The US and nuclear development

bonkey

Article here which I saw from google news.

The US has lifted a ban on researching "small" nuclear devices. One main argument for this - at least from what I took from the article - is that while the US doesnt necessarily need these today, it shouldn't rest on its laurels and allow someone else to develop them first.

Great example to be setting the world.

Apparently its OK for the US to look to improve its nuclear arsenal and to try and design nukes which it could use in "conventional" ear.

I'm guessing that anyone else who even mentioned "nuclear weapons research" would be branded as the next Saddam by the same people who okayed the US doing this.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm guessing that anyone else who even mentioned "nuclear weapons research" would be branded as the next Saddam by the same people who okayed the US doing this.

But the US are a 'peace loving nation' who just want what's best for the 'rest of the world'!;)

As for their "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator", could you imagine if they had this in Iraq!
"Mmm ehh.. we think Saddam is in this bunker, so lets use a bunker buster."

Duffman

I read an article in The Times recently about nanotechnology and the potential to manipulate genetic material, cure disease, slow down the ageing process and so on....

The US Government are working with Lockheed Martin (the world's largest arms manufacturer - yay) to investigate the possibilities of this technology..... Rather then spend billions researching what could be hugely significant improvements to quality of life for the human race, their priority seems to be altering nuclear material to develop low-yield or even "clean" nuclear weapons....

It's good to know they have our best interests at heart....

*shudder*

Originally posted by Duffman

It's good to know they have our best interests at heart....

They do if you believe in deterrent.
mm

Lemming

Originally posted by Man
They do if you believe in deterrent.
mm

The problem with "deterrent" is that it is dependent on the other side being rational human beings.

One person's deterrent is another's 'minor' annoyance.

True, but looking at the history, of deterent, what would have happened world wide, if only conventional, weapons and armies existed?
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
They do if you believe in deterrent.

Deterrant of what?

Of someone attacking the US? Already plenty of deterrant there.

Of someone attacking someone other than the US? Unless the US gets involved, then US technological advances offer no deterrant. If the US does get involved, then again - plenty of deterrant already there.

So exactly what deterrant do I have to believe in to think that the US making it easier for themselves to use nuclear weapons has out best interests at hear?

The only thing that I can see "clean" nuclear weapons doing is increase the likelihood of nukes being used in a conflict - after all, if a nuke is clean, then theres no real problem.....right? Its the radiation which is the problem...not the explosive capability.

And once one side starts using theirs, why should the other side hold back? Just because its "dirtier" tech? I somhow dont think so.

Deterrant? I dont think so.

jc

SCULLY

It should also be remembered that there is only one country that has ever used a nuclear waepon on another one......

Praetorian

Twice, just to prove a point.

Hobart

From the article:

"Don't think low-yield, think small apocalypse," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "There is no military need today. What we do here will be emulated by other countries. That is the nature of world leadership."

The mind actually boggles. How can this be justified on a global scale. Again is it the case where the US can do what the US wants, irrespective of world opinion? When will it stop?

As bonkey said "A great example to be setting the World".

Originally posted by bonkey
Deterrant of what?

jc

I'm only talking historically here,as I said above what if there was no nuclear deterrent,would the soviet Union have moved further west or would it still be there?
would we all be facing mandatory army service in the face of such a threat? Who knows...
Possession of them must be deterring various sides from using them when they haven't been used in conflict for nearly sixty years.
The technology hasn't stood still in all that time, yet they are not being used.
They cannot be uninvented, the lion has been out of the cage for half a century or more, the U.S to watch one side or the other,on an ideological divide enhance their capababilities without doing the same themselves would reduce the deterrent.
That to my mind would I]increase[/I] the likelyhood of their use.
Thats of course assuming that one side or the other had a total disregard for , the implications of nuclear warfare.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Ithe U.S to watch one side or the other,on an ideological divide enhance their capababilities without doing the same themselves would reduce the deterrent.

Indeed, but my point here is that the "one side or another" who is enhancing their capabilities here is the US. They are not reacting to any known similar threat - they are the ones leading the way.

That either forces other nations to follow the US lead and begin advanced nuclear weapon research as well, or - as you say - face the reduction of the deterrant.

IF the US were reacting to someone else, then I wouldnt be so concerned...but theyre not. They are the ones instigating this precipituous new direction of weapons development.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
IF the US were reacting to someone else, then I wouldnt be so concerned...but theyre not. They are the ones instigating this precipituous new direction of weapons development.

jc

Ah yes, I see where you are coming from now.
But maybe the U.S are being more open about what they are doing, than maybe any of the others with the capabilty may ever be;)
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
But maybe the U.S are being more open about what they are doing, than maybe any of the others with the capabilty may ever be

I admit its a possibility (even allowing for your smiley!).

However, given current US policy, I would more expect them to go levelling accusations at foreign nations while refusing to provide proof for "security reasons", and then use these voiced concerns as the justification for whatever action they decided to take.

In this case, they seem to have not bothered even making allegations.

This raises two possibilities :

1) Its a nation they dont want to antagonise (for some reason) by making allegations. The only nation I can even think of who would fit this bill is China.

2) There aint no-one precipitating this but the US themselves.

Personally, I tend towards option 2. Even were it option 1, I'd still be worried...only now by two nations rather than one.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

No one else in the world is developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of outdating the MAD theory. The US is. Clean nuclear weapons research is BAD news. How can people not be outraged at this research when Russia has consistently made the case for removing nuclear weapons entirely from the scene?! If Russia did this and the US followed, Britain and France would follo and China would as well (especially if there was a monetary or long term economic incentive thrown in by their biggest trading partner, the USA). North Korea could be opened up by Russia and China if they wished - ending that threat to the world. Pakistan and India would never give them up but what does it matter? Those missiles only point at each other and have never been devised for any purpose other than defense of Kashmir. Israel's nuclear weapons could be removed by the USA if the Senate decided to halt US funding of Israel (3Bn USD annually I believe) - the Israelis would fall over themselves to comply.

There are no 'rogue states' who have a vested interest in seeing themselves destroyed - Iran included. Removal by other nations of the nuclear deterrent and a new comprehensive test ban treaty AND development restriction treaty would seal the fate of nukes.

Originally posted by bonkey

This raises two possibilities :

1) Its a nation they dont want to antagonise (for some reason) by making allegations. The only nation I can even think of who would fit this bill is China.

2) There aint no-one precipitating this but the US themselves.

Personally, I tend towards option 2. Even were it option 1, I'd still be worried...only now by two nations rather than one.

jc

I would go along with your thinking on this.
but I'll add one further thought.
If the U.S is privately worried about what China are up to,we may never know what that is.
They certainly aren't going to be to open on any secret research, they may be doing.
The only real way for anyone in the west to investigate this is through journalism.
If one was caught snooping there, you know where you'd be sent, and it wouldn't be a suite on the top floor of the Shanghai Sheraton!

Originally posted by: Éomer of Rohan
There are no 'rogue states' who have a vested interest in seeing themselves destroyed - Iran included.

Ah but there are states who want this capabability to immune themselves from having to answer for their actions.
mm

Sparks

Clean nuclear weapons research is BAD news.

Well, actually, I can think of one decent application : anyone else remember project orion?
Not worth the price though

Éomer of Rohan

Ah but there are states who want this capabability to immune themselves from having to answer for their actions.

Lets face it, no nation in the world is completely going to destroy their nuclear capability - they can't anyway - far too radioactive. BUT if the ICBM's and SLBM's and tactical nuclear warheads such as those armed on cruise missiles then the world is a whole lot safer. The possibility still exists that bombers could carry such a payload to a rogue nation state. That way the advanced nations are safe - even Russia has the technology to shoot down stealth bombers.

Dawg

Man, you do realise you're argueing that the world needs more nuclear weapons? seriously, do you not think there's enough?

They cannot be uninvented

so we should invent more ways of making them, and be stuck with that knowledge floating around too?? :rolleyes:

[edit]
For the record, I would be opposed to any nation doing this research. The fact that its the US is just another poor reflection on the current administration.
[/edit]

Originally posted by Dawg
Man, you do realise you're argueing that the world needs more nuclear weapons? seriously, do you not think there's enough?

No I am not, I am saying that the U.S has used its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for the last 60 years.
That deterrent would lose it's effectiveness, if another nation were to counter that by inventing something better.

so we should invent more ways of making them, and be stuck with that knowledge floating around too??

See my above point.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Lets face it, no nation in the world is completely going to destroy their nuclear capability - they can't anyway - far too radioactive. BUT if the ICBM's and SLBM's and tactical nuclear warheads such as those armed on cruise missiles then the world is a whole lot safer. The possibility still exists that bombers could carry such a payload to a rogue nation state. That way the advanced nations are safe - even Russia has the technology to shoot down stealth bombers.

Yes, but we're discussing the logic of proliferation, not disarmament.

Regardless of whether any of us believe that removing X% of the nukes from the world would be a good thing, the fact remains that the nations in charge just aren't willing to see it that way just yet.

I'd rather discuss the possible reasons and implications behind the US going down their current path than get sidetracked on how sensible, possible, or otherwise the doctrine of disarmament is.

So....lets stay on topic here. If someone wants a disarmament thread, start one up. Alterantely, PM me and I'll split/copy this thread to include the relevant bits there.

jc

Dawg

No I am not, I am saying that the U.S has used its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for the last 60 years.
That deterrent would lose it's effectiveness, if another nation were to counter that by inventing something better

So we should just allow them to continue developing better, smarter nukes in order to retain this 'deterrent'.

Exactly who do you think they are deterring, and from what? Do you think it's gonna deter terrorist organisations from bombing the US or it allies? Didn't help so far, did it? And how do smaller, cleaner nukes act as a larger deterent than big filthy nukes already built unless the likelihood of using them is increased?

Originally posted by Dawg
So we should just allow them to continue developing better, smarter nukes in order to retain this 'deterrent'.

Yes as it's this deterrent that , has me living in capitalism and democracy, which is the way, I and most in the west like it.

Exactly who do you think they are deterring, and from what? Do you think it's gonna deter terrorist organisations from bombing the US or it allies? Didn't help so far, did it? And how do smaller, cleaner nukes act as a larger deterent than big filthy nukes already built unless the likelihood of using them is increased?

It doesn't increase the likelyhood of the Nukes being used, it just further counterbalances possible threats.
Countries that sponsor terrorism for instance.
Deterrent means nothing happens, if that deterrent weakens, something bad might happen.
Or at least thats been the scenario over the last 60 years, during most of which the technology was being openly constantly improved in the west.
How many more years do we need , for to realise that these weapons are a deterrant and only that.
There were enough wars and problems in the world in that timeframe to show that theory.
There are already enough of these weapons to destroy the world several times over, due to the race of the cold war, so I don't see the problem in strenghtening a deterrant.
I'm sure China's technology in that area isn't standing still, but I can't prove it because they are not open about it.
Thats a problem we have in the West, our openess leads to people complaining, a luxury not afforded in China I'm afraid...

It's safe to say the west won the cold war thanks to it's deterrant. It might have lost it, if we were depending on conventional armies to uphold western lifestyles.
As I said earlier the Lion is out of the cage, it could go back in if we could trust everybody but we can't and this move by the U.S is just a further consequence of that.
mm

Dawg

How many more years do we need , for to realise that these weapons are a deterrant and only that

If everyone realised it was only a deterrant and there was no possibility of them being used, wouldn't they then cease to deter anyone?

I'm sure China's technology in that area isn't standing still

and you can be damn sure it never will as long as the US continue their research. You see a pattern developing here? The longer this continues, the better the bombs, and the more knowledge of these things there is floating around. Each nation continually building up there capabilities to match each other. Can you honestly say there is no chance they will ever be used? Countries are not going to destroy their nukes but should we be compounding the problem by devising better bombs? I dont think so.

Originally posted by Dawg
If everyone realised it was only a deterrant and there was no possibility of them being used, wouldn't they then cease to deter anyone?

But you see thats my point,having them is the deterrent.
Uninvent them if that was possible and it isn't and we'd quite possibly have had lots more ground wars and probably a much worse way of life here in the west.
Everybody or at least the permanent five on the UNSC are aware of the futility of using them, but having them yourself , means you don't have to worry about the other country that has them.
It been that way for sixty years and has worked well.

Can you honestly say there is no chance they will ever be used? Countries are not going to destroy their nukes but should we be compounding the problem by devising better bombs? I dont think so.

I'd regard the possibility as so small, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
What I'd be more concerned about is the technology getting into the hands of those that have no scruples whatsoever ie into the hands of somebody with the mentality of a suicide bomber.
Countries, like the U.S, Russia,China or France and the UK, keeping their technology up to date ,is fine by me considering their record on nuclear warfare and deterrant.
mm

Sparks

Man,
Have you considered that "clean" nuclear weapons actually reduce the deterrent factor? ("Okay, so we lose a city or two, but we won't lose it for more than a year or two, and think of the world opinion we'll gain - and it'll solve our famine and over-population problems too!" - and can you really not see that being said in the DPRK? )

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
Have you considered that "clean" nuclear weapons actually reduce the deterrent factor? ("Okay, so we lose a city or two, but we won't lose it for more than a year or two, and think of the world opinion we'll gain - and it'll solve our famine and over-population problems too!" - and can you really not see that being said in the DPRK? )

Oh, I've considered that allright, and don't agree that they reduce it.
The leader of DPRK, may bluster all he likes, but he's too fond of his fancy lifestyle ( while his people starve ) to risk using weapons of mass distruction.
He has his deterrant now and he knows it.
He's not a suffecient threat, what with the possibility of annoying his large neighbour to the North and his dependency on U.S and other foreign aid.
mm

Sparks

Man,
Of all the nations you could choose, why did you choose the one that the US cannot successfully attack?
The US can sabre-rattle until the scabbard breaks, the facts are that the DPRK holds the cards on this one.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
Of all the nations you could choose, why did you choose the one that the US cannot successfully attack?

Err..,because you mentioned it...

The US can sabre-rattle until the scabbard breaks, the facts are that the DPRK holds the cards on this one.

Yes and so can the DPRK while it's people starve, Kim ILL is on the same tablets as Mugabe, only a higher dose maybe.
mm

Sparks

Err..,because you mentioned it...

Sorry, I was just surprised to see you mentioning the DPRK in the same sentence as deterrence!

Yes and so can the DPRK while it's people starve, Kim ILL is on the same tablets as Mugabe, only a higher dose maybe.

The difference between Kim and Mugabe, is that Mugabe doesn't have the third largest standing army in the world, nuclear weapons, and 16,000 artillery pieces trained on south korea, including Seoul...
That's why I said the DPRK can't be deterred with nukes - for a start, you'd have to do so much damage with a first strike to protect seoul that you'd eliminate much of the DPRK, and that would in turn kill a lot of ROK citizens - and second, Kim is just unbalanced enough to push the button.

Originally posted by Sparks
Sorry, I was just surprised to see you mentioning the DPRK in the same sentence as deterrence!

The difference between Kim and Mugabe, is that Mugabe doesn't have the third largest standing army in the world, nuclear weapons, and 16,000 artillery pieces trained on south korea, including Seoul...
That's why I said the DPRK can't be deterred with nukes - for a start, you'd have to do so much damage with a first strike to protect seoul that you'd eliminate much of the DPRK, and that would in turn kill a lot of ROK citizens - and second, Kim is just unbalanced enough to push the button.

We'll be breaking the off topic rules if we keep this up:D
But maybe to add context I'll say, I doubt if it's the DPNK that has prompted the recent U.S decision.

The difference between Kim and Mugabe, is that Mugabe doesn't have the third largest standing army in the world, nuclear weapons, and 16,000 artillery pieces trained on south korea, including Seoul...

Thats right, he started going funny a little to late for that.
But if he suceeds to wipe out all opposition and of course purge the country of the last of the free journalists then he's well on his way.
His mistake, was to allow democracy to take hold in the first place.
It's much more difficult to create a North Korea if you are in the 21st century and already have had Democracy and openess of sorts.
Thats why I don't have a problem with countries in the west having and improving their nuclear deterrant , it keeps lunatics and those who think they know best from imposing their system on those that don't want it.
Having said that my last paragraph equally applies to, the opposite situation wherby, democracy cannot be forced on another country that doesn't want it, if they have a nuclear deterrant.

Regarding Kim's un balanced mind, yeap, he's eccentric alright and power mad,so, probably more into brinkmanship and the prestige of having nuclear weapons than in actually pushing the button.
mm