Disarmament and A New Generation

This is old but I want to start a discussion about the ramifications of disarming our nukes.
With Obama making deals with Russia about disarming both of our nuclear weapons, many fear that this would make us weaker to those trying to destroy us, like Al Qaeda. In this new century, it's not as complicated to build a nuclear weapon as it once was. All you need is a college graduate and nuclear material. And with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Uranium is bound to be floating around out there.

I want to know what you believe will come of this.

Personally, I like the idea of nuclear disarmament, as it is too destructive of a weapon. Whether we have nukes or not, I don't think it would make much difference to radicals trying to destroy the U.S.

The US and Russia seized 99% of the nuclear materials that existed in the former USSR outside of Russia in the 1990's. As for being able to make nuclear weapons out of just about anything, you're right. Know what a major byproduct of fission power is? Neptunium, which only needs a C-Mass of 7kg. What would the ensuing explosion look like? I have no idea. But yeah, not hard to make nukes. Unfortunately with nuclear proliferation proceeding at its current rate, with numerous countries being inundated with nuclear materials (Venezuela, N. Korea, Iran), and the ability to refine them, I believe that a large nuclear deterrent provides a positive field of play so as to discourage manufacture of nuclear weapons. Along with the deterrent, there is also the UN, which provides a stop gap via inspection. That's not to say that if a person or persons really wanted to build a nuclear weapon that they couldn't. I'm just saying that the threat of wholesale nuclear retaliation is a definite possibility, and I'm not even sure Osama Bin Laden would be willing to put the people around him (Afghani & Pakistani) at risk like that. Most of what I'm saying is a broad sweeping generalization, but I believe it's in the ballpark.

Disarmament is a decent enough idea but right now it looks like a setup. Big countries will agree but look at Israel and Iran. We asked them to disarm and Iran says, "We will when Israel does" and Israel says, "We will when Iran does."

This goes one of two ways:

Iran says ok and the UN forces Irael to follow but Iran reneges like many suspect they would and bombs the shit out of defenseless Israel and no one else can do much about it because they got rid of their nukes too.

Neither disarms and everyone blames Israel for ruining world peace. Which is pretty likely considering Obama recently turned his back on our only ally in the region.

In the end it will all work out just like gun laws, the bad guys will still have them.

So far the best deterrent to nuclear war is having nukes.


btw, debate forum?

Nuclear ordinance CANNOT be used in any kind of sensible defensive application, so the argument that it will make America more susceptible to attack is flawed. The only defense nuclear ordinance provides is a mental one, a deterrent to launch any kind of direct strike for fear of nuclear retaliation. In this day and age I really don't think "nukes" will ever be used in any situation less than global nuclear war (Country X launches nukes at Country Z, Country Z launches nukes at Country X). If terrorists used a nuclear device on America the likely response would most likely be one similar to the one after 9-11, military forces are sent in, etc, etc...

I'm all for global nuclear disarmament, if terrorists ever pull off a successful nuclear strike I'm sure there are better ways of "getting back at them" than nuking every probable location they may be in.

^ Pretty much agree with Freelancer. Even in the event of a nuclear attack on the Western world, it would be hard selling the idea that the right thing to do is nuke back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

... Along with the deterrent, there is also the UN, which provides a stop gap via inspection.

---

But look at Israel in 1986(?)
They built false control panels and abrupt walls in certain areas to show inspectors that they only had a laboratory, yet right under their feet weapons-grade Uranium was being made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanctus

But look at Israel in 1986(?)
They built false control panels and abrupt walls in certain areas to show inspectors that they only had a laboratory, yet right under their feet weapons-grade Uranium was being made.

---

See: Stop gap & " That's not to say that if a person or persons really wanted to build a nuclear weapon that they couldn't."

Freelancer, you're definitely right about the defensive usage of nuclear arms if something like a decentralized opponent attacked us. But if a sovereign nation attacked us? I'm not so sure.

Oh ok, I get the stop-gap thing now.
Yeah, I agree with Freelancer too. Yet I'm not so sure a sovereign nation would readily nuke us either Coj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

But if a sovereign nation attacked us? I'm not so sure.

---

It's not right to assume that everyone in that country would have supported the action, so nuking them back wouldn't be justified. You'd still start by responding with a standard invasion or assault. If you're going to fight a war, keep it between the armies.

The thing is, if a nation attacked America then you wouldn't be defending yourselves by launching a nuclear attack of your own, you'd be attacking them in turn. In the case of national nuclear warfare the "attacker" and "defender" is decided by a few minutes, the time it takes one nation to realize nuclear weapons have been launched at them and the time it takes to respond by launching your own.

AmericaNATO should be focused on creating technologies to counter conventional missile or rocket based nuclear attacks if they want a truly defensive solution.

Meanwhile Canada is sitting pretty with no nuclear weapons to speak of. http://leimg.lancersedge.com/images/...8387031285.gif