Nuclear free world?

[myata]

I'm all on board, 100%. Or even 110%.

But how and why did the conversation almost immediately shifted to N.Korea and Iran?

Can somebody do simple math? No, rather, basic arithmetics?

So, is it the new vision for the world? Or still the old tired "see no evil"?

[Riverwind]

I'm all on board, 100%. Or even 110%.

I am all for a gun free world but I am not stupid enough to call for taking guns away from the police and army while the criminals keep theirs. Obama call is that naive and hardly worth commenting on.

[myata]

In this worthy parallel, which exactly "crimanals" are "holding theirs"?

Let's make it plain and clear, without unnecessary obfuscation: is really about defending ourselves? Or dominating the others?

[Riverwind]

Let's make it plain and clear, without unnecessary obfuscation: is really about defending ourselves? Or dominating the others?

The Iraq Wars should demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that conventional arms are more than capable of bringing a society to its knees if dominating other was the objective. Nuclear arms are purely defensive weapons only exist to prevent attacks. Their existance likely prevented a WW3 between the US and USSR and will likely prevent any future armed conflict between nuclear powers. The only risk from nuclear weapons comes from terrorist groups getting a hold of one but no amount of disarmament on the part of the major powers will reduce that risk. Edited April 6, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

Yeah, but cold war is over. And, there's no record of any terrorist group getting hold of a nuke weapon, ever. And if they would, or even a like minded state would, they would be so utterly destroyed by our over superiority in conventional weapons, that it wouldn't even be a matter of defense.

So what exactly do the need those 10,000 nukes for?

[GostHacked]

I'm all on board, 100%. Or even 110%.

But how and why did the conversation almost immediately shifted to N.Korea and Iran?

Can somebody do simple math? No, rather, basic arithmetics?

So, is it the new vision for the world? Or still the old tired "see no evil"?

Because there was a distraction called Iraq and a so called War on Terror. And I have been asking that question (and here on MLW) for years in regards to North Korea. North Korea actually has nuclear technology, and a developing weapons program around it. And now they have the ability to lob it with a missle pretty far. The US has made concessions with NK, and they keep changing their game.

Yet countries like Iran (with no nuclear technology to create a nuke) are considered more of a threat.

[Riverwind]

So what exactly do the need those 10,000 nukes for?

They make war between major powers an unthinkable proposition. This forces the major powers to the negotiating table when they might have been inclined in the part to start a war. You may not like it but those are the facts.

The existence of military nuclear weapons does not make it any less likely that a terrorist group will get a hold of a bomb nor would getting rid of military nuclear weapons make the task of stopping these terrorist groups any easier.

[myata]

True, but the role of these "major powers", which have 99.99% of nukes on this planet, somehow, doesn't appear to get prominence in this vision. It appears to be all about N.Korea and Iran.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So what exactly do the need those 10,000 nukes for?

There are technical reasons why so many nuclear warheads and types of warheads were developed. The efficacy of a generated strike or counterstrike is developed using nuclear weapons system's reliability, defensive countermeasures and suppression, warhead fratracide, target profile, accuracy, etc., etc.

In order to achieve a survivable and credible nuclear weapons capability, the math drove planners into such numbers at the height of the Cold War. Reductions in stockpiles are not only possible with further technical development, but even desirable to get obsolete designs and systems out of the mix. Higher reliabilty and accuracy drives the math model. The USA can now deploy nuclear warheads with CEPs never imagined just 25 years ago.

Edited April 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

There are technical reasons why so many nuclear warheads and types of warheads were developed. The efficacy of a generated strike or counterstrike is developed using nuclear weapons system's reliability, defensive countermeasures and suppression, warhead fratracide, target profile, accuracy, etc., etc.

In order to achieve a survivable and credible nuclear weapons capability, the math drove planners into such numbers at the height of the Cold War. Reductions in stockpiles are not only possible with further technical development, but even desirable to get obsolete designs and systems out of the mix. Higher reliabilty and accuracy drives the math model. The USA can now deploy nuclear warheads with CEPs never imagined just 25 years ago.

Your nukes are rusty! Have you had a good look at the O rings lately? They remind me of the patenia that encrusts old and abused bass lures.. - the point really is the accuracey and dependence on global positioning devices that can kill a man at will sitting on his toilet.. Nukes are not neccesary anymore - If we have highly accurate GPS units that the public use - imagine what the military possess? INTELLIGENCE is what is paramount - but like I have said - the CIA has been so disloyal to it's informants that no one is talking - and we see mistake after mistake because they are now boxing in the dark.

[myata]

OK, you are saying that these incredibly enormous numbers of nukes are a post effect of the cold war, which is no more. Why wouldn't the all incompassing vision then start with a significant reduction of those? Still allowing major powers to feel safe in the company of others, but dropping the "rogue state" ruse, completely and entirely. Even down to the second echelon of a few hundred, like Europeans, India, Israel (ostensibly), would still be by far more than enough to decimate any "rogue state".

What would Iran and N.Korea have with it? How are they so crucial to the success of this vision??

[Oleg Bach]

Evil and stupidity are the same entity. To see no evil - is not to acknowledge stupid behaviour. Problem being the stupid can not see the other stupid people..It's a blindness of sorts and rightfully so. Look at the G 7 jerks - a room full of real stupid and delluded rich people scheming on how to maintain the global status quo of rich folks ---- while trying to save their own asses they harm the grass roots..killing the very food that feeds them - US!

[bush_cheney2004]

OK, you are saying that these incredibly enormous numbers of nukes are a post effect of the cold war, which is no more. Why wouldn't the all incompassing vision then start with a significant reduction of those? Still allowing major powers to feel safe in the company of others, but dropping the "rogue state" ruse, completely and entirely. Even down to the second echelon of a few hundred, like Europeans, India, Israel (ostensibly), would still be by far more than enough to decimate any "rogue state".

There have been very significant reductions in warheads and deployed systems (see START I ). The biggest threat today is a "rogue state" not subject to inspections or limitations. Hence all the excitement about their possession of nuclear warheads and delivery systems.

What would Iran and N.Korea have with it? How are they so crucial to the success of this vision??

They would have a means to change regional balance of power.

Edited April 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Korea have their own satalite is the danger - If you were smart you would play stupid and destroy their new eye in the sky.

[myata]

They would have a means to change regional balance of power.

Right on, loose, shifting focus is at the core of the issue. A minute ago we were talking "nuclear free", now it's all about "balance of power". Which one it would be, after all?

[DogOnPorch]

New designs = a "better" nuke + keeps the engineers that build them in a high state of proficiency in their design and function. A nation could 'forget' how to build them otherwise (see the Saturn V).

[M.Dancer]

And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war or the art of intercontinental rocketry

[bush_cheney2004]

Right on, loose, shifting focus is at the core of the issue. A minute ago we were talking "nuclear free", now it's all about "balance of power". Which one it would be, after all?

It's always about power....those who have it...and those who want it. I didn't express an opinion passing judgement either way, just answered your question based on the merits of how to achieve such an advantage or preserve the geo-political status quo.

If a "safer" world is the goal of any such disarmament discourse, then surely adding the DPRK and Iran to the nuclear club is problematic at a fundamental NPT level.

[bush_cheney2004]

New designs = a "better" nuke + keeps the engineers that build them in a high state of proficiency in their design and function. A nation could 'forget' how to build them otherwise (see the Saturn V).

Very true...the loss of a skilled engineering design base has already happened for analog devices, power systems, RF circuits, etc. These guys are dropping like flies with each passing day as the boomers age.

The USA could not build an equivalent heavy lift booster today.....would have to ask the Ruskies for help.

[myata]

If a "safer" world is the goal of any such disarmament discourse, then surely adding the DPRK and Iran to the nuclear club is problematic at a fundamental NPT level.

Like, right from the start? Because they are the highest priority? Because without them in the NPT not a speck of sand will move? Right on, I believe you, keep on talking. Like with the global warming, it's gonna move a lot of things.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like, right from the start? Because they are the highest priority? Because without them in the NPT not a speck of sand will move? Right on, I believe you, keep on talking. Like with the global warming, it's gonna move a lot of things.

Not sure I follow you here....the "sand" does move....just ask South Africa or Brazil/Argentina. Treaties are violated or abbrogated frequently...it is the consequences that count.

[myata]

To bribe somebody into doing / not what you like them to is one thing; to do it yourself (at least to any rational, reasonable level) is quite another. We're going to see, in the near future, how much real, practical, our own action would follow. Or it just gonna be another big hot air balloon, like the one with the leadership on climate change.

[bush_cheney2004]

To bribe somebody into doing / not what you like them to is one thing; to do it yourself (at least to any rational, reasonable level) is quite another. We're going to see, in the near future, how much real, practical, our own action would follow. Or it just gonna be another big hot air balloon, like the one with the leadership on climate change.

OK...but existing balances of power exist for a reason...it is not an accident of history. Only the very same types of drivers of similar magnitude will cause any such shift from the status quo. In the end...it will always be economics.

[wulf42]

I'm all on board, 100%. Or even 110%.

But how and why did the conversation almost immediately shifted to N.Korea and Iran?

Can somebody do simple math? No, rather, basic arithmetics?

So, is it the new vision for the world? Or still the old tired "see no evil"?

As much as we would all like to see a Nuclear free world...we have more chance of being hit by Haley's Comet!

the only reason you don t speak Russian is because of Nuclear weapons.....Russian conventional Forces would have over run us years ago just by sheer numbers, only Nukes kept them at bay and still do....remember the wolves and evil empires of the world (China, Russia) and God know's who else are always at the door just waiting for the West to drop it's guard down!

[WIP]

As much as we would all like to see a Nuclear free world...we have more chance of being hit by Haley's Comet!

the only reason you don t speak Russian is because of Nuclear weapons.....Russian conventional Forces would have over run us years ago just by sheer numbers, only Nukes kept them at bay and still do....remember the wolves and evil empires of the world (China, Russia) and God know's who else are always at the door just waiting for the West to drop it's guard down!

Well, now that that's over, we still have thousands of nuclear warheads that can destroy the world many times over. The assumption from the "don't worry, be happy" crowd is that mutually assured destruction will stop anyone from using them. But, what about Ahmadinejad? And there are likely others willing to see what happens, who are looking forward to the "war to end all wars."

As long as nothing happens, complacency rules. But what happens if several missiles or suitcase nukes are set off in the U.S. or Russia -- would either leader be willing to let his country die and leave the rest of the world alone? Or will there be a response like the rumoured mythical "Samson Project" that claims the Israelis will incinerate as much of the MiddleEast as possible in the event of a nuclear attack on Isreal. Would a U.S. or Russian attack be different, or would they want to take their enemies down with them, regardless of who they felt made the direct attack?

As long as there are thousands of nukes out there, we are still at risk of being wiped out at any given moment!