Nuclear weapons !!!

[weixiaobao]

well, as many of you aware that the USA, Edit: Russia, UK, France, China, Pakistan, and North Korea (edit India as point out by rabb) are the only countries who have this kind of mass destruction weapon. Other countries are also tried to developed it too to promoted their own power. So here is the topic:

1) how close are we to Nuclear war you think?
2) what made a country (now a day) result in using this kind of weapon?
3) could nuclear war mean the end of mankind
4) What to be done now? Should the USA set example and destroyed their own weapons first? can there ever be world peace?
5) Could there be even deadlier weapon in the future?
6) do you think that the extinction of mankind is rest upon this problem?

[Windmillblade]

i think that i oppose nuclear tests hurting this planet. i oppose certain countries having it. i think having it stops other countires of triying to invade. the ones dropped on japan i think were neccesary for the war to stop evebtually there would have been more dead. ity serves as a warning to any country dumb enough to attack US for stupid reasons like stoping trades. And i dont think we will be wipped out by nukes. and having them keeps these other countries at bay. i think one shouild be used in situations like darfur where genocide hides behind politics i say we kill them all and free the people.

[weixiaobao]

i think that i oppose nuclear tests hurting this planet. i oppose certain countries having it. i think having it stops other countires of triying to invade. the ones dropped on japan i think were neccesary for the war to stop evebtually there would have been more dead. ity serves as a warning to any country dumb enough to attack US for stupid reasons like stoping trades. And i dont think we will be wipped out by nukes. and having them keeps these other countries at bay. i think one shouild be used in situations like darfur where genocide hides behind politics i say we kill them all and free the people.

quite an expected view from an American, I think we getting cocky at time.. You got some good points. But isn't the Japanese going to surrender anyway before the bomb.

anyway, i thinking that accidentally blow up one of these could mean a lot of trouble. and as long as they are there, there will be possibility. If looking from other countries' stand points, they are under threat from the USA and Soviet Union (since they have the most weapons). So should the USA and Soviet Union set an example first.

[mrcongojack]

I don't think we're close to nuclear war, mainly because you can't win it. No country would be dumb enough to launch a nuke attack when just about every country worth attacking has nukes to, which will just lead to mutually assured destruction. Perhaps a terrorist group with no country might be dumb enough to attack with a nuke, but the problem with that would be : how would the terrorist get the nuke? They don't grow on trees, you know. It takes a lot of scientific research to build one, and then there's the problem of getting it to the target. It would be too expensive for most terrorist groups.

[Windmillblade]

actually the Japanese were warned but didn't listen.

[miyi]

hmm...interesting topic, I was just about to head out to drive to school but I have a few minutes to spare :D



1) how close are we to Nuclear war you think?

it depends how the global leaders deal with the problem of preventing nuclear proliferation. From what I've been reading, the NPT (nuclear proliferation treaty) has increasingly become less effective. The USA, if you've been reading recent news, has suggested it will improve and continue revamping its own nuclear arsenal, and that it will use nuclear means if necessary, against, for instance, terrorism. And now, Russia's Putin, just a few weeks ago, has said it, too, will revamp its nuclear arsenals, and says it will not allow to be bullied by US and Western powers.

How can we expect other countries to drop their weapons, if these two nuclear powers are failing to set an example? And then there are other countries undermining the NPT, such as Iran, which I'm sure most are aware of. Just recently there's been reports that it has acquired an ability to enrich uranium much faster with an advanced model of centrifuge. And also it recently test-launched a rocket with alleged nuclear warhead capabilities.

I think it is imperative for US and Russia to cooperate on the nuclear ban challenge, and that they should understand that only they can effectively enforce these rules. The START I will expire in 2009, and I've seen lack of progress in trying to renew or reinvigorate these talks, it's like there's no sense of urgency. If nothing is done to improve nuclear ban laws, then yes, I think nuclear war is more likely to happen than ever before, especially since more states are now capable, or potentially capable of acquiring these weapons. The more weapons in circulation, then the chances of its use significantly increases, and the more difficult to enforce a ban.


2) what made a country (now a day) result in using this kind of weapon?

I'm not sure I understand this question.


3) could nuclear war mean the end of mankind

there's a small chance of survival, but yes, I think nuclear war will mean human extinction. The nuclear weapons now are significantly much more powerful than those used in WWII.

and not only human extinction, potentially it will also mean extinction to a lot of species, i.e. animals and plants.


4) What to be done now? Should the USA set example and destroyed their own weapons first? can there ever be world peace?

I think the US and Russia should set an example, at least by minimizing their own arsenal.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 90s, a significant portion of its weapons has been recklessly circulated in eastern europe, and has not been accounted for.

These weapons have been in several cases sold illicitly to other countries, which is why a lot of people suspect terrorist groups are more than likely than before, to be secretly in possession of such weapons. But so far, this is unlikely.

I don't think the USA should necessarily destroy all its weapons. I think a more pragmatic approach is to minimize the weapons.

A lot of countries criticize the USA for being too powerful and is a threat to peace, or something like that. In response, I think the USA should make it clear it will not use such weapons to scare or terrorize, but use it only as means to "deter" any potential enemies. To maintain possession of nukes is justified only so as to retain some mechanism for self-defense.

I don't think world peace is possible. There will always be tensions, and wars are episodic, it happens and disappears, then reappears. However, I do think we can achieve relative world peace, but it will require a global overhaul in cultural shifts in attitudes.

The closer we, humans, come into respecting our neighbors, then we will have achieved progress. Multiply this globally, then that means world peace.


5) Could there be even deadlier weapon in the future?

Quite possibly.


6) do you think that the extinction of mankind is rest upon this problem?

not necessarily. There are other major world issues that can potentially destroy mankind. To name a few:

+ asteroid
+ global warming (I don't necessarily think this will happen really soon, although I believe it is real)
+ uncontrolled epidemics
+ global economic collapse, which would result in starvation, wars, etc.
+ UFO invasion (highly unlikely)

[Windmillblade]

Hey and if we didnt have nucks there would be more countries going to war and triying to take over. the nucks are dangerous but they keep the other countries in their place.

[weixiaobao]

mr congojack- what's if there is an accident would each country look it that's way or will there be an all out war to defense their own nation.

windmillblade- though this is ancient history, and there is nothing we can do about it.. but should we give them more time since this is life and death for a great load of people.. and let's said if that happen again and now alot of country have nuclear weapons would we all attack each other (because it better to get them first)

As for your latest post, hmmm thank gosh only the USA think that if not then the world is in danger..

miyi- more great wisdoms from you :worship
for question 2 i meant what kind of things nowaday that could trigger this kind of warfare.
6) :rofl

for global warming visit this thread
http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6191

[Gold Knight]

Actually I just have to point out one thing, that Japan didn't surrender after the first nuke. They were actually stupid enough to ask for another nuke before they finally stopped.

Not a proud moment in America's history but well, we had the power to stop the war and we used it.

Anyways, I hate the idea of nuclear warfare. We now have a weapon that is able to destroy the world. That is just mind-boggling. Right now in my mind we are in a race for mutual world peace or mutual world destruction. That's pretty much it there. We either all make like friends or we all end up dead.

Right now I think that we are much less closer to a Nuclear War than we were before the Soviet Union collapsed, but the danger is still there. Hopefully it will be as mrcongojack said and nobody is dumb enough to incur a nuclear war, but I wouldn't bet on it. Humans have always been known for their self-destructive nature.

[bax]

As most scholars would say, there's nothing on this earth is good or bad in nature, despite what it has brought upon this earth. Nuclear certainly is one of them. It is human who decides whether it is good or bad through either their perception or their deeds.

Personally, nuclear weapons shouldn't have existed. It brings nothing other than calamity upon the earth. Nuclear should've been used for other beneficial purposes like an energy source - far more efficient than coal, petroleum or hydroelectric.

To answer those questions:



1) how close are we to Nuclear war you think?I don't think it's close, not if someone started it. I think most of the countries who posses nuclear weapons are advanced enough in conventional warfare not to use it. If nuclear weapons should exist, for me, it should only exist for space defense (no, not aliens :XD). I mean things like asteroids.


2) what made a country (now a day) result in using this kind of weapon?That reason shouldn't exist. The aftermath of a single nuclear weapon is bad enough, not to mention a whole array of nuclear missiles.

One may say "we are using the nuclear weapon to defend against a mass fleet of enemies attacking our country". That's utterly nonsense in my book. It may have destroyed the enemies, but it will destroy the population and the country even more. The enemy's casualties might be in thousands, but the damage done to its own population will linger for decades.


3) could nuclear war mean the end of mankindIndeed, well maybe not the entire humanity, but definitely in hundreds of millions, at least.


4) What to be done now? Should the USA set example and destroyed their own weapons first? can there ever be world peace?World peace, I think it's possible, but in a long shot. But as long as people carry on accusing others, as long as people feel threatened, as long as there are only unilateral relationships, the world won't move there. Be it for any reasons.

I don't think if the US starts to destroy its nuclear weapons, the others will follow suit. I'm not the believer of any religion is bad, certainly not any countries is bad either. It's about the ideology of the leaders. For example, I live in a country where half the population is Islam, heck, I don't see them as terrorist material at all, they are really kind and good people. The terrorists, in my view, are just extremists.

There are always people who have different views anywhere in the world. If the US does that, there are people who will say "The US is good, they set an example for us". There will also people who will say "The US is stupid, they just destroy one of their advantages". Depending on their views and ideology, they may or may not follow, right?


5) Could there be even deadlier weapon in the future?As long as there is a feeling of insecurity, people will continue to feel unsafe. People will continue to develop something until they feel comfortable. That's human nature.

As long as that feeling is there, people will continue to develop means to protect themselves and to retaliate. Eventually, it is possible that we developed a weapon deadlier than the nuclear.


6) do you think that the extinction of mankind is rest upon this problem?It's possible, but I don't see it in the near future. We have more problematic things in our hands than that. The global warming for example. Some people say they don't believe in global warming. Well, I don't want to start that here. There is still HIV. There is still racism.

[rabb]

well, as many of you aware that the USA, Soviet Union, UK, France, China, Pakistan, and North Korea are the only countries who have this kind of mass destruction weapon. Other countries are also tried to developed it too to promoted their own power. So here is the topic:just real quicklike: India has nukes, NK, as far as we know, don't, just the missle husks, and they've reportedly given up their nuclear program. and they are known as Russia now :p the SU fell a couple of decades ago.


1) how close are we to Nuclear war you think?
2) what made a country (now a day) result in using this kind of weapon?
3) could nuclear war mean the end of mankind
4) What to be done now? Should the USA set example and destroyed their own weapons first? can there ever be world peace?
5) Could there be even deadlier weapon in the future?
6) do you think that the extinction of mankind is rest upon this problem?
1) i think its pretty far off. we are entering a new cold war, it seems, with russia, but even if it heats up, our military has the technological edge to cut down hundreds of tanks at a time, so i dont think it will be too likely to end up in nukes
2) facing an invasion of insurmountable odds *motions to russia*
3) yea, if enough nukes went off at once, could you imagine how fast the surface temp across the globe would rise?
4) the us would never do that. its more or less the only thing that deters russia and china from attacking. but yeah, we should get rid of them.
5) of coarse. just imagine what an anti-matter bomb would do to the world.
6) no, i dont think so. I'd like to think that the countries named wouldn't use nukes at all, but then again, India and Pakistan have been on the brink of nuclear war numerous times...


actually the Japanese were warned but didn't listen.

if you were in the middle of a war and your enemy sent you a message saying "give up now or face dire consequences, would you give up while you still held onto your well entrenched homeland?

[yoniekai]

everybody is concerned about iran. most countries ignore bush's comments about iran's threat. but just recently tho iran launched a missile satellite, meaning they're keeping on par with engineering, and russia was kinda apprehensive since then. president mahmoud keeps insisting that the nuclear is for electricity, but iran is the world's number one terrorist ally as said by bush. so terrorists with nuclear power means massive danger.

[patedecarne]

It's really a shame, a totally shame, that the human being have the potential to create things that could be so useful and benefics to the world, but Still, he has the "gift" to transform every kind of this good things in bad things, and the nuke, nuclear bomb is one of them, like Bax said, these things should help the world, not destroy it! Even someone like Einstein, said to be a genius, had a hand in the concepts of nuclear experiments, shame...


how close are we to Nuclear war you think?


IMO, never!A third war? impossible, let me explain why: Even if still some countries still believe that to control the world is necessary to use power, this isn't with the conviction from 60, 40 past years, only movies still do this, in the real life, if you launch an nuclear attack, it's impossible to measure the damage, how to control a devastated world, and more importantly, there's no reason to do such thing: an example: A launchs an nuclear attack in B, partially destroying B, B then counterAttack A, partially destroying A, what's the point? Any of both parts will be able to rule the other? No, no one wants to rule a devastated world or country, from 60 years until now, people got matured about war, and how war would crush his own country, their people and the economy.
But the most important reason countries won't start a war is: "If you have a huge ammount of army, bombs, nuke, you are powerful, BUT if you ever doesn't use all this power, then you are still more powerful; Intimidation: you have power but don't doesn't use it, then no one will dare to oppose you", and this somehow created a balance to prevent war

unfortunately, most(if not all) countries think that way...

But the only way I see a nuclear war coming is if some crazy country suddenly says that will control the world, likely impossible, if you ask me...



what made a country (now a day) result in using this kind of weapon?

Like I said before, intimidation, show to the others countries how powerful you are, without causing a war; sometimes we see nuclear tests, missiles, just a test, but well, the tests are just a excuse: indirectly, a country is trying to show it's real powers....



could nuclear war mean the end of mankind

Dependind the type of war, very likely, and if we think how powerful are the nuke , missiles and etc, sure we couldn't measure how badly the human race will become...




What to be done now? Should the USA set example and destroyed their own weapons first? can there ever be world peace?

Even if USA destroys all his arsenal, won't help much: Other countries won't do the same, and with this the balance could be broken, some countries maybe could use this fact to even start a war, because now, we won't have any war also because of the balance in the world, and break this balance would be very dangerous

Peace, oh, certainly would be a good thing, but for now, won't be peace, not now and probably ever won't, unfortunately, to change to world into a peace state, I even don't know how to start, the only thing I could think is if a great, but a great event happens in the world, to change it into a totally different planet, maybe a catastrophe, to clear all the governments and countries, maybe a new beginning with peace, but being realistic, with the human's mind, peace is a dream...



Could there be even deadlier weapon in the future?

Biological weapons would be so more effective and deadly, without destroying the planet



do you think that the extinction of mankind is rest upon this problem?

In a manner of speak, that's the only solution I could think, otherwise, how to change to people to believe in peace? So many tried, and some even died in the process, like Ghandi, he was a example to all of the people, but still, people kill who try to bring peace...

[weixiaobao]

GK- I think USSR and USA's cold war are just like a dare contest. I think the terrorists are more likely to nuke the USA (if they have such weapon) than the USSR. Beside jihad is a greater motivation than economy system anyway. Because death in jihad meant going to heaven and they can really risk it.. I also agree on self destructive nature .

Bax-
1) i think alien could bring world peace. If we can all stick together and nuke them. jk jk
4) yeah, i agree but knowing the existence of those weapon kinda scare me. there is 50% Muslim in the void o_o .... jk jk i understand your point quite well.. there are many type of extremists (not necessarily associated with jihad or Islam), the thought of one them get their hand on a weapon is well dangerous.

Rabb- thanks for correcting me :)
finally someone can defense the japanese case better than i do

Yoni- nuclear for electricity .. hmm hmmm

Pate- well, at least we can all learn from this and not make rabb's anti matter weapon. As for Einstein, i don't exactly know the extend of his involvement but i am pretty sure he is not the main person.

Though it is still better that the USA have them than the Nazi

well, another reason for the USA to have nuclear weapon :( though your point is quite well reasonable.

http://www.kevincannon.org/portfolio/nyo-nuclear-bush.jpg

[Gold Knight]

Well, one thing you have to admit, Bush does have the weapons and he hasn't nuked the world. Heh.

[mrcongojack]

Well, one thing you have to admit, Bush does have the weapons and he hasn't nuked the world. Heh.

You know, for a while I was worried because of the thought that GW has his finger on the button, but now that I think about it he probably can't find the button under all of his Archie comics.

@weixiaobao
Aliens bring world peace? Someone's been reading Watchmen too much :p

[weixiaobao]

mcj- :rofl anyway .. the cartoon was meant as a joke and that my point is that the other countries may feel insecure that the USA have too many of this type of weapons and "Watchmen" never read it .. but it sound good :)

[Vampire_Fanatic]

i disagree with western nations policy of stopping countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, if they cant, why can we, are we above the law? i think not, yet we treat ourselves like we are, that just makes me sick, besides, everyone knows what kind of retaliation would result from nuke weapon use, and that guarantees peace, in fear of MAD, u c? its common sense that more countries should be allowed to have these weapons, it is only fair, otherwise, all the western and eastern powers need to dispose of theirs....

[Gold Knight]

I think mainly we're just worried about the people who WOULD put them to bad use. The dictators and things like that.

[miyi]

i disagree with western nations policy of stopping countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, if they cant, why can we, are we above the law? i think not, yet we treat ourselves like we are, that just makes me sick, besides, everyone knows what kind of retaliation would result from nuke weapon use, and that guarantees peace, in fear of MAD, u c? its common sense that more countries should be allowed to have these weapons, it is only fair, otherwise, all the western and eastern powers need to dispose of theirs....

The USA has a legitimate reason for asking other countries to NOT acquire nuclear weapons, and that is so that the rest of the world do not engage in a nuclear war.

While the claim that the USA is being "hypocritical" is true, it does not make it right that we should all, then, acquire nuclear weapons, just because the USA has 'em...it is not a matter of "fairness", it is a matter of "global security".

The USA is the only country to have ever used a nuclear bomb to another country, and consequently, more and more countries began acquiring this technology.

The USA could have easily used nuclear weapons again (i.e. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.), but Eisenhower and all the succeeding Presidents, not once, have done so. That is because we know about the horrid devastation that can occur as a result of its use, and we never resorted to that ever since WWII.

Can we assume this discipline exist, for all other countries? Believe it or not, there are many groups of people who wants to attack the USA, for unjustifiable reasons, and 9/11 was just an example. People forget that we've been attacked, and it's not even a decade ago.

The threat of terrorism is real, and there are verifiable reports of the existence of a nuclear weapons "black market" (See here (http://www.american.edu/ted/nukesmug.htm)), and it's been going on since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

More and more countries are becoming "nuclear weapons states", despite the efforts of the NPT treaty.

Just recently, two nuclear weapons experts were abducted in Pakistan near the Afghan border.

Full Story here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23202259-12377,00.html)

If nuclear weapons secrets are leaked, there's little doubt in my mind that the USA is vulnerable to another attack, and the fear that nuclear weapons will fall in the wrong hands, as Gold Knight was saying, would become even closer to reality.

I think it is more common sense that we implement nuclear nonproliferation (perhaps an even stronger and effective one), as opposed to nuclear weapons for all.


And for my last point:

Mutual assured destruction (M.A.D.) worked before, and served as an effective "deterrent", which is why the COLD WAR lasted so long as it did without us resorting to an all out nuclear war. But it worked perfectly, only because both sides valued what was at stake: both valued life. Nobody wanted to die.

But M.A.D. is no longer applicable, if one side is eager to die voluntarily and willingly, while the other doesn't. Deterrence won't work in this scenario.

This method is already being applied since 9/11: suicide bombs.

Therefore, "mutual assured destruction" no longer guarantees peace, as with the COLD WAR. What it will guarantee is "death".

[Gold Knight]

Miyi - I could kiss you. :XD

[mrcongojack]

Yeah I agree with Miyi. It's like back during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we almost went to war with Russia because they were giving nukes to Cuba. Russia eventually pulled out the nukes, partly because of US pressure and partly because they were worried Castro would use them. Most western nations have them just to keep other countries from initiating a nuclear war; smaller "rogue nations" run by militant dictators are just crazy enough to use them.