Nuclear Bombs to be Dropped

My name is URL

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 24 -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a U.S-drafted resolution Thursday morning that affirms many of the steps President Obama plans to pursue as part of his vision for an eventual "world without nuclear weapons."

In a first for a U.S. president, Obama presided over the 15-member meeting, joined by such leaders as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese President Hu Jintao and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The meeting marked only the fifth head-of-state summit in U.N. history, and Obama's presence was intended to signal the importance of the issue for the administration.

Addressing the leaders, Obama said nuclear weapons pose a "fundamental threat" to the world. "Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city -- be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people and would badly destabilize our security, our economies and our very way of life," he said.

While the resolution passed on a 15-0 vote, the United States failed to get approval from China and Russia to cite Iran and North Korea by name. In a diplomatic fudge, the text therefore refers only to Security Council resolutions concerning the countries. Obama mentioned the two countries by name in his speech, saying he was not trying to single out any country but that "international law is not an empty promise."

[MORE]

About time really. I'm surprised the US are the ones to draft the agreement

I wonder if they'll get rid of theirs before N. Korea

wudangclan

israel,iran,north korea,pakistan and india are gonna give up their weapons or programmes....
...i'd like to see it but i don't think so

mike65

Thread title got my hopes up

Dankoozy

Mutually assured destruction mang.

Nukes help keep the peace, every country should have 4 or 5 of them.

af_thefragile

Its gonna end up in a "you first and I'll follow"....

major bill

TEAM AMERICA!!!!!!!!

cant see it happening,israel defo wont give up their weapons.

dont trust obama its all propaganda we the good guys bla bla bla:rolleyes:

Adamisconfused

TBH, I thought the thread title was a consequence of a “No” vote for Lisbon.

The thing is, I'm not joking.:o

Dave!

af_thefragile wrote: »

Its gonna end up in a "you first and I'll follow"....

Yeah exactly. America won't get rid of theirs unless China, N Korea, Russia, etc., get rid of theirs. Israel won't get rid of theirs ever... India and Pakistan won't get rid of theirs unless the other one does first.

Trev M

And beside every knows America would keep a few stuff down the back of the couch

orestes

Give them all to the Dutch to mind, those folks are way too laid back to ever launch them

Dankoozy

orestes wrote: »

Give them all to the Dutch to mind, those folks are way too laid back to ever launch them

what is it exactly that makes you think the Dutch are laid back?

DemocAnarchis

Any reduction in nuclear stockpile is a token gesture that doesn't mean anything. Say america reduces their stockpile from 2000 to 750. Still enough to destroy the world several hundred times over. And realistically, when israel, north korea, china and pakistan have the bomb, we aren't ever going to have complete disarmament.

orestes

Dankoozy wrote: »

what is it exactly that makes you think the Dutch are laid back?

All the drugs probably, those stoner hippies would never launch the bomb.

Well, unless it was to watch the awesome light-show while tripping balls

kumate_champ07

Dankoozy wrote: »

Mutually assured destruction mang.

Nukes help keep the peace, every country should have 4 or 5 of them.

what about the crazy leaders who believe in a great afterlife?
or just the crazy people who are plain crazy?

the less there are the better it is for everyone. if only a couple of countries have them and use them at least the whole planet wont be destroyed

but we are human tho, so Im sure we will destroy everything eventually

af_thefragile

Dave! wrote: »

Yeah exactly. America won't get rid of theirs unless China, N Korea, Russia, etc., get rid of theirs. Israel won't get rid of theirs ever... India and Pakistan won't get rid of theirs unless the other one does first.

No one is gonna get rid of their nukes.
Not until Israel and US take the first steps, which they never will!!

Even if they decide to get rid of the one's they've got, America will secretly make a few more again, Israel will get a fair share of them and a nuclear war is imminent.

Dankoozy

orestes wrote: »

All the drugs probably, those stoner hippies would never launch the bomb.

Well, unless it was to watch the awesome light-show while tripping balls

those drugs are mostly for the tourists.

ordinary, every day Dutch folk spend their days minding their neighbour's business and checking off everything they are doing against the most recent version of the council's bye laws in the hope that there is something they can use to snitch and get the neighbours in trouble.

people are constantly falling out with each other over there, just can't get along with one another or mind their own business. this is the kind of ****e you get when you pack 17 million people into an area the size of munster - there is no space, at times it seems the whole country suffers from cabin fever.

and there are ****ing rules for everything there, you can't even fit a new jacks yourself or make the slightest changes to your house without asking for a permit first. everybody aggressively defends their few square meters of land that is about to sink into the sea

orestes

Dankoozy wrote: »

those drugs are mostly for the tourists.

ordinary, every day Dutch folk spend their days minding their neighbour's business and checking off everything they are doing against the most recent version of the council's bye laws in the hope that there is something they can use to snitch and get the neighbours in trouble.

people are constantly falling out with each other over there, just can't get along with one another or mind their own business. this is the kind of ****e you get when you pack 17 million people into an area the size of munster - there is no space, at times it seems the whole country suffers from cabin fever.

and there are ****ing rules for everything there, you can't even fit a new jacks yourself or make the slightest changes to your house without asking for a permit first. everybody aggressively defends their few square meters of land that is about to sink into the sea

R&R

---

>

Conor108

How many nukes will it take to annihilate Humanity?

Manic Moran

af_thefragile wrote: »

No one is gonna get rid of their nukes.
Not until Israel and US take the first steps, which they never will!!

Even if they decide to get rid of the one's they've got, America will secretly make a few more again, Israel will get a fair share of them and a nuclear war is imminent.

I think you can make that argument for pretty much any country with a current nuclear capability.

NTM

laoisforliam

Drop Acid Not Bombs

SarahChambers

Must admit this makes me quite MAD

sean0

I think it will be "like you first I follow" situation.N.Korea won't stop their nuclear program until America gets rid of their weapons...which won't happen, And really can't see Israel been enthusiastic about the whole thing.
They'll all end up just hiding the nukes and then say they got rid of them.

Hopefully it will work but I wouldn't count on it.

My name is URL

Dave! wrote: »

Yeah exactly. America won't get rid of theirs unless China, N Korea, Russia, etc., get rid of theirs. Israel won't get rid of theirs ever... India and Pakistan won't get rid of theirs unless the other one does first.

There'll probably be some sort of intermediary body set up

Kind of like when 2 kids are swapping toys

"both hand them to me at the same time and that way nobody gets fleeced!"

ChocolateSauce

As long as a non-democratic or unfree country, like NK, Russia or Pakistan, has them, so should the free world.

Dudess

wudangclan wrote: »

israel,iran,north korea,pakistan and india are gonna give up their weapons or programmes....
...i'd like to see it but i don't think so

Yep, it's about as likely as another "Arthur's Day" thread not being started here in the next 10 minutes...

My name is URL

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As long as a non-democratic or unfree country, like NK, Russia or Pakistan, has them, so should the free world.

As long as non-free countries have them, the free world is not really free

and as long as 'free world !' is a threat to the non-free world the bombs will remain

Jesus the Cold War hasn't ended, it's just gotten bigger =p

af_thefragile

My name is URL wrote: »

There'll probably be some sort of intermediary body set up

Kind of like when 2 kids are swapping toys

"both hand them to me at the same time and that way nobody gets fleeced!"

Those bodies are always biased.
Just like the UN.

Every country since the past 50 years is urging Israel to retreat back to the borders it was designated yet because America owns the UN, it can't do ****!!

Bandit12

Get rid of the nukes?? :eek: What happens if a planet Earth destroying astroid is heading our way and we need to send Bruce Willis to blow it up.:eek:

Flying Abruptly

Conor108 wrote: »

How many nukes will it take to annihilate Humanity?

Wow, is this info right? I thought i'd take way less nukes to wipe out humanity. This does calculate it for one single stike so I suppose the fallout would get those who didnt die in an initial smaller one

G_R

when i read the thread title i was hoping expecting nuclear bombs to be dropped on co. kilkenny in test....

no such luck

My name is URL

dannym08 wrote: »

when i read the thread title i was hoping expecting nuclear bombs to be dropped on co. kilkenny in test....

That was the first plan but the Persians were against it

coats in the post

Riddle101

The poster who said Team America got me thinking about this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

Fair play to Obama. But I don't think it's going to be so easy for the World to just give up Nuclear Arms. But I dream of a world without nuclear weapons. Actually I dream of a world without war but it's all good in my book.

Victor

DemocAnarchis wrote: »

Say america reduces their stockpile from 2000 to 750. Still enough to destroy the world several hundred times over.

Let us say "several hundred times" = 250.

That means you are saying 3 nuclear bombs will destroy the world, when more than 2000 test detonations have not destroyed the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests

Dankoozy

no matter what happens, i think at least one nuke should be spared to destroy Dublin

jumpguy

Dankoozy wrote: »

Mutually assured destruction mang.

Nukes help keep the peace, every country should have 4 or 5 of them.

That's rather like saying guns knives keep kids safe from kids with other knives.

fergalr

Dankoozy wrote: »

Mutually assured destruction mang.

Nukes help keep the peace, every country should have 4 or 5 of them.

Thought experiment (for the lulz):

There's a definite school of thought that says nukes keep the peace - without them, there'd be large scale conventional warfare between large powers. With them, politicians and populace suffer potential annihilation; any conflict can escalate out of control, so you'd better not conflict.

The problem with this is the ready potential for killing almost everybody.


Lets take it to a logical limit:

Make it so every country has a set of nukes. These nukes must be in population centers, at least one of which houses the seat of government. The population covered by said nukes must comprise at least 25% of the countries population.

The nukes in country A are not controlled by country A. They are controlled by other countries. (say, via some sort of failsafe, well engineered, quantum communication, tamper proof, and regularly inspected, communication link.)

Every country has the ability to set off enough other nukes to kill the equivalent of 25% of that country's population, in the targets of their choosing.
When a nuke is to be set off, there will be a 20 minute time window to allow retaliation negotiation etc.

All other nuclear weapons to be decommissioned.

These remaining MAD nuclear weapons are to be housed in prominent, visible, but tamper proof facilities in each of the designated cities. The warheads themselves should housed be below the surface, so as to flatten the city and kill everyone in it, with minimum collateral damage and fallout. At least one nuke in each country will rotate to a random city every year. (Stop any citizens feeling permanently immune).


Consequences:
-Nuclear deterrent principle remains.
- But there's now an upper limit on the amount of damage that can be done.
(-An exchange between two countries can wipe out 20% of the population at a maximum.) No destruction of the whole world.
-There is no need for expensive missile shields, or expensive nuclear budgets, nuclear one-up-manship, or to have 10000 warheads. Much military spending could be scrapped, and put to better use preventing conflicts.
-There is no need to have subs floating around, controlled by a small number of people, with insane destructive capacity.
-There are hard guarantees about the minimum level of destruction a country will sustain - no thinking you'll get away with nuking someone.
-Citizenry of all countries will take the intangible and fuzzy issues of world peace much more seriously, as they cycle to work past nuclear warhead facilities.
-Very democratic.
-Its still possible to put pressure on counties to force them to do what you want, through force of diplomacy (each country can only nuke a small amount, so a large collection of countries, willing to sacrifice a small portion of their populations, can act to put diplomatic pressure for good. But you can bet they will be pretty careful about doing so.)


Is this a pretty crazy thought experiment?
-Yes.

Is it any crazier than the situation where the USSR and USA get into a pissing contest over cuba and almost launching 1000s of city busters?
-No.

Poccington

jumpguy wrote: »

That's rather like saying guns knives keep kids safe from kids with other knives.

No it's not.

Victor

fergalr wrote: »

Thought experiment (for the lulz):

What if someone cheats, dismantling the nukes in their own cities, which deploying extra weapons that can attack their enemies?

Colpriz

Nice idea..who's really gona comply? What about the US's defence system they have recently thought about moving from from Poland/C. Rep to unsaid waters..hardly credible..should give the nukes to nuetral countries like us..we'll barter them for a real government

major bill

Colpriz wrote: »

should give the nukes to nuetral countries like us..we'll barter them for a real government

ireland with nuclear weapons:eek: fcuk that id rather iran have them:D

syklops

and there are ****ing rules for everything there, you can't even fit a new jacks yourself or make the slightest changes to your house without asking for a permit first.

That sounds like somewhere I know but I cant think of the name....

Colpriz

major bill wrote: »

ireland with nuclear weapons:eek: fcuk that id rather iran have them:D

Why??

fergalr

Victor wrote: »

What if someone cheats, dismantling the nukes in their own cities, which deploying extra weapons that can attack their enemies?

Ah, you'd work around that, tbh. That's what tamper proof quantum mcguffin was for. Also, teams of international observers, proper tamper proof system etc, anyone tries to mess with it, it goes off - after the first few times that happened, people would stop trying to mess with them.

Also, you'd be talking about a totally different way of doing things - you'd dismantle modern militaries, except for in a counter terrorist role. There'd be no real point in having the capacity to conduct a large scale attack another sovereign state anymore, and as such, you don't really mind giving other sovereigns detailed access and inspection to your own capacity.
Tbh, not too different in some ways from the current regime where they have UN weapons inspectors inspecting smaller states trying to acquire nukes (and in fairness, these guys do a good job, they had much better estimates on the iraqi WMDs than the CIA did, for example), but there'd be much less pretext for keeping the inspectors out on security grounds.

The main thing is that no one be able to disable the nukes in their country, and I reckon that's probably doable. Advances in crypto mean its possible to tell if people have tampered with something, and the systems on modern nukes (PALs?) are already pretty tamper proof.
Says so on 24.

Tbh, from a MAD deterrent point of view, its probably more effective than the current system, where no one is really sure how much anti-nuke capacity the other guy has, so you have to keep making absolutely enough missiles to kill the other guy 20 times over just to be sure, and even then maybe he gets a missile shield, or lasers in space, or or... expensive arms race, hard to keep track of where the other people are - leads to instability, recent threats of nuking Poland etc.
Better with a transparent system, open to everyone, where everyone can see if someone tries to tamper. Less chance of people having nuclear exchange because of something like the cuban missile crisis.

major bill

Colpriz wrote: »

Why??

joke but obviously not a funny one;)

Colpriz

major bill wrote: »

joke but obviously not a funny one;)

Fair enough;)

But if nukes where in the hands of nuetral countries...there may not seem the intent to go to war? Ok we could be bombed for our stake in it, or terrorised for our gain of thus said technology, but by neuatrality we are not agressive. Is like holding the peace key, the tabernackle, nobody can wage nuclear war because we have all the nukes and we are neutral...

Adiboo

Dave! wrote: »

Yeah exactly. America won't get rid of theirs unless China, N Korea, Russia, etc., get rid of theirs. Israel won't get rid of theirs ever... India and Pakistan won't get rid of theirs unless the other one does first.

TBH, I don't blame Isreal if they never want to get rid of their weapons. They're in the most vunerable part of the world, and are most risk from enemies.

Fuhrer

Dankoozy wrote: »

Mutually assured destruction mang.

Nukes help keep the peace, every country should have 4 or 5 of them.

Some people want nothing but utter destruction.

Dankoozy

Dankoozy wrote: »

Mutually assured destruction mang.

Nukes help keep the peace, every country should have 4 or 5 of them.

yea, as strange as it is, nuclear weapons stop superpowers going to war.. they're a good thing to leave sitting there as long as they're never used.

Melty

DemocAnarchis wrote: »

Any reduction in nuclear stockpile is a token gesture that doesn't mean anything. Say america reduces their stockpile from 2000 to 750. Still enough to destroy the world several hundred times over. And realistically, when israel, north korea, china and pakistan have the bomb, we aren't ever going to have complete disarmament.

apparently not: http://gizmodo.com/5348269/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/gallery/

The_B_Man

so what would happen if no country in the world had nukes?

Manic Moran

Well, Santa Claus would marry the tooth fairy, women would suddenly gain a sense of direction, men would understand women, and dogs and cats would start living in perfect harmony.

At least, it's about as likely.

NTM