Nuclear disarmament begins at home by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Nuclear disarmament begins at home

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Saturday, September 26, 2009 17:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3156
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:54 PM

I was hopeful when I heard about the audacity of this move:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016497445?Update:%20U.N.%20Se
curity%20Council%20Unanimously%20Adopts%20Obama%27s%20Nuclear%20Arms%20Resolution

But now I'm skeptical.

"that no difference or division is worth destroying all that we have built."

What have we built together? The world's largest nuclear arsenal?
Was there anything in here that said "the US is going to take the first step?

Someone has to put their own gun down... I know it's a tense situation, but I don't think that keeping all your guns pointed at the guy who is sure that you intend to kill him the second he drops his gun is an effective tactic. I also don't think that it send the right message to the developing world.

Skipping N. Korea for the moment, since that debate is somewhat of a charade, as NK is a Chinese puppet state, and they can cancel his contract any day of the week and his number is up.

Consider this is a showdown. The US is the LAPD, or the USPD and everyone has machine guns. Iran is the guy who is getting busted. Iraq was his neighbor. He just watched this play out:

The USPD surrounded Mr. Iraq's house, told him to come out, put down his gun, and he did, and then the USPD shot him full of a few million bullets, and then went in and killed his family.

Now it's Iran's turn: The USPD is at his door, and they're offering him the same deal. He's sure of what this means: Play by the rules and everyone dies. So, he's in the house saying "Oh yeah? Maybe I have a bomb in the house. Maybe, just maybe, I'm going to take y'all out with me when I go."

So, here we are.

How does this one play out? We sent a signal with Iraq. Play fair, and everyone dies. We have the guns and the bombs, and you're fucked.

This isn't just a round two, we have a new situation, only this time, it's nuclear:

The US is inventing new nukes, lighter nukes, giving nukes to Israel and India and who knows who else. Our mininuke technology could be put into a number of lighter military arrays, we don't need giant silos and launchpads now, our "anti-missile systems" are likely just nukes. They certainly don't stop missiles:

When someone asked what we were using as anti-missile systems in an interview I read the other day, an administration spokesperson said "missiles like the Patriot." Well, so called mini-nukes fall into that category, but we also know that the Patriot (an overused word) was used against the Scud. A Scud was barely more sophisticated than a V2 and of 147? patriot "interceptors" sent up, only one hit a scud. The rest hit Israel. (They're still mad at us about that.)

So, if a Patriot can't stop a scud, we sure as hell know that it can't stop the sort of stuff Iran is putting out there, much less Russia's latest Topol.

I couldn't find the image of the girl riding the mininuke, but here's the bomb

The mininuke is actually smaller. The penetration of the ground seems to be recorded as 3-11', not exactly "bunker busting."

We need to get around our own sugar coating language of defense and realize that these things are strictly offensive weapons with nuclear capability that we are proliferating across the globe to anyone we thing is a sound ally, and are pointing them at our enemies, while hard at work designing more.

If we're preaching to the world about rogue states with nuclear capability, should we not first lay down a few of our own guns, as a show of good faith? I mean, it's hardly like we're in any danger here of being bombed, or short on retaliation power.

And Obama... he's saying "Peace" yet what I'm hearing is "War." I see missiles, once aimed at Russia, redirected towards Iran, I know these ain't just patriots, because the patriot missile doesn't have that kind of range. I hear talk about nuclear disarmament, but we cut deals to give nukes to India and Israel, two of the three non-signatories, and China giving nukes to N. Korea, the other non-signatory of the NPT. I see a lot of fingers pointed at Iran, enough that if Iran didn't have plans for a nuclear weapon originally, they'd be stone stupid not to have one by now. I see newer smarter smaller faster nukes skittering around the globe on American, Russian and Chinese feet towards regimes who have already announced military intentions towards other nations...

Sorry for the rant, but thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:11 PM

TRAVELER

Could not find a girl, but here is Slim Pickens riding a bomb in the film "Dr.Strangelove".

The reason we have no defense against nuclear missles is the ABM Treaty with the now desolved Soviet Union. Bush gave notice to Russia that the United States would back down from that treaty back in 2002. I have heard nothing about us actually working on any defensive system.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 7:28 AM

DREAMTROVE

Traveler,

Yyeah, I remember the AMB treaty and the MAD doctrine, I thought it was dumb at the time, (screw political agendas, anything beats being nuked!) now I think it was probably part of fear mongering for both countries: When the populous was afraid of being nuked, they were much easier to control, (anything beats being nuked!)

I agree, I think there's no actual ABM. Some countries have been working on them with limited success. Northern Ireland, Japan, Russia and Iran have *something* in the way of working prototypes. We're officially clinging to the Patriot Missile "interceptor" story, which is pretty much nonsense, so that indicates we don't have jack.

IOW, "Missile defense system" and "Anti-missile system" are just newspeak for "Nukes."

Spefically I'm trying to figure out if Obama has any nuclear reduction agenda for the US and other major powers, or if this is more of the same ol' "The first rule about Nuke Club is you do not talk about Nuke Club" As in, sure, we know the second rule, but the third rule would be "Keep Everyone Else Out."

Also, it seems targeted at "Signatories" which seems to exempt India and Israel, the two countries we know we've been giving nukes to. The only country that seems really serious on this nuclear disarmament thing is Japan. Russia will probably support it because they have the implosive device, and if they're not lying, then they have no need of nuclear technology to evaporate a city.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 7:47 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/09/2009924141640847134
.html

A few positives here

Missile reduction

Obama held bilateral talks with Dmitry Medvedev, his Russian counterpart, on Wednesday at which they spoke about plans for an agreement to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) nuclear arms reduction treaty.

"Both of us are confident that we can meet our self-imposed deadline" to reach an agreement to reduce the number of nuclear missiles and launchers "by the end of the year," Obama said after the talks.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:12 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Someone has to put their own gun down... I know it's a tense situation, but I don't think that keeping all your guns pointed at the guy who is sure that you intend to kill him the second he drops his gun is an effective tactic. I also don't think that it send the right message to the developing world.

I agree. And why stop with nuclear weapons.

If cops come across an armed suspect suspected of multiple homicides they should immediately put down their guns. In WW2, as Japan was dropping its bombs on Pearl Harbor we should have unilaterally disarmed. Likewise, Britain and France should have disarmed in the face of Nazi aggression.

I'm sure that embracing weakness will work...in fact, I can't think of a single time in history when disarmament and appeasement has failed. Wait (thinks sadly of millions of unarmed Jews being fed into ovens), on second thought, maybe we should let the bad guys put down their guns first.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:13 AM

BYTEMITE

Something I don't get, aside from the whole "bombs away!" diplomatic solution in the first place, is technologically speaking, why do we even NEED nukes in this day and age? We have missiles now that are comparable to the sheer explosive power of a nuke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb

Nukes are obsolete.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:18 AM

BYTEMITE

Yes, because, as we all know, there would be absolutely no repercussion for someone nuking another country in this day and age, if the target country were to disarm their nuclear program.

Pearl Harbor? Nazis? Really?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 9:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

If cops come across an armed suspect suspected of multiple homicides they should immediately put down their guns. In WW2, as Japan was dropping its bombs on Pearl Harbor we should have unilaterally disarmed. Likewise, Britain and France should have disarmed in the face of Nazi aggression.

So you're saying that in this scenario, Iran SHOULDN'T disarm in the face of American aggression, right? That's the way I'm reading it - you've cast us as the Nazis. In which case, I agree - they SHOULDN'T disarm, because there's no reason in the world for them to trust us not to attack them anyway. Given the very recent history of the area, disarming yourself leads directly to a U.S. invasion. And last time I checked, Iran hadn't invaded anyone or tried to annex the Sudetenland lately. We, on the other hand, definitely HAVE invaded, and we invaded the country that sits RIGHT ON IRAN'S BORDER. Yeah, they should probably trust us and disarm, right?

Quote:

I'm sure that embracing weakness will work...

Good to know you see peace and negotiation as "weakness". Guess if I ever meet you in real life, I'd better just go ahead and punch your lights out to earn your respect! After all, trying to be peaceful and talk over our differences might be seen as weakness.

Remind me again - how has "embracing" murder, death, war, and illegal invasions worked out for us in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yeah, I don't see what could POSSIBLY go wrong with trying to start a war with Iran... [/snark]

Quote:
...maybe we should let the bad guys put down their guns first.

Hey, I'm right there with ya. Of course, as I pointed out above, in this scenario, we're "the bad guys".

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 9:50 AM

DREAMTROVE

Hero,

In light of the new neutrality of poster, I'm bothering to respond, but here's the problem with neutrality: This comes off as moronic. If I don't use your prior posts as a guide, I'll just think you're a moron.

But specifically, where in that fog in which you live did you make a decision about who the bad guy was?

As it stands right now, in the current mideast conflict the US has killed over 2 million people on the Asian side, and possibly an equal number on the African side. Iran has not directly done anything, as far as I can tell, ... yet. So why the subjective judgment call?

Anyway, yeah, I think talking is more effective than shooting.

Byte,

True, but MOAB itself has been displaced by the implosion device already.

I actually think that nuclear talks are suspect in themselves, but I'm still in favor. It will be easier for some random loon to transport a nuke than an implosion bomb, or to get one. But it's entirely possible that the motivation for nuclear reduction is financial: Enriched uranium is worth a fortune. If it's in a bomb you're not going to use...

But still, good to hear reduction talks. I'm still more concerned about the small number of nukes in less stable hands, and the possibility of Iran vs. Israel or India vs. Pakistan. This is WWIII stuff. (And no, I'm not thinking WWIII means a war that happens in Europe, which seems to be how many people look at WWI+WWII)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 11:06 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Something I don't get, aside from the whole "bombs away!" diplomatic solution in the first place, is technologically speaking, why do we even NEED nukes in this day and age? We have missiles now that are comparable to the sheer explosive power of a nuke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb

Nukes are obsolete.

Hardly. GBU-43s are big, so big they can't be delivered by conventional bombers or missiles.

They can only be delivered by C-130s. Those are essentially slow, cargo planes. Also the lack of guidence capability means the C-130s fly low and slow over the target. Low and slow combined with big and not manueverable means the plane gets shot down.

The BLU-82/B is much bigger and badder and a more modern design, but eliminates only a few of the GBU's delivery problems.

Meanwhile a button can launch a missile from South Dakota that can in less then an hour hit any target in the world with not one but mulitiple warheads each more powerful then any bomb ever dropped.

Or a sub sitting in the ocean off the coast of a foriegn power can launch nuclear tipped cruise missles or even sub launched ballistic missiles...essentially one ship with more firepower then has ever been spent in the combined history of the world.

And nukes are not simply about destroying a target...they can also contaminate the soil, cause massive damage to the surrounding infrastructure, overwhelm the electronics of the target nation, and the effects are somewhat lasting. The modern equivilant of burning a city to the ground and sowing the land with salt (alas Scipio, I knew him well).

Nukes are essentially "assured destruction". Do we need that? I would argue such power does exist, therefore it should exist...in America's hands alone and Britain...and maybe Brazil (because the country with arguably the worlds finest asses is one I want on my side).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 11:30 AM

FIVVER

Quote:
Meanwhile a button can launch a missile from South Dakota that can in less then an hour hit any target in the world with not one but mulitiple warheads each more powerful then any bomb ever dropped.

In fact I understant that's their motto: Delivery in under an hour our your second one is free.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 11:42 AM

DREAMTROVE

oog. dominukes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:39 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

Nukes are essentially "assured destruction". Do we need that? I would argue such power does exist, therefore it should exist...in America's hands alone and Britain...

I love how you think that the U.S. is one of the few nations you'd trust to act responsibly with nuclear weapons. Refresh my memory: How many - and which - nations have actually used nuclear weapons against another nation? And are those the kinds of nations you think should be trusted with nuclear weapons?

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE