Becoming a Nuclear Power

[Exarch]

why do ppl raise such a hue and cry when they discover another country's nuclear program (iran), or discover another country intends to join the 'nuclear club'?
the way i see it, there's enough nuclear arms in the world to destroy surface life on earth 20 times over so what difference would it make if another country went nuclear?

[NakedBarbarian2]

Mainly i think certain countries cannot be trusted, besides which if every country has nukes theres no prestige in possessing them.

Example: I think Australia should become a nuclear state so that we are not held proxy to the foreign policies of our allies (mainly america) and can have the freedom to develop our own foreign policy knowing that should Australia face annihilation at the hand of our enemies, we can push the big red button. But in order for this to work, we have to prevent our potential enemies (like Indonesia and Malaysia) for acquiring said weapons, which they be sure to try to do should we ourselves acquire said weapons. Thus Australia would be either forced to sabotage such efforts by either exploiting 3rd world corruption or we would have to send in the SAS to clandestinely destroy such programs in their infancy.

The conclusion is in order for Australia to maintain military supremacy in its region it must prevent its neighbours from acquiring the bomb, the ultimate 'leveller of the playing field'.

Having said that i do hope the Iranians get the bomb it would be a real laugh/blast.

[ray243]

Mainly i think certain countries cannot be trusted, besides which if every country has nukes theres no prestige in possessing them.

Example: I think Australia should become a nuclear state so that we are not held proxy to the foreign policies of our allies (mainly america) and can have the freedom to develop our own foreign policy knowing that should Australia face annihilation at the hand of our enemies, we can push the big red button. But in order for this to work, we have to prevent our potential enemies (like Indonesia and Malaysia) for acquiring said weapons, which they be sure to try to do should we ourselves acquire said weapons. Thus Australia would be either forced to sabotage such efforts by either exploiting 3rd world corruption or we would have to send in the SAS to clandestinely destroy such programs in their infancy.

The conclusion is in order for Australia to maintain military supremacy in its region it must prevent its neighbours from acquiring the bomb, the ultimate 'leveller of the playing field'.

Having said that i do hope the Iranians get the bomb it would be a real laugh/blast.

Nuclear bombing malaysia?

Bad idea, because singapore is so damn close to malaysia.

We do NOT like that idea.

[NakedBarbarian2]

Nuclear bombing malaysia?

Bad idea, because singapore is so damn close to malaysia.

We do NOT like that idea.

WHA? Read the post friend i never suggested nuclear bombing asia, it wouldn't come to that if Australia can subversively stop such programs, tho i think it would be alot harder to do this to Malaysia then Indonesia.

[Caelius]

Of course the Cuban Missile Crisis proved that incorrect ...

On the contrary, the case of Cuban Missile Crisis only serves to validate what i've been saying.

You do realize that one of the reasons the Soviets opted to install nukes in Cuba was because their intelligence estimates clearly indicated how much of a rediculous strategic monopoly the US had at the nuclear level. Right?

At the time of the crisis the US had something like a 14:2-3 ratio of numerical advantage over the Soviets. To add insult to injury, the vast majority of the Soviet's missiles were targeted at locations in Western Europe, and if that weren't bad enough, b/c the guidance systems and other tech on the Soviet designs wasn't up to par with American ones, it often meant that the Soviets needed upwards of 4-6 missiles to effectively saturate some locations.

The concept of MAD wasn't a strategic reality at that point in the Cold War, or any period before then. The US could've freely atomized the USSR with little or no damage sustained to itself, though Europe would've become the sacrificial lamb in terms of the Soviet counterforce strikes if a conflict ever broke out.

It wasn't until the mid to late 70s that the Soviets even began to reach parity with the US in the nuke department.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/09/politics/main1483022.shtml

quotes washy post and NYorker

I stopped reading when I saw Seymour Hersh.

Got any more?

jankren has a point
if we acquired a nuke that'd set off a nuclear arms race etc etc
then and again, say if they did, then who'd be psychotic enough to use tactical nukes to defeat the other?

I take it that you've never heard of the Pentomic Nuclear Division then.

[Heinz Guderian]

I stopped reading when I saw Seymour Hersh.

Got any more?
.

was that the same guy who broke the My Lai Massacre and the Abu Gharib thingy? I like reading differend POVs on a subject before dismissing it. Its always better to read, deconstruct and then dismiss.

[Exarch]

I take it that you've never heard of the Pentomic Nuclear Division then.

what might that be?

sorry, i should've said strategic nukes, not tactical

[Caelius]

was that the same guy who broke the My Lai Massacre and the Abu Gharib thingy? I like reading differend POVs on a subject before dismissing it. Its always better to read, deconstruct and then dismiss.

He also has a well known reputation for using rediculously vague and unverifiable anonymous sources that typically end up being made up.

what might that be?

sorry, i should've said strategic nukes, not tactical

I'll let this picture do the talking:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

LOL
what if we stop shipping uranium ur way?

Uranium isn't oil.

Besides, the US has the 4th largest deposits of the stuff in the world. It wouldn't be a problem.

That wasn't my point I was making fun of the fact that if we got a nuke america would be behind a nuke shield but a major part of that system is in australia thus it would not be effective against an aussie nuke.

Unfortunately that's not how the ABM Screen is set up.

[Time Commander Bob]

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic but I'd like to see complete nuclear disarmament even in "trustworthy" countries. It's just too much power for one government to have. Additionally, countries that may be friendly and trustworthy today may well become the international thugs of tomorrow.

Therefore, I would be against any country developing nukes, trustworthy or not.

[PointOfViewGun]

why do ppl raise such a hue and cry when they discover another country's nuclear program (iran), or discover another country intends to join the 'nuclear club'?
the way i see it, there's enough nuclear arms in the world to destroy surface life on earth 20 times over so what difference would it make if another country went nuclear?

The argument you'd hear each time you ask them is that those nations are not stable enough to have nuclear power. It's basically bs.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

The argument you'd hear each time you ask them is that those nations are not stable enough to have nuclear power. It's basically bs.

No. Its not 'bs'. Lets say Iran gets the bomb. Then Israel (if it doesn't already have it) gets the bomb. Suddenly a situation similar to both the India-Pakistan and the USSR-US situations develops. Now, each country could start threatening each other with the bomb under the right circumstances. If these threats are taken too far or too seriously, a global crisis could occur. It is best if you leave this nuclear beast in the hands of a heavily divided nation. This heavily divided nation is the US. The US is so divided, that there is no way we'll ever all agree on the use of a nuclear weapon if we aren't attacked first. And since we have a Democracy, the use of a nuclear device could only occur if a majority of the Senate agrees upon it.

[PointOfViewGun]

No. Its not 'bs'. Lets say Iran gets the bomb. Then Israel (if it doesn't already have it) gets the bomb. Suddenly a situation similar to both the India-Pakistan and the USSR-US situations develops. Now, each country could start threatening each other with the bomb under the right circumstances. If these threats are taken too far or too seriously, a global crisis could occur. It is best if you leave this nuclear beast in the hands of a heavily divided nation. This heavily divided nation is the US. The US is so divided, that there is no way we'll ever all agree on the use of a nuclear weapon if we aren't attacked first. And since we have a Democracy, the use of a nuclear device could only occur if a majority of the Senate agrees upon it.

Did the US administration of 1945 asked anyone if they should use multiple nuclear attacks against Japan?

Unless someone can find real evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, we're gonna face an other Iraq with much worse outcome. No one can deny the right of a nation to go nuclear when it comes to energy. Who can say that North Korea is a more stable country than Iran?

[Scandinavisksoldat]

Did the US administration of 1945 asked anyone if they should use multiple nuclear attacks against Japan?

Unless someone can find real evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, we're gonna face an other Iraq with much worse outcome. No one can deny the right of a nation to go nuclear when it comes to energy. Who can say that North Korea is a more stable country than Iran?

That was because, back then, not much was known about all of the radiation. They didn't realize the full effects the bomb would have. Besides, Truman really was quite a bit of a looney.

I still regret the A-bomb. If you ask me, we just should have invaded the Japanese mainland. And that was the A-bomb. Now, with more powerful weapons, more precautions are taken in the U.S. And anyways, the Japanese attacked us first. People wanted a quick end to the War. And Truman's plan was approved by the Senate. (or was it the HoR?:hmmm Don't forget that we warned Japan prior to dropping the bomb!

[PointOfViewGun]

That was because, back then, not much was known about all of the radiation. They didn't realize the full effects the bomb would have. Besides, Truman really was quite a bit of a looney.

I still regret the A-bomb. If you ask me, we just should have invaded the Japanese mainland. And that was the A-bomb. Now, with more powerful weapons, more precautions are taken in the U.S. And anyways, the Japanese attacked us first. People wanted a quick end to the War. And Truman's plan was approved by the Senate. (or was it the HoR?:hmmm Don't forget that we warned Japan prior to dropping the bomb!

I'm kinda sick of how people pop out excuses whenever the ""West" is in fault but I'm not gonna flare about it.

Can't Bush order the launch of a nuclear missile, without asking the senate or the house or whoever there is to ask, against an other nation as he's acting as the Chief in Command?

As I've started college I've seen that most Americans see the nuclear attack on Japan a just act as it prevented millions of deaths but still for me a nuclear attack will always be inhumane.

[icydawgfish]

Well, I don't want nuclear weapons in the hands of a fanatical third world revolutionary leader *cough*Mahmoud Amhadinejad*cough*.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well, I don't want nuclear weapons in the hands of a fanatical third world revolutionary leader *cough*Mahmoud Amhadinejad*cough*.

Well, I don't want thousands of nuclear warheads in the hands of an idiot with IQ below a 100 or dozens of them in the hands of a country that the people running it nearly said that they'd take down everyone with them.

[danzig]

It becomes an issue depending on the country doing it. Notice the media and political buzz about Brazil's nuclear program? No you dont...why? Because there is no massive distrust about Brazil's intention unlike Iran.

[Captain Blackadder]

Yes Australia would be wise to get the bomb it would be relatively cheap since we have all the uranium anyone could possibly want and thanks to our involvement with various American missile techs we have the know how. It would enable us to protect our vast natural resources against foreign incursion . Plus we are a trusted country world wide and there would be no repercussions.

[Exarch]

heck the yanks pulled of nuke testing in our backyards some time back
we pretty much have nukes on our soil...i think

[Elrond]

There is a difference between a stable democracy having a nuclear weapons program and a quasi democratic anti western country having the same program. Its basically about how they will be used - the UK has nuclear weapons but we dont use them as barganing chips to meet are goals - they are there as the absolute last resort to protect our country. Iran or North Korea are far more likely to use them to threaten other nations. The Iranian leader has said that Isreal should be wiped off the map - if Iran becomes a nuclear power that threat will become far more real.

For me its not really about western countries only having them its about how they will be used. Russia is rather anti Europe atm however as long as they can keep there nukes safe and as long as they dont threaten to use them (not just target them at cities) then its their right to have them as a democracy and a medium sized power.