How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Politics is continually a popular topic of conversation at AD.info, and to allow our members to discuss it, we've created this forum.

Moderators: FrankM, el

User avatar
Half Bottle
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Half Bottle » Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:36 pm

Only countries where democracy prevails and that have proven to exercise common sense and restrain, and that are critical to the economic stability of the world should have them.This in order to maintain peace and prevent an invasion from countries with dictators.
Can you list the countries that should have them, based on these criteria? How do we get them away from the countries that don't meet your conditions?
~~~ In Oxford Town, you smell like dead lab rats. ~~~

Putt4Par
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:03 am
Location: U.S.A.

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Putt4Par » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:18 pm

Only countries where democracy prevails and that have proven to exercise common sense and restrain, and that are critical to the economic stability of the world should have them.This in order to maintain peace and prevent an invasion from countries with dictators.
Can you list the countries that should have them, based on these criteria? How do we get them away from the countries that don't meet your conditions?
Just to name a few: U.S., England, maybe Germany, maybe France, Russia, Japan, China. Maybe a few others (Europe). These countries control most of the world economy, have mentally stable elected leaders, etc... And at the same time they can keep each other accountable (i.e. USA & Russia).

Countries that should not have them: Most (if not all) Arab countries, Venezuela, Cuba, most Asian coutries, etc...

The only reason Israel has not been obligerated by other Arab countries and wiped out of the map is because they have nuclear weapons. Once Iran develops a nuclear weapon all bets are off.

How do we force these countries not to develop nuclear weapons? The way we are trying to do it now....trade incentives and a list of consequences if they
try. I think the rocket that Korea launched the other day should have been blown off the launch pad before it took off. Sounds harsh but the reality is that we have some crazy people out there and unfortunately there are a few who have to police the world for preservation purposes. We're talking about our only planet here.

User avatar
Half Bottle
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Half Bottle » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:25 pm

Only countries where democracy prevails and that have proven to exercise common sense and restrain, and that are critical to the economic stability of the world should have them.This in order to maintain peace and prevent an invasion from countries with dictators.
Can you list the countries that should have them, based on these criteria? How do we get them away from the countries that don't meet your conditions?
Just to name a few: U.S., England, maybe Germany, maybe France, Russia, Japan, China. Maybe a few others (Europe). These countries control most of the world economy, have mentally stable elected leaders, etc... And at the same time they can keep each other accountable (i.e. USA & Russia).

Countries that should not have them: Most (if not all) Arab countries, Venezuela, Cuba, most Asian coutries, etc...

The only reason Israel has not been obligerated by other Arab countries and wiped out of the map is because they have nuclear weapons. Once Iran develops a nuclear weapon all bets are off.

How do we force these countries not to develop nuclear weapons? The way we are trying to do it now....trade incentives and a list of consequences if they
try. I think the rocket that Korea launched the other day should have been blown off the launch pad before it took off. Sounds harsh but the reality is that we have some crazy people out there and unfortunately there are a few who have to police the world for preservation purposes. We're talking about our only planet here.
I wasn't talking about how to stop countries from developing them. I was wondering how you get the nukes away from existing nuclear powers who don't meeet your crtieria at all. Or some of the one's you labled as "maybes". That should be fun.

Also, rather funny that you listed China as belonging in that group, "where democracy previals." (I'm sure others will point out the many flaws in other democracies on that list, but the China one is really bizarre).
~~~ In Oxford Town, you smell like dead lab rats. ~~~

Ed
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:27 am

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Ed » Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:42 pm

Can you list the countries that should have them, based on these criteria? How do we get them away from the countries that don't meet your conditions?
Just to name a few: U.S., England, maybe Germany, maybe France, Russia, Japan, China. Maybe a few others (Europe). These countries control most of the world economy, have mentally stable elected leaders, etc... And at the same time they can keep each other accountable (i.e. USA & Russia).

Countries that should not have them: Most (if not all) Arab countries, Venezuela, Cuba, most Asian coutries, etc...

The only reason Israel has not been obligerated by other Arab countries and wiped out of the map is because they have nuclear weapons. Once Iran develops a nuclear weapon all bets are off.

How do we force these countries not to develop nuclear weapons? The way we are trying to do it now....trade incentives and a list of consequences if they
try. I think the rocket that Korea launched the other day should have been blown off the launch pad before it took off. Sounds harsh but the reality is that we have some crazy people out there and unfortunately there are a few who have to police the world for preservation purposes. We're talking about our only planet here.
I wasn't talking about how to stop countries from developing them. I was wondering how you get the nukes away from existing nuclear powers who don't meeet your crtieria at all. Or some of the one's you labled as "maybes". That should be fun.

Also, rather funny that you listed China as belonging in that group, "where democracy previals." (I'm sure others will point out the many flaws in other democracies on that list, but the China one is really bizarre).
China, for one, scares the living shit out of me...because we trained them (and are continuing to train) them here in the civilized West how to make the best nuclear weapons...and they are a have-baked psychopath nation.

Of course, this entire thread is fully-baked...but retarded reading none-the-less.

Putt4Par
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:03 am
Location: U.S.A.

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Putt4Par » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:39 pm

[quote="Half BottleI wasn't talking about how to stop countries from developing them. I was wondering how you get the nukes away from existing nuclear powers who don't meeet your crtieria at all. Or some of the one's you labled as "maybes". That should be fun.

Also, rather funny that you listed China as belonging in that group, "where democracy previals." (I'm sure others will point out the many flaws in other democracies on that list, but the China one is really bizarre).
[/quote]

OK, I will join your sarcasm.

The way to rid them from nukes is by nuking their nukes. Easy.

And China? They may not be a democracy yet but I hope they get there.....they own the U.S. so we better pay attention.

And don't blame me for giving suggestions in this ridiculous thread. After all, it is not me who suggested we get rid
of all nukes in the world. That was the guy you probably voted for.

David Hilditch
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:33 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby David Hilditch » Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:39 am

The question is why nations need to stockpile vast amount of warheads when there is no real necessity. The realistic option of severing a number of cities of any enemy should be sufficient. A dozen SSBNs with 18 warheads each, that is at least 4 on patrol at any time (could be half a dozen in times of crisis). Each armed with 18 SLBM with one 100kt warhead, let's assume that 2 boats are taken out before missile launch. That still makes more than 30 warheads, more any nation (even China) would accept. Apart from that, 100 silo-ed ICBMs cannot be taken out beforehand.
In the early 1950ies the possession of 50ish nuclear weapons (which were by the way pretty pathetic in yield, all weapons were unboosted pure fission devices with yields in the low 2-digit region) was a strong deterrent, we need to get back to those numbers!

The underlying question is the same as with personal firearms: technically, if we accept someone to possess a semi-automatic pistole, why don't we allow him to have a heavy machine gun? The general concept is the same, the usage of the weapon is result of the same individual decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_an ... kpiles.svg
There may not have been that necessity when looking back from today, but now is now, and that was then. One of the drivers for increased numbers of nukes was growing accuracy in delivery systems (and thus the greater number of small discrete hard targets, rather than a few soft targets such as cities), plus the exploding growth in tactical nukes. Not to mention the unstoppable momentum of the military-industrial-corporate-intelligence-congressional compex, on both sides. I also think that the link is misleading in that the absolute numbers of usable or deliverable weapons today are lower today than claimed by that graph : the commentary to the graph does state that, but this seems to fall counter to your own argument to some degree. Beyond that, this discussion is going nowhere, see what I have said further up the thread.

Putt4Par
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:03 am
Location: U.S.A.

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Putt4Par » Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:52 pm

[quote="Half Bottle] I wasn't talking about how to stop countries from developing them.... That should be fun.
Also, rather funny that you listed China as belonging in that group, ).[/quote]

HB, if you want to see something funny just look down when you are taking a pi$$.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Sickbag » Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:08 pm

Only countries where democracy prevails and that have proven to exercise common sense and restrain, and that are critical to the economic stability of the world should have them.This in order to maintain peace and prevent an invasion from countries with dictators.
Can you list the countries that should have them, based on these criteria? How do we get them away from the countries that don't meet your conditions?
Just to name a few: U.S., England, maybe Germany, maybe France, Russia, Japan, China. Maybe a few others (Europe). These countries control most of the world economy, have mentally stable elected leaders, etc... And at the same time they can keep each other accountable (i.e. USA & Russia).

Countries that should not have them: Most (if not all) Arab countries, Venezuela, Cuba, most Asian coutries, etc...

The only reason Israel has not been obligerated by other Arab countries and wiped out of the map is because they have nuclear weapons. Once Iran develops a nuclear weapon all bets are off.

How do we force these countries not to develop nuclear weapons? The way we are trying to do it now....trade incentives and a list of consequences if they
try. I think the rocket that Korea launched the other day should have been blown off the launch pad before it took off. Sounds harsh but the reality is that we have some crazy people out there and unfortunately there are a few who have to police the world for preservation purposes. We're talking about our only planet here.
Ahh where to begin?
For a start Israel has beat all comers hands down before and after it became a nuclear power and will continue to do so without the use of nuclear weapons. If Iran ever develops a weapon (which it states it is not doing and this is supported by the IAEA reports BTW) that it unleased on Israel even its most mentalist leader knows that Israel has second strike cabablities that would destory Iran in an instant .
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

Putt4Par
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:03 am
Location: U.S.A.

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Putt4Par » Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:39 pm

[quote="Putt4Par .
Ahh where to begin?
For a start Israel has beat all comers hands down before and after it became a nuclear power and will continue to do so without the use of nuclear weapons. If Iran ever develops a weapon (which it states it is not doing and this is supported by the IAEA reports BTW) that it unleased on Israel even its most mentalist leader knows that Israel has second strike cabablities that would destory Iran in an instant .
[/quote]


That's what a reasonable and normal person would think. Unfortunately these dictators don't see it that way. But your comment brings up a good point and support for having some nuclear weapons in the hands of reasonable people. This can keep others from attacking and can actually preserve peace. The best way for a kid to stop getting bullied at school is for him to study Karate, become a black belt, and let everybody know he is a black belt. Most likely he will never be bothered again and he won't have to fight.

Of course, it is too late for this as some unreasonable people and dictators already have nuclear weapons and there is not much we can do to take them away. Unless you follow what Obama says, have everybody surrender their nukes, and we all sing Kumbaya. Unfortunately that didn't work prior to Hiroshima.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Sickbag » Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:16 pm


That's what a reasonable and normal person would think. Unfortunately these dictators don't see it that way. But your comment brings up a good point and support for having some nuclear weapons in the hands of reasonable people. This can keep others from attacking and can actually preserve peace. The best way for a kid to stop getting bullied at school is for him to study Karate, become a black belt, and let everybody know he is a black belt. Most likely he will never be bothered again and he won't have to fight.

Of course, it is too late for this as some unreasonable people and dictators already have nuclear weapons and there is not much we can do to take them away. Unless you follow what Obama says, have everybody surrender their nukes, and we all sing Kumbaya. Unfortunately that didn't work prior to Hiroshima.
I agree with you, except I do think that the dictators see it this way, they understand power and thats why I believe in the poliferation ofnuclear weapons as a way of generating peace.
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

User avatar
Schorsch
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:33 am
Location: Just next door to the German Poker Club
Contact:

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Schorsch » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:29 am

Ahh where to begin?
For a start Israel has beat all comers hands down before and after it became a nuclear power and will continue to do so without the use of nuclear weapons. If Iran ever develops a weapon (which it states it is not doing and this is supported by the IAEA reports BTW) that it unleased on Israel even its most mentalist leader knows that Israel has second strike cabablities that would destory Iran in an instant .

So what exactly they consider the necessity of a heavy-water reactor or the immense number of gas centrifuges?
While a moderate enrichment program is in line with civil use of nuclear power, the building of a heavy water low power reactor is not.
Modern civil nuclear power does not require Plutonium at all.
And if you have your nuclear fuel rods checked, the chance of extracting sufficient Plutonium for a bomb from a normal light water reactor is minimal to none.
And if the Iranians want to produce nuclear weapons from HEU alone, they gonna build one VW Beetle-sized weapon a year.
Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Sickbag » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:30 pm



So what exactly they consider the necessity of a heavy-water reactor or the immense number of gas centrifuges?
On the first point the Iran stated that the 40MW heavy water research reactor is intended to replace a Tehran based research reactor that is time expired. (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... irc696.pdf) On the second,I think you answered that one yourself; "... a moderate enrichment program is in line with civil use of nuclear power..."
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

DeskFlyer
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby DeskFlyer » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:45 am

Totally unrealistic.
Besides which - what would we use to divert an incoming asteroid if we got rid of the nukes!
Just Bruce Willis's shiny head. Albeit propelled into the heavens at a good rate of knots.
Darth: Luke, I know what you are getting for Christmas.
Luke: Noooo! That's impossible.
Darth: I felt your presents.

User avatar
Schorsch
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:33 am
Location: Just next door to the German Poker Club
Contact:

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Schorsch » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:36 am



So what exactly they consider the necessity of a heavy-water reactor or the immense number of gas centrifuges?
On the first point the Iran stated that the 40MW heavy water research reactor is intended to replace a Tehran based research reactor that is time expired. (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... irc696.pdf) On the second,I think you answered that one yourself; "... a moderate enrichment program is in line with civil use of nuclear power..."
You either need a heavy water reactor or an enrichment program, and if enrichment, you don't need hundreds of centrifuges. A research reactor with 40MW is total bullshit, no one needs so much power on a pure research reactor (but all nuclear weapons reactors had exactly that power, see Dimona, . I don't know what hinders you to understand the factual information, but the Iranias really follow the 101 "How to build a nuclear weapon". I just wonder where they build their reprocessing plant. While I doubt they make that public, because as soon as that gets public, Irans intentions are clear.
Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby Sickbag » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:51 pm



So what exactly they consider the necessity of a heavy-water reactor or the immense number of gas centrifuges?
On the first point the Iran stated that the 40MW heavy water research reactor is intended to replace a Tehran based research reactor that is time expired. (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... irc696.pdf) On the second,I think you answered that one yourself; "... a moderate enrichment program is in line with civil use of nuclear power..."
You either need a heavy water reactor or an enrichment program, and if enrichment, you don't need hundreds of centrifuges. A research reactor with 40MW is total bullshit, no one needs so much power on a pure research reactor (but all nuclear weapons reactors had exactly that power, see Dimona, . I don't know what hinders you to understand the factual information, but the Iranias really follow the 101 "How to build a nuclear weapon". I just wonder where they build their reprocessing plant. While I doubt they make that public, because as soon as that gets public, Irans intentions are clear.

It is factual information that there are a number of countries that have heavy water reactors with no nuclear weapon production facilities or intent.
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

User avatar
supersean
Posts: 1120
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:45 pm

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby supersean » Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:04 am




On the first point the Iran stated that the 40MW heavy water research reactor is intended to replace a Tehran based research reactor that is time expired. (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... irc696.pdf) On the second,I think you answered that one yourself; "... a moderate enrichment program is in line with civil use of nuclear power..."
You either need a heavy water reactor or an enrichment program, and if enrichment, you don't need hundreds of centrifuges. A research reactor with 40MW is total bullshit, no one needs so much power on a pure research reactor (but all nuclear weapons reactors had exactly that power, see Dimona, . I don't know what hinders you to understand the factual information, but the Iranias really follow the 101 "How to build a nuclear weapon". I just wonder where they build their reprocessing plant. While I doubt they make that public, because as soon as that gets public, Irans intentions are clear.



It is factual information that there are a number of countries that have heavy water reactors with no nuclear weapon production facilities or intent.
Also several that enrich uranium without the a-bomb!
proudly serving WTF comments since 2003

User avatar
supersean
Posts: 1120
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:45 pm

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby supersean » Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:16 pm

How about the UN mandate the elimination of all nuclear weapons.. anyone who uses or threatens to use one would be in violation of a UN mandate and subject to several penalties?
proudly serving WTF comments since 2003

David Hilditch
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:33 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby David Hilditch » Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:40 pm

How about the UN mandate the elimination of all nuclear weapons.. anyone who uses or threatens to use one would be in violation of a UN mandate and subject to several penalties?
Not sure what is meant by "mandate", but if it's Resolution, violation of a UN Resolution would simply have countries like China, Russia, the United States, France, Israel, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Taiwan and many others rolling in the aisles with helpless laughter.

User avatar
supersean
Posts: 1120
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:45 pm

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby supersean » Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:43 pm

How about the UN mandate the elimination of all nuclear weapons.. anyone who uses or threatens to use one would be in violation of a UN mandate and subject to several penalties?
Not sure what is meant by "mandate", but if it's Resolution, violation of a UN Resolution would simply have countries like China, Russia, the United States, France, Israel, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Taiwan and many others rolling in the aisles with helpless laughter.
Please read initial post again for clarification,
proudly serving WTF comments since 2003

David Hilditch
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:33 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby David Hilditch » Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm

How about the UN mandate the elimination of all nuclear weapons.. anyone who uses or threatens to use one would be in violation of a UN mandate and subject to several penalties?
Not sure what is meant by "mandate", but if it's Resolution, violation of a UN Resolution would simply have countries like China, Russia, the United States, France, Israel, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Taiwan and many others rolling in the aisles with helpless laughter.
Please read initial post again for clarification,
I did, but I'm none the wiser.

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: How Realistic is a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Postby IntheShade » Sat May 09, 2009 10:36 am

Image
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius


Return to “Political Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests