BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:55 AM

I have a very low opinion of George W., but I cannot believe that he would seriously consider using nuclear weapons for any purpose. He may be stupid, but he's not THAT stupid.
I also think it's unlikely that he would attack Iran or Syria - but he IS stupid enough that he could prove me wrong on that.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 03:42 AM

Peace's first link (As of 1997) detailed US nuclear weapons, here's what else is suspected of existing officially, starting with who holds the most (Correct as of 2002 - Source, Natural Resources Defense Council):

Russia (Formerly USSR): 7,200 Active - 16,000 Total
United States of America: 5,735 Active - 9,960 Total
Peoples Republic of China : 400 Active
France: 350 Active
UK: 200 Active
India: Between 40-50 Active
Pakistan: Between 24-48 Active
North Korea: Between 0-10 Active

Of the above only Russia and the United States have subjected their nuclear forces to independent verification under various treaties and agreements.

Numbers above detailed as 'Active' indicate total number that make up the stockpile of operational weapons per country, not the number of operational weapons deployed for use by that country. The balance of the total (i.e. Total - Active) are weapons that exist and are stockpiled awaiting dismantling and destruction.

Israel does not appear in the above list of nuclear armed countries although it is suspected that Israel may possess somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. This however has never been either confirmed or denied by the Israeli Government. The estimates of the number of weapons that Israel might possess is based upon the amount of fissile material which has likely been produced, and the amount of fissile material needed per warhead depends on estimates of a country's proficiency at nuclear weapon design.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:31 AM

Did I present Iran as being uniquely at fault in regard to the treaty?

I drew attention to the fact that according to the IAEA, Iran currently is not honouring it's commitments in relation to the Nuclear NPT.

The BBC article that MGOH links mentions the following countries:

- North Korea, who pulled out of the nuclear NPT to announce it was going to manufacture nuclear weapons. It did this only after it's secret weapons programme became known to the outside world.

- India, Pakistan and Israel, all nuclear NTP Treaty non-signatories so they cannot possibly be held to account for NPT non-compliance.

- USA, the 'new' weapon that the US is 'supposed' to be developing that applies to the subject matter of this thread is the B61-B11, the so called nuclear bunker buster. There is nothing new about it, it takes an existing tactical nuclear warhead and matches it to an existing earth penetrating bomb casing. Trials to determine the ability of the warhead to withstand this type of delivery have not been all that successful, the weapon has not been tested and Congress has refused funding for any further development programme, so it would appear to be a bit of a dead duck.

Seymour M. Hersh's article (www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact) covers it quite well. The one thread that does run through that article is that everybody referred to and interviewed by the author of that article is totally convinced that Iran does have a nuclear weapons programme running, only the time scale to completion varies (From 5 to 10 years).

The BBC article is an overview of the 2005 UN review of the Nuclear NPT. The article misses reporting on what the Nuclear NPT's biggest fault is. The Nuclear NPT as it stands allows countries to enrich uranium to provide fuel. In terms of hardware and technology that gets you about 90% of the way there to acquiring weapons grade material. This is what North Korea took advantage of years ago and is the what Iran is taking advantage of now. That part of the treaty has to be tightened up.

Peace provided some very interesting and highly relevant links with regard to existing stocks of weapons held by the US. I commented on the disarmament trend post SALT and START Treaties, that all halted the minute India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons. It stopped both in the USA and in Russia - note only America is castigated for not disarming. Of the other original nuclear powers China hasn't disarmed or decommissioned a single weapon, neither has France, under the SALT and START Treaties the weapons held by the UK and by France were considered too few in number to consider until such time as the super powers were about to reach parity.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM

"Awfully selective"

The point I was making was that Iran isn't the only country which can be reasonably accused of being in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the quote was there to indicate a couple of bigger fish. And the BBC site to which I gave the link put that in context.

Presenting Iran as being uniquely at faulty in regard to the treaty - now that is a bit over selective...

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Ernest
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:25 AM

Little Hawk, I do agree with your posting from 13. April 06, 9:18.

We all have our opinions and prejudices here. After all, this is no Alzheimers forum - we all have our experiences. The problem starts when people start "campaigning" when there is no election coming up (mostly useless anyway because there are people from various parts of the worldin this forum).

As long as people present arguments this is a great way to check your own opinion: sometimes you have to concede that somebody else has a point, sometimes you are not convinced by someones arguments and your initial position is even strenghtened.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:21 AM

Really? Wow. That's surprising. By God, if they had a fine for not voting in Canada or the USA there would sure be one hell of a lot bigger voter turnout. LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:19 AM

"I have only voted on three occasions"

Ok very probably not an Aussie then... you get fined if you don;t vote here.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:15 AM

That is interesting what you say, Teribus. I've never belonged to any political party either. Never had the slightest desire to. I usually do vote, but I do it with tongue firmly planted in cheek all the while. ;-) I don't really believe in political parties...meaning, I think they were a bad idea from the getgo. They too easily lend themselves to corruption and control by special interest groups and wealthy backers. I'd rather see a democratic system with no political parties whatsoever, just independent candidates, and finance all their campaigns equally from a public fund. Vote for the one whose ideas and qualifications seem best, and do away with the damn parties altogether. I think it would be a far better way of forming a responsible and truly representative government.

I don't follow you when you say you are entirely uninterested in politics. If so, why do you post so much on political threads?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your definition of the word "politics"?

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:02 AM

Little Hawk - 13 Apr 06 - 10:11 PM

"Is is your total one-sidedness in most debates that I find so disturbing."

And normally on this forum on who's side are the big battalions LH? I merely argue from a different perspective to the majority.

Oddly enough it might surprise you to know that I have never been a member/supporter of any political party and in my entire life I have only voted on three occasions and I have absolutely no interest in politics whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:20 PM

We've already discussed that one into the ground on other threads, BB, and I have answered it fully. Please don't ask me to again. Or....don't you remember?

It's really not that hard to figure out if you just think about it calmly for a minute or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:12 PM

LH,

So, you would have been sympathetic to the Germans in 1945?

Every invasion that I know of has some "justification" by the invading side...

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:10 PM

LOL! Well, Peace, I certainly would not want to discount the trilobytes.

What I mean is, that when a group of people aggressively invade another people's land my sympathies normally lie more with the invaded than the invaders. It seems like a fairly normal reaction to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:05 PM

Peace,

"we are all gonna have to leave the friggin' planet "

I can go along with that, but we will have to make our own habitats in space- all the existing planets might have occupants, now or someday.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:00 PM

LH: Trilobites were (t)here first, or amoebas, or ferns. The Earth belongs to all "God's creatures" IMO, and suggesting that one people deserve land because they happened to get there first means we are all gonna have to leave the friggin' planet because sooner or later the trilobites, et.al., are going to make their demands known.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:11 PM

You have me confused with yourself, Teribus. Have you not noticed that I am quite able to make fun of the foibles of both liberals AND conservatives, although I am, as Dylan put it, "liberal to a degree"?

More like radical, actually.

Is is your total one-sidedness in most debates that I find so disturbing.

I am decidedly pro-Indian, but: if you examine my posts you will find that I have pointed out many times that the Indians were far from innocent or perfect, since they practiced torture, treachery, intertribal warfare, and indeed suffered from many of the same faults and vicious tendencies as those who eventually displaced them.

The only reason I side with the Indians in a general sense is that they were on that land first. They were the ones who were being invaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:04 PM

Not at all Little Hawk, the principle difference between you and me is that I am prepared to look at different situations from different angles, you are only prepared to look at them from your own selected point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM

That is the nature of a prejudiced opinion, Teribus. It is highly selective. Look in the mirror for a change, mate. There you will see the very thing you constantly do battle with.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 13 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM

Being awfully selective here aren't we Kevin

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM

Ho! Ho! Well, the "Axis of Evil" drama rolls on as required by the controlled media.

Ernest, since we are all prejudiced, what I would like to see is a few more people being self-observant enough and honest enough about themselves to realize their own subjectivity and admit to it.

If they did, they would then develop a far greater measure of humor and compassion. They would be far less ready to rush off to war upon some pretext. They would be far less ready to judge others as "evil" or "stupid", because of a difference in culture or opinion.

I'd like to see some of the most fanatical arguers on these threads, some of them besides myself, admit to the fallibility of their own viewpoints once in awhile.

It would be refreshing.

People who are always certain that they are 100% right are really dangerous when they're in command of countries and armies. They're just annoying and obnoxious the rest of the time. They strongly resemble the people they call "enemies". Funny about that... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:20 PM

What are "CNN Americans" when they're at home? I mean, are those genuine rigorously conducted polls, with all the checks and balances they are supposed to have, or are they just Mickey Mouse efforts - people ringing-up or clicking an online button as often as they feel like it?

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:14 PM

BTW The dance of the " Unanium vials" took place in front of a backdrop of a picture of white doves against a pale blue sky.


48% CNN Americans favor war with Iran

In another poll...

58% CNN Americans Do not trust Bush to make correct decision concerning Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:56 PM

I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

The Iranian government put on a stage show complete with dancers holding what was supposed to be vuals of Uranium. They danced around and and held it up high in a choreography that may have been borrowed from Cats.

Basicly they were singing "were a nuclear power were a nuclear power na na-na naah naah" .

Anyway, Rice is pushing for a strong UN sanction against Iran while
FOX news continues to demonize and marginalize the UN.
Iran has asked to become a member of the human rights commission.
We are not members...anymore.
The funny thing is that John Bolton has pulled us out of the human rights Commission so we will not be subject to evil human rights commission findings.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:15 PM

My biggest fear would be the reaction of China and Russia-both strong allies of Iran and neither too cozy with the US. The US could not possibly hold out against them and the rest of the angry world It would be suicidal. Not to mention downright stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Ernest
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

True, Little Hawk. But so are our discussions about the definition of folk msic, guitar brands or Shatner. What do you suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM

I don't generally go in for cut-and-pastes, but this is a short one.

From a BBC background briefing on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:

Are the main nuclear powers complying with the treaty?

Many nations without nuclear arms see the continued existence of huge stockpiles among the five declared nuclear powers as the main problem with the treaty.

Article VI of the treaty says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

The US, in particular, has caused concern with its plans to develop and test new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM

Every opinion expressed here is a reflection of a long established prejudice, and therefore, entirely predictable. Same old nonsense.

People think they are fair and objective. They are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:57 AM

And equally acquiescent with regard to Iran's failure to honour it's obligations under the terms and conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, Foolestroupe.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:39 AM

I am bemused by the US ranting over Iran refusing to obey the UN Security Council after the US thumbed its nose at the UN SC and invaded Iraq...

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:10 AM

The foreign policy of the United States of America is bound by the following
- Commitments to NATO, any attack on any NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries.
- Specific bi-lateral commitment to guarantee the Sovereignty and security of the State of Israel.
- Specific bi-lateral commitment to guarantee the security of Taiwan and protection from invasion by Communist China.

Israel does not have the means to threaten a pre-emptive strike against Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The Iranians are fully aware of this, they after all built the sites (note plural) in such a way that the IAF could not replicate it's attack against the Iraq facility in the early 1980's.

Ernest is perfectly correct in stating that this at the moment is a dispute between Iran and the UN/IAEA.

By the bye, to those who think that nuclear weapons would not be used against Israel on the reasoning that fall-out would affect neighbouring Arab countries and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The Iranians are not Arabs and generally do not give a damn about them, witness to that is the Iranian Government's treatment of it's Arab population in the south-west of the country. As fundamentalist Islamists such a death would guarantee entry into paradise. The only time that atomic weapons have been used was against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, only sixty-one years ago. What are the current populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And for how long did they cease to be functioning cities after the bombs were dropped? I would reckon that to the likes of Iran's President and the Ruling Council of 12 Old Gits even uninhibitability for 60 years would be a small price to pay for removing, now how did he put it - That disgraceful stain in the Islamic world (i.e. Israel), especially as it would be others that were paying that price.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Ernest
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:31 AM

Guest AR282: this is about foreign politics. So one of the sides whose position you have to consider is a foreign one. Ignoring that would be much more sticking one`s head in places where it doesn`t belong.

McGoH: Admittedly I am not an expert in Middle east history, so I cant tell you what the reasons of Iran for not starting a war have been in the past. Maybe they simply didn`t have the means to (this is changing now), maybe they have been too busy fighting among themselves, maybe they had peaceful rulers in the past. Even if the last one had been the case - the current government does not appear to be that way. So I don`t think you have a strong argument here.

And it is not only Iran vs. USA/UK. Its Iran vs. UN/IAEA.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM

"Has America gone mad?"

Some of us foreigners might consider that a moot question... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:57 PM

"we should sort out the planks we can feel in our own eyes"

Problem is that too mnay people DON'T feel that...

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:45 PM

>>I think if people here are more concerned about what the USA and the UK get up to than about the Iranian government it's because the USA and the USA have a record of engaging in aggressive foreign war, and Iran has not.<<

For me, it's because I live in the U.S. so I just happen to know and care a lot more about what my govt is doing than anyone else's. I'll even go so far as to say that if you live in America and care more about what the Iranian govt is doing rather than America's, you have your head up your ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:35 PM

I'm wholly opposed to nuclear technology as a way of producing energy with current techology - and to nuclear weapons.

But I would be dead against some foreign country menacing the country in which I live with sanctions, up to and including war, unless it gives up its nuclear technology.

And I think I'd feel the same way if I lived in Iran.

I think if people here are more concerned about what the USA and the UK get up to than about the Iranian government it's because the USA and the USA have a record of engaging in aggressive foreign war, and Iran has not. At least not since they got whopped by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis.

Also, on the biblical principle that we should sort out the planks we can feel in our own eyes rather than the bits of grit we think might be in the other bloke's eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM

>>Anything the US government does is viewed much more critically here than the politics of the Iranian government.<<

Well, duh, guess why.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Janie
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 02:28 PM

OK. I'll go start a thread--I might learn something! Or at least get directed to some laymans' sites with good science to learn more.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Ernest
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

McGoH: Have you noticed that the sentence "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" could easily be applied to the attititude of some people here towards GWB? Anything the US government does is viewed much more critically here than the politics of the Iranian government.

Janie: iI asked this question in this thread because I suppose the majority here is contra nuclear energy - but has a much more laisser-faire attitude to Irans nuclear energy programme.

This doesn`t seem very consistent to me and does certainly weaken their arguments.

Regards
Ernest

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 01:55 PM

So a lot of people in Iran don't like Israel and they don't like the USA? That's not evidence they are planning a war of aggression against them.

There is strong evidence that the USA is currently supporting and financing Sunni Baluchi insurgents in Iran, who have a similar agenda to the Taliban who were given the same kind of backing when they were fighting the Russian backed government in Afghanistan. Which was, as itbturned out, a very bad call.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a rotten basis for policy-making.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Janie
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:56 AM

Ernest,

That is another really complex issue. The cost benefit analysis of nuclear vs. fossil fuel power plants has not really been done, although I think there are some environmentalists who are beginning to look at it.

Would definitely be interesting to hear peoples thoughts or to learn more about it. Why don't you start another thread for that discussion?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:53 AM

Ahmadinejad has been very clearly understood by the people he did address. When he said it there were chants of "Death to Israel" and "Death to the USA".

This man is dangerously nuts in my eyes.
On the other hand, the whole (very few exceptions) Bush approach to the war on terror is dangerously wrong.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 05:18 AM

Good point Ernest, I suppose that does answer my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Gurney
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:29 AM

Any country that has a constitutional government and a serious and dedicated military will certainly have contingency plans for fulfilling their defensive function. They wouldn't be earning their salt if they didn't.
I'd bet that the US has contingency plans for war with the European Union, never mind with their likely enemies.

This is not planning a pre-emptive strike. This is doing your job, if you are a brass-hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Ernest
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:22 AM

Teribus, this is a Bush-bashing thread, not a Chirac-bahing or Iran -bashing one ;0)

Can everyone please tell me what you think about the peaceful use of nuclear enerrgy - especially if it would happen in your neighborhood?

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 03:00 AM

Dianavan,

Chirac of France has been much more forthright on this than the US, but not one word, now why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: number 6
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:44 PM

or else... better start building a bomb shelter in your back yard now.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:42 PM

I'm with McGrath on this one.

Since when do you lob nuclear missles at a country who has not harmed you or your country? Has America gone mad? Does the rest of the world really have to put up with this? Every nation is in jeopardy. Agree with the U.S. or else...

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 07:30 PM

"remark as a very stupidly expressed affirmation of support"

or as a fuck up (intentional?) in the translation... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 07:12 PM

I understand Ahmadinejad's remark as a very stupidly expressed affirmation of support for a Right of Return for Palestinians. If implemented this would be likely to lead to a situation where Israel's poplulation was more or less eqully made up of Jews and Arabs. That's how it should have been all along, if the 1948 war had not resulted in ethnic cleansing.

I think that is probably not going to come about. But it is an outcome which has always been favoured by some Israelis, both Jews and Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:21 PM

And judging from today's announcement, that time may be past soon...

Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:18 PM

Yes, they did. And they had the good sense to do so before there was any nuclear fuel in it. That is planning. Good planning.