Nuclear weapons

[Tony]

Do you get the feeling that someday very soon, you are going to wake up and read the headlines, "Nuclear weapon detonated in the Middle East!".

I've had that thought a few times. The frightening question is "How will the global powers align after such an event"?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What about nuculer weapons, huh? What about them?

 

[Tony]

Don't you think that Iran would instantly strike is Israel if they had nuclear weapons?

Not necessarily. Iran could bide their time and wait for a moment of complacency or weakness. Or wait for US support for Israel to dry-up. There are many strategic reasons for Iran not to drop a nuke as soon as they get one.

I fully expect it yes, but I expect Israel to be dropping it, not Iran. I think its about high time too.

Why would you want Israel to commit such a political suicide? That would be the dumbest thing they could do. It would only re-enforce the anti-jew/anti-israel propaganda and give ammunition to anti-semites the world over.

 

[Azure]

Why would you want Israel to commit such a political suicide? That would be the dumbest thing they could do. It would only re-enforce the anti-jew/anti-israel propaganda and give ammunition to anti-semites the world over.

Well considering the anti-semitism that has arisen from this recent conflict, wouldn't Israel now be already commiting political suicide? Why should they give a crap what the rest of the world thinks?

As long as the US is firm in their support, as is Canada and Australia, Israel is set.

France, Germany and Russia and go cry me a freakin' river. I don't want to hear their pathetic moaning anymore.

 

[geni]

I'm pretty sure that Iran has at least one. Nuclear weapons are not difficult to make. The hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is preventing it from detonating when you DON'T want it to go off.

Wrong that is pretty easy. For uranium the problem is makeing the material. For plutonium the problem is setting it off properly

If you have a bunch of suicide bombers at your disposal, you don't have to worry about any of that. It's simply a matter of bringing enough enriched uranium atoms in close proximity to one another.

That wont work. To start with the critical mass of uranium is to high to fit it in your pockets. Secondly the process you describe would almost certianly result in fizzel rather than a proper nuclear explosion

 

[geni]

I do have a guess. My guess is that the nuclear material necessary for a bomb is not now in the hands of a terrorist group. If it were, they'd have sold it for chemical and biological weapons or a lot of conventinal ones. Refined plutonium and enriched uranium are literally woth their weight in gold and diamonds.

IIRichard

Not really. France has several tonnes of refined plutonium hanging around. For accounting perposes it ahs zero value since no one they would be prepared to sell it too wants to buy it

 

[geni]

Thus the graduate student.

Or prisoner. Same thing.

Uranium hexafluoride is a pain to work with. You would need chemists with experence of working with insanely corrosive gasses.

 

[Elind]

... I mean... who would vote against an invasion in the UN? ......

Are you sure you might not want to reconsider that comment?

Anyone want to take bets on who would, even assuming nobody could deny they did it?

 

[The Don]

I think we all realize what part Iran is playing in the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Wouldn't you call that suicidal? Wouldn't you call 90% of the terrorists out there suicidal, considering that they're the ones who walk into a market place and blow themselves up.

No, only a very small percentage of terrorists are suicide bombers.

In the context you used it, I also took your comment to mean that the Iranian government was suicidal and would undertake a nuclear first strike. I've not seen any evidence of the Iranian state being that stupid.

They are very good at sabre rattling but from what I've seen, they're all bark and no bite.

If I had the utmost certainty that Iran or NK, or some other terrorist group would never launch nuclear weapons against the free world, I would agree to limit the use of nuclear weapons.

I really don't see that happening. The idea of MAD went along way in stopping nuclear war from breaking out with the Warsaw Pact. Sadly, that theory cannot and will not apply to Muslim extremists.

You are advocating a first use and are impling that this first use should be soon. Dropping nuclear weapons as a way to promote world peace ignores the likely consequences

 

[Tony]

Well considering the anti-semitism that has arisen from this recent conflict, wouldn't Israel now be already commiting political suicide?

No.

Why should they give a crap what the rest of the world thinks?

Because the world united against them could wipe them off the planet.

As long as the US is firm in their support, as is Canada and Australia, Israel is set.

Right, as long as.

France, Germany and Russia and go cry me a freakin' river. I don't want to hear their pathetic moaning anymore.

And you other people want to hear your's?

 

[gumboot]

Are you sure you might not want to reconsider that comment?

Anyone want to take bets on who would, even assuming nobody could deny they did it?

No, I think if a country nuked another country, and if it was obvious they did it, the UN would be quite happy to allow the victim and their friends to respond in force.

At the very least the UN would be unanimous in their silence.

-Andrew

 

[Kerberos]

No, I think if a country nuked another country, and if it was obvious they did it, the UN would be quite happy to allow the victim and their friends to respond in force.

At the very least the UN would be unanimous in their silence.

-Andrew

Besides you don't need UN authoritasation for selfdefence. You might seek it anyways for political reasons or to prevent squables about what is and isn't selfdefence and in case of a nuclear attack you would almost certainly get it. It is howevers not a violation of international law in any shape or form to defend yourself without asking the UN first.

 

[gumboot]

Besides you don't need UN authoritasation for selfdefence. You might seek it anyways for political reasons or to prevent squables about what is and isn't selfdefence and in case of a nuclear attack you would almost certainly get it. It is howevers not a violation of international law in any shape or form to defend yourself without asking the UN first.

Technically, under the UN Charter, the UN not only has to allow it, ALL United Nations member states HAVE to provide military support (I think the specific text is a squadron of attack aircraft or something, which is funny because New Zealand disbanded their attack aircraft 5 years ago...).

-Andrew

 

[mrfreeze]

I have to ask, if let's say NK decided to commit international suicide by mod and launch a nuke which struck California (since last I read this was about as far as their missles could reach) how screwed would the rest of us be? In other words, what would be the range of the fallout? I keep having these horrible images of radiation enveloping the whole country and us all dying horrible deaths, but I would assume that is unrealistic. Do current nukes pose more of a threat in that regard than say the A bombs we dropped on Japan?

 

[geni]

I have to ask, if let's say NK decided to commit international suicide by mod and launch a nuke which struck California (since last I read this was about as far as their missles could reach) how screwed would the rest of us be?

Zilch. Far larger weapons have been detonated on US soil

In other words, what would be the range of the fallout? I keep having these horrible images of radiation enveloping the whole country and us all dying horrible deaths, but I would assume that is unrealistic. Do current nukes pose more of a threat in that regard than say the A bombs we dropped on Japan?

Some do but not the ones NK likely has.

 

[gumboot]

I keep having these horrible images of radiation enveloping the whole country and us all dying horrible deaths, but I would assume that is unrealistic. Do current nukes pose more of a threat in that regard than say the A bombs we dropped on Japan?

Funnily enough, I remember recently reading the findings of a study done on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Although small numbers of mutations occured in children that were born shortly after the attacks, the rates of cancer in these two cities, in the expanse of 60 years after the attacks is actually slightly LOWER than average for the country.

Even taking into account all people who died as a result of radiation sickness or cancer from the atomic blasts against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a single night of firestorm bombing against Tokyo killed more people.

In essence, though the study is not absolute (the researchers pointed out that the grandchildren of survivors have not yet reached middle age) indicators so far are that long term impact of nuclear fallout is a myth. (Similar results were found for assessment of toxins in the environment).

As I often like to point out, the likely impact of nuclear weapons has long been exaggerated. The 181AD Taupo volcanic eruption was roughly equivelant to 1000-2000 Megatons TNT. It did not even extinguish life in New Zealand, let alone the region (despite being heard in China, turning the sky red around the world, causing a global drop in temperature for years, and depositing a distinct layer of ash everywhere). By comparison, the entire world's nuclear arsenal is estimated at a yield of about 5000 Mega Tons. Obviously both of these figures are rough estimates, but it gives you an idea of comparison.

(And it should be pointed out the 181AD eruption certainly wasn't even Taupo's biggest, let alone the biggest the world has ever seen - by comparison the Yellowstone eruptions are rated at hundreds of thousands of megatons, and are of the same explosive index as the Taupo eruption about 26,000 years ago).

-Andrew

 

[Azure]

No, only a very small percentage of terrorists are suicide bombers.

In the context you used it, I also took your comment to mean that the Iranian government was suicidal and would undertake a nuclear first strike. I've not seen any evidence of the Iranian state being that stupid.

They are very good at sabre rattling but from what I've seen, they're all bark and no bite.

Well I sure hope so, but reading the news, it makes you wondering A)what they are thinking saying Israel can't hurt them and B) saying they want to annex Israel.

You are advocating a first use and are impling that this first use should be soon. Dropping nuclear weapons as a way to promote world peace ignores the likely consequences

I guess you'll be promoting your whacked up theory of world peace all the way till doomsday, eh?

Its never going to happen.

Not that I wouldn't like it to happen, but we're never going to get rid of anti-Western Muslims that would give their lives to kill us, especially if we have people constantly undermining the effort to promote peace and security in the ME.

 

[Kerberos]

Technically, under the UN Charter, the UN not only has to allow it

Where do you get that from? Don't tell me that you interpret "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." to mean "but if somebody else breaks this law, you should stand quite still and let him pound you into the ground, untill such time as the UN authorises you to defend yourself"

ALL United Nations member states HAVE to provide military support (I think the specific text is a squadron of attack aircraft or something, which is funny because New Zealand disbanded their attack aircraft 5 years ago...).

-Andrew

All countries are legally obligated to help in the actions mandated by the SC, but I very much doubt that this help is specified or limited to one squadron of airplanes.

 

[Elind]

No, I think if a country nuked another country, and if it was obvious they did it, the UN would be quite happy to allow the victim and their friends to respond in force.

At the very least the UN would be unanimous in their silence.

-Andrew

The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council (China is still commie, and Russia is pretend not, didn't you know?). What does evidence have anything to do with it?

Any such event (nuclear) will be denied by all the obvious culprits and any retaliation will be condemned by all the usual culprits, and all the usual sheep will buy whatever they have been told.

The only rational result will be that every one of the deniers will be be threatened with the same, but unfortunately that includes China and Russia these days.

Think they will be smart enough to change course? I don't know.

PS ever think what kind of world we would live in if China, Russia and, what the hell, throw in India and Pakistan would actually agree on putting petty dictators in their place? (Hey, I leave out France and Germany deliberately).


The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion. They created N Korea, they protect and help Iran, they excuse Syria, then encourage Chavez, they love African dictators with mines, they make cheap Rolexes and they fill my mailbox (filtered) with imbecilic spam.

I try to find shirts I can afford that say anything other than made in China. Honest.

Russians next week. Stay tuned.

 

[Rob Lister]

The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council (China is still commie, and Russia is pretend not, didn't you know?). What does evidence have anything to do with it?

Any such event (nuclear) will be denied by all the obvious culprits and any retaliation will be condemned by all the usual culprits, and all the usual sheep will buy whatever they have been told.

The only rational result will be that every one of the deniers will be be threatened with the same, but unfortunately that includes China and Russia these days.

Think they will be smart enough to change course? I don't know.

PS ever think what kind of world we would live in if China, Russia and, what the hell, throw in India and Pakistan would actually agree on putting petty dictators in their place? (Hey, I leave out France and Germany deliberately).


The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion. They created N Korea, they protect and help Iran, they excuse Syria, then encourage Chavez, they love African dictators with mines, they make cheap Rolexes and they fill my mailbox (filtered) with imbecilic spam.

I try to find shirts I can afford that say anything other than made in China. Honest.

Russians next week. Stay tuned.

As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.