U.S. nuclear weapons threat

[flyer19999]

The U.S. and Israel has stated that Iran poses a probable world threat because of nuclear weapons. It seems lately the U.S poses the threat. There have been several cases to beleive this is true. American bombers carrier nuclear weapons by mistake from one base to another not knowing the missiles were nuclear. American submarine leaked nuclear waste between Japan and the Hawaii Islands. American transporter carrying nuclear tipped missile runs off road. America transports nuclear missile arming devices by mistake, and the list goes on. These are only the instances we know about. What about the ones we doen't know about?

If another country had such mistakes surrounding nuclear weapons the U.S. would likely want to tetaliate with sanctions.

 

[ASFC]

How many of these have been dangerous incidents? i.e the Nukes were armed when the accidents happened? From the looks of things none of them.

The American Submarine leak is nothing compared to what Soviet Subs have done.

If it was another country, either you would here nothing about it (like in China) or there would be protests calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament (like in the UK or France), Not the US imposing sanctions.

Whilst I agree that their 'Nuclear stewardship' is being called into doubt, I wouldn't exactly call it a threat to another country.

 

[SABRE]

How many of these have been dangerous incidents? i.e the Nukes were armed when the accidents happened? From the looks of things none of them.

In several cases the nukes were armed. i.e.: The B-52 which carried the bomb without the knowledge of the crew. Couple of US bombers crashed while carrying nuclear armed missiles/bombs reportedly.

Secondly; even if the weapons were not armed it is still dangerous. What if they fall into the wrong hands? I.e: A bomber/aircraft crashes or transpoter runs off the road and some fool near by takes the weapons with him before the authorities arrive. What if they fall into children's hands? Appears all foolish but still valid.

Nevertheless; I don't think nuclear weapons would go off in an incidents unless the device is triggered somehow. According to Dr. Samar Mubarakmand (Pakistani Ex-scientist for nuclear weapons and missiles) if you put a missile [Pakistani] in the streets armed with nuclear weapons and tell people to hammer it, it won't go off. I think same might be true for the American bombs.


What is dangerous about US nukes [& US nuclear policy] is not that it has the highest incident/accident rates [reported] but that the US appears to be the only country to threaten the use of nuclear weapons & also threaten the existing deterrence not only between US & its enemies but between other states [possessing nukes] as well.

 

[ASFC]

'Armed' means it is set to go off, codes entered etc, not whether it is a live bomb or a training round.

Obviously Nuclear weapons are a threat, but I wouldn't necessarily single out one Nuclear Weapons Nation from the other Nuclear Weapons Nations just because it is having some difficulties that are receiving alot of public attention. And it is not as if the Pentagon is not taking actions to sort it out.


The B-52 you refer to that crashed with Nukes was in Spain in the 1960's(???) but again the bombs were not armed (IIRC one had a non-nuclear explosion on impact with the earth?) as the codes were not entered. The practice stopped after this crash.

Anyway, the point is that these issues the OP brought up are those of Nuclear Stewardship, not a threat. The US is threat with Nukes, i'm not saying it isn't, but it is no more a threat than other countries that hold Nukes.

 

[eaf-f16]

If another country had such mistakes surrounding nuclear weapons the U.S. would likely want to tetaliate with sanctions

No. There are countries with much shoddier security and infrastructure for their nukes yet they still maintain them without sanctions from the US. In fact, most countries incapable of properly safe-guarding their arsenals get aid from the US to secure them properly.

Also, look at the incidents you named. Almost every single one of them ended with high-ranking or relatively high-ranking personnel being fired.

This isn't a real topic worth discussing, IMO. Just looks like flaming.

 

[SABRE]

'Armed' means it is set to go off, codes entered etc, not whether it is a live bomb or a training round.

Usually we perceive "Armed" as when the delivery system carrying the "nuclear warhead."

If you read above I quoted Dr. Samar Mubarakmand from Pakistan. Which indirectly confirms that the bomb will not go off unless trigger mechanism is activated - which of course requires providing codes to Permissive Action Links (PALs). Nevertheless; codes or no codes, a missing bomb can be huge worrisome event and the kind of incidents that took place with US can result in that.

I don't know if its really the terminology but it was used in the movie (in fact made the title of the movie) ---> Broken Arrown = when the bombs are missing/stolen/lost.

Anyways; you are right about the codes.

Anyway, the point is that these issues the OP brought up are those of Nuclear Stewardship, not a threat. The US is threat with Nukes, i'm not saying it isn't, but it is no more a threat than other countries that hold Nukes.

Hmm ... it is quite debatable. Its not just a threat but also the means to carryout the threat & no other nuclear state has better means than US does.


@ eaf-16;

Don't know if its designed for flamming but it should'nt go that way or the thread is closed. I don't think it is wrong to ask questions & every question should be answered (if answerable). This is something I learned from one of my teachers. So lets let people put their thoughts in front of thers.

 

[radiosilence]

What is dangerous about US nukes [& US nuclear policy] is not that it has the highest incident/accident rates [reported]

Its hard to quantify this when the other nuclear weapon states don't publicize their accidents.

but that the US appears to be the only country to threaten the use of nuclear weapons

What are you basing this on?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What are you basing this on?

IIRC the Soviet Union threatened the use of nuclear weapons on several occasions.

 

[ASFC]

And depending on which Historian you believe Thatcher was willing to use them if necessary against Argentina. How much I believe it to be true is another matter.

Any state with Nuclear weapons is a threat-in fact the undeclared ones are more of a threat than the declared ones-mainly because there is no way to keep track of the weapons or know how many fail safes the countries in question have.

 

[SABRE]

Its hard to quantify this when the other nuclear weapon states don't publicize their accidents.


What are you basing this on?

I am basing this on US administration/govt and presidential candidates threatening the use of nukes against Iran.

IIRC the Soviet Union threatened the use of nuclear weapons on several occasions.

I recall Soviet threats as well, since we got one too. But I am talking more in terms of post-Cold War era.

 

[radiosilence]

I am basing this on US administration/govt and presidential candidates threatening the use of nukes against Iran.

Pakistan and India threaten to nuke each other during the the border stand-off in 2002. China threaten to use nuclear weapons against the US with regards to Taiwan. Russia threaten to use nukes to "defend itself and allies in the event of a severe external threat." Also, there were reports of Israel planning to use tactical nukes against Iran.

 

[SABRE]

Pakistan and India threaten to nuke each other during the the border stand-off in 2002. China threaten to use nuclear weapons against the US with regards to Taiwan. Russia threaten to use nukes to "defend itself and allies in the event of a severe external threat." Also, there were reports of Israel planning to use tactical nukes against Iran.

Well, I wont disagree to what you pointed out. In fact I'll confess I had forgotten all about it. However, if you notice they are all nuclear states - nuclear state threatening another nuclear state, this results in what we call "deterrence."

In case o US & Iran or Israel & Iran there is one nuclear state and other is just an probable aspirant. Where is the deterrence in that? If there is no deterrence than nuclear threat is very much alarming.

 

[ASFC]

The US will not use Nukes against Iran-same for Israel. Do you think other Nuclear States (like Russia) will wait to find out that the missiles are really heading to Iran? All the like of China and Russia will see is Missiles heading in their general direction. I doubt they would risk them being for someone else and retaliate against the US just to make sure they are not wiped out beforehand.

Nuclear weapons only work offensively if you are the sole nuclear power without risk of retaliation in kind.