How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament 228
Lasrick writes: John Mecklin details exactly how nuclear weapons modernization is kick-starting a new arms race, and how modernizing these weapons to make them more accurate and stealthy puts the world at even greater risk of nuclear war: "[T]his is precisely why the U.S. Congress rejected the Air Force’s requests for low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons in the 1990s: Their very accuracy increases the temptation to use them." The issue is not getting very much attention, but the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin, and a breakthrough in public awareness may be on the horizon: "The disarmament debate is likely to make this spring's NPT conference a contentious one and just might be loud enough to make the public aware that a new type of nuclear arms race is unfolding around the world."
Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:5, Insightful)
Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.
Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.
Perhaps the world belong to everyone.
And no, the output of peoples labor does not.
Pakistan, Israel (Score:2)
Pakistan has nuclear weapons (and India has the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Nuclear Bombs as well), but aside from their border conflicts around Kashmir (for which the nukes make war less likely but more risky), their big invasion problem is non-governmental forces like Taliban, for whom nukes are really no use at all.
And Israel, of course, has the bomb (probably also the hydrogen bomb), but you're not allowed to say that in discussions about whether Iran can make one also. Wouldn't be a total surprise if the
Re: (Score:2)
Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.
Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.
So if you could travel back in time, you'd undo recent interventions. You would go back and change things so that today in your preferred reality, Afghanistan is still ruled by the Taliban with Bin Laden still living as their guest, Gadhafi still ruling Libya after completing the genocide he promised his opponents, and Saddam still ruling Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure we have no interest in playing fair here. While we have the biggest stick, America and its allies are that much safer. We're not two equally matched swordsmen allowing fate to guide our strokes and may the best duelist that day win. We want to make sure that when they other guy shows up in his fencing gear and foil, we are in our tank with an Apache helicopter as our tag team partner. And if this allows us the responsibility of playing worldwide police officer (and yes, you can use recen
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:4, Insightful)
Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.
Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.
Perhaps the most salient point was made in another thread. The Ukraine, as one of the only nations to ever willingly give up a nuclear arsenal, is in the process of being invaded. I'm not sure if you care about the distinction that in this case it is Russia doing the invading and not the evil America or her western allies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine learned this the hard way. Next time they come across 1900 nuclear warheads paired with various delivery systems, they'll think twice before giving them back.
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:5, Insightful)
... or slaughtering their own citizens.
I think you mean "holding back their oil". Because slaughtering their citizens never really registered on any country's radar, except as an excuse to accomplish something else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What country flew an airplane into any U.S. building? Terrorist group of Saudis, who were former apid CIA agents in Soviet-Afghanistan war, did that. Maybe our CIA should cut that kind of shit out, eh?
Then you bring up WMD, Saddam had no working WMD nor WMD program when US invaded. What he did have were long-expired weapons with UN tags on them, that were built with dual-use tech and billions of dollars given to him by ...wait for it..the United States of America. Because at the time he was our bestest pal, even made an honorary citizen of Detroit by the mayor for his donations to church, etc.
I'd second the SA blame for 911, but even more directly responsible than them would have to be Pakistan.
The American support for the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan times wasn't solely to Al Qaida chaps, but to anyone willing to fight the Russians, including Al Qaida and the Taliban and the Afghan Northern Alliance folks that were their enemies. It's not lying per se to claim that America supported people that would later become key players in the Taliban and Al Qaida, but it's certainly less than half
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:5, Insightful)
That episode guaranteed that no tin horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.
That seems logical, but Assad did just that:
Syria will give up control of chemical weapons [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did he?
Or did he just say he was going to while hiding it better?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all "WMDs" are alike though. Nuclear weapons are weapons of state preservation in a way that Chemical weapons have never been. Chemical Weapons are nasty stuff, to be sure - but in terms of history, they've been more of a liability than an advantage. I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons, and at least one was invaded in part because they were al
Re: (Score:3)
Assad made a decision to ditch his chemical weapons in order to avoid military intervention by the USA.
His decision and timing were brilliant since it prevented Obama from launching airstrikes and cruise missiles which he was on the verge of doing. Assad can always rebuild his WMD program later after he crushes the rebels.
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:4, Interesting)
Iraq used chemical weapons to pretty good effect to stave off Iranian human wave attacks during the Iran Iraq war. If they hadnâ(TM)t it would have somewhat increased the likelihood that Iran would have won the war. With the help of chemical weapons Iraq fought a much larger country to a stalemate.
The Reagan administration and numerous western companies were fine with Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran during that era. They didnt want Iran to win that war.
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:5, Informative)
The Iraqis got their chemical weapons from the US for use against Iran. The US still hasn't destroyed their own CBW program products (though they do occasionally retire old unstable chemical weapons, as they've done recently.)
And both the US and Russians still have their hoards of smallpox, pretending they need to keep them to develop vaccines in case the other side uses theirs to attack, even though cowpox ("vaccinia") is good enough for a vaccine and not good enough for a weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they would stop building chemical or biological WMDs if we would stop killing those that decide to cooperate and indeed put an end to their WMD programs.
The one positive thing to come out of the Iraq war was that Qaddafi did put an end to his WMD programs, out of fear that he would be next. Look how he was rewarded. That episode guaranteed that no tin horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.
Indeed. And all Gadhafi had done was use his military to crush and murder peaceful protests, and when that turned ugly, promising to 'exterminate the cockroaches house by house'. Stopping him was certainly an unjustifiable failure of international relations.
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts, and despite evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ... your own government had people talking about how the oil you'd get from Iraq would pay for the war because they'd be so grateful. How did that work out for you?
And, further, how many places has America utterly failed to act when there was no oil?
America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part. And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.
Has it occurred to you that the much vaunted "principles" America claims before going to war are entirely dependent on oil and/or your own economic benefit, and that your claims to do this out of a sense of right and wrong is bullshit?
Because it certainly has to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, they sure did utterly fail to act and ignore what was happening in Africa because of the lack of oil. How did that work out for them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was 20 years ago.
And America is doing, what, exactly, in Africa now besides insisting foreign aid be tied to no contraception?
Re: (Score:2)
"besides insisting foreign aid be tied to no contraception?"
Where on Earth is this official U.S. government policy? I know there are a lot of crackpots in the U.S., some of them in government even, but you'll be hard pressed to find any official documentation to verify this.
And 20 years is too long ago? What about 10 years? 4 months?
Re: (Score:3)
Since it's paywalled, I guess we'll never know.
The program mentioned in the article (PEPFAR) did devote money to programs that promoted abstinence, which is definitely somewhat misguided, but still spent two-thirds of its funding on programs which supported the use of condoms. Wikipedia makes no mention of an "insistence" or requirement that the aid money be devoted to abstinence-only methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Initially, a recommended 20% of the PEPFAR budget was to be spent on prevention, with the remaining 80% going to care and treatment, laboratory support, antiretroviral drugs, TB/HIV services, support for orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), infrastructure, training, and other related services. Of the 20% spent on prevention, one third, or 6.7% of the total, was to be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs in fiscal years 2006 through 2008, a controversial requirement "
So yes, some of it was devoted
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:5, Insightful)
"Japan wanted the oil in the Philippines"
uh, wut? Japan wanted the Philippines to protect their southern flank and for agricultural purposes....they wanted Indonesia for oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
But you are correct.....Afgahnistan does not have oil, and the U.S. gets very little of its overall oil from Iraq.
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_b... [eia.gov]
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/... [mongabay.com]
Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score:5, Interesting)
The Philippines was the forwardmost US military base in the Pacific at the time, and sat directly astride the ocean route from Malaysia/Indonesia to Japan. But moreover it was fully expected by Japan that the US would declare war in response to any attack on British or Dutch possessions in East Asia, so Japan struck first, bombing the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, and following up with invasions of key strategic and economic locations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We involved ourselves in the conflict between China and Japan. Two countries that had been at war many times over history. All in all I feel it was the best move for US interests but I can see Japan's view. They were at war and we were trying to hold them back. Countries do what is in their interests. There is no real right or wrong there is only survival. If we can cooperate and all survive that is great. If not, we have to survive. Japan miscalculated and the Japanese government and a lot of it's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals.
If you exclude Nicaragua, Colombia, Fiji, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Nicaragua, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, and Nicaragua from your list...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
Re: (Score:2)
Bananas are not a mineral! But then again they are loaded with potassium.
Re: (Score:2)
Close but not quite right. There's not really any oil in the Phillippines. What happened was this--Japan invaded French Indochina (later to be Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia). In response the US placed an embargo of oil and steel on Japan. The US at that time was a major oil exporter from the fields in Texas and Japan had been getting much of their oil from the US. They decided that they would make it up with the oil, not from the Phillippines, but rather the Dutch East Indies, which was also a major oil s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure actual numbers confirm your theory.
http://www.energytrendsinsider... [energytrendsinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The link you provided confirms it...the U.S. gets less than 5% of it's oil from Iraq. I guess when I said "gets very little" of it's oil from Iraq, I should have been more specific.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the true motivator it would be far easier and less costly to take Venezuela.
Wait... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.
Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.
I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.
Re:Wait... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.
Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.
I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.
You say these things as if they were fact. They are not, they are suppositions.
The same way a defensive system can alter strategic balance, so can improved nuclear tipped missiles with highly accurate targetting systems. MAD is irrelevant in regional conflicts. Think about how close a nuclear exchange is possible between India and Pakistan. Or Israel targetting single military installations in Iran with bunker buster that are nuclear not conventional. Americans, Russians, French, British and the Cinese think of nuclear weapons as political weapons. Not military weapons. But if you manage to make a very precise low yield nuclear missile that incinerates let's say less than 1 km^2 it becomes by this simple performance an offensive weapon.Just like neutron bombs were all the rage in the seventies.
Re:Wait... what? (Score:5, Interesting)
i would suspect that a regional conflict a'la India/Pakistan would amplify the ostracism/elimination by the rest of the world, since the stakes would be perceived as being smaller overall (as in 'oh, it's just a couple of small countries doing this, and they only have a small handful of nukes, so...')
Now the act of North Korea tossing a nuke in anger would present some problems, but only insofar as China's tolerance for such an act. Then again, w/o China's protection, North Korea could be turned into a self-lighting parking lot with no one on the planet giving any real objections to it, though I'm not really sure that China would really tolerate the Norks pulling such a stunt.
Israel I think is smart enough to know that if they used anything nuclear in an aggressive manner, what few friends they do have would cut them off at the economic knees, leaving them at the mercy of, well, all of their neighbors. I strongly suspect that the presence of Israeli nuclear weapons is purely political and/or last-ditch, and for no other discernable reason.
Re:Wait... what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.
I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.
I really couldn't disagree more. If Russia or China nuked anybody, there would be a lot of world wide anger, but any actual acts against them? Ha ha ha ha ha. Even the USA's BFF the UK really could not possibly be more of China's bitch on a constant basis.
Here's how I see the nuclear powers.
Bad actors: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea.
Good actors: USA, France, UK, Israel.
I doubt that any of the "good actors" would ever use a nuclear device first. Putin may be just trying to make everybody else think he's unbalanced or he may actually be crazy enough to possibly use a nuke first. I'm not happy with either possibility. India probably wouldn't use a nuke first, but Pakistan may be crazy or irrational enough to do so. North Korea is definitely irrational enough to do so. I doubt that China's civilian government would use a nuke as a first choice, but I fear that the Communist Party may not have as great a control over the PLA as they'd like to think and if the PLA has the ability to launch strikes without the CCP giving the order, there just might be generals crazy enough to do it because they don't believe anybody has the guts to make them pay for it. No amount of public pressure can make the 'bad actors" I listed back off and if anybody honestly thinks the USA, France and the UK are the greatest threats to the world, then you're delusional to a point that nobody can bring you back from.
Re: (Score:2)
Your good vs bad seem an awful lot like west vs the rest ..
Also I don't see why the US couldn't use theirÂs first.
I know a good target which is even an ally to the country but I guess power and possibly stability is more important than human rights and politics. .. or it's about the possibly outcome, or millions of lives. Or whatever.
Maybe it's just against nasty happening at a huge scale in a short time?
Or they are afraid that if they used it that would had told the world it's ok and after that any co
Re: (Score:2)
I think I've read that the Israelis have communicated back-channel to key actors that they will respond to a nuclear or chemical attack against Israeli with a response that will hit *all* major Arab capitals and Mecca.
To your larger point, I think only desperate, religiously motivated non-state actors reasonably believe that they can "get away" with use of a nuclear weapon. Either via subterfuge or because they believe in some kind of metaphysical redemption that transcends any material consequences.
I thi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around /.
I'm sorry America can't be as moral and upright as North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Iran, and all the other paragons of virtue that you love so much.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around /.
I'm sorry America can't be as moral and upright as North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Iran, and all the other paragons of virtue that you love so much.
Well said and amen to that. American bad behaviour can't be looked at in a vacuum, you have to compare it to alternatives and look at the corresponding actions of other major players. Otherwise your just crying that the world is a bad and cruel place...
Re: (Score:2)
America can be a decent country and still work to improve. Both things can happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway, Sweden, Canada, etc., are not super-powers and don't have the same world role, like it or not.
Can the US be a better place? Absolutely. That's what we have to work for. America espouses high principles and when we don't live up to them that's a problem.
But is the US the worst place around, or even a bad place, as things go? Answer for yourself.
Let's try to build up the US, by making it better and striving toward those high principles that we ought to not just espouse but act out. But let's not just
Re: (Score:2)
The little peace in me
Will die
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Consider that, since the end of WW2, the nature of nuclear weapons (types, sizes), their numbers, their delivery systems have and the political landscape have changed so much that what we did 70 years ago really has little to do with the present tense. Give up on this rather ancient trope and look around you. If you think there are parallels between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and today's complex interplay of countries, economies and military forces, you are the delusional one.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Consider that, since the end of WW2... blablabla
The nature of the nuclear weapon is still to kill many hundred thousand people at once. That did not change. It just became much more efficient at it.
The power of the 1945 bombs was terrifying the world, the power of todays weapons is still terrifying the world.
So yes, it can be compared. The problem just increased 20dB in magnitude. The USA is still the main bad actor.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is still the main bad actor.
If we're limiting the discussion to nuclear weapons you seem to have little justification for that stance since we haven't bombed anyone lately.
Re: (Score:2)
No military reason? US casualty estimates for a conventional invasion were typically around 500,000 US casualties (though some were much higher or lower) and estimated Japanese casualties were usually higher. Non-nuclear attacks are also devastating, the fire-bombing of Tokyo likely killed about twice as the attack on Hiroshima
The US considered simply demonstrating a bomb to convince the Japanese to surrender, but ultimately it was decided that this would be more likely to be ineffective. Considering that J
Re: (Score:2)
No military reason? US casualty estimates for a conventional invasion were typically around 500,000 US casualties
False dichotomy. Nukes and a conventional invasion were not the only alternatives. The Japanese had already indicated that they were open to a negotiated surrender. The only condition that they considered nonnegotiable was the status of the emperor. But after they surrendered unconditionally, we let them keep the emperor anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
In what fucking world do you think it would have ever been politically acceptable to allow the Japanese a negotiated surrender after 4 years of war and after Pearl Harbor Especially when that would have been approved by an unelected President like Truman?
I would imagine that the converse was true, that there were elements who wanted to *continue* nuking Japan after the second strike as retaliation for starting the war.
Re: (Score:2)
In what fucking world do you think it would have ever been politically acceptable to allow the Japanese a negotiated surrender after 4 years of war and after Pearl Harbor
The American people were open to a negotiated surrender. They were war weary, and not real enthusiastic about seeing a million of their sons, brothers and husbands die in Japan. Troops returning from Europe were sent home on leave, and when ordered to return to prepare for the invasion, many of them refused. They felt they had done their share in Europe. In light of these facts, Truman had discussed a negotiated end to the war with his advisers as a fall back in case the nukes didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
>> THEY FUCKING BOMBED US.
No. They destroyed a few planes and some ships. In WWII order of magnitude, that was a slap in the face, not more. Military are there do kill and to be killed, that's their job.
Real "FUCKING BOMBING" in WWII is killing millions of civilians. Japan did it in china, USA did it in japan and germany. etc etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
THEY FUCKING BOMBED US.
No they didn't. Pearl harbor was bombed by the pilots of the Imperial Japanese Navy, most of whom died at Midway. The civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Indirect collective revenge is not a good reason to kill 200,000 people.
Re: (Score:2)
Truman had to make the toughest decision any human being was ever called upon to make. It's easy to criticize in retrospect. He called it "a decision that would challenge the wisdom of Solomon himself." (approximate quote)
Was he right? Was he wrong? I think he did the best he could. Say what you want about his advisors, what information he had or didn't have, and so on, but in the end history would hold him and him alone responsible, and he knew it.
I would have hated to have been in his shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
The Japanese leadership did not see the atomics as significantly worse than what they had already suffered due to the sustained bombings their cities had endured in which many more civilians died than from both the bombs combined. What did it for them was the Soviet Union declaring war on them and rapidly taking Manchuria and able to invade via the relatively undefended north and western borders in very short order, like one or two weeks time instead of the months it would take the Americans to get on with
Re: (Score:2)
The Japanese leadership did not see the atomics as significantly worse than what they had already suffered due to the sustained bombings their cities had endured in which many more civilians died than from both the bombs combined.
Militarily, this would be false. Where before it would take swarms of US bombers put at considerable risk to firebomb a city into almost nothing (yet not really damage hardened bunkers/buildings by too much), Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that it only took one bomber (though both flights had three - including two observers) to wipe out an entire city (or whatever), and obliterate nearly *everything* in it, all with less effort than a reconnaissance mission.
Also, consider that after Hiroshima, most Japanese
Re: (Score:2)
Eliminating the need for a protracted ground war sounds like a very good military reason.
The ethics are open to debate, but it's nonsensical to claim there was no reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Usually the ridiculous belief you could do a small scale strike to disable your opponent, or that there is a scenario in which nuclear war is "winnable".
Those of us who remember when M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) as the awesome way we kept nuclear bombs in check have long since stopped expecting rational thought to play into the calculus of nukes.
The assumption that nobody would ever be idiotic enough to use them has always struc
not necessarily ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine that a nation had a small "clean" nuke that could be delivered with pinpoint precision. At that point it's basically just a more efficient form of high explosive. Why *wouldn't* they use it? (As opposed to tens or hundreds of conventional bombs.)
The issue with nukes is that they're WMDs. If they got to the point where they were no longer WMDs but rather just a very efficient way of blowing up a relatively small area (a single remote military installation, for example) then people are going to use them.
Nuclear arms use probable in five years (Score:2)
A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon
Western nations have no stomach to use nuclear arms any more - so if Russia or Iran (well, really that should be when instead of if) uses nuclear arms against someone, very likely NATO will do nothing except sanctions. Really.
If you think that sounds absurd, wouldn't shooting down a civilian airliner with zero repercussions sounds absurd? That has happened. So why is it so unlikely that a tactical nuclear weapon
Re: (Score:2)
That civilian airliner flew right into a war zone where aircraft had been shot down with SAMs earlier that week*. And the troops who shot it down fully believed it to be a Ukrainian combat aircraft. That loss is ENTIRELY on the airliner who chose that course. The Vincennes was more at fault for shooting down an airliner than the pro-Russian forces were in this case, and ther
Re: (Score:2)
That loss is ENTIRELY on the airliner who chose that course.
That's a bullshit excuse since there were MANY airlines and flights flying that route, and it's not like pilots are "deciding" where to fly - they have routes already planned. There were probably thousands of flights over the Ukraine that week alone before the one plane was shot down...
There is no excuse for shooting down a passenger jet, period. It's on people conducting war to not harm civilians if at all possible, and it's VERY POSSIBLE to id
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The AIRLINES should have changed those routes. NONE of those planes should have been there. Goddamn morons like you send airliners over a fucking war zone.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, blame the victim.
Funny how a bunch of drunken retards get a pass for shooting down an airliner they thought was a military transport plane that posed no immediate danger AND covering it up at the same time you condemn the stressed-out/paranoid crew of a warship that felt threatened (even though there was no threat) by an airliner they thought was a fighter aircraft where there was no attempt at a cover up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Take out NAS North Island, military target. US gets annoyed. World opinion unpredictable, depending on what led up to it. US might nuke you a bit in return. Might let you off if you say sorry and surrender immediately, pretty please, blaming rogue elements etc.
Take out San Diego, massive civilian casualties plus fallout and shit. US will be more than a bit cross. World opinion will be mostly on their side, apart from anyone s
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes will always be in our back-pocket (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how crude or sophisticated the device is- the two nukes that were used in conflict were just about as crude as one could get and they still each destroyed a city in one stroke.
Science always progresses faster than poltiical thought. It's not usually science that uses the developments for ill intead of for benefit though, that's firmly in the realm of politics. That we've only used nuclear weapons in anger twice, effectively in one drawn-out moment in history, and have not used them cavalierly subsequently is hopefully proof that we're maturing, however slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument sounds roughly like the one I heard was common after WWI, after millions dying in static trench wars they thought barbed wire and machine guns would basically end war since any attacker would be sending their troops into a massive suicidal bullet rain. At the time it was probably true, remember the car was in its very infancy. Except over the next 20 years the Germans created Panzers and Blitzkrieg tactics outmaneuvering and overrunning France in six weeks.
So maybe in the 1950s or 1980s you co
Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic (Score:3, Insightful)
If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.
Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.
Re: (Score:3)
If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.
I'm answering you by quoting you, hoping that you pay attention to what you said.
Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.
I guess that is why places like the middle east and Afghanistan are so peaceful.
Disarmamant? (Score:5, Insightful)
I frankly don't believe that disarmament is ever going to happen because too many people want power. So, the nuclear powers are:
France - never going to disarm because they've been invaded twice in living memory (just) and suffered awful consequences. Never going to happen again.
USA - lolno.
Russia - yeah Putin is totally going to disarm when everyone does because he's such a nice guy. I think he'd wet himself with glee if everyone else disarmed.
India - not until Pakistan disarms, because Pakistan is way too unstable (and probably not even then).
Pakistan - not until India disarms, and, well, who will be a serious power without them.
North Korea - well, they're a total basket case of a country so whatever they do wouldn't surprise me. But evil dictators aren't know for relinquishing power.
Iseael - disarm while they're surrounded by hostile nations who tried to wipe them off the map within living memory? Not likely.
China - eeeynope. I think they're going to keep on growing their power, and not being uninvadable is not a good way to do that.
UK - I don't think we actually will (I really hope).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why worry about stockpiling nukes when you can just build them quickly if push comes to shove? They've got the know-how and plenty of nuclear material.
Re: (Score:2)
UK - Don't you remember being alone fighting most of a continent (under German rule), a little more than a 100 since you were alone fighting most of the same continent (under French rule)?
Thankfully the two biggest parties do not support disarmament. Public opinion is always mixed and many people are distressingly naive about it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I like how you gave France the excuse that they've been invaded twice, but the Russians, who have suffered exactly the same (and to much worse consequences), just want to keep their nukes because they're just bastards.
Re:Disarmamant? (Score:4, Interesting)
India developed their nukes because of China not Pakistan. China is the only country with more potential soldiers than India and after several wars in the 60s where Chinese swamped the Indians with numbers they looked for an equalizer. Pakistan then followed India for the same reason to equalize their lesser forces with India's. India isn't going to disarm unless China does.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sure, but now Pakistan has them they would never ever ever ever EVER disarm.
It's not accuracy that's reviving the arms race (Score:2)
It's the fact that more smaller countries are now able to obtain or make nuclear weapons. When it was just the US and Russia, as long as the two countries were in a stalemate, the world was (somewhat) safe. But now that the list of countries with nuclear weapons is growing, the calculations become much more complex, and the risk level for the world is higher.
Ukraine? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In eastern Ukraine there is a large Russian ethnic demographic. Putin is using that as a pretext to "free" his people. This pretext does not hold for central or western Ukraine. Ukraine will exist but it may be smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Which was exactly the pretext Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia. And then took over the rest anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
That was because the world then sat on the sidelines when Czechoslovakia was invaded. This time may be different. It is not inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.
Libya, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Depends who you are nuking (Score:2)
Full disclosure: I haven't RTFA, so I don't know who the author thinks will nuke who. However, the responses here mostly assume it would be a nuclear power nuking another nuclear power. As many have pointed out, having precision nukes would not cause that to happen; it's just too risky.
However, I think that precision nukes do increase the chance of a nuclear power nuking a _non_nuclear power. Granted, I don't think the risk is that high, but there are some possible scenarios where a precision nuke could be
the patience of the non-nuclear states (Score:2)
the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin
That's and amusing line. These people are living in some kind of alternate reality where the Putins, Kim Jong-uns and nuclear armed imams of our world are standing around waiting for war crazed 'muricans to come to their senses so we can all mutually disarm because some pacifist hippy in Geneva said so. Just how far up your peacenik ass must you have shoved your head to actually believe the worlds nuclear powers are really going to indulge the `patience' of their client states?
John Oliver on Nuclear Weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
As usual, John Oliver has a great rant on the subject.
Right now, the US has more nuclear weapons than they can safely take care of. Manning the silos is now a demoralizing job, because those people basically do nothing and yet the job is tremendously tedious. So it ends up being done by people who really shouldn't be in such an important position, and do not take enough care in their job, especially given the dangers if something were to go wrong.
The US is the only country to drop a nuke on a civilian population. Everyone knows about when they dropped a couple on Japan, but few people remember when they accidentally dropped one on North Carolina. It did not explode, but it was one of a number of close calls that have happened over the years.
As it is being managed now, the nuclear deterrent is more of a danger to the US than to anyone else, though it is also a danger to planet as a whole. I don't think a complete disarmament makes any sense in the short term, but a move towards scaling back to safe and sustainable levels would make sense. However, those that benefit from such massive and useless military spending are not about to let it happen without a fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing precision guided bombs to nuclear bombs is like comparing a spring shower to a force 5 hurricane. Precision guided bombs do not kill whole cities and the millions of people in them in one shot.
this is exactly the point (Score:3)
Imagine if there was a precision guided tactical nuke that was basically equivalent to 10 conventional precision guided bombs. People would be much more likely to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Precision guided bombs are much more effective and cheaper.
Somehow saying, "I'm going to precision bomb you back into the stone age if you do that!" just doesn't carry the same ring as "I can turn your sand into blue glowing glass for miles around if you do that!"
Precision guided weapons have the distinct advantage of hitting what you aim at and almost nothing else but present a more serious problem of KNOWING exactly when and where to put that bomb.
Nuclear weapons are like huge hand grenades where being within a few thousand feet is usually just fine so the targ