Question to the Mods or Professionals

[TheOne]

Hi there,

I think you me and everyone has read about nuclear weapons and stockpiling. At the height of the cold war, both US and USSR had enormous stockples of nuclear weapons( Fission, Fusion nd Stuff). I think each nation had an excess of over 10,000 of these. They had SALT I, SALT II stuff, but what happened? They led to lowering of arsenals to 5000-6000 odd, that too with more deadly MIRV's.

Now my question is whats the need of having so many nuclear weapons, Was the nationalistic attitude of the countries or narrow mindedness of the nation is responsible for this.

Each nation could have been contented with 1000 or odd , but both nations had created enormous stockpiles which have to be take care off.

Now, we know that USSR broke up and the nuclear weapons presented a big problem for western nations , that they may fall into hands of fundamentalists or dictators or "AXIS" nations.

But in future, Imagine, even US breaks down( its also confederation of states), or may be some other different problem , How will it be tackled?

Why does either US/Russia/China/UK/France do something in this aspect ? Or do they think that having 10000+ nuclear weapons would help their supremacy or being counted as P-5 in the world.

Cheers

 

[Big-E]

But in future, Imagine, even US breaks down( its also confederation of states), or may be some other different problem , How will it be tackled?

Why does either US/Russia/China/UK/France do something in this aspect ? Or do they think that having 10000+ nuclear weapons would help their supremacy or being counted as P-5 in the world.

Cheers

Are we reliving the Civil War? The states won't break up, there is no issue that defines them as seperate regions. The globalization of the US has made us one homogenized nation. The only thing we ever need worry about is the balance of power b/w the three branches of government, especially the executive. In that case he might go coo-koo, but we have checks for that.

As far as nations having thousands of warheads there is one reason, deterent. Whoever their nemesis is they need enough bombs to destroy their ability to counter-strike. With the advent of NMD this will no longer be the case as we expand our ability to destroy ICBMs. Nuclear weapons will no longer be a factor in rating as a world power. Technology and succesful integration of it into your force structure will determine the superpowers of the future, and to date the US is by far numero uno.

 

[TheOne]

Are we reliving the Civil War? The states won't break up, there is no issue that defines them as seperate regions. The globalization of the US has made us one homogenized nation. The only thing we ever need worry about is the balance of power b/w the three branches of government, especially the executive. In that case he might go coo-koo, but we have checks for that.

As far as nations having thousands of warheads there is one reason, deterent. Whoever their nemesis is they need enough bombs to destroy their ability to counter-strike. With the advent of NMD this will no longer be the case as we expand our ability to destroy ICBMs. Nuclear weapons will no longer be a factor in rating as a world power. Technology and succesful integration of it into your force structure will determine the superpowers of the future, and to date the US is by far numero uno.

You talked about the least important thing first and the most important thing last. I went through your reply, Now was'nt there an american civil war, OK, I accept that It was long time back, but It did happen. Now who in the world did American's thought that Mr. Bin Laden would turn against them, after getting help in his war against soviets. They did not think it will happen, Things may seem nice , hale and healthy now, things can always go wrong, not that they will, but it may in future for some reason, Not in the way I' told but in someother way.

About the second part, Detterence, What exactly do you mean by that, Was'nt that simply due to "WHO GETS THERE FIRST" , " WHO IS THE BEST" attitude that lead to such a situation , in which we have to fear which countryis going to nuke us with dirty bombs or any such thing.

Dont' take it on personal note, But, why is it called detterence if US, Russia,China, UK, INDIA-PAKISTAN hold them, and why is called evil if Iran has them. I understand that politics plays an important rule, But, its narrow minded natioalisam which also plays an important rule.

Attitude, Ego, Fear are some of the reason, why this stockpile was built was built by all nuclear states, NOT detterence.

Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Both nations have been busy destroying these weapons safely for the past decade and are still in the process of destroying them: nuclear, chemical, and biological. Yes, more cuts can be made on both sides, when the time is ripe there will probably be another agreement reached for further reductions.

However, I'm more worried about unstable states getting their hands on these weapons. I cannot understand North Korea's desire for more weapons when their economy is so awful. While I support Iran's desire to produce nuclear fuel, I cannot understand why they won't allow the UN to monitor the process.

Of course I have the same problems with whaling. While I support ingenious peoples right to take a few whales for cultural reasons, I cannot understand the large numbers harvested by a few countries for scientific research.

Why so many countries interfere with UN monitoring is beyond my grasp. Does flaunting the UN raise a nation's nationalism?

 

[TheOne]

Good to know that both nations have been destroying weapons for past decade, but what next ? , are they keeping quiet with that, One develops Ballastic Missile shields, and other develops a new ICBm which can penetrate this shield with MIRV's. So the first one follows by developing more intresting weapons. So what happens in the end?

They are left with more potent weapons which are far more dangerous, than the original nuclear weapons.

Detterence to attack, does not mean we fill our arsenals with stockpiles of all the weapons we can get, Going on extending our territorial influence as much as we can in other nations. Its a procedure which is required to deter a country from attacking another country , fearing the retailiation and the consequences. Also, It is not necessary that this detterence should be always in terms of weapon buildup, there can be other options less dangerous.

COming to question of North Korea, I think , dictators spoil the country, Intially they would seem as a best option, but a time progreses they will be autocratic and rather senseless in their behaviour. This would be applicable to all the countries which are under dictatorship rule.

Iran, I think is plagued by odd syndrome, which makes it think every other country in this world is against her. I frankly think they should allow the IAEA to inspect the reactors, and at the same time let the IAEA stop all the Nuclear tests which are taking place even now( there was a latest one by US,sub critical though).

Nations, governed by idiosyncratic rulers, both in developed and developing and underdeveloped nations should think something before they go about relieveing their grudge against other nations.

Cheers

 

[Big-E]

You talked about the least important thing first and the most important thing last.

I just responded in the order of your query. If you didn't like the order you should have reorderd your question.

I went through your reply, Now was'nt there an american civil war, OK, I accept that It was long time back, but It did happen.

The fact that it was a long time ago was not my predication for it's current infeasability. I said that we have become a hemogenized nation. Since you live in Virginia I imagine you are well versed on the causes of the war and I think you'll agree that their is no difference so vast to create a schism like that caused by slavery.

Now who in the world did American's thought that Mr. Bin Laden would turn against them, after getting help in his war against soviets. They did not think it will happen, Things may seem nice , hale and healthy now, things can always go wrong, not that they will, but it may in future for some reason, Not in the way I' told but in someother way.

How about all the critics of US policy to arm the Mujahadeen. It wasn't a unanamous decision. Several were afraid after the Munich massacre that arming fundamentalist groups would be trouble down the line but the majority in power decided that fighting communism was more important.

About the second part, Detterence, What exactly do you mean by that, Was'nt that simply due to "WHO GETS THERE FIRST" , " WHO IS THE BEST" attitude that lead to such a situation , in which we have to fear which countryis going to nuke us with dirty bombs or any such thing.

Attitude? What does that have to do with anything? When I say deterence I simply mean mutually self-assured destruction. I find your defenition of deterence confusing for such a simple idea.

Dont' take it on personal note, But, why is it called detterence if US, Russia,China, UK, INDIA-PAKISTAN hold them, and why is called evil if Iran has them.

So this was what you meant by attititude... ok I see where your coming from. The "attititude" of the Ayatolla and Ahmadinejad has recklessly declared not only death to Israel and the US but also Western Europe as well. Since this is the official foreign policy of the Iranian government they have publicly declared war against the Western world. They are thereby incapable of using them as a deterent but will otherwise us them to threaten others. If Iranian politicians had just kept their intentions to themselves this would have been a non-issue but their destructive rhetoric is going to cost them.

I understand that politics plays an important rule, But, its narrow minded natioalisam which also plays an important rule. Attitude, Ego, Fear are some of the reason, why this stockpile was built was built by all nuclear states, NOT detterence.

Cheers

Exactly my point. If Iran hadn't shot off their big mouths and threatened the Super Power of the world they would be sitting on a nuclear stock pile right now. Their attitude and ego have cost them the right to posses the status of a nuclear state. Thats why we allowed N. Korea to finish their program, we didn't like it but we didn't really do anything to stop it because they didn't directly threaten us with "death to America" rhetoric.

 

[Awang se]

Both nations have been busy destroying these weapons safely for the past decade and are still in the process of destroying them: nuclear, chemical, and biological. Yes, more cuts can be made on both sides, when the time is ripe there will probably be another agreement reached for further reductions.

However, I'm more worried about unstable states getting their hands on these weapons. I cannot understand North Korea's desire for more weapons when their economy is so awful. While I support Iran's desire to produce nuclear fuel, I cannot understand why they won't allow the UN to monitor the process.

Of course I have the same problems with whaling. While I support ingenious peoples right to take a few whales for cultural reasons, I cannot understand the large numbers harvested by a few countries for scientific research.

Why so many countries interfere with UN monitoring is beyond my grasp. Does flaunting the UN raise a nation's nationalism?

there's a humanely rather innocent reasons why this two "axis of evil" do what they did. in NKorea cases, the war's never really over. there's only a ceasefire. and skirmishes occured in the DMZ on regular basis. with increasingly large and modernized south korean armed forces and thousands of US troops more bent on hostilities just next door, i would've scared the hell out and react. since Nkorea can't really hope to equal the US military strength in conventional terms, so they seek an ultimate solution, a nuke. it's not just the south korea that feel they'll be attack by the north, but the north also feel that they'll be attack by the south (and US of course). and the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq only serve to strengthen the view. i believe it's pure deterence. no leaders, no matter hardlined they were, are crazy enough to launch pre emptive nuclear strike on a country with the largest stockpile of nukes.

In iran case, why they deny access to the plant? i think most can guest. prior to the Gulf War 2, some of this weapon inspectors that were send to inspect the Iraqi weapons program were actually spies. they collect the information about the layout of several high security areas like the presidential palace. i believe iran fear this. they fear that the spies might acquire the layout of the plant for precision aerial strike or spec ops assault on the facility.

 

[Rich]

I have a hard time making the connection between Bin Laden post 1980s Afghanistan and a new American civil war, leading to e breakdown in the command/control of our nuclear forces. Outside of a Stephen King novel that is. The President of the US literally "owns" and "controls" our entire inventory and nothing would ever change that, including a civil war. I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about the C&C of the emerging nuclear nations. #1 on that list would be Pakistan.

 

[webmaster]

I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about the C&C of the emerging nuclear nations. #1 on that list would be Pakistan.

And why is that?

 

[Big-E]

And why is that?

Perhaps because Pervez Musharraf's assitance to the US is not viewed kindly by the Pashtuns thus causing instability in the nation.

 

[webmaster]

Over 65,000 Pakistani army soldiers have been operating in Pushtun areas against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda since war on terror started 5 years ago and I don't recall an incident which would support the notion that Pashtuns were unfriendly to Musharraf.

When was the last time Pakistan, it's government or the "feared" group expressed their desire to use nuclear weapons offensively other than in defense of the nation? If Pakistani military loses control over its nuclear weapons... that is a one big IF. Why are we selective about such IFs, let's apply it everywhere and judge the threat accordingly? What if neocons get hold of nukes in USA, would they stop at that? What if Hindu fanatics get hold of India's nukes? How about Jewish fundamentalists in Israel? The two fanatical regimes (iran and north korea) that are suspected of having nuclear weapons... aren't doing much, are they? Even with all their fanatical nature, they know if they use the weapon, it will be death for them.

I believe nuclear weapons are defensive weapons in application but offensive by design, you don't use it to win over your opponent if your enemy has the same weapon in more numbers than you... thats like signing a death wish for the whole country not just two or three big cities. And frankly, no leader or government is stupid enough to not understand that concept be it Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or American.

 

[kams]

Nobody is a winner in a nuclear warfare. This is true only if we are refering to legitimate govt., not some nut cases. Theoretically any nutcases in India, Israel, N.Korea, Pakistan can cause a nuclear winter. However West fears (atleast Western press) that if Musharaff falls (assasination) then there may be a chance that Nuclear Weapons falling to worng hands. The reason for this 'if' being rather particular to Pakistan is it's History of unstable govt, coup-detats etc. Already three attmpts have been made on President Mushraff's life for his support to West.

In any case I thought Pakistan recently entered in to an agreement with the Pushtun tribes to end the hostilities provided they expel all 'foreign terrorists'.

 

[Big-E]

Over 65,000 Pakistani army soldiers have been operating in Pushtun areas against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda since war on terror started 5 years ago and I don't recall an incident which would support the notion that Pashtuns were unfriendly to Musharraf.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/pakistan.php

The only cause for Pakistan's nukes to become a threat is if civil war breaks out. I never intended for you to get the impression I meant anything about them by race or creed. I'm not bigoted.

 

[webmaster]

Civilian government has no control over Pakistan's nukes and Pakistani military is not that stupid. Still, it's nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands is a big if, Musharraf is not the only progressive leader in Pakistan. Religious parties never held any position beyond senate to be any cause of concern, even if they do get the prime minister or whatever, still they know better not to use the nukes offensively. The extremist groups that existed in the 90s are all dismantled and their supporters busy in either hiding from the government or helping their brothers against Pakistani and coalition forces in Afghanistan. Even if this big dreaded IF comes to life, it can't be worst than Iran or even worst North Korea.

Unstable Pakistan is in no body's interest and it will make things worst that is why west as well as Pakistani neighbors must support a strong and progressive Pakistan.

Unstability doesn't tell you when it is coming so that is why the IFs must be applied everywhere the threat is possible. And stuff like an unstable government or country make take over night to happen or may take decades and IF that happens, we are all screwed. There should be hotlines between all nuclear powers to make sure no mistakes happen and to reduce the chances of any misadventures against nuclear or non-nuclear powers.

No matter how fanatical you are, would Israel have attacked Iraqi reactor in 1981 if Iraq was a nuclear power? No. Why is there talk about attacking Iran and not North Korea? Because North Korea may have the nukes, it has the delivery system which could deliver the nuke to western US as well as eastern europe, we don't want that... Iran does not have that capability yet so attacking it is less of a risk. If Japan had the nukes back in world war II, US wouldn't have used the atomic bomb. In cold war, Russia and US came very close to nuclear war but both parties knew that if one used the weapon it would also destroy them.

Singling out Pakistan as the big evil waiting to happen is absurd, in my opinion. As far as I understand it, Pakistani nuclear weapons are purely for defensive purposes as are India's, US's, Russia's nuclear weapons. The chance of its nuclear weapons falling into "wrong" hands is close to zero, very very slim. Even the most anti-west military officiers in Pakistani military understand and know when to use the nuclear weapon. And also understand that nukes are not that easy to get your hands on, even if you do get one, you need codes, triggers and what not to get it going, plus the transportation to carry the weapon if it is big. The idea of mini nukes is a russian phenomenon and I will leave it to that. Pakistani nukes are not made or sold in some supermarket in Peshawar or Quetta like AK-47s that everyone would be worried about it.

 

[uaf]

Hi Big-E

I agree with webmaster about his comments and further Musharaf came in power at oct 1999 and I guess Pakistan had the WMDs from early 1980s when it was fighting for survival against Russian invasion in Afghanistan with help of America you mean that time there wasn’t any chance of falling that weapons in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists ??

And why u think it will happened now I can understand the comments of kams because he belongs to our beloved neighbor India that’s understandable why he is pushing these comments although he is forgetting that in India Hindu fundamentalists RSS is 10 times stronger than (so called) Islamic Fascist in Pakistan and there isn’t any chance of it that they can take over the WMDS and just attack on Pakistan as they have threatened in past. I can remember the Babri Mosque when the Police completely failed to stop it what IF they come up same kinda idea again and this time the target will be WMDs there is big IF in it as well …

What IF North Korea in desperation attacks South ….
What IF China threatens to use nukes in case of any USA’s involvement in Taiwan Issue ( that’s separate thing they aren’t that stupid both of them )
There can be lots of IF's friends


Lets analysis history as webmaster said Japan tasted the Atom Bomb because didn’t had one , even though in cold war Russia was the enemy # 1 even though USA and Russia came close on using nukes but never did as they knew it would be disaster for themselves as well.

It’s a dittenerence only for an aggression by any other country.

Well I don’t have the link but there was a report on defencetalk why Pakistan building WMDs and missiles … but the actual theme was that what Pakistan did was only to the response of India.well Web Master can you provide us that link ???

And the command and control system of Pak’s nukes is not directly in hands of a single person like America it’s a complex one and chances of nukes ending up in hands of Fundamentalists is 0 to none. It hasn’t happened in past and it wont happen in future.

 

[kams]

uaf,

I think you misunderstood me or I did not put it across clearly.

I did not mean to imply Muslim fundamentalism. What I meant is President Musharaff's policy of helping WEST (USA) is not very popular in some parts of Pakistan which is evident by three assasination attempts on him. I clearly acknowledged that there is a theoretical possibility of nut cases (read fundamentalists) in any nation (India, Israel, Pakistan) getting hold of these nukes. I was not talking about India vs Pakistan here. (for that matter BJP (which is closely allied to RSS) was in power till recently, they did not nuke west . Only thing I was trying to say was if Musharaff falls and results in civil unrest, then it's dangerous. The probability of this happening in India, Israel is less as compared to Pakistan due to history of Stable govt.

I did not try to imply any Muslim vs Hindu vs Jew superiority etc. My apologies if I hurt your feeling. (for your info I am anti RSS)

 

[uaf]

uaf,

I think you misunderstood me or I did not put it across clearly.

I did not mean to imply Muslim fundamentalism. What I meant is President Musharaff's policy of helping WEST (USA) is not very popular in some parts of Pakistan which is evident by three assasination attempts on him. I clearly acknowledged that there is a theoretical possibility of nut cases (read fundamentalists) in any nation (India, Israel, Pakistan) getting hold of these nukes. I was not talking about India vs Pakistan here. (for that matter BJP (which is closely allied to RSS) was in power till recently, they did not nuke west . Only thing I was trying to say was if Musharaff falls and results in civil unrest, then it's dangerous. The probability of this happening in India, Israel is less as compared to Pakistan due to history of Stable govt.

I did not try to imply any Muslim vs Hindu vs Jew superiority etc. My apologies if I hurt your feeling. (for your info I am anti RSS)

Brother I don’t wana put Muslim vs Hindu vs Jew or wt ever either. Only Musharaf isn’t controlling nukes there are many other people involved in it … who comes who goes in Office that’s doesn’t matter much to them

Yea RSS was part of BJP nothing happened than I must say Gen.Zia was assassinated nothing happened that time either

I was only giving reply to you. Regimes and having unstable governments are two different things but again that will polities the environment here too and it will lead us to nothing although I m willing to discuses that.

Anyhow there will always be IF's everywhere brother. unstable Pakistan is not in interests of India or USA ... having nukes itself is the deterrent for peace in south Asia but I myself believe WMDs aren’t in interest of the world as wider picture one way or other there will always be fear of it.

Live in peace and lets live that’s what I believe on but I personally think nukes will be used one way or other if not in near future than in longer run perhaps and may GOD help us all at that time.

Cheers kams thnxx for reply

 

[.pt]

The problem with nukes,and certain countries that posses that weapon, or are trying to possess such weapons, is that proliferation is dangerous.As more countries possess nukes,the probability of conflict wich could evolve to a nuclear exchange is higher.
Also, in some cases, the instability of such countries, perhaps not in the short term, but in the medium term, could mean that nukes would be likely used. This perceived threat, altough theoretical, is scary, for many nations.
And in some cases, as someone already said of Iran, the goal of such weapons is to terrorize its neighbours. That is the main reason why western powers try to stop those countries from aquiring nukes.
It´s not a matter of any nation has more right than other to have nuclear weapons, it´s more a matter of track record and perceived threat.
Most countries that have nukes for a long time have good control systems for the weapons,to prevent unauthorized use, and don´t go around threatning others .
This is the reason why, after 50 years of nukes, only in one ocasion, ww2, were such weapons used, and that in another context. But the future seems much more worrisome.
The only cases i know of voluntary destruction of nukes is South Africa and some former USSR republics, where, fortunately, good sense prevailed.
These are all the reasons that made the Us denounce the ABM treaty, and advance to all those ABM programs. In the past, cold war style MAD doctrine was the main check to nuclear exchanges. Nowadays, if some nut case ignores this, then it will be a disaster. we shall see in a few years time.
.pt

 

[Rich]

And why is that?

For a few reasons. First off Political stability in the affected nation. A guy like Musharraf is a Dictator sitting on the razors edge of instability in a Nation State that will always be in danger of being overthrown by Islamic Fundamentalism. The place, and places like it, are political powder kegs.

Secondly they dont have our experience or expertise in securing, accounting for, or the command and control structure for nuclear weapons. They may have "read the book". But the USA "wrote the book" concerning nukes. Even with the strict accountability we have we've had accidents, the Soviets far more, so who knows what could happen in emerging 3rd world powers like Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea?......ect For an enemy to get their hands on an American special weapon is as close to impossible as "impossible" gets. And for emphasis take a look at the shady history of the Khan network regarding "accountability". Such countries also dont have our level of technical expertise and infrastructure.

Thirdly the programs and weapons of these countries are so shrouded in secrecy that if anything happened, like a weapon stolen or sold, we'd probably never know it. At least until the thing blew up and we could test the radiation levels to try and pin the place of origin. Iran/Pakistan/North Korea have traded nuclear secrets like playing cards already.

Lastly the geo-Politcal-Military situation of S/E Asia makes the place a powder keg to begin with. We and the Soviets, at the least, had 20+ minutes to decide if a radar return was a flock of geese or a flock of ICBMs. India and Pakistan commanders and leaders have seconds to make such a decision and are far less experienced at doing so then the folks at NORAD or SAC were/are. And now.....with cruise missiles part of the picture...the situation is made even worse. For a comparison look at our posture now compared to when we were on trip wire back in the Cold War, and when I was part of the picture. We had thousands of weapons forward deployed and ready to go in that era. The entire posture upped the chances for accidents or incidents.

Since then we and the Russians have backed off where'as India and Pakistan are still in a high state of readiness. And just imagine the situation should Iran ever go hot with its own offensive special weapons? Imagine the state of readiness and forward deployment the Israelis will have?

I hope I'm making sense now.

 

[radiosilence]

we have to also keep a watchful eye on christian Fundamentalist in this country. pat roberston called for nuking the state department in 2003.