Lessons not learned...

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Article from New Scientist

Why do people insist on developing these things? Surely we've all come to the conclusion that nucelar weapons are unnaceptable in this day and age?

[habdoel 0]

nuclear weopons are not unnaceptable for all it seems

[Harnu 0]

No one has the guts to really use nukes now. Everyone knows if they use them, they're screwing themselves. They're the most Usefull but most useless weapons now. Usefull that it prevents from others using it, Useless that no one can use them.

[Renagade 0]

It`ll just mean that those nukes will get to places other nukes wont destroying every last trace of ur enemy although everything else wouyld be obliterated too

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Nov. 07 2002,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No one has the guts to really use nukes now.  Everyone knows if they use them, they're screwing themselves.  They're the most Usefull but most useless weapons now.  Usefull that it prevents from others using it, Useless that no one can use them.<span id='postcolor'>

I think they had their purpose during the cold war when there was an equilibrium of forces. Sending one nuke would have initiated an atomic war and destroyed the entire planet. Nowadys this equilibrium is gone. The US could without any problems send a Nuke to IRAQ in case the would be attacked (no I am not implying the US would do that). But such a single nuke can be used much easier nowadays since a resulting atomic war is unlikely to happen. THAT makes it different. A nuke no longer is perceived as the "weapon that provides peace"

[red oct 2]

to me, it seems to make sense why so many countries want them, not that im saying its good. the origonal use for nukes was to force a invading force from entering a country, or suppose in a cold war scenerio, a Soviet armada of ships is comming to attack the west coast of the U.S., nukes would be used on the invading ships when they are about maybe a hour or two from entering U.S. waters. just look at North Korea and Iraq, or a even better example India and Pakistan, two countries that were at war and still at a very dangerous odds. neither 2 will invade each other because both seem to have nukes.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">neither 2 will invade each other because both seem to have nukes.

<span id='postcolor'>

I hope you are right...

[Tovarish 0]

Yes, nukes kept the peace during the Cold War...but do you realize how lucky we all are that the planet is still around? even if you don't count incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, do you have any idea who many times we came to the brink because some radar operator saw a strange blip on his scope? I was told of one instance by a history teacher in high school where NORAD confused a flock of canada Geese flying over the Canadian Arctic for Soviet bombers.....

[Sadico 1]

I don't know if it's true, but i've heard that there was a nuclear alert in the US because the defense system confused the moon with a massive soviet missile attack.

[Balschoiw 0]

Do we need Nukes nowadays ?

In my opinion not. The global players should get these warheads out of business. No more production, no material left, -> not easy to buy for terrorists.

But don´t forget there is a lot of money behind that bizz , so it´s unlikely we will get rid of them.

One thing to think about: There wouldnt have been Cuba Crisis if there were no nukes.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 08 2002,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing to think about: There wouldnt have been Cuba Crisis if there were no nukes.<span id='postcolor'>

On the other hand we would all have probably slaughtered each other in another huge conventional world war...bah, I say we're all still here because of dumb luck more than anything.

[ralphwiggum 6]

having nukes (unfortunately) shows that one country is superior to another. as soon as India got one, Indians were cheering, and Pakistan also got one and Pakistans were cheering....national pride.

one thing for sure though. whoever uses it first just handed out an invitation to have him/herself nuked by other nations.

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Nov. 08 2002,00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">neither 2 will invade each other because both seem to have nukes.

<span id='postcolor'>

I hope you are right...<span id='postcolor'>

im pretty positive i am, the indian prime minister said that he would use his nuclear weapons on pakistan if they attacked. and i would bet vice-versa.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

As the New Scientist report said, the problem with Nuclear Anti-Bunkers is that a country could easily say that America had luanched a nuclear attack on them if one of these bombs were dropped on them. And what happens when a nation drops a nuke on another country that has nukes?

[second_draw 0]

I see it a trump card which you should play wisely. Pull it out to early and you will pay dearly. Too late and the game is over. Then again why can't we play without them?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (second_draw @ Nov. 08 2002,09:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see it a trump card which you should play wisely. Pull it out to early and you will pay dearly. Too late and the game is over. Then again why can't we play without them?<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly the point, surely we can get along without them? Of course the other issue brought up in that report was the fact that research had showed, adding a nuclear payload to the 'bunker busters' would do little to improve its effectiveness at penetrating the earth. So why even bother making these things nuclear?

As for nuclear weapons being seen as less of a deterrant and more of a 'status symbol', I would have to agree. It's just a bit of a shame people can't place more national pride on something less nasty.

[advocatexxx 0]

Any country's military is run by generals, war experts, and to those people nuclear weapons are the ultimate solution. They can destroy more material and soldiers within a single hit than any other weapon. It is the most efficient way of disabling enemy forces and poses a massive psychological fear effect.

I doubt we will see disarmaments of all nuclear weapons in the world anytime soon.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Nov. 07 2002,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think they had their purpose during the cold war when there was an equilibrium of forces. Sending one nuke would have initiated an atomic war and destroyed the entire planet.<span id='postcolor'>

The big question is: Is MAD still effective when you have more than 3 "actors" in the nuclear game? How is each supposed to react ?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Nov. 07 2002,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, nukes kept the peace during the Cold War...but do you realize how lucky we all are that the planet is still around? even if you don't count incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, do you have any idea who many times we came to the brink because some radar operator saw a strange blip on his scope? I was told of one instance by a history teacher in high school where NORAD confused a flock of canada Geese flying over the Canadian Arctic for Soviet bombers.....<span id='postcolor'>

umm... Soviet Bears skirted Canadian airspace on a regular basis during the cold war.

[Sadico 1]

And US aircraft violated soviet airspace lot's of times during the cold war.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ Nov. 08 2002,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any country's military is run by generals, war experts, and to those people nuclear weapons are the ultimate solution.  They can destroy more material and soldiers within a single hit than any other weapon.  It is the most efficient way of disabling enemy forces and poses a massive psychological fear effect.

I doubt we will see disarmaments of all nuclear weapons in the world anytime soon.<span id='postcolor'>

They also have rather unpleasant side-effects lasting for a great number of years. Everyone knows the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, and perhaps merely the threat of use is enough, but WHY develop more? Making something like the 'bunker buster' nuclear, seems to serve no purpose other than to justify spending some money. Surely it would be better spent elsewhere.

I too have no doubt that nuclear weapons will not be eradicated any time soon, but there really is no reason at all to develop more.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Nov. 08 2002,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And US aircraft violated soviet airspace lot's of times during the cold war.<span id='postcolor'>

Francis Gary Powers and the U-2 anyone?

The new problesmw tih nukes now is, that an all out nuclear attack is unlikely. What is more likely is the detonation of a single weapon by a terrorist orginisation. And really, have a few thousand nuclear warheads isn't going to help in that situation. Problem is, unless every single nuclear armed nation threw away their nukes at the same time, nuclear disarmament is never going to happen. No nation will ever completely disarm as long as there is any known nation that has nukes still in fear of been helpless in the event of a nuclear war.

Sad.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 08 2002,15:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Nov. 07 2002,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, nukes kept the peace during the Cold War...but do you realize how lucky we all are that the planet is still around? even if you don't count incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, do you have any idea who many times we came to the brink because some radar operator saw a strange blip on his scope? I was told of one instance by a history teacher in high school where NORAD confused a flock of canada Geese flying over the Canadian Arctic for Soviet bombers.....<span id='postcolor'>

umm... Soviet Bears skirted Canadian airspace on a regular basis during the cold war.<span id='postcolor'>

In that case it was more than just "skirting" or a lone spy plane. It was a huge flock of migratory birds which happened to look very similar to a large formation of Soviet bombers inbound for the US on a radar screen. B-58's and interceptors were launched, and it was a fighter pilot who thankfully realized the mistake before the B-58's made it into Soviet airspace.

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Nov. 08 2002,10:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">adding a nuclear payload to the 'bunker busters' would do little to improve its effectiveness at penetrating the earth. So why even bother making these things nuclear?<span id='postcolor'>

It could just fry/melt/microwave (radiation) the unlucky occupents to death? Even several metres of concrete can't stop much of the gamma rays (then again gamma rays a the weakest radiation). What about that new conventional bunk buster bomb they used in afghan? Btw, i thought these "tatical" nukes were meant for taking out airfields and such (there is a topic on this)

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Nov. 09 2002,00:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 08 2002,15:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Nov. 07 2002,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, nukes kept the peace during the Cold War...but do you realize how lucky we all are that the planet is still around? even if you don't count incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, do you have any idea who many times we came to the brink because some radar operator saw a strange blip on his scope? I was told of one instance by a history teacher in high school where NORAD confused a flock of canada Geese flying over the Canadian Arctic for Soviet bombers.....<span id='postcolor'>

umm... Soviet Bears skirted Canadian airspace on a regular basis during the cold war.<span id='postcolor'>

In that case it was more than just "skirting" or a lone spy plane. It was a huge flock of migratory birds which happened to look very similar to a large formation of Soviet bombers inbound for the US on a radar screen. B-58's and interceptors were launched, and it was a fighter pilot who thankfully realized the mistake before the B-58's made it into Soviet airspace.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies... I reckon you wouldn't even be human being if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelings about nuclear combat. <span id='postcolor'>

... doctor strangelove still gets a laugh