the only way a country is nuked is if a terrorist does it somehow.

CP

I think the threat of a nuclear war breaking out somewhere in the world is probably higher today than it's ever been. I don't know what the global consequences might be in some situations, but I can most definitely see something along the lines of a nuclear exchange happening between countries like India and Pakistan, or perhaps Iran and Israel. And of course, there's always that crazy 'jammie man" in North Korea and goodness knows what he might pull at some point.

Pretty interesting topic. I believe nukes are a threat in a different way. I don't like how their numbers are expanding in developing countries who don't have a long history of stability. I see one of two things happening. First, either there will be an accidental launch triggered by some guy putting his feet up on the table and hitting the button , or some tiny, unstable government will use it to stave off an invader. I actually do believe that nukes could be used in a small scale conflict without causing a nuclear winter for the rest of us. A good example of this would be a nuclear exchange on a small scale between say-India and Pakistan. I believe it will happen someday, but what two countries?

What I like about the development of new technologies is that older technologies hopefully become more refined, less dangerous and more humane. I think this can be applied to Nuclear weapons. Take for example the US thermonuclear devices, the are nuclear by definition yet not in the archetypal sense. I therefore see the use of Nuclear weapons to become quite common place in the future.

In terms of a large conflict, as Aquila has rightly pointed out, there are numerous hot spots. For me, India and Pakistan is the most dangerous situation - since they have been closer to war than Iran and Israel have been in the recent past. I would at least hope that leaders will refrain from using them, and I believe they will because it raises the stakes to an obscene level, a level where the leader will not want a taste of his own medicine. I therefore remain optimistic that we will not see Nuclear War in the near future (In a conventional sense) But if a country falls into systemic crisis of some kind the possibility dramatically increases. This is most likely in Pakistan, since it seems Musharraf is losing support...

There is still a significant nuclear war threat. You have China vs. Taiwan, India vs Pakistan, North Korea vs the world.

The Chinese/Taiwan incident has once again reared it's ugly head and the debates of war with China over Taiwan have popped up again. It may start out with conventional means, but it might not end that way.

India and Pakistan have been pretty quiet although there has been activity in the Kashmir area. But i think the worst passed when a nuke war was immenent a year or so ago

Both Korea vs the world is quieting but that doesn't mean it is over. Soemone mentioned in the "N. Korea to Display Nuclear Arms" thread that there was smoke coming from a plant. It might not mean anything, but who knows.

I think your analysis is sound.

However, there is one country that increasingly appears to think that no death warrant would apply to them. They are taking active steps to try to wriggle off the hook of Mutually Assured Destruction that has prevented nuclear war since the end of WW2, and they are developing, or already have, the technology to use nuclear weaponry to penetrate bunkers, to carry out limited "battlefield" strikes, and so on.

You posted their flag in your signature....

Julian..

"Wriggle of the hook of Mutually Assured Destruction" Wow, thats some powerfuly imagery (Is wriggle even a word? I don't know, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

You obviously seem to be missing the point entirely. I used to be annoyed with comments like that, until ive come to accept that people like you just don't get it. What you might call steps that welcome Nuclear Destruction, I call steps to eliminate the threat of nuclear destruction. And by the way, we've been taking similiar "steps" since the end of WWII.

Also, It seems you single out Americans as being the only target, and in response the only force taking steps to eliminate the threat of future terrorist and/or nuclear attacks. You forget "Great" Britian has been a part of the coalition since its inception.

But besides that, you make an excellent point......

I voted yes, and not necessarily because I think that two smaller sized countries will hurl a few nukes or even terrorists for that matter.

I voted yes because Bush ok'ed more nukes in the US to the tune of "more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities."

What possible reason would we have to spend 6 BILLION dollars on this? I find it rather ironic that we are willing to go to war with other countries for having or seeking out weapons of mass destruction but it is perfectly ok for us to build our stockpiles and research new technology for mass destruction. Are the nukes we have sufficient?

Nuclear war is a bigger threat now than it was in the days of my youth, when children would half-joke about the president having a bad day and hitting "THE BUTTON" in a fit of rage. The break-up of the Soviet Union, while a huge victory in the eyes of many Americans, was a big problem. They had a huge infrastructure of nuclear (or should I say it in the Bushian Nukyaler?) capability. They had bunkers all over their vast territory. Many of them are now on "foreign" soil but controlled by the Russians. I believe they have been trying to decommission these bunkers before others hack them and gain control.

However, that isn't even the real concern. What bothers me is the stuff we don't know much about. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had super secret nuclear delivery systems. The Russians briefcase bomb are a reality. I trust our government to never leak the ones we own but apparently people are being quiet on the topic of the Russian ones because they aren't sure where all of them are.


That's probably why we have radiation detectors in our subways.

I don't think that nuclear war will be carried out by two nations. Countries seem content to use it as a deterrent and no one WANTS to kill themselves to spite the people they hate...I hope. Here in the U.S. we really only have the small terrorist attack type situation to fear. Quite honestly I can only imagine Canada of Mexico threatening nuclear war if it is an episode of South Park...

Zac

A couple of points:

• Wriggle is the verb that describes the movements of a worm, so it describes the attempts of one to get of a hook rather well, I think.
• Under Bush II, the USA has revived the old Reagan-era idea (Star Wars) of a defensive missile shield to prevent incoming missiles from hitting US soil. Allies such as the UK, while playing host to some of the US military bases that will enable this system of missile defence to work, are not included in the area afforded protection by it. At the same time, the US has resumed research into new type of nuclear weaponry (including the bunker-busters and low-yield battlefield weapons I mentioned). Since the doctinre of M.A.D. relies on the assumption that the first country to launch a nuclear missile will be attacked automatically by the other side, America's current course does indeed loook like trying to subvert the idea of M.A.D. by negating the mutuality - America can attack anyone, but noone can attack America. i.e. America is trying to get itself off the hook of M.A.D, Not only that, but the plans for the missile defence system have not been changed in the light of 9-11, which clearly illustrates that there are any number of delivery methods other than the ICBMs the defence shield protects against, rendering the shield itself largely ineffectual. To that extent, the effort to extricate America from the constraints of M.A.D. are indeed little more than a wriggle.
• In this context, the missile defence shield does little to prevent nuclear destruction as you claim, and nothing at all to prevent the use of nuclear weaponry by terrorist organisations, none of whom have access to ICBMs so far. It would theoretically protect US soil from the direct effects of a full-scale missile-delivered nuclear exchange, which most people would now see as the least likely option. It does nothing at all to protect the US from the effects of radiation or postulated climate change effects of that much dust an ash being ejected into the high atmosphere.
• I didn't say or even suggest that the steps being taken make nuclear destruction more likely as you claim I did. Just that America seems to be trying to put itself in a position where, if it ever did make a first strike, retaliation by missile would not be possible, so removing the "death warrant" idea that Conservpat mentioned.
• The term "Great" Britain is not a form of hubris as you seem to think. It is the name of the largest island in the British Isles and was first applied by the Romans to distinguish it as the larger of the two main areas where the "Britanniae" Celtic tribes lived, the other being Britanny in Northern France. It is no more evidence of how special the people here are than the "Great" in the "Greater Spoted Woodpecker" or the constellation "Great Bear", or even the "North" in "North Carolina". There are many good things about Britain and the British, but the name of the island we live on is the least of them, since it was named after us in the first place.

I support the Missile Defense Shield. It is being developed to save lives rather than take them. Though you are right that having having it only secure the US mainland is an issue. There are only two solutions that come to mind for this problem.
1.) Make the US's Missile defense shield cover the entire Earth, which still wouldn't be a solution because it would still be controlled by the US.
2.) Let every other country make and operate their own MDS. The countries with no space programs or allies that have them will have a hard time with this though.
Since solution number 2 is more reasonable since their countries controls their own fate, the only way to get other nations to do it is by causing another arms race, this one is different since it will be a defensive weapon that cannot wipe humanity of the face of the Earth.
As for concealed nuclear bombs, you are right Julian the MDS cannot stop them. It is not designed to, but US Customs and the FBI are. By forcing them on the ground we have a shot to stop them during the delivery of the weapon, unlike ICBM's which are shoot and forget. The only way to physically stop an ICBM is before and maybe right after it launches, usually on foreign terrortory.

There seems to be a misconception regarding MAD and the continuation of research in battle-field nuclear weapons.



The two are completely unrelated. MAD relates to full-scale nuclear exchanges targeting entire civilizations, battlefield weapons are designed for just that - the battlefield. These are nothing more than more effective versions of weapons that already exist (ie--bunker buster bombs, etc). As such, they provide two things--the ability to eradicate terrorists regardless of where they hid, and enhanced firepower in a conventional war. Both of these, I think, are primarily viwed as deterrents, which is fully in keeping with the MAD concept, as they work to ensure the destruction of someone who opposes them, making the opposition less likely.

I think that regardless of any MAD system, nuclear war is still a huge threat. The big name that comes to everyone's mind today when they think about nuclear weapons is N. Korea. Kim Jong Il has said that he possesses nuclear weapons. I doubt he has many, but I definitely think that he most likely has at least one bomb by now. This automatically makes him a threat, especially when you consider that he shot a 3-stage No-Dong missile over Japan

And the scarier thing is that if we went to war with them, we'd have tons of our troops and S. Korean citizens slaughtered, with absolutely nothing to do to prevent it.......... unless of course you want to build a giant net around Seoul

Alright Julian,

on your points:

-You got me on wriggle. but in my defense i can't recall the last time ive ever heard that word used.
-I didnt make the connection between your MAD argument and the missile defense shield. My bad.
---There have actually been recent minor developments in the missile shield a.k.a. star wars, i think the US is actually adding more funding for the program. As well as making it fully operational from Land, Air (Boeing), Sea, and Space. If fully successful, which i hope it will be, "star wars" will not only prevent air attacks on U.S. soil, but also able to protect our allies (like you guys) and other countries around the world, knocking down missiles from our ships and hopefully space.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ssile_test_dc_2

-I don't know how accurate this is, but we had a discussion in history the other day and i learned launched nuclear weapons are not armed until they are right above their target. But i assume this could be 'turned off'.



Let me know what you think.

Nuclear war is still a threat because the American and Israeli goverments uniquely retain the policy of first strike against non-nuclear nations.

Let's see. Israel destroyed a nuke plant in Iraq in the 80's. Would you liek to change your statement?

IThere will always be some sort of nuclear threat because everybody wants a nuke of their own to threaten an enermy. Just like Al-queda wants some nuke materials to make a dirty bomb

When we let loose the nuclear genie, we let loose something unstopable

I didn't realise the MDS was to be extended to cover allies as well as the mainland USA, so my bad on that one.

And I think that it could be the seed of a real removal of the threat of "conventional" nuclear war, by which I mean the kind of large scale, missile-delivered exchange that was most likely in the Cold War, and gave rise to ideas like MAD. This particular threat could be removed forever by the simple expedient of the system being extended to cover the whole planet, and set up to shoot down all missiles, no matter who had launched them (i.e. America could not launch such an attack either), but of course that will never happen.

It wouldn't stop nuclear devices being used at all, but it would stop "nuclear war".

But in the meantime, nuclear war is as likely as it ever has been (i.e. possible but not yet probable), and that includes the new likelihood of a US first strike, which in the past has always been close to unthinkable.

That was the thinking behind SDI in the first place. Reagan told the Soviets that the US would share it with them. I don't think they believed him though.



Actually not as unthinkable as might be imagined. There were a number of studies, so-called "war scenarios" that were performed throughout the cold war where the US - NATO could be placed into the position of escalating a conventional war with the Soviet block into a nuclear conflict. I read one study by a British version of the Rand Corp. that was done in the late 70's and it was pretty frightening. Basically they envisioned a conflict starting between Iraq (then a Soviet partner or client) and Iran (A US partner/client) that drew the US and the USSR into direct confrontation. As things went from bad to downright terrible, tensions rose in Eastern Europe and the Soviets ended up moving their forces en mass into East Germany and into direct confrontation with NATO forces that ended up in a war - a war that the analysis indicated the Soviets would win by conventional means. They had more men, more tanks, more artillary, etc. and they drove into West Germany and threatened all of western Europe. That presented the NATO allies, most especially the President of the US with a terrible choice. Let Europe fall to the Soviets, or introduce tactical nukes into the conflict to "even the odds". At that point, it's anybody's guess on what would have happened. Would the Soviets pull back, or would they in turn escalate the war by deploying their own tactical nukes and would that eventually lead to a strategic exchange? That was a question that Reagan didn't want answered and that's when he began to consider that perhaps MAD wasn't the best way to go.

Edited to add.....

By the way, the reason the Soviets were so interested in an Iran/Iraq conflict in the first place was that they were really interested in annexing Iran and establishing a warm water port for their fleet on the Gulf of Oman where they could counter the west in the Indian Ocean.

In whose field of dreams are nuclear weapons ever going to be "more refined, less dangerous, and more humane?"

When I was a child, they went to underground testing of nuclear weapons because Strontium-90 was migrating into the world's milk supply and making it unsafe to feed our babies.

When I was a child, scientists were saying, "Someday we'll find out how to safely dispose of nuclear waste materials." When I was in college, I learned that "nuclear chemistry" is an altogether different field than conventional chemistry. In conventional chemistry, you combine sodium and chlorine and get salt. or you combine Oxygen and Hydrogen to produce water. In nuclear chemistry, the nuclei of the atom are split(fission) or combined (fusion) to form completely new elements, most of which themselves are radioactive, unstable, and will decay into other elements.

When I was a child, I was told "The thinnest sheet of lead will stop any radiation." When I was in college, I learned that lead and concrete are used to contain it because they are dense; but that 100 grams per square centimeter stops the same amount of radiation whether you are using paper, lead, water, or aluminum. I also learned that High Energy gamma radiation can sometimes penetrate the entire planet.

The Chernobyl accident in Russia has provided long term health and contamination hazards, and it was a power plant, not a weapon!

To wit, I have learned that there is no place on or in the planet that we can safely detonate nuclear weapons.

The fact that they continue to exist makes them a continuing threat.

If a nuclear weapon was detonated in the subways of New York, would we really believe they could prove it was a terrorist activity using a stolen weapon?

The United States needs to take the leadership to destroy their nuclear weapons, and to call upon the balance of the world to destroy their nuclear weapons. We were foolish enough to use them twice, and the development of further nuclear weapons by the balance of the world as a policy aptly referred to as M.A.D. has been the result. As long as the weapons exist, their use is a threat! North Korea is still threatening to use them, and our President is saying, "So what! We've captured the guy that tried to kill my daddy! Look what I accomplished by being in the field two hours to inspire the soldiers!"

I believe the terrorist scenario is more a threat for the US, and Israel than other countries. Attacking the US in a traceable way insures the country that can be identified as the source of an immediate attack. It is possible to identify from the remains of a nuclear reaction where the fissionable material was made and when.

But let’s remember that as nuclear weapons proliferate countries like Pakistan and India, that are nearly equal in nuclear capability could very well go to war and exchange a number of “nukes”. IMHO the chances of this happening are growing – not declining.

Do you honestly think that if the United States destroys its nuclear weapons everyone else will follow suit? I find that to be a very naive opinion. The only thing that will result from the US destroying its weapons will be the balence of power in the world. China and Russia would be the strongest military powers and I would personally have problem with that. Our weapons are a deterrant, without them we would be the target of many. Caould you please explain your opinion? What evidence do you have that coutries would give up their weapons just because we do? Do you honestly believe that?

What I called for was leadership, not evidence based on past practice. I thought the use of the word was straightforward, until I went to reference a definition of leadership. The Cambridge International Dictionary of English, for instance, takes up the better part of two pages using examples to define lead, leader, and leadership. There are for example leaders who are elected, appointed, or simply are at the front of a race while the race is still ongoing. There are leaders who are appointed because they have had prior experience, such as the trail boss on a cattle drive who was familiar with the trail; or a licensed pilot on the Mississippi river, who can draw a current map of any part of the river from his memory of his last trip.

The meaning that I had in mind, was not of a blind boy scout helping a young woman cross the street in the wrong direction. GWB on the campaign trail asked, "What is this vision thing anyway?" A president of Montgomery Wards once famously said something to the effect of, "Ours is the most successful business model in the world, and we don't have to change a single thing to stay on top." We need to be led in a new direction, not led astray.

The meaning that I had in mind for leadership was closer to that of a person, or a committee, that says we're on the wrong course, and we need to set a new goal, and find a new way to reach it. Dumbya has perhaps inadvertently steered us in that direction. He told the United Nations, and the world at large that no nation led by a tyrant should be allowed to have "Weapons of Mass Destruction." He then set out to demonstrate what a tyrannical leader armed with "WMD's" could accomplish. When the only "WMD's" to be found in Iraq were in, on, or being launched from American military equipment, he began to argue that "The world is better off without an evil leader like Saddam Hussein." (It is a classic attempt at misdirection, or as a magician would say it, "Read my lips. Don't try to figure out how I did it.") We have Saddam Hussein in custody, in a foreign land, not currently charged as a Prisoner of War. (or anything else.) His case sounds a lot like the recent appeals court decisions re: the prisoners at Gitmo. I can envision the Supreme Court telling the President that he has no authority to hold Saddam as a prisoner.

The challenge, and the standard for future international guidelines has been set: No nation led by a tyrant should be allowed to have "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It cold be argued, by some people in the world, that our current president is a tyrant. There are no guarantees as to who will be President in 2004. Which of the front runners for 2008 can you trust with "The Button?" 2012? If not now, at some point in the future, we risk having a president that the world at large is afraid of. Nuclear weapons have to be the ultimate example that one would use to define "Weapons of Mass Destruction." In the fall of 1964, in my first college class, my Psychology professor was trying to define crazy. He said: We didn't just drop a bomb on two cities in Japan to end WWII, we dropped bombs which obliterated those cities. A "Bunker Buster" nuclear bomb dropped into the center of a large metropolis, would probably get past the radiation detectors and detonate before anyone could raise an alarm. If the foundations of all the buildings adjacent to the subway were destroyed, and the streets above all of the subways collapsed; the collapse of the World Trade center would fade into history. That is the type of "more refined, less dangerous, and more humane" "Noukyoular" device that Dumbya has been talked into authorizing. Without trying to document our MOABS, our cruise missiles, our network of atomic submarines, our warehouses of nerve gases, or our research into Anthrax, Smallpox, and a recent attempt to recreate the 1917 Flu virus; because I assume that our readers are familiar already with these programs, our nuclear programs alone put us in the "manufacture, possession, and willingness to use" category of "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Ergo, we have the WMDs, and if GWB is not a tyrant, we have the ability to inadvertently elect or appoint one. The case that was built against Saddam in Iraq, can more easily be built against the United States. Saddam was denying the existence of such weapons, while we openly admit their existence, and world wide distribution. Similar cases can be built of course against China, Russia, Korea, India, Israel, and all of the other members of the "Nuclear Club." We know the weapons exist, and there is really no reliable way to predict a leader's true intentions when he is seeking office.


Perhaps. Can you document that fact? If ten major U.S. cities were destroyed using weapons from 10 separate sources, would it matter that we could identify the sources?

It would likely be very difficult to find the details of a 40 year old human interest story, even on the Internet, however... When the existence of Russian "suitcase nuclear bombs" was first rumored, a reporter purchased a suitcase of appropriate dimensions, purchased a surplus Russian military uniform, and hitchhiked across the width of the United States. To document the story, he had everyone who gave him a ride take a photograph of him, in uniform with the suitcase, and usually in a large urban area or by a major landmark such as Mt. Rushmore. No authority figure ever questioned him.

Once, as a practical joke, someone commissioned a new uniform design for the United States Senate Restaurant. The entire wait staff was required to wear Russian Military uniforms embroidered U.S.S.R.

We have truly, one pragmatic defense against the eventual certainty of the future use of nuclear weapons. The weapons need to be destroyed worldwide. We can't rely on the fact that J. Q. Citizen will be able to recognize a terrorist transporting a nuclear device and intercept it. We can't rely on the intelligence of a leader who "threatens the nuclear capability of North Korea" by moving aircraft within 50 miles or so, making the aircraft more vulnerable to attack by nuclear missiles than vice-versa. It will take leadership to accomplish this, and not a "follow the leader" syndrome. We likely can't destroy all our "WMDs" and say to the world, "Go thou and do likewise." We can hope to find a leader who has a vision of a world at peace, and the courage to set the course. I don't know who that person might be, I am only certain I am not currently looking to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to find that leader. As an American, I would rather that it was our country leading the world in this direction, than our country having to respond to a U.N. resolution that we need to open up our military records to International Inspectors.

Nuclear war will be a threat as long as leaders of nations feel they have to obtain them or keep updating them in order to be safe from other nations similarly armed.

The odds are that one day somebody is going to use them. After the strike or strikes, the land that has been bombed will be rendered clear of enemies but will be unusable and uninhabitable for the conquerors or the conquered for many, many years to come. Then there is the problem of retribution, which will render another area uninhabitable and unusable for many, many generations.

In addition, whatever fallout circulates in the atmosphere will eventually land wherever the prevailing winds take it. Some victory.

There is a reason that Mutual, Assured Destruction is called MAD. If the United States, thought to be the strongest country in the world for non-conventional and conventional weapons, does not take the initiative in nuclear disarmament, who in this world would feel secure enough to?

Why do we feel we have the right to tell other nations what to do if we are not willing to set an example?

My original question still stands, do you honestly believe that all countries want to destroy all their WMD's? We cannot "uninvent" these weapons and therefore no one is going to give them up. There will always be the fear that someone is not complying and/or they are secretly building more. You cannot hope to have a legion of inspectors that can police the whole world to make sure that they aren't rebuilt. Let me make myself clear.....if it was possible I'd be all for it, anyone would be unless they are crazy. The facts are they they were invented and no one is going to just destroy them all, even if all countries pledge to do so. Countries don't have that kind of faith in each other. We can only hope to continue to with containment.

It is my opinion that these weapons may have saved the world many lives. If it weren't for nuclear weapons war would be more frequent. If it weren't for nuclear weapons the Cold War may have not been so "cold". I believe diplomacy has come about as the preferred course of action to diffuse some serious crisis' because of the threat of nuclear weapons. In the case of the Cold War I think that arguement holds a lot of water.