Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Should the U.S. have nuclear weapons?

0 helpful
530 replies

by aldanatech 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

According to an article from Will Lester of the Associated Press, an AP/Ipsos poll show that the majority of Americans think the U.S. should not have nuclear weapons. North Korea does claim that it has nuclear weapons now and is making more, and Iran is widely believed to be within five years of developing such weapons.

The United States, Britain, Russia, France and China all have nuclear weapons, and Pakistan and India have also conducted nuclear tests. About two-thirds of poll respondents however say that no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the United States, while most of the others surveyed say no more countries should get the weapons. What do you think? Should the U.S. or any other country have nuclear weapons?

Source:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=14&u=/ap/20050331/ap_on_re_us/nuclear_fears

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2612

530 replies

by anarchocapitalist

The question should be: "Does the US think it's the only country that should have nuclear weapons?" Obviously, yes. Do I agree? No.

The rest of the world (poll) thinks that the US is dangerous and self-righteous, therefore they feel the need to protect themselves from empirical ideals. In other words, as long as the US government thinks it has the right to strike other countries pre-emptively, and run around the globe spreading "freedom and democracy" (two concepts which are totally incompatible, by the way), other countries will feel the need to develop countermeasures and weapons of equal power to protect their boundaries and way of life.

I think that all countries--and private citizens--have the right to develop the means to defend themselves. Period. The problem comes when those weapons are then used to intimidate and force others to do your bidding.

The US should stop trying to be the world's police and get back to the sage advice of George Washington, when it comes to entangling ourselves in foreign affairs.

by tony hopkinson

LOL.
This time I agree with you wholeheartedly.
The only defense against nuclear conflict is rationality though, something that can get in very short supply on occasion. Might as well rely on it because if you have to strike back you've already lost. Damn stupid weapon.

by jessie

...but we all know this world is far from perfect (it's like deja vu all over again) as I've said before.

The "powers" of the world are all like kids in grade school. You HAVE to prove to the rest of the world that you can and WILL (and have) defend yourself, or you'll be a target for every bully that comes along.

If we could ALL give up our nuclear weapons all at once, that'd be great!!! Ain't gonna happen in MY lifetime though.

by hal 9000

These people are not behaving like Grade School kids but more like kins in the first year of preschool where they still have the ability to run home to Mommy without any consequences for what they have done.

Col ]:)

by maxwell edison

.
To believe that absolutely nobody will have them is to live in la-la land.

To believe that everyone should then have them is to live in powder keg.

Therefore.......

If not the United States, then who? (Rhetorical question)

That's why.

by anarchocapitalist

That's a pretty self-righteous answer. It's as if you're saying that the US is the only country capable of handling the responsibility, even though we aren't handling our responsibilities very well, either.

Consider the recent news that the government was officially "dead wrong" on the Iraq WMD issue, the BS claims of "baby incubators" in the Gulf War, and many other lies throughout the course of modern history to get our country involved in things we had no business being in the middle of.

With that in mind, your comments seem very misguided.

by maxwell edison

.
...I really don't care.

In my world, self-interest does not equal self-righteous. And in my world, the "rest of the world", lead by the corrupt and untrustworthy United Nations, and infested by ill-intentioned despots, are the ones who can't be trusted.

But see my "because" answer for my short and sweet explanation.

by anarchocapitalist

What does all of this have to do with the IT community? When I come here, I want to talk about technology.

Sadly, this forum is becoming more political, all the time, in talking about issues that belong instead in a political forum.

by jessie

If you don't want to talk about anything but tech, then stick to the other categories. This is the "miscellaneous" category, and here... anything goes! Well, maybe not ANYTHING... but most things.

by jdclyde

Like the lady said, if you don't like the Misc catagory stay out of it instead of entering it and snivelling how you don't like it.

Go into the discussions that interest you ONLY.

Wow, that is a hard concept.

by maxwell edison

.
Don't you think that Information Technology is utilized in the development of nuclear weapons?

Geesh!

(Hint: Don't look in the Miscellaneous category.)

by anarchocapitalist

Of course technology is used in making nuclear weapons (Hello, McFly...!), but this discussion isn't about technology, it's political.

by oz_media

Firstly click here to visit the Discussion Home Page:
Secondly scroll down about halfway and you will find a list of topics.

In that list you can find 25 different topics of discussion, 24 of those are Tech related to fill your needs. Just [b]ONE[/b] of those is NOT specifically designated to Technical topics, 'Miscellaneous'...

[b]MIS-CEL-LA-NE-OUS:[/b]
[i]adj.[/i]

1. [i]Made up of a variety of parts or ingredients.[/i]
2. [i]Having a variety of characteristics, abilities, or appearances.[/i]
3. [b][i]Concerned with diverse subjects or aspects.[/i][/b]

Therefore if you choose to only read topics related to IT issues that interest you, the kind folk at TR have made a special index so you can choose what you wish to read. Your browser also has some helpful tools that you can find more about in the HELP menu that may save you the stress. (BACK, File Close, a little X in the top right corner or an address bar where you can visit areas of the internet that do sate your appetite for technically related topics of discussion).

If you chose the 'New' or 'Hot' Discussions links, you will be presented with NEW or HOT discussions, these may not be YOUR choice of NEW or HOT topics though.

But it was nice of you to read and post here anyway, even if you didn't care for the topic you read and replied to.

Hope all this helps, you are not the first to get lost around here.

OM
:D

by jamesrl

Hint, its us lefties north of you.....

Canada was never a nuclear power, though it was involved in the Manhattan Project - I worked for a time in building built for that particpation.

Canada did at one time posses Nuclear tipped anti aircraft missles(Bomarc), of American design and manufacture. Some genius thought this would be more cost effective than using interceptors in stopping the Soviet bomber fleet coming over the pole. They didn't think about what woulod happen if they didn't detect or intercept them till it was too late and we detonate the missle high over a Canadian city to save an American city.

I beleive Canada also had US provided nuclear depth charges at some point. It was controversial because the Canadian Navy would neither confirm or deny and sometimes they visited places like New Zealand which prohibited nuclear weapons. They are no longer in inventory.

While I find the idea of using such a destructive indescriminate weapon abhorrent, I think there is value in a nuclear detterence.

James

by maxwell edison

.
Didn't they give them up as a "hot-potato" they just didn't want to deal with? Either Russia took them, or, in some cases, the USA is taking them.

And you're right. Their value is in bringing about deterrence.

by tbragsda

.
I always like reading your posts Max. They are always easy to agree with on some level, and, no offence intended, expected.

Nuclear weapons are not good weapons. They aren?t used because of slue of reasons besides the obvious ones. We could defend ourselves without this weapon in the military toolbox. Why not work to give them up, get some countries to follow our lead in giving up theirs?

Do you think we would use one again?
If not, why have the things?
Do you think we can protect ourselves with out them?

TBR

by jdclyde

they TRADED in excange for aid is more like it. Not to mention the ones that are unaccounted for. And it wasn't until after the fall, not before.

by oz_media

The US sailors were paying top dollar to have small local craft get them to and from shore when their nuclear powered ship was forbidden from passing under Lions Gate Bridge.

Their comrades on another destroyer were in port having a grand old time, getting frunk andpassing out in the streets while they were waiting for local harbour ferries to get them off their ship.

Fine by me, no nukes, no mistakes. But if we DID have nukes, I wouldn't care either, Canada's only going to buy some rubber band powered nuke that most US Target store's carry anyway.

by deepsand

Here in the US, most people are still irrationally haunted by Three Mile Island.

by Member 25348569

They exist. We can be nothing if not realist about it. I agree with most people, limit them as much as possible.

But,

"If not the United states, then who?" Well, anybody.

You have the only BAD track record with nuclear weapons. You used them. Most significantly, you used them twice. And worse, you used them - both times - not on isolated, relatively unpopulated areas but on major cities. The first explosion of a nuclear weapon in war was on a city. That was not and is not aceptable.

Get off the moral high ground. You don't have the right.

by maxwell edison

.
To suggest that having a history of using them, not once, but twice, constitutes a bad track record (although it was really just once in a larger context) is to suggest one's own ignorance of both history and circumstances.

That's an old and tired argument that's absolutely meaningless and unworthy of serious discussion. For example, the development of nuclear weapons was inevitable. Therefore, it could be surmised that their use was also inevitable. And if the U.S. didn't use them at that particular time in history, and for the purpose of bring a long, bloody, and costly war to an abrupt end, then someone else would have used them in a future time and a different place. I wonder who and where that would have been?

by Member 25348569

It does not, however, make you right or me ignorant of the history. It may be an old and tired argument but it is still valid that the option was there for the US to explode the "Hiroshima" weapon on a less populated area - reserving the "Nagasaki" weapon for a more sinificant demonstration. Your leaders chose not to proceed in that fashion and many people died who perhaps might not have needed to die.

You state - rightly - that the development was inevitable. The use, however, was not. Nuclear weapons have not been used since Nagasaki. If the US had not used them then I can believe that they might never have been used. I also don't criticise the US for using them in Japan, I am merely suspicious of the manner in which they were used.

Not worth discussing any further, though. Your immediate assumptions of everyone elses ignorance are tiresome.

by maxwell edison

.
If not the USA, then anybody, so you say?

How about Russia?

How about North Korea?

How about China?

Hey, how about just France being the lone nuclear power?

Or maybe just hand over all nuclear power to the United Nations?

How about you guys?

Define anybody. And why them?

by Member 25348569

is by just how far you choose to miss the point.

There are lots of countries which, if they alone had nukes, would make me feel considerably safer than if the US were the sole nuclear power. If, say, Australia or Canada were the sole nuclear power - and took it seriously - I don't think we'd be worse off. Russia or North Korea? No. China? No but wouldn't need nukes if no-one else had them. The UK? Why not? We seem to be reasonably good at peacekeeping outside of our own borders. France? Hmmm, bit arrogant, too sure of themselves and not always right. Well, prejudices apart, hopefully OK. I think the current US Francophobia needs toning down a bit, by the way. The US as the sole nuclear power? About level with France. None of this is going to happen, though, so what's the point in discussing it.

With the exception of the UN, everybody on your list has them and none have used them. If the US and others would work towards strengthening the UN rather than undermining it at every opportunity then we might get ourselves a serious "global policeman".

If nobody had them except some mythical "world police" then, although you could probably still kick the sh:t out of anyone who disagreed with you (except China!), you wouldn't be allowed to without some form of international consensus.

Dream on - you aren't going to give them up.

On another tack, can you not see how the US's recent invasion of Afghanistan and - especially - Iraq has driven the leaders in Iran and North Korea to accelerate their nuclear program? If I were Syrian and were close to developing or aquiring nukes then I'd get on with it.

By the way, I'm not anti-American. I like the country and most of the people that I've met and visit it whenever I can. I did get called a "servant of the Anti-Christ" in a hotel in Utah but that's another story.

I question our politicians' motives especially when such vested interests such as the military are involved. I question yours for the same reasons and for the added reason that what you, as a country, do is obviously not for my interests in any way despite the enormous affect it might have on my life.

I have no vote in your country. My posting a few remarks on TR is not going to bring your government down or affect anything in the US. If I criticise something that the US or its people does or doesn't do and my criticism is unfounded then feel free to put me straight. Factually.

Just cut out the "stop attacking the US" knee-jerk reaction and we might get along better.

Yes, I'm "suspicious" of anything and everything the U.S. does. I'm similarly suspicious of the UK. It's allowed. I think it should be encouraged.

by maxwell edison

.
"Get off the moral high ground", you say? "I don't have the right", you say?

Actually, I have every right to take whatever opinionated grounds I'd like. And if you don't like it, that's just too bloody bad.

by jdclyde

Was used against a peaceful nation minding it's own business or a ruthless nation that was hell bent on global domination?

Well justified. No apologies. No excuses.

by Member 25348569

but surely you could have demonstrated that you were better than them?

Two hundred thousand CIVILIAN dead - immediately or by cancer. Justify it if you wish. Refuse to offer up the smallest apology if you wish. Make not the slightest excuse if you wish.

I'll get as real as I want to.

by maxwell edison

.
Having conversations with people who always seem to be "suspicious" of anything and everything the U.S. does or ever has done is equally as tiresome.

by tony hopkinson

No me.
No us
LOL
No one is going to agree to one power bloc of any description being the only nuclear power. The only way I know to guarantee that, would be to have a global nuclear war and cunningly save one.

Unlike Neil, once it was invented I believe it was always going to be used, otherwise it's effectiveness would have been an unknown and military budgets would not have been approved, to the great dismay of arms manufacturers.

As to why the terror bombing, well that was only a change in degree at that time, and no one believed how terrible it was going to be. Those two atrocities are probably all that stopped us having a nuclear war.

by Member 25348569

Had nuclear weapons not been invented in wartime. Lets say 1946-7 because they ran into some problems - the Japanese war would have been over (and probably a lot more people would be dead) before they could be used. The key fact is that more than one country got the bomb pretty quickly and we had the deterrent effect.

What I meant in my original reply was that if any ONE country had the bomb then I'd rather it not be the USA given their track record in using the first and only bombs and also in their more recent disregard for international law in invading Iraq and Grenada and Panama etc. I'd rather we had it, of course, because we'd (probably) never use it.

If more then one country has the bomb - and they have - then of course every country wants it.

I'm also not convinced that some of the scientists in the Los Alamos project didn't have some idea how bad it was going to be, either, but the military have different perspectives on this sort of thing and probably either ignored the warnings or looked forward to seeing just how many casualties there would be.

Not worth arguing over, though. It all happened as it did. When Israel nukes Mecca to a glassy plain or Pakistan-India kick off nuclear...

by tony hopkinson

Any single country even good old Britain having the only nuclear capability would be a disastrous situation. In essence in order to stay the only nuclear power you would have to use it,so their track record is irrelevant in this case.

As for the latter scenarios, well much more likely than a superpower conflict. Some of them just don't care about winning, and worse don't have a moral objection to killing that many of their enemies in one go. Sitting in DC(or anywhere else) and saying it's wrong for you to have them is as exercise in futility though.

by av .

We have to have them now. Other countries have them. Some we know of and some we don't.

With nuclear weapons comes clear responsibilities. The countries that possess them have to have a unified pact that they will never be used.

If you had asked me this same question years ago, I would have said flat out, no nukes. But now that they are here, I say work on containing them wherever they are and don't proliferate any further.

by deepsand

do you restrict you conversations to matters of sports only?

And, if such were so required there, would you want to patronize the place?

by anarchocapitalist

Internet etiquette is a LOT different from "sports bar" etiquette.

Anyway...I was simply expressing a personal preference, not pushing for some kind of mandate, so don't sweat it.

by oz_media

Etiquette on the Internet is not an issue here.

Posting Miscellanous discussions in a forum that is SUPPOSED to be for such off-topic, non IT related discussions is not poor etiquette at all.

Complaining about it IS poor etiquette.

TR's designers have specifically stated that the Miscellanous discussions forum is for ANY off topic discussion, and they encourage it's use, in fact Misc is one of the most popular categorie where people let off steam and escape IT for a bit with like minded or even different peers from around the world.

We try not to use foul language and not put down people's religions or country's, even though we will aruge about each others governments or push buttons within reason. None of this is poor etiquette though.

by Member 25348569

is where we all post on subjects of interest.

We have had scholarly dissertations on the "erogenous zones of sheep", "aluminium siding enemas" and a 500 post thread on the definitionion of "rights". (I still just think that it's the opposite of "lefts"). Oz is trying to develop a new typing technique using his feet.

We all watched a twenty-post sidebar where two of our members tried to fix up a date in a thread on Evolution.

If you want to know what a cross-section (sometimes furious-section) of English-speaking tekkies think about YOUR pet beef, just start a thread.

Don't take it (too) seriously, though.

Neil

by roger99a

I don't recollect two nuclear capable countries ever making war against each other. It's like the old saying "God made man, and Smith and Wesson made them equal." Maybe ALL countries should have nuclear weapons then no country would risk war.

by liame

2 nuclear powers have gone to war - just not directly, instead they've just done it by proxy.

by roger99a

My point is that if everyone had nukes everyone would avoid war as much as possible, except maybe India and Pakistan, but it's too late for them.

by Member 25348569

but if there HAD to be one nuclear power then I'd much rather the US than nearly every other country - but not quite ALL.

I think I'm being misunderstood and managing to wind Max up more than I intended.

Oh, sh:t! He's got nukes!

by anarchocapitalist

"...lead by the corrupt and untrustworthy United Nations, and infested by ill-intentioned despots, are the ones who can't be trusted."

Place "US Government" in place of "United Nations." BOTH of them are corrupt and destructive of individual liberties and freedom.

If you are one of those who thinks that the US can do no wroong, you're one of the sheep that has been fooled and led astray.

by tony hopkinson

So have we, not sure why, US Surplus wasn't it ?

As a lone nuclear power they're certainly preferable to some, most in fact. As for the rogue nuclear powers, well OK they could crack one off, but after that they're dead. They know that and seeing as all their spouting off about dying for the cause, is directed at the ignorant as opposed to themselves, very unlikely.

by montgomery gator

Until we can get a reliable nuclear missile defense system in place, the USA should keep its nuclear arsenal as a means of deterrence as long as real or potential adversaries possess the means to hit the USA with nuclear missiles. A more effective nuclear defense would cover the entire North American continent. However, Canada has refused to be part of such a defense. It seems that Canada is becoming a less reliable ally as time goes on.

by liame

'It seems that Canada is becoming a less reliable ally as time goes on.'

Sounds like the prelude to invasion to me.

I wonder why you think that? Perhaps they just didnt want to kill thousands of people on the basis of a bunch of lies to make GWB seem like a real man and get the cretin re-ellected.

Here's a tip - if you go round invading countries based on bull instead of facts you'll find yourself standing alone pretty soon. And then if you carry on you are going to have to ask who is going to invade you rather than who you can invade next.

by jdclyde

There wasn't ANYONE coming out before the attack saying not to attack because they didn't have the weapons.

They just didn't want to attack, for many reason.

UN, France, Russia because of their illegal deals with Iraq.

NO ONE was saying before hand that Saddam was an innocent victom and had done nothing wrong and was in full compliance with the UN?

Get real.

Your hate for GWB is making you sound like your due for your medication.

by roger99a

I think the US has already tried invading Canada a couple of times. It didn't work out too good, either.

by jamesrl

Get your hands off the remote, and stop watching Fox!

Canada's reticence to joing the missle defence system was less rooted in the current functionality, and more rooted in the fact that there were no guarentees that this agreement would not extend to putting weapons in space, and Canada has major concerns about a space arms race.

Canada still participates as a full partner in NORAD, the North American Air Defence organization which can and has seen Canadian fighters defending US airspace(the period right after 911). NORAD by the way, and Canadian radars specifically, will be providing tracking data to any missle defence system in the US. Canada is not pulling out of existing committments. Canada is not willing to sign a blank cheque on future space based weapons.

Canada spent $10 billion dollars in tightening the border after 9/11 at the US urging. Canada sent troops to Afghanistan, and sent them back when asked for another committment. Canadian ships lead the naval task force in the Persian Gulf, boarding vessels suspected of shipping arms and terrorists.

No alliance has 100% agreement. Many people have suggested that if the US would meet its committments under free trade and actually abide by the agreements, they might find Canada a little more flexible.

Personally, I think Canada should try harder to find the middle ground here. Canada did unofficially support the program until it came down to the official agreement. Perhaps if it was restricted to land based and ship based missles, it would have gotten approval.

James

by hal 9000

If the Missile Defense Shield was to ever actually work against ICBMs what would happen to the warheads?

The whole idea of the MDS is to prevent the ICBMs from reaching their target not to destroy the warheads just the delivery system which is a throw away item anyway. So if an ICBM is in a suborbital trajectory and is intercepted what happens to the warheads?

If they are of unmodified Russian origin they would just fall to the ground crushing anything that got in the way but if they where of a different origin or a modified Russian design it is anyone guess as to what would happen and who would be involved but it wouldn't be the Americans it would be some poor country that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the conflict who reaped the rewards of the American actions.

Col ]:)

by Member 25348569

isn't going to stop someone with a backpack bomb or someone who manages to get hold of a short-range missile and launches it from a boat 20 miles offshore from Manhatten.

What a successful anti-missile system does is to turn you into the equivalent of the sole nuclear super-power without decreasing the likelihood that you could be nuked by terrorists/rogue states. Surely, removing the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is what the World doesn't want and there must be better ways to spend the money.

I would reckon that the more Canada distances itself politically from the US, the less likely target it is.

by jamesrl

Canada is inextricably linked to US defense. If you manage to knock out the main NORAD centre, the backup is in Canada. If the US is somehow over taxed with defending the West Coast, you will see Canadian fighters over New York.

So if you want to damage US defence capability, you have to hit Canada. If you are a terrorist and just want to kill Americans, you can ignore Canada.

One of my concerns with missle defense is that the technology isn't quite ready. The tests have not been realistic tests, and the failure rate has still been high. It could be fatal to assume that its sufficient.

James

by oz_media

I just finished watching a doc the other day about Canada's naval participation around Iraq during the OFF program just befor ethe invasion.

Canadian craft are said to have made up less than one third of the Naval craft searching for restricted oil shipments from Iraq and smuggled goods.

That one third (the balance US naval vessels) Canadian naval ships managed to stop more than 75% of all suspected breaches in the area.

The show I watched focused on their high speed ships that were the "envy of US seamen" as they were faster, more manueverable and had FAR better detection systems and more sophisticated electronics than their US counterparts.

They showed how Canada has adapted to having smaller crews by training the shipmen as the boarding party too, one ship had welded it's steel doors shut and sabotaged the steering, before the captain committed suicide while making a run for international waters with an oil tanker. The US ship could not catch it so they called a Canadian ship to intercept, board, torch the doors open and they managed to get the steering fixed in minutes, as they were not just a boarding party they were crew members. The ship is still fixed with it's big guns, phalanx, SAM's etc. Just small and fast with a smaller crew.

US naval personnelle who were interviewd on their ships all said that they were so reassured with the presence and some were in awe at the efficiency of such a small vessel and crew. They said they don't know what they would do without the support and wished they had the same technology onboard (while pointing at antiquated detection systems of their own).

I am not saying the Canadian navy is better than the US or anything of that sort, just giving you ONE story that proves that Canada is deemed MORE than reliable by the US military and US government. We supported you in Afghanistan, as did France, yet as soon as you are not backed, you feel people are against you. I am surprised you didn't buy beaver skin hats and burn them in protest when we didn't support Iraq (remembering the French wine protest, that was so funny).

Canada's Coyote recon vehicles are essential to the success of many US military operations in foreign lands. Yet YOU deem Canada unreliable because we don't back your every move and thought?

Where were you in 1940 when Canada was at war without you? Does this then make you unreliable? NO, just not involved in a joint effort at that time.

by jamesrl

While Canada's new Frigates are nice hot rods, I think the numbers you quote suggest something else.

If you add the fact that Canada was a) leading the task force and making command decisions for multiple navies' forces and b) Canada was training those other navies in the boarding procedures, then c) it follows that Canada relied more on its own ships and officers than it did on the others, and may have boarded more because it brought crews from other ships onto Canadian vessels for training purposes.

As for the Canadian ships being superior, most of their weapons systems are American, so its hard to be superior. They are very fast and can turn much tigher than similar US ships. But both Canadian and US ships also have helicopters which are vital in this effort as well. I did see an hour long documentary on it, and without a helicopter involved, the chase isn't always successful. Sadly, Canada is still using 40 year old Sea Kings which are constantly breaking down.

James

James

by av .

I used to think a missile defense system was a huge waste of taxpayer money, but now, I think its a great investment for the US, especially knowing that North Korea or some other country could actually hit the US with missiles. Why shouldn't we have the best defense we can?

Missile defense systems weren't popular in the US in the Reagan "Star Wars" era, but now they make sense. Personally, I think its truly a sad statement about our global society that we need to have any of this.

I don't blame Canada for not wanting to be a part of it. We are the target.

by oz_media

WHile I obviously will agree with your conclusion, I still find so many people keep using the word defense when it comes to US military and no country would deny anyone's right to defend themselves, just as we can't deny other countries aquiring nukes for DEFENSE, as is said to be the reason fo North Korea's need for nukes. However many would say 'what if they DON't use them in a defense only situationand use them to achieve their own goals or objectives?

Yet the same thing can be said by any country toward the US possession of nukes. You don't always use your arms for defense only. In fact you have recently done ust that, acted with miulitary might without proof of a need for defense, just a possibility. IN which case if NK has nukes and so does the US, does that not posea POTENTIAL threat to the US.

Who is responsible for determining a threat? IN America it seems to be whomever thinks there's a need and it doesn't matter what anyone else says or does, once it is deemed a POSSIBILITY of a threat there is reason for war.

by tony hopkinson

would get the post read.
If you are bored and want to engage in a discussion, just yank someones chain or press the big red button on their forehead.
Still you know that already.

by jck

Should the U.S. have nuclear weapons?

No.

Should anyone have nuclear weapons?

No.

Will we ever get rid of them?

Yes. Once multiple nations drop all of theirs, because we can only truly eliminate them by eradicating the human race and removing all chance that one person will remember how to make one.

Or...once science devises a way to pulse nuclear isotopes so that they don't begin to lose electrons once the neutron is fired into them...then, they will be useless.

I just pray for a day that we're back to fighting with sticks...then a guy like me has a chance. Until then, kevlar is a man's friend.

by jdclyde

Letting the three big boys take over EVERYTHING?

Remember how America got pulled into that war in the first place. Were they concerned with the civilans that were killed?

There isn't a moral high ground on that issue. What was needed to be done was done. If it wouldn't have been done, they you wouldn't be free to whine about it today. But that never even entered your safe realm of thought, did it?

Better than someone in war? The one that is "better" is the one that is alive. Go ask ANY ALLIED WWII vet and ask them if they are sorry that the bomb was dropped. If they would have preferred that it was hundreds of thousands of OUR people that had died instead. How about you?

by Member 25348569

Ask a WW2 veteran? I asked my father many years ago. He fought in both the European and Far East theatres from 1939 to the end. I asked a couple of Uncles, one of whom was in a prisoner of war camp in Japan for three years.

We had many long discussion about WWII over some beers back when I was a student and more of a left-wing pacifist than I am now. To my surprise, we ALL had the same thoughts - that the decision to drop an atomic bomb on Japan was possibly justifiable but that the operational decisions as to how many, when and where were all a little disturbing.

Reading around this subject in the 20 years since has changed my mind towards "unjustifiable" despite my overall political stance moving to the right. Skim the surface of the popular writings of the time and you would be certain that hundreds of thousands of American lives had been saved. Dig deeper and this is not so certain. Trueman's motives become more complex.

Some argue, me amongst them, the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations is a war crime, in fact a crime against humanity. The use of poisonous weapons, the ensuing radioactive fallout, was already defined as war crime by international law.

Japan was was already just about defeated. Eisenhower so advised the US Secretary of War that that was the case in July 1945. MacArthur, was not consulted before the bombings, but said afterward that there was no military justification for them. Opinion was expressed by many other senior military figures of the time that the bombings were either unnecessary or, at least, should have been preceded by a demonstration in a sparsely populated area.

The US refused to negociate with Japan before the bombings, insisting on an unconditional surrender and abdication of the Emperor. Unconditional surrender was not given after the bombing. The Japanese would not and did not give up their Emperor.

The Soviet Union's switch from neutral to enemy might have been enough to convince the Japanese military of the need to accept surrender terms. Also, the huge Russian army - now freed from the German front - would be able to invade Japan before the Americans. Some of the scientists who had worked on the project later noted that they were pressured to finish the bomb before the Russian entrance into the Pacific theater. This can be possibly be interpreted as that the war must be over before any Russian invasion.

Other suggested motives for dropping the bombs include justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union. None of thes justify 200,00 civilian deaths.

As for the decision to bomb Nagasaki only a few days after Hiroshima, this is surely a more simple issue. Very few of the arguments for the use of the atomic bomb justify dropping the second one on Nagasaki.

by oz_media

So I suppose you have no interest in politics?

Glad to see you still have the interest in participating against your best wishes, now there's some willpower for you. !

by sleepin'dawg

This is what kept the Cold War from turning hot and is what keeps the whackos of the world from lighting one off. The fact that most of the Arab world suspects Israel of having a nuclear capability is what enables the 5 million population of Israel to withstand the attacks and threats of her 220 million Arab neighbors.

Re the bombs dropped on Japan: It has been conservatively estimated that the US stood to lose anywhere from 180 to 220 thousand KIAs if they would have had to invade the Japanese homeland.(These figures were extrapolated from the KIA numbers on the invasion of Okinawa.) Look at Russia's track record in the countries she has occupied. What would have been the balance of power like if she had been allowed to invade Japan. Theorize all you want the fact remains that if the weapons hadn't been used we could never have imagined the horror they can unleash and this from only 20 kiloton weapons. Today we have weapons in the 5-50 megaton class. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs today might be referred to as 'tactical' weapons.

Another thing worth considering is that theoretically most senior highschool physics graduates possess the rudimentary knowledge to build a bomb. It's not a major mystery anymore. The thing to worry about now is the possibility of "dirty bombs", not thermonuclear devices. This is the big worry of having Islamic terrorists running rampant through our world. The technology exists and any fool could light one off tomorrow given that he had access to nuclear material. Knowledge or capability of constuction of thermonuclear devices isn't required. A conventional bomb with enough nuclear waste from the nuclear medicine departments of most hospitals would wreck havoc in just about any city in the world. Of course this assumes a certain level of moral irresponsibility which the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists don't seem to be in any short supply of.

Think about THAT before you wake up one morning and find your a$$ melting away.

Dawg :(

by Member 25348569

I agree with your point on MAD. On that basis I have to think it was a good idea that Russia got the bomb! I also agree with you on Israel. I'm pretty sure that the Arabs think the Israelis woiuld use it, as well.

We'll have to disagree on Hiroshima and particularly on Nagasaki, though.
http://tinyurl.com/7y64t

Back to today. An anti-missile system is SUCH a waste of money. The US should spend it on covert action. Steal or buy all of the weapons grade material and dangerous isotopes they can get their hands on from whatever source and lock it away. They can surely pay more than Al Qaeda or whovever if they don't waste money on anti-missile systems.

I would suggest that they pay for people to track down and kill the terrorists and don't read them their rights first but having seen how the Pakistani's on the Afghan border sold the US any non-Pakistani muslim tourist as a "terrorist" for $5,000 apiece, I'm a bit wary of that.

Get stuck into the terrorist finance sources, though. Let them know that they are on the sh:t list, too.

What a happy world!

Neil

:(

by sleepin'dawg

I have little argument regarding your link except it doesn't take the time line into account.

Dawg

by tony hopkinson

counteracts super power conflicts. While in theory a terrorist organisation could build a nuke. No way they could have a secret nuclear weapons program. The kit required to produce u235 or plutonium is impossible to hide. While some terrorists might get a hard on about firing a missile at their enemies, it's much more likely that they'd drive it in and have some half wit crack it off for his free entry in to heaven.
Aside from breaking deterrence what's to stop missile defence becoming missile attack ?
Dirty bombs, or dispersal of nuclear material through a conventional explosion is a very real possibility. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is very pleasing. Aside from all the publicity our control of the key ingredients must be much better than percieved, or the terrorist leaders much have some conception of the consequences.

by hal 9000

As in Mexico a hospital disposed of a large amount of Cesium at a local tip which was clearly in breach of their responsibility concerning this material.

Now if this was an isolated case it wouldn't prove much of a threat but unfortunately it isn't it is the norm rather than the exception in countries who do not have any Nuclear programs. This stuff is worthless once it has passed its use by date. But in countries with a violable nuclear program running those waste material has a very real value and gets reused for different purposes so this alone is a good reason to have a nuclear industry of some sought in every country but controlled by an International Body so that safety breaches do and can not occur.

Col ]:)

by tony hopkinson

It would break the deterrence argument. For an enemy there would only three logical possibilities. Stop being an enemy before it's perfected. Develop one yourself, or strike before it's ready. Don't like the odds myself.

Your point about Canada in terms of missile defence is quite correct by the way. While Canada can safely assume American protection under current technology, america has no choice but to extend it's umbrella to all adjoining territories.
Must really p1ss them off.

by hal 9000

Not individuals like Ben Laden who have no territory to defend. Any defense based on obliterating a country is flawed by its very nature.

There is no way to prevent individuals from launching attacks upon a country who they see as the enmity of all evil be they national or international individuals.

We have already had ample warning of this in the past 10 years or so and if you want to include the IRA a lot longer. The fact that no workable plans have so far been drawn up for this form of attack shows just how hard it is to defend against if not impossible.

Col ]:)

by tony hopkinson

Fortunately at the moment only countries have got nuclear weapons.
It's a stupid weapon, no defense against it therefore possession makes you suspect, and using one doesn't kill enemies, it makes them.

by oz_media

I thought you were saying 'my' post was a contradiction of terms, not the alias in question.

by hal 9000

America being the injured party in the Pearl Harbor Attack. Sorry it just doesn't wash particularly when the US was flexing its muscles against Japan in an attempt to strangle their growth from a primary producer to a major exported of manufactured goods. Your country was not as blameless as you seem to think as they where only too willing to sell at inflated prices to Japan but refused to buy any of the goods that Japan was making at the time.

If your Government didn't want to become a target for Japan they would not have treated them as a second class country who didn't even rate a mention. Your President would also never have allowed the Japanese Ambassador and his aid to wait until after the attack had occurred by leaving them sit in an office so they could deliver the Delectation of War against the the USA. What happened at Pearl Harbor was not any surprise to the Government at the very least and was more of an engineering experiment so the US could become involved in the war without any of its citizens even for a single moment thinking that the wrong thing was happening.

Your Government willing accepted the loss of life and equipment at Pearl to allow them to get involved in something that they had wanted to be in for a very long time.

Also the weapons that where deployed over Japan where not aimed at military targets like Pearl Harbor was but purely civilian targets. So for a similar comparison you would have to consider an attack of cataclysmic proportions against places like New York and Las Vegas or some other cities not involved in any way with military actions other than on peripheral levels.

That along with the US's total failure in both Cuba and the Philippines is what makes so many other countries afraid of your country.

Col

by hal 9000

That when you have breaks from work and are standing around the water collier you only speak about technology? NBL!

Anyway if you don't like it don't become involved there are plenty of other discussions going on so why are you "Wasting your time here" as you implied? :(

It doesn't matter if you like it or not you simply can not separate the political from the people in any form, you may not like what I have to say but then again you don't have to it's just LIFE so get on with it and do what you want and stop complaining here about something that you do not like and get on with something that you do. Even if there are no discussions currently running that interest you you could always spend a bit of time attempting to answer some questions and help spread your knowledge around a bit after all it is all technology related with no political content. Now you could be happy there couldn't you?

Col ]:)

by oz_media

So this is generally power out west. BC is full of mountains and VERY large rivers, we have an AMPLE supply of hydro electric power. We also sell a GREAT deal of power AND water to California, which is fine for the most part. What has been happening lately though is that Claifornia's NEEDS have increased dramatically and started to actually have an effect on our water and power availability.

In North Vancouver, where Jaqui lives, they are currently undergoing MASSIVE construction efforts to place a pipeline from the Mount Seymour watershed to the Capilano shed (clear across the North Shore. This is because they need a greater supply 'on tap' (sorry for the pun) for supply to the US. One of the consequences is a reduction and possible future shortages in our own water and electricity supply due to Claifornian needs/wants/greed whatever you want to call it.

As it is, four homes slid from a major mudslide suspiciously close to the project already.

SO that's OUR main concern with power, hydro electric power being sold and the water supply being 'saved' for Clifornian consumption.

As for nuclear power, it's a non issue, we are a nuke free zome in a nuke free country, again, a NON issue. We have ample hydro electric power, we have large poil reserves and one of the largest reserves of natural gas of all. Nuclear power, don't need it, don't care to have it anywhere near me, it is irrelevant.

by deepsand

Given that you have one or more "nuke free" zones, there must have been some public attention given the matter, regardless of any need, or lack thereof, for use in providing domestic power.

by oz_media

It was officially declared by the city council in 1983 and signs were erected at the cities entrances.

There has never been a NEED for nuclear power in Vancouver, BC has VAST hydro electric resources and has never really voted or considered the mattter that I can find in history of Vancouver. Yet it was the first Canadian city to OFFICIALY declare itself nuclear free.

Though the city has no ability to control warships vsiting it's harbour, public distaste shown toward a nuclear powed vessel in the past has seen to it that no nuclear powered vessels will enter the harbour now.

What you are saying is almost like saying that because people don't drive, they must have voted against cars at some point in time. When in actuality it could be a result of no need for cars as there is an abundance of horses.

We never had 'em, don't need 'em and I am positive nobody would want them if asked to vote. We like our province without conflict, we have one of the highest standards of living in the world and are proud of our cities and mountains that make our province one of the most desired places to live on earth. Why ruin it?

by hal 9000

Thing that has very little at all to do with any sane reasoning.

The place was divided along religious lines when the British where forced to withdraw and became two countries that started in a blood bath and it has continued till today while they agree to disagree over most things the area directly between the two countries is still under dispute a few hundred years latter and short of total annihilation I'm inclined to believe it will stay that way as well.

Col ]:)

by hal 9000

Saddam had WMD's I can not remember him saying a single thing about fission weapons just WMD's.

How where we to know that he meant Weapons of Muslin Destruction rather than the more commonly understood Weapons of Mass Destruction? :)

But in all honestly Iraq was very vocal in insisting to anyone who would listen that it had no Fission Weapons and was no where near having the capacity of making one either. Of course after they supplied their proof the US had to first go through it and then submit the edited version to the UN so who was misleading who?

GWB kept insisting that Iraq had WMD which we now know meant Weapons of Muslim Destruction and at no point did he ever try to make the general population think differently. He also completely failed to mention that even if Iraq did have a working fission weapon they had no way of delivering it to mainland USA and went on about the missiles that Iraq did have which supposedly broke the conventions put in place by the UN about short range missiles and even then these things could only theoretically travel 30 KMS further than what was allowed by the Treaties that where in place. Did you ever consider that there where no flight tests done only computer projections?

But I suppose that that 30 KM made all the difference and justified the invasion of Iraq to prevent Saddam from launching one of these missiles at the USA and having that extra 30 KMS range would allow it to fall into the Ocean and pollute the area in the middle of the Mediterranean Ocean right? ;)

Col ]:)

by hal 9000

Currently The UN and North Korea are still in a technical state of war while there has been a cease fire in effect for quite a long time now there has never been a peace treaty singed so NK having even short range Nukes is a real threat to US interests which in this case is South Korea.

North Korea has no possibility of threating the US Mainland at present nor in the foreseeable future but it has the ability to damage US interests non the less in South Korea and other places.

But this posting is sounding very much like my very first posting on TR and that was who gets to decide who or what makes a "Rouge Nation." To that I was called all soughs of names but of course there was no definitive answer just well we do as we are the ones affected or we think we might be affected.

The same country who was the primary motivator for the United Nations and hosts the main UN infrastructure is now so violently apposed to the UN just confuses me no end.

Col ]:)

by oz_media

NK had actually stated very recently that they would not abide by a treaty to removes nukes saying that they wanted to be protected from a US attack.

So in the same sense that many feel THEY should be the only ones with protection, that is apparently the motivator for NK to continue development, so as to protect themselves from a US attack.

WHen they come to invade Canada, we'lll just have a few thousand Asians or Muslims at the borders telling them thay they have the wrong country, they aren't invading Canada but the Middle East again or Asia.

That would be enough to confuse them for some time, I'm sure. I don't even think Canada is included in a US altas so they will be stumped for a while, at least until they find a new president anyway. :D

by hal 9000

The troops reporting back to their field commanders you've dropped us in the wrong place just like the British did during WW11.

Then the Field Commanders reporting back to their superiors that our troops are in the wrong place all Asians and Muslims what do we do now?

And so on up the chain of command until there eventually gets to be enough weight upon the chain to flush everything down the toilet where it belongs. :D

Col ]:)

by apotheon

I believe it is a practical necessity for the US to maintain a nuclear weapons arsenal at this time, I believe one cannot demonize technology like that without taking leave of one's senses, and I believe it's an ethically neutral circumstance anyway.

I also believe this is a wholly asinine question. I haven't read any of this thread aside from the first post, and I don't care to, either. Have a nice day.

by av .

Our intelligence community is responsible for determining the threat and they were absolutely wrong. No WMDs.

After 9/11, the US was on the defensive. The President was focused on a show of force and might. He was also focused on an inroad to the middle east countries. He did both based on faulty intelligence, but I'm sure in the end he erred on the side of his own opinion. Thankfully, we haven't been picking any fights lately.

I think we're even less safe now than before. We lost alot of respect in the world for acting almost alone. We lost many loved ones and lots of money too. I don't know if the end justifies the means. Lessons learned.

What if? Its always a possibility as it is with any other country that has them. Any scenario with NK and nukes is a bad one.

by jamesrl

Its all well and good for those in the sunshine province, but here in the industrial heartland of Canada, we have and need nuclear power.

We do have a homegrown nuclear powerplant industry - I used to work for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown corporation. It was essentially the step child of Canada's contribution to the Manhattan project - AECL has facilites that were part of the WWII project at the time. The first fission pile outside of the US was in Canada in 1946, and it was specifically to test theories in power generation.

AECL has built produced 34 power plants around the world, including recent construction in China and Korea. Ontario has 20 nuclear power plants. We do have substantial hydro electric plants as well as some coal fired plants which are scheduled to be closed in the next few years.

The Canadian CANDU design uses only slightly enriched uranium and heavy water to create a reaction. It doesn't produce large amounts of plutonium and is unsuitable for weapons grade production. Its also inheriently safe because if the reaction has a problem, draining the heavy water will stop the reaction, and gravity can do that job.

Canada doesn't have the issues with dealing with nuclear weapons waste, and since we don't use enriched uranium in CANDUs, waste management is a lot simpler.

Oz, while you are happy sunning yourself smugly on the west coast, Canada's nuclear power is helping to provide the country with the power it needs. If you think that BC is an island unto itself, think again. Ontario runs your banks, builds your cars, grows some of your food etc. And 25% of the electrical power in Ontario is provided by nuclear power.

James

by jamesrl

What you need to realise is that over 80% of Canadians live within 150 miles of the US Border.

If a nuke detonates over Seattle, chances are that Vancouver will get fallout and that would affect a large proportion of those who live in BC. If nukes hit Detroit and Buffalo, you potentially get fallout impacting 1/3 of Canada's 30 million people.

So if you ask me whether I would take the risk of an unexploded bomb hitting somewhere presumably in the wilderness, or detonation over an American city, its not a difficult choice. There have been a number of "broken arrow" incidents in which no ill effects have been noted.

James

by hal 9000

We had one go down this week the exact same one that was caring the AU Prime Minister a month ago unfortunately while the loss of life is highly regrettable it would have been far better if it had not crashed and burned a month late that way most of the dead would not have been useful military personal but expendable Politician's. :(

Col ]:)

by jamesrl

In 1993, on the Canadian federal campaign trail, the Liberals, hoping to unseat the ruling Conservatives, made an issue of the purchase of new shipboard and Search and rescue helicopters, calling them Cadillacs. They threatened to cancel the program.

Once the Liberals got in power, they did as they promised, despite a very large penalty clause of about half a billion(on a 6 billion dollar purchase). They lost a significant amount of money that would have returned back to Canada as many of the parts would have been made in Canada, and this in turn would mean that when the UK firm sold more orders, Canada would continue to get parts orders.

Years go by with no replacement helicopters ordered. Sea Kings start failing. It takes over 40 hours of maintenance for every flight hour(which is well over twice what it would take for a new helicopter). Canada does buy some new Search and Rescue copters with the same basic airframe as the version they rejected(but with less frills). Canada now has 12 hot new frigates, very capable ships with great sensors and weapons, and a 40 year old helicopter to fly off them.

Like few countries in the world, Canada needs Search and Rescue craft that can work in the high arctic, off very long coasts, cover vast distances etc. Canada needs the best, because of the distances and conditions involved.

It would have been entirely appropriate to have the previous Liberal PM experience a crash in a Sea King, but he never took that chance.

BTW, the Marine One helicopter that shuttles the US President back and forth between the White House and the air port was (and maybe still is) a Sea King. But I am sure it gets meticulous maintenance.

James

James

by sleepin'dawg

buying the deed to the Lions Gate bridge. For openers just about any hospital with a nuclear medicine department, produces nuclear waste. Check out Simon Fraser or UBC they both have Departments of Nuclear Physics and/or Medicine and probably some form of particle accelerator, cyclotron or generator. The existence of a motion passed by the Vancouver City council was and is a knee jerk reaction to irrational fears of the hazards of nuclear proliferation either in weapons or power generation, especially after the Three Mile Island and Chernoble incidents. Whether you like it or not Vancouver has nukes, just not those of what conventional thinking perceives as a threat. You've got 'good' nukes not those evil things that go bang or could produce a China syndrome. Hope that doesn't overly disturb your sleep tonight. BTW University of Victoria probably has a department of nuclear physics and one or more of the hospitals in Victoria probably has a department of nuclear medicine. You are probably safe due to the remoteness of Port Hardy, just not quite as safe or remote as you thought you were. :^O

Dawg ]:)

by oz_media

Of course Vancouver has nuclear science labs, I have a friend who studies at UBC.

This is not nuclear power generation, nor it is nuclear weapons creation, nor do we allow nuclear powered military ships into the Vancouver harbour.

THAT was the question at hand, in fact very specifically "Does Vancouver have nuclear power plants?" Answer: NO Our power is generated by hydro electicity.

Stay on track here, and read what I am responding to.

P.S. I sleep like a log every night, in silence.