BS: Nuclear Weapons

Subject: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: GUEST,Harold Dynes
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:39 AM

I am not being smart here, but would someone explain to me please why America and Britain feel it's okay for them to hold Nuclear weapons and if any other country decides they want to protect themselves in the same way there is an outcry and America are ready to send the troops in to disarm them. Also they allow Isreal to hold them and are against any other country in the area developing them. Honestly I do not understand this, simple to some of you as it may seem. I do understand the fact that there are crack pots leading some world countries, but if this is a point in question I would imagine George Bush fits in there to. Why does America feel they are the policeforce of the world and they are right and countries which have held their traditions and beliefs for hundreds of years seem the bad guys to the Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:42 AM

Well, we used to justify it on the grounds of our standards of decency and our commitment to humanity and freedom.

Not sure now, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:48 AM

Well, America (the United States, anyway), Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China and Israel. Did I miss anyone? Of the two nations that are trying hard to get the bomb, North Korea has a history of aggression and attempted forced unification of its southern neighbor and Iran has a leader who has expressly stated that one of its neighbors has no right to exist and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Protect themselves in the same way? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM

I always felt that having nukes was much like having snowballs. There are few other things you can use them for other than the thing ya made them for.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:24 PM

I've always wondered the same thing, Harold. ;-) But...SHHHH! Don't question the implicit assumptions of moral and cultural superiority upon which conquering empires are founded and maintained! For God's sake, man...

The best thing would be if nobody had nuclear weapons, but it's too late for that.

In a world where sheer pragmatism and strength rule the real decisions, the "haves" will always attempt to restrict the "have-nots" from joining the club in such destructive capabilities. Their desire for security is understandable. Their contempt for others' similar desire for security, however, is not laudable.

The oddest situation of all is Israel...the country that everyone knows HAS nukes, and yet it's not officially admitted. Bizarre, isn't it?

I understand why the USA and Israel don't want Iran to have nukes. I understand why the Iranians want nukes. What I don't understand is why all 3 of them can't see each other as members of the same family...in which case they don't need any nukes! Nobody needs those things.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:27 PM

What artbrooks wisely said and why the starter of this thread is pretty dense.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:27 PM

Walk softly and carry a big stick. Ya gotta hope that the guy with the big stick will walk softly, but, even moreso, ya gotta realize that the guy with the big stick ain't gonna let anyone else have a stick, if he can help it.

And, no, I am not sticking around for any further debate.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:33 PM

It's a power struggle - a bid for dominance just as in some animal societies there is one alpha male. When you are the alpha male you get the best of the bestest and the most of the mostest. The alpha male has the primary influence on how things go, and usually you tend to favor those things that fortify and strengthen your authority. If someone challenges that you quell the uprising with extreme prejudice 1)to remove the threat and 2)to instill fear by demonstrating what will happen if someone else chooses to challenge you.

In that context, as alpha male you have no qualms about bombing a village, for example, in a sovereign country because intelligence reports indicate a certain terrorist leader is there having dinner. You are thankful it was only a dirt poor little village on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, and not somewhere "civilized," like Toronto or Stockholm. Otherwise there would have been major international condemnation of a unilateral airstrike and the subsequent deaths of citizens in a country with which the U.S. is not at war.

But what if al-Zawahri had been having dinner in Toronto or Stockholm?

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:35 PM

The world 'supply' of nukes (as of 2002) was close to 20,000.

I agree: no nukes is good nukes.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:44 PM

Peace, Love, Dove.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 01:09 PM

Fifty Facts About Nukes. Interesting read.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 01:29 PM

It's insane. The nuclear arms race resulted in such overkill that figures and facts lost all relevance. If those warheads had been detonated evenly over either the USA or the USSR, the world's civilizations would not have survived.

In the 50s the catchphrase was 'Better Dead than Red'. That in itself is crazy making. Of course it's the other way around; if one is overwhelmed by a superior power, 'red' or not, and bides one's time the wheel will turn again. But if your nation sacrifices you in the name of dominance and prestige...

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST,Anonny Mouse
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 01:34 PM

Wanna read a truly scary, horror book? "The Fate of the Earth" by Jonathan Schell. No its not a book youd ever see promoed on CBN or by Pat Robertson or Falwell-not some Bible thing, Rapture thing,--very scientific about how really LOW the actual threshold for a "nuclear winter" would be, and the after effects of even a so-called "limited" nuke war would be. Written during the Nuke Freeze era but filled with science, and relatively easy to undestand tech-speak. Dunno if its even still out there-been awhile. Explains the weak force, strong force-some physics obviously.

As to the original question Iran and N. Korea wanna be "players" at the nuke poker table-give them power and influence they cant get by their economies or global influence...and a gun to hold to the rest of the world's head. Can't put this genie back in the bottle. 'Course Iran's doin' it with oil to the world economy and stock markets right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 03:13 PM

Nukes exist.

It would be nice if they didn't but they do. It would be nice if greed and hatred and pestilence and famine didn't exist either.

But they do.

We have to learn to live with such things. Some we can control, some we can't. Since nukes do exist, I in my own ethnocentric and chauvinistic way, would prefer that my country be the big dog on the block. I would also prefer that my country always be right and just in its dealings with other countries.

But if it's not, I still want us to be calling the shots for our people, not some wack job or religious fanatic.

Purely selfish I know, but that's just how I am.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 03:17 PM

A Canticle for Leibowitz

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 04:51 PM

The one positive I have about nukes: the explosion occurs so quickly that it is faster than the human nervous system's ability to tell your body you are in pain. However, ya have to be real close to ground zero.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 05:37 PM

For all but a few months of my life I, like most who read this, have lived with these weapons. They fascinate me, much like facing a rattler that's ready to strike. To the extent I'm capable of it I've studied them and think I have a better-than-average understanding.

Remember that it's not the bombs, warheads, artilllery shells and land mines that are dangerous. Left to themselves they'd eventually decompose into lead and other thins. It's the people with the triggers, the launch codes, and the fuze settings.

See this.

Don't forget "Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank.

("A Canticle for Liebowitz" is one of my very favorite books. There's a copy in my office; it's an underground classic with librarians.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 05:59 PM

As Hawk said,

The best thing would be if nobody had nuclear weapons, but it's too late for that

therefore "we" try to prevent anyone else joining the club. So far no-one has used one since Nagasaki, but the more people have one, the more likely it is some idiot will use one.

Nuclear weapons are to a nations defense what guns are to personal defense. You cannot defend yourself with a gun, all you can do is shoot the other guy (something the NRA is fundamentally unable to grasp & would resolutely refuse to understand anyway).

Nuclear weapons ditto & ten thousand-fold the effects! We can't unmake the bloody things, unfortunately. All that can done is to try to restrict their spread. And if Iran is so concerned about its future energy generation then...

I've just emailed the following to the UK Iranian embassy. I expect I'll get a pro forma reply, but if anything interesting results, I'll let you know.

R


Good day,

I have followed, with interest, the news reports concerning the development of nuclear energy in your country. Obviously, as I am British, what I see in the news is unlikely to be without some bias. I am sure you would agree, as would your president, that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is undesirable; and, (as your president has made clear) the acquisition of weapons is not your intention. It is unfortunate that the technology you need for more efficient energy generation is the same that will also create more efficient weapons. Rhetoric aside, it is, then, understandable that many (especially Western) countries are nervous about Iran's aims.

But there is one question, above all, that puzzles me. Iran has, as I understand it, large reserves of oil. Of course, these are finite resources & will run out one day. An alternative source of energy is desirable (not just for Iran, of course, but for every nation!). But nuclear energy is enormously costly, both in the short term (developing & building the plants & technology), & in the long term (managing waste, decomissioning, security, etc).

Your country is surely in the fortunate position of being able to develop solar energy, in a way that few other nations can. I am curious to know what the the position of your nation is on renewable energy. Wouldn't the resources that Iran is prepared to devote to an energy source that is costly, dangerous, & globally controversial be better spent on developing alternative & 'clean ' power? I am interested to know what the opinion of your government is on these matters.

Thanking you for your kind attention

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 06:17 PM

That's quite a website, Rapaire.

Note the melodramatic orchestral music blaring in the background of the 50's videoclips as we watch atomic fireballs go off and mushroom clouds writhe skyward. Note the bombastic commentary of the nasal-voiced American narrators as they portentously remind us of the mightiness and awful power of these weapons.

My, they were proud of themselves, weren't they?

"I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

How they gloried in their ability to commit mass murder, to cowe and utterly terrorize those unfortunate enough to be judged "enemies of America". Such a civilization has a way of bringing monsters upon itself, in time. Monsters like Bin Laden, for one.

I lived under the fear of those weapons all my life, and I'm not impressed. Somebody is going to pay a terrible price eventually. I hope I'm not here when it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 06:23 PM

Good point, Raedwulf.

Thats why its important for Western countries to lead the way in developing alternate energy strategies. As long as we continue to use non-renewable energy and develop nuclear energy, the rest of the world will demand equal rights. Its up to us to lead the way.

Only by example will the rest of the world consider viable alternatives. Its a bit arrogant to expect other nations to do what we ourselves are unwilling to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 06:30 PM

"Its a bit arrogant to expect other nations to do what we ourselves are unwilling to do."

THAT is the crux of the matter right there. That is why the USA, and Russia, and China, and the UK, and all great powers have been and are deeply resented in this world. They are unwilling to live up to their own rhetoric when it comes right down to it. They do NOT believe in equality. They believe in supremacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Keef
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 09:27 PM

As an ageing "Boomer" I grew up with the ever present threat of nuclear war..Cuban missile crisis and all. Used to get pretty depressed about it all. Like many of us, I found the best way to deal with it was to forget about it and live for the moment (did that particularly well in the sixties). With all the other threats that the planet faces, the nuclear issue has sort of faded into the background.
With the original nuclear club members it was more likely that a nuclear exchange would happen by accident than by a suicidal first strike (MAD)
I suppose Iran, North Korea, Scotland and Tasmania have equal rights to join the club but I think it would make the world an even more dangerous place.
I'm with Raedwulf here. Solar and other renewables are better value.
Nuclear power is mainly a spin off from the weapons program. If you really do the math(s) and include an allowance for the still unsolved problem of waste disposal then it makes no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:24 PM

Raedwulf, please define "defense" for me.

Keef, I was told just today by someone whose information I trust, that it would take 6,000 sq.ft. of solar panels to run a 2,00 sq. ft. house. Even if you cut it down to lights and refrigeration, it would be a tremendous expense both in cash and in energy.

Right now, it takes 1.2 kilowatts to produce 1 kw. of energy using Hydrogen. Nuke power makes the most sense dollar for dollar but, as you said, the waste disposal problem remains.

Wind power is not feasible for a large part of the world, so the only answer seems to me to be for everyone in the world to cut back on their energy usage.

And that's about as probable as Jonah and the Whale.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:26 PM

We could start by all turning off our computers... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:41 PM

Wes Ginny Algebra:

% of nukes you have = % of world's resources you consume..

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:48 PM

This discussion has had zero impact on anything, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:57 PM

True. So has your choice in clothing, and the way I brush my hair, but are we going to stop now? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:23 AM

"Bhabha argued that "atomic weapons give a State possessing them in adequate numbers a deterrent power against attack from a much stronger State". He further claimed that such weapons were remarkably cheap citing cost estimates provided by the U.S. AEC for projected Plowshare (peaceful nuclear explosive) devices - $350,000 for a 10 kt device, and $600,000 for a 2 Mt device. From this he estimated that "a stockpile of some 50 atomic bombs would cost under $21 million and a stockpile of 50 two-megaton hydrogen bombs something of the order of $31.5 million " [Perkovich 1999; pg. 67]"

From here.


OK. Let's use the figure $500,000 per device (but that doesn't include the cost of developing the technology to actually make the things). There have been approximately 50,000 devices built over the years. That is $25,000,000,000. Man, if people keep building those things, it's gonna start adding up to real money.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST,Zach Houston
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 07:17 AM

Harold hope the above has helped, I agree with you this subject has many asking the same question as you did. By the way ignore Martin Gibson, he is unwell and suffers from depression since his wife left him for a guy fron Boston aged 22 and he developed a hate the world attitude since this.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST,Motown Mojo
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 07:21 AM

Actually it's Fort Independence near Castle Island just outside Boston !And they in heaven without the creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:12 PM

Harold read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its conditions and how they apply to the signatories.

While neither Pakistan, India or Israel were signatories of the Nuclear NPT, both Iran and North Korea were. North Korea pulled out and is currently threatening to develope weapons, it is possible that Iran has just started out on the same journey.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:25 PM

All the more reason that Iran believes it needs to defend itself.

Until everyone disarms, there will be nations that feel threatened.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:45 PM

A complicating factor here is that the mere threat that a small(er) nation intends to build nuclear weapons gives them "political leverage" much beyond what they might otherwise have. Since the consequences of treating such threats as "political posturing" and simply ignoring them could be disastrous(?), it's an effective form of blackmail, and dirt cheap unless someone really believes them and decides to do something about it.

But how do you tell if they're serious?

And if their threats don't work, would they get serious?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:45 PM

Wow, a moron who defends a madman who runs Iran.

Could only be found on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: number 6
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:47 PM

He He .... interesting point MG !

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 01:38 PM

I think your numbers are way off in terms of efficiency of current solar panels, Troll. But I don't have my notes here. I'll look it up on Monday.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 01:44 PM

"North Korea pulled out and is currently threatening to develope weapons"

North Korea HAS nukes. About a dozen. According to Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST,Harold Dynes
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 01:53 PM

Thanks guys for your help in understanding this.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 02:38 PM

Yes, North Korea probably has nukes. There was some suspicion recently that they tested one in a remote area. Given their level of paranoia, I think they would have moved heaven and earth to arm themselves with atomic weapons by this time (rather like Israel).   Where there's a will, there's a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 02:41 PM

I think Israel has every reason to be paranoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 02:51 PM

Like I said in another thread, Peace:

"Never again."

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 03:25 PM

Oh please!

Do you really believe that little plaque that reads "Never again" in several languages?

What a cliche.

Its just another way of making you believe that it isn't happening right now. Maybe its not happening to Jews this time, but to other people of other nations, it continues to happen. I spit on that plaque because I knew it was a lie.

Never again, my ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 04:06 PM

Oh, they do, Peace, they do. And so do their neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 04:33 PM

Here's anothe intersting nuclear website:

children of the manhattan project

If you like good and big books which capture aspects of the nuclear issues I recommend by far at the top of the list the two books by Richard Rhodes:
1) The Making of the Atomic Bomb
2) Dark Sun

Other good books:
Now It Can Be Told by Gen. Leslie Groves
The Manhattan Project by Stephane Groueff

My take:

The use of the atomic bomb by the US on Japan ended the most costly war in history. It also created by its existence and use the notion that humankind has arrived at a stocktaking time in its existence, whether or not (major) war should be used to settle its affairs any more.

There have been no major wars since WWII and the UN has managed to stay in existence and somewhat relevant ever since.

I'm re-reading "Dark Sun" right now at the point in which, post-War, a commission of American leaders actually tried to recommend internationalizing information about nuclear science, weaponry included, in order to forestall an arms race. The idea was that openness destroyed the need for military competition and would enhance trust over time. The people on the panel inclueded Robert Oppenheimer and Dean Acheson. This proposal never made it to the UN, but the author made the interesting point that nuclear proliferation has achieved a comparable, though unstable and much more expensive, result.

Other members of this forum have correctly remembered the great fear of the cold war, that of nuclear annihilation. I submit that it takes this kind of fear to make us pause in our use of organized violence on the scale we committed and endured in World War II.

There seems to have been a pause since that time, where we may have forgotten the basic lesson of Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and seem willing to consider that these weapons are capable of use and that defense against these weapons may be possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 05:02 PM

I meant to mention in my last post how much A Canticle For Leibowitz meant to me. It's one of the three very deeply Christian works that has really influenced me, along with Brideshead Revisited and Brothers Karamazov.

New Hampshire Public Radio once aired a radio version of Canticle which was pretty good.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 01:35 AM

I do not believe that North Korea has ever carried out any nuclear weapon testing. I can remember sometime last year satellite pictures showed evidence of a site, up near the Chinese border, that indicated possible preparations for such a test, but as yet no test has taken place.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Pied Piper
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 05:21 AM

The complete quote from Oppeniemer.

"A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. There floated through my mind a line from the "Bhagavad-Gita" in which Krishna is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty: "I am become death: the destroyer of worlds."

Do you think this is an arrogant statement LH?

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Keef
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 06:00 AM

Delayed response here but....Mr Troll...year average insolation is 5.25 WHours per day per sq metre at my latitude.
Go here to check for wherever you live NASA website
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/grid.cgi?uid=3030
that gives about 3000 KWHours per day falling on your 6000 sq ft roof.
Present day solar efficiency is still fairly low (could be much higher if we were serious about it) see this link for a simple idea that improves cost effectiveness hugely
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/
Even at a low 20% conversion efficiency 600KW hours per day oughta be enough for even the greediest energy hog.
Imagine how much cheaper and more efficient solar energy could be if a tiny fraction of the money spent on nuclear research was spent on alternative energy instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 08:40 AM

If Iraq had had nuclear weapons, the USA would not have been prepared to risk invading them. This is why:

a) US doesn't want anyone else to have them
b) North Korea, Iran etc want to have them

Duh!

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 09:47 AM

Keef, Scotland (as a consituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) already has nuclear weapons. Just on a point of order.

By the way, don't you colonials call them 'nucular'?