|
Nuclear Proliferation (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| idoru |
| So since when did the COR become PDD? |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
right. so who are they threatening with their missile, given that it cant go very far? and do you really think its appropriate to threaten third parties? |
Well they are threatening the obvious target, Israel.
But in the grand scheme of things, I honestly can't see the USA giving 2 s about Israel if it got nuked.
They'd nuke Iran in response and that would be the end of it. There is no way Iran has the technology to build ICBMs. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Is Pakistan, North Korea, or India going to use one on an invading force? No. They stick them on missiles and threaten to flatten Seoul or Delhi. The threat of that is enough to keep any aggressor at bay. |
seoul is called the killbox because over 250 000 people would die in 15 minutes if they were attacked(not by nuclear weapons). The city has 25 million(with surrounding areas). Trust me when i say north korea will never attack south korea. There are some ties and bonds there waiting to be fixed. The hate that the american media portrays is not there...trust me i have lived there.;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Well they are threatening the obvious target, Israel.
But in the grand scheme of things, I honestly can't see the USA giving 2 s about Israel if it got nuked.
They'd nuke Iran in response and that would be the end of it. There is no way Iran has the technology to build ICBMs. |
pretty much. so, my question is still with krypton. exactly what kind of deterance is having the bomb going to give iran (against the US)? |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
pretty much. so, my question is still with krypton. exactly what kind of deterance is having the bomb going to give iran (against the US)? |
It's just a deterrent lolololololol.
/Krypton
Iran wouldn't profit from one unless it can hit London, New York, Paris, Berlin, Rome, New York, Washington D.C. or L.A.
Or Tokyo :p
These cities represent the west in all it's glory and are the only worthwhile targets for countries like Iran who's vague and generalized enemy is the "west".
Israel would be a horrible loss, but in truth the world as it is would stop caring pretty quickly. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
Australia
|
huh?
The US and UK have stored some here once upon a time I think, but not anymore. And when they did they weren't available to the ADF.
Unless you are referring to the time the UK decided to nuke our desert.
But that was back in the 50's and early 60's.
We certainly don't have any nukes.
A very historical role in testing and having uranium mines hardly makes us a nuclear superpower. |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
Unless you are referring to the time the UK decided to nuke our desert. |
I'm referring to Wikipedia!
My opinion is in the movement for global nuclear weapon disarmament. I don't believe any country needs a weapon of such devastating power to defend themselves against other countries, organizations, or persons. To launch an offensive with a nuke should be viewed as terrorism; to respond with a nuke would automatically require international intervention with the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction).
It's stupid and I don't see a reason for any country not to realize this. The environmental impact is too much, the threat of civilian fatalities too great.
Unless they are keeping the stockpiles active for an environment non-terrestrial...........
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-6597948.html
| quote: | An asteroid is likely to pass within 30,000 miles of Earth on Thursday, Oct. 26, 2028, and might even hit the Earth, the international astronomical agency that tallies the orbits of asteroids and comets announced Wednesday.
Brian Marsden, director of the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass., cautioned in an interview that calculations of the asteroid's progress were approximate and there was no immediate cause for alarm. |
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
I'm referring to Wikipedia! |
yeah, well there's no way half of those countries have the bomb. the point of having a bomb is that people know about it. there is no gain to be had having a secret weapon, unless youre a terrorist of course.
australia certainly isnt hiding a secret nuclear arsenal! :stongue: |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
Okay...Iran could use a nuke as a weapon of deterrence by mounting it on the nose of a short-range missle, which they have, and lighting it up over the water - taking out two US carrier groups in the process. Sure, this would elicit a reaction from the US, but such a huge bloody nose would give Tehran time to re-develop a civil defence plan and place military hardware.
That said, it would be nice if nobody had them, but since you cannot un-invent something they will always exsist. Those that have them should have minimal stockpiles for defence only, and those who don't shouldn't be allowed to develop the technology. I know that sounds unfair, but the last thing we need is more nuclear weapons in the world, and more peopke with the ability to launce a strike.
Mutual deterrence doesn't work...WWI was a good example of that.
Someone will always up. |
|
|
| Audigy7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
Okay...Iran could use a nuke as a weapon of deterrence by mounting it on the nose of a short-range missle, which they have, and lighting it up over the water - taking out two US carrier groups in the process. Sure, this would elicit a reaction from the US, but such a huge bloody nose would give Tehran time to re-develop a civil defence plan and place military hardware.
That said, it would be nice if nobody had them, but since you cannot un-invent something they will always exsist. Those that have them should have minimal stockpiles for defence only, and those who don't shouldn't be allowed to develop the technology. I know that sounds unfair, but the last thing we need is more nuclear weapons in the world, and more peopke with the ability to launce a strike.
Mutual deterrence doesn't work...WWI was a good example of that.
Someone will always up. |
WW1 deterrence and nuclear deterrence are two different things, really. In WW1, while a tremendous amount of lives and damage were done, the very existence of the nations and their inhabitants weren't completely at stake. The theory of nuclear deterrence relies on the idea of mutually assured destruction; if you attack us, your fate will be the same as ours, complete and utter destruction. If the levels of destruction aren't equal and absolute for both parties, the theory doesn't really hold water any more as the attacker could theoretically come out victorious, in a relative sense. Either everyone needs to have the same relative nuclear power, or nobody should have nuclear weapons. Neither is really plausible, though, as the first wont happen for obvious reasons and the second wont happen either as the US, to be specific, wouldn't give up all of their nuclear weaponry for whatever reason.
Your example isn't exactly valid, though, as such a scenario would result in a immediate nuclear counterattack on Iran. That aside, I just can't see Iran being stupid enough to directly attack the US.
On that note, can anyone explain exactly why a nuclear Iran would be so bad? I mean, what are they going to do if they have one? They couldn't use the damn thing as the rest of the world would turn Iran into one giant molten glass pit so I don't see what could possibly happen. Maybe it gets stolen and smuggled into the US? Well, really only two places one get a get a nuke to smuggle in: Iran and a loose Russian nuke and I think we've rounded up most of those. It just seems to me like a nuclear Iran is only a national security risk in the sense that we no longer have the ability to with them without the fear of them retaliating in a massive sense. I'm not exactly an expert on Iran or nuclear weapons, though, so if I might be missing something, but I just don't see what the big deal is.
As for nuclear power, though, I think we need to invest much more heavily into it, especially in the US. It's clean, efficient, and very renewable. The only downsides I can see are the problems of nuclear waste disposal and the massive setup costs, but I think the pros definitely outweigh the cons in that regard. I don't know why everyone thinks it's so unsafe, the primary reason Chernobyl was so catastrophic was human error combined with cutting corners in the engineering and construction of the plant. If regulated properly, it should be almost accident-proof.
$.02 |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
right. so who are they threatening with their missile, given that they cant go very far? and do you really think its appropriate to threaten third parties? |
Their Sajid missiles have a range of 2000 km. You tell me who they can threaten within that range. There are plenty of targets. Israel is not a third party. No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded or occupied. According to the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction", a country which destroys a nuclear armed country will itself be destroyed by the retaliation of the country being attacked. While Iran couldn't fire a missile at America, they have already stated they see no difference between Israel and America if either one attacked them.
Deterrence is a strategy by which governments threaten an immense retaliation if attacked, such that aggressors are deterred if they do not wish to suffer great damage as a result of an aggressive action. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), conventional weapons strength, economic sanctions, or any combination of these can be used as deterrents. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which came to prominence during the Cold War when it was used by the US to characterize relations between the United States and Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union did not in fact adhere to MAD and was prepared to fight a full scale nuclear and conventional war.
Yost, D. 2007. "Analysing International Nuclear Order." International Affairs 83:3, 549=574 |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
pretty much. so, my question is still with krypton. exactly what kind of deterance is having the bomb going to give iran (against the US)? |
The threat of a nuclear retaliation. It's a very simple concept. |
|
|
|
|
