BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?

Subject: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: GUEST,Sportsguy1981
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:25 PM

Now that Korea claims to have the big one and Iran working hard to get one. Can I ask a very simple question. Who decides who is allowed to own one of these bombs ?

America seems to think it's up to them, leading the UN by the nose (seem to remember they ignored them when going into Iraq).

The few friends America have around the world get their blessing to stockpile a few of them.

The American government is set up by the people, so is it them saying it ? I would imagine the people of Iran and Korea also have a voice, and if their saying it's fine to hold this form of defence who is America to ignore them ?

These nations have their own elected governments and we have to listen to them.

Maybe America feels a country who has a guy at the top who would go to war at the drop of a hat or believes the enemy has WMD shouldn't own such weapons !

Is America being the big brother here who knows what is best for everyone on this earth ?

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 06:30 PM

Any guy with a button decides.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:12 PM

AMerica has had the longest experience with nuclear technology and is the only nation who knows what it feels like to realize you have just used one of them. A fate that should not be wished on any other nation. Even if they lust for it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:12 PM

Wise words there Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:44 PM

Japan has had the longest practical experience with nuclear weapons technology and is the only nation who knows what it feels like to have one used on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:52 PM

Pardon me. Robin, but the Japanese have less experience with deploying nuclear weapons, designing nuclear weapons, and manufacturing them, than their American cousins do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:04 PM

But, as I said, the Japanese have by far the longest practical experience of being on the receiving end than their American cousins, and in the end (if you'll pardon the expression!) that is far more important...

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 12:34 AM

Well, I expect the Jap[anese understand they should avoid receiving such experience again, yes. And the Americans know in their guts they never want to be on the sending end again. As to whcih is more important, I disagree with you there.   But, then, not all American have guts, vide the present Administration.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:21 AM

There are some Americans who would very much like to be on the sending end again, Amos...as long as they figured they wouldn't get hit back. Some may be in high places in your government.

I hear their voices call loudly for foreign blood from time to time ("Nuke 'em till they glow!" ignorant people said during the Iran hostage crisis.).   Armoured by their delusions of righteousness such people propose mass murder, and I fear them. So do many other people around the world.

The reason smaller countries want the bomb is so America WON'T dare to attack them. They seek a deterrent.

Would I do that in their place? No, probably not. I'd find some other way to deal with my fear.

The Japanese were in such an anti-military mood following WWII that they forswore ALL military activity, not just building nukes. They wanted to completely de-militarize the nation. I wish I could see the day when all nations felt that way, but I know I won't. Not in this life.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: skarpi
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:47 AM

All nations can start this nuclear run if they want to , but
most of them have a common cence.

But the question that people ask is :

What gives the Russia, USA , Pakistan , India , Isreal and China
the right ?? to have this but no other countrys????

I my self is against nuclear of any kind even when they use it to
get a power from it why ?? becouse it can dammage the land and the people around it if something goes wrong.

So what can use instead -- the power from earth , windmills and
the power from the sun .

So NO NUCLEARS BOMBS


two used on a citys in Japan is enough for the man kind.

All the best Skarpi Iceland

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 06:25 AM

The invasion of Iraq has probably done an enormous amount to encourage other countries to feel a need for a nuclear deterrent against American attack.

Especially those identified by Bush as part of an "axis of evil".

Meanwhile the UK prepares to spend an estimated £70 billion on an updated Trident system, which is completely irrelevant to any of the current or likely threats it faces.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 12:25 PM

It is rather like the thinking behind age limits on alcohol consumption.

Hic! - Thes'es young whipperssnappers are not experienssced enough to handle drink resposissibbly, like we are.

The young whippersnappers in this case consider themselves just as responsible as the examples they are shown.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 01:39 PM

The treaty of nonproliferation gives an answer to Skarpi's question and the first post. If a very dangerous weapon of mass destruction exists it is in the common interest of the world that as few countries as possible have them.

BTW, the first post claims stupidly that friends of the USA were allowed to stockpile them. Neither the USSR nor China nor France got hold of these weapons with the US blessings, and I very much doubt, India and Pakistan were welcomed by the USA to have the bomb as well.

The treaty of nonproliferation has worked (half) well for many decades but now we are dangerously close to the opening of the sluice gates. Some Mudcatters have openly welcomed North Korea having the bomb as well which I consider very short-sighted.

However, the (traditional) owners of the bomb have to be blamed too for this development. The treaty gave the "bombless" the right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes but forbade them to acquire the bomb. That has worked rather well for decades and to the satisfaction of the bomb owners.

That treaty, however, also put demands upon the bomb owners, namely to make every effort to reduce the number of bombs with the final aim to get rid of them completely. That part of the treaty has not been followed to the satisfaction of the bombless. That's a shame and that's one reason why the future world will become much less stable and much more dangerous.

In the old times, with few members in the club, mutual deterrence worked well. Smaller countries either leaned more to one or to the other side and even an attack of one of the superpower didn't make them want the bomb. Those who say that countries want to acquire the bomb to deter an attack by a superpower tend to overlook this.

Nukes as a deterrent to a superpower is not the motive. If one looks at the good successes of guerilla warfare even against superpowers one should doubt the validity of that argumentation.

Why-not-we-too is never a good politic. Coming from a country that could (technically) build a bomb but has not the slightest intentions to get one (through all parties with of course the exception of the extreme neonazi right, who would argue exactly like some posters here, who I'm sure have no extreme right leanings) I prefer a world without the bomb.

But I much prefer a world with only very few bomb owning countries to a world of "equal-right" for all. But I fear that's what we shall get. One of these several dozen countries by pure chance alone will have an insane leader like this idiot from North Korea and play with the fire until it is too late. Or worse, one of these countries will sell some bombs for profit or for political gain to terrorists.

During the last decades, when a bomb would have gone off in a big Sowjet town, the choice of culprits to turn to for vengeance would have been extremely small, so the temptation to do this would have been extremely small for the N=1 (or 2???) number of countries. With 40 bomb owners, who will a future US president punish with retaliation when Washington and New York are destroyed by bombs not fired by traceable rockets? Too many suspects.

I fear such a world and if I had the choice I'd gladly live with the injustice of only a few bomb owners until there will be no bombs at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:20 PM

Wolfgang you said   
"BTW, the first post claims stupidly that friends of the USA were allowed to stockpile them. Neither the USSR nor China nor France got hold of these weapons with the US blessings, and I very much doubt, India and Pakistan were welcomed by the USA to have the bomb as well."

What sanctions were imposed on these counties by America ?

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM

Wolfgang has it right.

Guest: the UN determines when sanctions are placed on a country, not the U. S.

Not that they do any good of course because the UN does not enforce them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:54 PM

When did the UN impose sanctions on Cuba, Doug? I must have missed that bit.

As for friends being allowed to stockpole bombs - I can't see much objection by the USA to Israel's stockpile. While the UK has its bombs actually supplied by the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:26 PM

It's simple. Friends of the USA can have all the bombs they want. Particularly specially good strategic friends, like Israel. Other people can't. Bad people, I mean. Those who are not friends of the USA. Those kind are all very, very bad people...evil, horrible people! You know...isn't it obvious?   ;-)

Anyway, how can we safely attack the bad people if we allow them to have nuclear weapons?

We can't.

Therefore we can't allow them to have nuclear weapons.

It's so simple that even a complete fool should be able to understand it quite easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:20 PM

the more buttons there are, the more likely it is that someone will push one. (Or sell one!)

The UN, as a whole, has a pretty good idea of who is likely to push one, and who can 'mostly' be trusted.

If I could, I'd teleport ALL the bombs to the Sun instantly, but since I can't, I hope they will continue to discourage ANYONE new getting one.

I sure do get tired of every discussion about world issues gravitating to some suggestion that the US is trying to run the world! Ask yourselves what China is doing in about 27 different categories, with few compunctions!

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM

If the countries with the bombs kept to their treaty requirements, under which they are committed to moving towards getting rid of their bombs, it would be easier to justify asking other countries to keep to the rules as well.

The UK is especially at fault here.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 05:31 PM

it's awkward....now that almost anyone can figure out how to make one, those who have a few are reluctant to offer to get rid of them, for fear some place just like N. Korea WILL spend a few years and end up with the only bomb around...

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM

So they'd keep a couple stashed away somewhere. Not hundred or thousands of them

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 08:49 PM

Well of course the U.S. decides! Nothing new about that.

"We own half the world, oh say can you see?
And the name for our profits is Democracy
So like it or not, you will have to be "free"
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys
We're the cops of the world."

      - Phil Ochs

Not much has changed in the last 40+ years.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:02 PM

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

Political Science by Randy Newman

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:25 AM

Heh! Randy Newman had a real gift for that sort of satire in song. He was great.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:25 AM

It's just like little hawk says, the UN have got a fairly good idea of who would actually push the button.

I can't see the UK or France doing so, unless someone nukes Paris or London first. Same for China, and Russia, although the potential for vodka inspired accidents, or poor security is very scary.

Israel won't unless Iran does first, and Inda and Pakistan will only lob them at each other.

The US migh use one of it's small bunker buster nukes, possibly, but nothing more.

But with Iran, or North Korea, they seem perfectly capable of lobbing a Nuke at tokyo, Shanghai or Tel Aviv, or sticking it in a shiping crate to New York, and thinking that it's a good idea.

It's the thinking it's a good idea bit that's really scary...

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:35 AM

Fat Old Woody doesn't do satire or irony- he means it to be taken literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:41 AM

"who will a future US president punish with retaliation when Washington and New York are destroyed by bombs not fired by traceable rockets? Too many suspects."

Bomb them all - let God sort 'em out!

ooops Deja Vu...

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:52 AM

"It's so simple that even a complete fool should be able to understand it quite easily."

Sadly, I do...

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:23 AM

Now that we know for sure that North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, aren't we morally obligated to invade? heh heh

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:30 AM

Heh! Randy Newman had a real gift for that sort of satire in song. He was great.

Was?

Randy Newman appeared on The Colbert Report on October 9th, 2006. At the end of his interview he did a live performance of his famed "Political Science." At the end of the performance Stephen Colbert said "I hope they're listening in D.C.". This appearance came days after North Korea conducted an underground test of a nuclear weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 03:59 PM

But with Iran, or North Korea, they seem perfectly capable of lobbing a Nuke at tokyo, Shanghai or Tel Aviv

Everyone with nuclear weapons is "capable" of doing stuff like that - what you mean is you think North Korea and Iran are likely to do so. But what grounds have you got for thinking that to be the case?   "Everyone knows they are nuts" or something like that? The same way the same "everyone" knew that Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction?

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:03 PM

The funny thing a about '"everyone" knew that Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction' was that it was the people who did not accept that the US lost Vietnam who were responsible for pushing the invasion of Iraq - anybody notice a resonance between that and the situation in Germany after WWI when some people would not tolerate Germany 'losing the war'?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: GUEST,Ol Fat Woody
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 10:03 PM

What Greg F lacks in intelligence, he more than makes up for with nastiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: GUEST,Ol Fat Woody
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 10:10 PM

Greg Jong ill

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:28 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 16 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM

"If the countries with the bombs kept to their treaty requirements, under which they are committed to moving towards getting rid of their bombs, it would be easier to justify asking other countries to keep to the rules as well."

I don't know how MGOH defines the treaty requirement regarding, "moving towards getting rid of their bombs", but for the period 1985 to 2002 the figures are as follows:

From a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002 ( That's a reduction of 69% Kevin - moving towards?) . Many of the "decommissioned" weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed. Regarding these weapons, under the SORT treaty thousands of Russian and US nuclear warheads are in inactive stockpiles awaiting processing. The contained radioactive fuel can then be recycled for use in nuclear reactors that drive nuclear power plants and some military submarines and warships. This has been deemed as a suitable and acceptable means of decommissioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 07:24 AM

20,000 is of course an insignificant number. And the period since 1968 when the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty was signed is of course an insignificant period of time. Not even forty years yet.

And so far as the UK is concerned, now there are proposals for spending billuions on a new sytem to replace the one that is wearing out.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM

What Greg F lacks in intelligence, he more than makes up for with nastiness...Greg Jong ill

And this from the monumental intellect that continually prates on ad nauseum about "Whiners", "Cry-Babies" and "Personal Attacks".

Gotta love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: GUEST,Ol Fat Woody
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 11:48 PM

"And this from the monumental intellect that continually prates on ad nauseum about "Whiners", "Cry-Babies" and "Personal Attacks".
"

Another "Intelectual" contribution from paranoid Greg Jong-ill.

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:32 AM

"Many of the "decommissioned" weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed."

That's bloody helpful...

Subject: RE: BS: Simple question. Only us allowed Nukes ?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 11:00 PM

Good thing the USSR sold off all those nuclear suitcase bombs. They had too many. The fact we don't know where most of those bombs went is insignificant. Don't you feel much safer now?