|
Regarding nuclear proliferation
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Belgian Bonzai |
For what it's worth on this relatively small forum
I write this because President Putin's decleration that the Russian Federation will develop a new nuclear weapon program "that no other country will have".
I am completing my last year to be nuclear civil (=not military) engineer.
I urge you to realise the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon that devestated Hiroshima had an explosive force of 16kT (kiloton TNT equivalent), which is relatively tiny. Be advised that strategic nuclear weapons of multimegaton force are operational at this time. A bomb of 16Mt (megaton TNT equivalent) is 1000 (one thousand) times more powerful. Both you and I cannot grasp this explosive power.
So far only 2 devices have been brought to explode in wartime; if nuclear proliferation continues to proceed at this rate, Nth state nuclear capability inherently undermines the stability of world peace and human culture as we know it. The way I see it (and the expert dr. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.org, made similar declarations), the only inherently safe solution is dismantelement of all nuclear weapons on this 3rd planet. The equilibrium which has held since the 50's is unstable, that equilibrium that is based on nuclear deterrence would hold for the 5 declared nuclear states (for n00bs: United Kingdom, United States of America, Russian Federation, France, China), but Israël, Pakistan, India, perhaps the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North-Korea) do or may posses nuclear devices and the means of delivery over large distances. This situation is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE.
My worst nightmare is nuclear holocaust; I am mighty afraid that it will happen in my lifetime.
Scram jet, yeah, mach 10+, cool! Further development enables to deploy nuclear weapons within 2 hours worldwide. Not related? For personal transport only? Don't be naive, please.
As unrealistic as it sounds, worldwide disarmament is the only stable solution to avoid nuclear explosions over populated areas, I sincerely hope I will never have to come here with the reply 'I told you so'.
Use nuclear power to stimulate world development; do not pursue nuclear bombs, respect the IAEA,respect the UN, respect mankind. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
ok I'm all for.
Lets dismantel the terrorist states first, then lets talk. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
ok I'm all for.
Lets dismantel the terrorist states first, then lets talk. |
oh no, but the hippies in the france, germany, UK, and michael moore are against that. hmm, maybe we can "talk" north korea out of dismantling its nucleaur program, and iran, etc.
maybe the terrorist, currupt, renegade regimes of world will have the good in their hearts to stop this madness..:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Belgian Bonzai
For what it's worth on this relatively small forum
I write this because President Putin's decleration that the Russian Federation will develop a new nuclear weapon program "that no other country will have".
I am completing my last year to be nuclear civil (=not military) engineer.
I urge you to realise the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon that devestated Hiroshima had an explosive force of 16kT (kiloton TNT equivalent), which is relatively tiny. Be advised that strategic nuclear weapons of multimegaton force are operational at this time. A bomb of 16Mt (megaton TNT equivalent) is 1000 (one thousand) times more powerful. Both you and I cannot grasp this explosive power.
So far only 2 devices have been brought to explode in wartime; if nuclear proliferation continues to proceed at this rate, Nth state nuclear capability inherently undermines the stability of world peace and human culture as we know it. The way I see it (and the expert dr. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.org, made similar declarations), the only inherently safe solution is dismantelement of all nuclear weapons on this 3rd planet. The equilibrium which has held since the 50's is unstable, that equilibrium that is based on nuclear deterrence would hold for the 5 declared nuclear states (for n00bs: United Kingdom, United States of America, Russian Federation, France, China), but Israël, Pakistan, India, perhaps the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North-Korea) do or may posses nuclear devices and the means of delivery over large distances. This situation is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE.
My worst nightmare is nuclear holocaust; I am mighty afraid that it will happen in my lifetime.
Scram jet, yeah, mach 10+, cool! Further development enables to deploy nuclear weapons within 2 hours worldwide. Not related? For personal transport only? Don't be naive, please.
As unrealistic as it sounds, worldwide disarmament is the only stable solution to avoid nuclear explosions over populated areas, I sincerely hope I will never have to come here with the reply 'I told you so'.
Use nuclear power to stimulate world development; do not pursue nuclear bombs, respect the IAEA,respect the UN, respect mankind. |
while i can appreciate you're genuine concern and respect for the history involving proliferation, i must remind you of the Russian history of nuclear "sabre rattling" in the face of percieved threats. correct me if i'm wrong, but would you happen to be reffering to Russia's renewed efforts at modernizing their missle delivery and ballistic targeting systems? their current arsenal of ballistic missles is very dated. they have tried to continue the modernization through some very hard economic times with mediocre success in funding, however, in true stoic Russian fashion, they trudge on with key upgrades in technology regarding their newest ICBM the SS-X-27. this missle will slowly replace their aged fleet of SS-25's at the rate of a dozen or so a year. they have complied with and have no problem with continued compliance with START II but one thing they will not do is stand down their nuclear capabilities for anyone. and they shouldn't. the Russian's can't even put their once mightiest Navy to sea. but they will be damned if they give up anything in the way of strategic deterrence in a changing volatility we know today. it's my opinion that the Russians have settled on a way to finally make good on their own commitment to modernize the aging delivery systems. you can't make the "bomb" any more deadly they have already made it. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
oh no, but the hippies in the france, germany, UK, and michael moore are against that. hmm, maybe we can "talk" north korea out of dismantling its nucleaur program, and iran, etc.
maybe the terrorist, currupt, renegade regimes of world will have the good in their hearts to stop this madness..:rolleyes: |
or those two governments could implode on their own with a little help from the free world. |
|
|
| policerobots |
| Yeah Hiroshima is a firecracker compared to those Hydrogen bombs we have |
|
|
|
|
