Who gets the nukes?

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:07 pm

An interesting comment came up on the BBC world service at 2:50 AM MST and it actually echoed a question I had much earlier in the morning. Why do we get to have Nukes and WMD and no one else does? Are we, America in this case, truly that mature of a nation that we're allowed to hang onto these capabilities? Why also do we feel the need to bully others when we will not give up our own. Sure dismantle a few, but we still have some.

The comment made was, (paraphrased) "Countries aren't going to know what to do if they have nuclear capabilities. If the nations who have them already say, "Hey get rid of what you have, they're really bad, mmm'kay" shouldn't those nations also get rid of them? It's a double standard."

One of the original reasons we went into Iraq was to keep Saddam from having WMD's.
Libya said they'd cough up.
Pakistan's in a whole heap of trouble because their head scientist said he sold out secrets of their program.

I guess that makes them the 'bad guys,' so why do we already nuke holders get to make the rules. We're hardly 'good guys.' I understand the 'the biggest bombs get to make the rules' clause but is it really as simple as that?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:40 pm

That's an easy question: For about five years, we were the sole nuclear power on the planet. We could have /owned/ it. We chose not to. That implies a certain sense of responsibility that might well be lacking in other, younger, more turbulent nations.

Ikarus7 · Post by **Ikarus7** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:21 pm

One of the original reasons we went into Iraq was to keep Saddam from having WMD's.

Wasn't it because he suposely had WMD?

That implies a certain sense of responsibility that might well be lacking in other, younger, more turbulent nations

I don't agree, the USA has attacked more country than any other country in the last 50 years, the only difference is that america's war are waged elsewhere than on their own territory. Just because there is some conflict on your territory doesn't make you more or less responsible.

Ever heard of toxic bay in the Phillipines? When the US army closed their base after the gulf war they left their one of their biggest toxic junkyard back there. Because of that the population of a whole region is slowly dying. Just because they didn't clean before leaving. Very responsible...

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:26 pm

I subscribe to the American school of intrests. I believe it is America's duty to stick its nose in where ever it feels like, when ever feels like, and to disregard even the most logical of dissent.

Then again I also believe we should start renaming other countries America, and sewing extra stars and bars on the flag.

You come to make'a movie?

Not this time pal.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:24 am

I think I basically agree with Paul. It is in America's interest to limit nuclear capability to it's allies. "good" has always meant "good for me". The problem is that we always feel the need for some kind of higher justification then "cause it's in our best interests". So we make up these happy warm notions about defending world peace and such, and it helps the weak willed people sleep at night.

It's all really stupid, but there you go.

Ghotty · Post by **Ghotty** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:51 am

Because Nuclear weapons possess the capability to destroy the world, or atleast make the next couple hundred years real bad for the majority of it's population. Americia has used it's nukes twice, and hasn't used them since, and that's been 60+ years ago. And with the desires of many countries, they don't want nukes for the sake of having them.

They want them for the leverage. It's like giving a bully a gun. No, like giving a bully a truck full of explosive, and then thinking he's not going to try and bully anyone else.

We rarely threaten nuclear war. We just use conventional war. And it's better that way.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:31 am

Serious Paul wrote:I subscribe to the American school of intrests. I believe it is America's duty to stick its nose in where ever it feels like, when ever feels like, and to disregard even the most logical of dissent.

...

I reserve comment.

Apparently, at a conference about threats to our planet from various space-type-things, an audience member stood up and asked what would happen if a nuclear weapon was detonated on/in one of the gas giants in our solar system. After going deathly pale and falling silent for a time, one of the panel members said that it could transform the gas giant into a star, frying the Earth in the process.

Sleep well.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:39 am

That's fucking cool, though.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:44 am

I honestly don't know if it's true--that kind of science is way beyond my ken.

But yeah, it is pretty fucking cool. How to destroy the earth with a cheap russian rocket and a stolen nuke (assuming you're willing to wait).

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:00 am

No. Remember a couple of years ago, when that comet smashed into Jupiter? That explosion was larger than the earth itself. We have nothing which can produce that kind of energy.

Don't feel any safer, though; that comet was part of a barrage of comets slung toward the inner solar system every 30 million years or so, when our sun, on its orbit around the galaxy, passes through the most dense portion of our spiral arm, and causes impacts which kill most every living thing on the planet. We're overdue for ours. Maybe this time won't be as bad as the Permian, when 95 percent of all the ocean-dwelling species and 70 percent of the land species were wiped out. Maybe.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:04 am

I'd think that from the "kickstart a sun" standpoint, there'd be a difference between kinetic and nuclear energy. Then again, you're the physics man.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:16 am

Damn. There does my one-man-scorched-earth plan.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:11 am

I belive that if you got the techical sofistication to build one you earned it. They should then become members of that exclusive brotherhood of mutual assured destruction. You shoot at me, we shoot as you, everybody glows in the dark.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:29 am

I belive that if you got the techical sofistication to build one you earned it. They should then become members of that exclusive brotherhood of mutual assured destruction.

So..... If I manage to pick the lock on your house, you have no porblems with me coming in and making myself at home? Kick back in your chair, watch some tv, drink your beer?

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:42 am

MooCow wrote:
I belive that if you got the techical sofistication to build one you earned it. They should then become members of that exclusive brotherhood of mutual assured destruction.
So..... If I manage to pick the lock on your house, you have no porblems with me coming in and making myself at home? Kick back in your chair, watch some tv, drink your beer?

Breaking an entry and having the knowledge to build a device, two very different things. But sure if you can go head, if you find any beer let me know and well there is that destruction thing, you are apparently willing to risk it that I going medieval on your arse when I get home.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:53 am

Breaking an entry and having the knowledge to build a device, two very different things. But sure if you can go head, if you find any beer let me know and well there is that destruction thing, you are apparently willing to risk it that I going medieval on your arse when I get home.

But see, it's really the same thing. Nuclear capability is the "lock" to the "house" of world power/influence. The US likes the house just the way it is. So anyone is free to build nukes, as long as they are willing to risk the US going medieval on thier ass when we get home.

I've argued this time and time again, but "right" is determined only by your ability to enforce it. The US has might, and therefore we are right. It's a sad truth, but a truth none the less.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:16 pm

MooCow wrote:But see, it's really the same thing. Nuclear capability is the "lock" to the "house" of world power/influence. The US likes the house just the way it is. So anyone is free to build nukes, as long as they are willing to risk the US going medieval on thier ass when we get home.

Nice analogy, but I beg to differ.

I've argued this time and time again, but "right" is determined only by your ability to enforce it. The US has might, and therefore we are right. It's a sad truth, but a truth none the less.

Well we (as the people of the planet) decided a long time ago that we didn't really want might making right so that is why we got LAWS (not the single shot once). Yes there are international agreements against nuclear prolifiration and such, which are good. But if someone developes it then it is not your right to go around telling them that they can't have it cause they are not like you and you think that they are evil cause your president told you so.

The nuclear secret is out of pandoras box and there is not a thing on this earth you can do to put it back in. Learn how to live with it.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:29 pm

So what if learning to live with it is using force to enforce our own acceptable limits on others?

What if we decide we want regulate others, and others agree with us. Enought to where the fabled "We all agng up on the US" scenario isn't a possibilty? What then?

There is another cat out of the bag, lorg. The big kid is loose on the block, and the only thing that keeps him from dottin' eyes and crossin' T's is his own self restraint. But people apparently don't have to live with that, do they?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:17 pm

Well we (as the people of the planet) decided a long time ago that we didn't really want might making right so that is why we got LAWS (not the single shot once).

Aww yes.... Law. Tell me, assuming I knew where you lived, what is to keep me from coming to your house, kicking the door in, and shooting you in the face? How does your precious Law protect you?

Answer: It doesn't. The Law does jack shit. It's words on paper. Meaningless without a force such as the police to back it up. Might makes right.

(I'll note that physical force is only one means by which we enforce Law. There are many ways, but in the end it comes down to an application of Force.)

Moonwolf · Post by **Moonwolf** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:40 pm

However, since the USA doesn't want the world to turn into a glowing hell, and that it's perfectly prepared to go into convention warfare with a country it was saying could launch WMDs in 45mins, why does it need any nukes? It's never going to use them, they aren't a deterent for any "rogue state" that might develop them, 'cause they're never going to be used. The just cost the taxpayer a fortune in maintenance.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:57 pm

However, since the USA doesn't want the world to turn into a glowing hell, and that it's perfectly prepared to go into convention warfare with a country it was saying could launch WMDs in 45mins, why does it need any nukes? It's never going to use them, they aren't a deterent for any "rogue state" that might develop them, 'cause they're never going to be used. The just cost the taxpayer a fortune in maintenance.

Willingness to do Option A does not mean we are unwilling to do Option B.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:01 pm

MooCow wrote:Aww yes.... Law. Tell me, assuming I knew where you lived, what is to keep me from coming to your house, kicking the door in, and shooting you in the face? How does your precious Law protect you?

Answer: It doesn't. The Law does jack shit. It's words on paper. Meaningless without a force such as the police to back it up. Might makes right.

It doesn't. So absolutely nothing is holding you back except yourself. That and perhaps fear. Fear from force you'll say then. Sure in the end. But that assumes everyone fears force, obviously they don't. Plus I still don't think that 'might makes right'. Just cause you can enforce it with violence doesn't make it right. Just enforceable.

Serious Paul wrote:What if we decide we want regulate others, and others agree with us. Enought to where the fabled "We all agng up on the US" scenario isn't a possibilty? What then?

If everyone one agrees then that is one thing. In this case I doubt everyone does.

There is another cat out of the bag, lorg. The big kid is loose on the block, and the only thing that keeps him from dottin' eyes and crossin' T's is his own self restraint. But people apparently don't have to live with that, do they?

For the time being it looks like we are going to have to. But then nothing lasts forever.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:02 am

Salvation122 wrote:That's an easy question: For about five years, we were the sole nuclear power on the planet. We could have /owned/ it. We chose not to. That implies a certain sense of responsibility that might well be lacking in other, younger, more turbulent nations.

...Because everyone wants to own a giant nuclear wasteland, right?

MooCow wrote:Nuclear capability is the "lock" to the "house" of world power/influence.

What about chemical and biological weapons? Aren't they equally commanding? ICBMs also help a great deal.

MooCow wrote:The US has might, and therefore we are right. It's a sad truth, but a truth none the less.

Except that the majority of Americans would, I imagine, be uncomfortable with the idea of enormous power unanswerable to a higher moral authority.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:52 am

mrmooky wrote:...Because everyone wants to own a giant nuclear wasteland, right?

We wouldn't have had to use them, certainly not very often. The threat would have been enough.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:16 am

Mr. Mooky wrote:Except that the majority of Americans would, I imagine, be uncomfortable with the idea of enormous power unanswerable to a higher moral authority.

Bah, most Americans are too apathetic to care, let alone even know. That's our tragic flaw. With great power should come great responsibility, but we have more of a with greta po-hey dude check out those sneakers! attitude.

So despuite the fact I seriosuly believe America could make a decent world conqueoring evil empire, we can barely tie our own shoes, and have the situational awareness of a six year old ADHD.

Heh, gawd bless America!