Question: HOW US RESPOND TO ME COUNTRY W/ NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Discussion in 'Nuclear, Chemical & Bio Weapons' started by upside-down cake, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Pretty simple question, but how do you think we should confront a country in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons?
     
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends on the country, and their intent.

    Think of it as somebody walking down the street with a weapon. Just because I see that, I do not assume they are a danger. However, if it is a gang-banger or somebody with a "White Power" shirt on, I am going to see them differently then if it was a Cop.
     
  3. Deputy Dawg

    Deputy Dawg Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Being as there is only one country in the middle east with nuclear weapons were should get that country to sign the NPT agreement and do inspections of their nuclear facilities. That country is of course Israel.
     
  4. Deputy Dawg

    Deputy Dawg Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Being as there is only one country in the middle east with nuclear weapons we should get that country to sign the NPT agreement and do inspections of their nuclear facilities. That country is of course Israel.
     
  5. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL. I think people saw the trick in this question, but true enough. Israel has not agreed to any inspections, refused to be involved in the NPT, had denied a Nuclear Enrichment project until it was leaked, and then they just kind of brush off any further inquiries after that, and if you are Iran looking at this, you are probably like

    "WTF. My enemy has nukes sticking of of his window because his house is so small and I can't have one. He wants to be rid of me as much as I want to be rid of him, but you take his side and try to use that high-horsed bullcrap."

    Besides...the NPT is such phenomenal bullcrap and India and North Korea- though controversial in their own right- certainly had good sense and balls to leave or refuse to join. I mean...no one can have nukes but us. F' off. That's what I would have said...if I had the balls.
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again, for me it goes right back to who has the nukes in the first place. I would not be worried if Norway or Spain or the Philippines had nukes, because none of them are really beligerant towards any other nations. However, a nuke in the possession of Syria, or Sudan or Argentina might fill me with concern, because they might actually use them or threaten their use.

    That to me is much more important then the weapon itself. Because pretty much any nation can build a crude radiological, biological or chemical weapon, and those can actually be deadlier then conventional nukes.

    Does a nation like
     
  7. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US should **** and not provoke such countries. Otherwise NYC gets vaporized. On second thought that wouldn't be a bad idea.
     
  8. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I see what you mean. It's a good argument based on Iran's past history, but in all fairness, Iran has not used a nuclear weapon. No one has except the country telling everyone else they can't. You might say the US is justified, but that would justify Iran as well. The US didn't need to use it's nuclear weapon, let alone twice in the span of 3 days- both on civilian populations, unless you believe Nagasaki and Hiroshima were full of Japanese terrorist cells.

    The problem, also, is the direct insult that both Israel and Iran should be held to the same equal standards, but are not. Israel has a speculated 200 - 400 nuclear weapons, including ballistic submarines, and the world goes into a frenzy because Iran is planning to make one. Israel, despite it's peaceful, delicate act, has been a major aggressor of late- though masking it by making it seem they are always, always, always just acting out of self-defense against a bunch of bullies.

    I think the real problem is that Iran is anti-American and it threatens the US economy. Iran can serve as a banner to other nations in the region to revolt against American/European occupation and influence and to truly nationalize their own oil. Israel seems nothing more than a forward operating base when you think about it. Why else does the United States ally with a nation that offers no other benefit whatsoever? (though I could be wrong about that)
     
  9. Deputy Dawg

    Deputy Dawg Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since its foundations and even before that.
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And like so many things, this is full of nonsense.

    Here, let me show you what I mean. You claim that Israel has "ballistic submarines". Sorry, but wrong. What Israel has is 5 German built Dolphin class diesel-electric attack submarines. And these submarines have absolutely sero (none, no, zilch, nada) capability of launching Ballistic missiles..

    Period.

    http://submarines.dotan.net/dolphins/

    [​IMG]
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-837093-359067.html

    As you can see, no missile tubes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine

    In fact, Israel has never had a Ballistic Submarine. Their previous subs were 3 Gal attack boats (German design, built in the UK), 3 T class boats (retired 1930's era UK boats), and 2 S class boats (also Pre-WWII era UK boats). So not only do they not have any Ballistic subs, they never have had any.

    Instead of making things up as you go along, try researching them my friend.
     
  11. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    upside-down cake, et al,

    When we talk about the topic of US Nuclear Weapons Policy (Foreign & Domestic), we general focus on two (2) aspects:

    • The conditions that need to be set for the elimination of nuclear weapons all together.
    • The reduction in the proliferation of nuclear weaponry.

    But this is not all there is to the question. A latent question, embedded in the topic, is always going to be: Would the US ever considered giving-up its hold on Nuclear Weapons? The answer of course is a resounding "NO!" The US would never give-up its supremacy in this regard unless, as a nation, it could no longer maintain its economically ability to afford a nuclear weapons capability.

    The official tone of US Policy is to halt the participation in the "nuclear arms race" by all nations and ultimately end-up with a "nuclear weapons free world." A laudable goal, but in reality, something that will never happen, as long as the US has the ability to maintain control of its own arsenal. Every nation knows this and it complicates the issue; nearly every nation is following suit. None of the current nuclear weapons states have made any meaningful efforts toward disarmament commitments beyond cost effective changes — or implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT-1996); including the US. In fact, the US abandon the bilateral strategic nuclear arms control framework with the Russian Federation; as well as, withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

    (COMMENT)

    Today, the nuclear weapons policy dilemma is centered around nuclear ambiguous Israel and uncooperative states like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. It will not always be that way, but for now, it is. And the concerns are the possible nuclear proliferation to rogue states, defiant nations, and non-state terrorist actors.

    The question posed (how do we confront?) presupposes that the US should take the lead in a confrontation, with no real other alternative. The policy need to change to a vector where a direct US "confrontation" is eliminated from the equation. Certainly, one way to do this, is to slowly back away from the policy that nuclear weapons are a necessity for the Super Power to maintain its hegemony. The US needs to change its policy of intervention; but when forced to intervene, it should be both decisive and very quick, no lingering occupation.

    The US needs to remain silent in regional security issues, only coming to the forefront when a player directly touches a US interest (not a philosophical national security interest).

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  12. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks for posting, and I totally agree with what you wrote. I also had time to think on it, however, and realized that in terms of US interests, that reasoning would give the US the ability to do almost anything. I think this because the United States wants to hold it's position of number one in world power. Not economy, not social welfare, world power. In order to do this, the US must control all vital aspects of the world to prevent power and control from slipping out of their hands. In some ways, I think we are trapped in this position. When we begin to weaken, other nations will smell blood (and I'm not talking about Iran and the Middle East, I'm talking about Europe and Asia) and they will take the opportunity to overturn the US's position.
     
    RoccoR and (deleted member) like this.
  13. Deputy Dawg

    Deputy Dawg Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Americans do not have supremacy in nukes as far as I know the Russians have about twice as many.
     
  14. FFbat

    FFbat New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't depend on the geographical location, it depends on the stability of the country. The problem with Iran, for example, is that the country is relatively stable, but all the power rests with it's 'supreme leader' ... who doesn't seem to have a heir apparent. That could lead to a big problem a few years down the road. The whole idea is that nuclear proliferation cannot be allowed, and any measure should be taken to stop it.
     
  15. FFbat

    FFbat New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you have enough to wipe out civilization on a global scale many times over... More doesn't really matter.
     
  16. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Deputy Dawg, et al,

    This would be NOT correct. In terms of overall numbers (warheads), the US is about equal to the holding of Russia. (See: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html )

    (COMMENT)

    In the ability to upgrade and perform maintenance on the weapons, the US has a decided advantage. The US has Life-extension programs that are well beyond anything a potential adversary might have; as well as an ever growing --- very reliable and credible deterrent program.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  17. Deputy Dawg

    Deputy Dawg Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well according to your own link and figures the Russian have 10,000 and the American have 8,000 which means that your claim that the Americans have supremacy is still incorrect.
     
  18. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Known NPT-States With Nuclear Weapons
    (Active/Total)

    United States 2,150 / 8,000
    Russia 1,800 / 10,000[
    United Kingdom 160 / 225
    France 290 / 300
    China n.a. / 240

    Non-NPT nuclear powers

    India n.a. / 80–100
    Pakistan n.a. / 90–110
    North Korea n.a. / <10

    Undeclared nuclear powers
    Israel n.a. / 80–200

    * This is information from wikipedia. I wouldn't call it the last point of verification, but it's a start.

    I can see the problem there, but the US has been knocking on Iran's door for a long time now. I don't think it is merely about regime change, and both China, Russia, and France went through regime changes while being nuclear powers. It wasn't this kind of problem. I think the question is being used as additional leverage against Iran.

    I'm not sure how many city-stomping nukes we have, but we certainly have more than enough to fight any kind of likely war we will face, unless it's against the universe. Honestly, when I saw the numbers I am aware that not every nuke is a "big-nuke" but still, I couldn't understand why we have so many. For a nation that believes a nuclear strike is a horrible decision and a last resort, you'd think having more than five would be a crisis of the heart for them. 8,000...
     
  19. FFbat

    FFbat New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The policy of deterrence. Russians build more, so we build more, we build more, so they build more... They called it an Arms race for a reason. The general assumption was, with enough nuclear firepower, even if the other country got a first strike off, there would be enough left over to ensure a mutual destruction.
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The US has 1,950 active and operational warheads. The Russians have 1,800. Yep, that seems to mean the US has supremacy to me, by 150 warheads.

    You can't count all of the others. The vast majority of those are warheads with no delivery system (like those removed from discarded ICBMs). Yea, they may have more in the stockpile, but how are they going to use them? And it is kind of the same for the US. Most of the US stockpile consists of MIRV warheads, warheads removed from cruise missiles, and others that just have no delivery system.

    And a nuke is of no threat to anybody if it is sitting in a bunker, and has no missile to carry it anywhere.

    When you look at the START and other treaties, the concern is not really so much in the number of nuclear warheads posessed, but in their delivery systems. And in reality, this is all that really matters. Unless you can get the nuke to your enemy, it is just a giant hunk of radioactive metal.
     
  21. Deputy Dawg

    Deputy Dawg Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The figures provided say that the Russians have 1,800 operational and 3,700 reserves/non deployed so that is 5,500 all together and does not include retired war heads and ones that are being decommissioned because they have another 4,500 of those. The Americans have 1,950 operational and 2.850 reserves/non deployed plus another 200 non strategic and that adds up to 5000, so the Russian have 500 more missiles than the Americans do which means that the American do not have supremacy in nukes.
     
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But what good are non-operational or reserve warheads? These can not be used in the event of an exchange, so they really do not matter.
     
  23. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are we talking about Turkey, and their black market for nuclear tech?
     
  24. Deputy Dawg

    Deputy Dawg Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you think that reserve missiles cannot be used, strange concept. I suppose reserve soldiers cannot be used either. You were wrong, just accept it.
     
  25. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think you might be under the misunderstanding that it is the nukes that determine the powerful in the world. It is a contributing factor, but even if we gave nukes to Iran right now, they would not become powerful. They would simply have a check against other nations using nukes against them. That's why ever since WW2, the US has been beating up on small-fries. We aren't going to tangle with a nuclear power.

    There is no one thing that determines power, but a collection. While the US has less nukes, it has a greater economy and extensive diplomatic leverage just to start. The US could have half as many nukes and still be on top. However, I wouldn't trust the numbers you see anyway. Seems to me how many nukes a person has would be a classified number, and military publications about the specific data of ships and such are known to be either general or misleading. I wouldn't expect the nuclear count to be any different.
     

Share This Page