Nuclear testing

[Highluc]

I suppose you all have read the US is in the process of giving up the ban on low yield nuclear weapon testing because they envision to devellop a nuclear bunker blast weapon because the terrorists are digging in deeper lately. Besides lowering the nuclear employment treshold to an unacceptable level I think it is just insane to even think about its possible use. This should make the USA eligeable for an invasion so the rest of the world can destroy these weapons of mass destruction threatening the survival of the earth itself. I'm expecting flames again for this but I'm entitled my opinion and am not willing to spend the last years of my life in an NBC suit with a filter in front of my mouth to keep the nuclear dust out of my lungs. My idea about freedom might be different as yours but I'm sure others share my thoughts. Peace has a price, but not any price.

[shyguy]

MHO if the US doesn't have these "deterrent" weapons, someone *much* worse will. And they won't be the sort of people to listen to a democratic debate about it. I always watch the "peace protestors" (fighting to get their views across usually literally) and wonder how long their protest would remain legal under the regimes they protect in the name of peace?? Would Sadman Insane have listened to them before he attacked Kuwait, or killed his own people??? I would wager not, he would have them shot by the soldiers on their way to do the *real* cleansing (read killing). No flames, lets just have some opinions hmmm??? Lets agree to differ, as that's what we all claim to want from society on this board the opportunity to be ourselves and air our views (of fashion in the case of people here) without prejudice being thrown at us. Lets see if we can't practice what we preach among ourselves in a debate.

[Trolldeg]

MHO if the US doesn't have these "deterrent" weapons, someone *much* worse will.

don't you see where this is leading? more weapons can never bring peace. the only way to stop terrorism is for the US government to cease acting like the world is theirs to run.

[shyguy]

don't you see where this is leading? more weapons can never bring peace. the only way to stop terrorism is for the US government to cease acting like the world is theirs to run.

So lets sit back and wait for someone who listens to nobody to make the ultimate weapon. There is always someone powermad enough to make huge deadly weapons, it's in our nature (sadly).

History gives us good examples of the wait and see approach favoured by the anti arms brigade, and they never end well. All of human history has involved one nation growing, conquering as far as they could while those inferior nations fell into slavery, at least the American don't want that.

Do you think (and I am interested in your view here) that if the Americans stop, all the other countries will too? And those despots running countries around the world, do you think they willlay down their arms and give up any ideas of forcing their ideals on the world?

Some of these countries leaders don't believe even women have the right to wear high heels

[Firefox]

The USA make their own rules like a world dictator. They only act in their own interest; eg Israel has WMD including nuclear but the Jewish lobby in the States make sure nothing is done about it. You may voice your concerns Hiluc, but there's nothing to stop them making up their own rules as they have done since the cold war ended. Just be thankful they are not (at the moment) a completely malevolant regime.

[PJ]

.... the only way to stop terrorism is for the US government to cease acting like the world is theirs to run.

the only way?

hmmm, then how would you stop the terrorism directed against Israel? They don't act like the world is theirs to run.

I believe that the majority of terrorism was primarily a way of dealing with Israel by it's enemies. And the more that USA began to support Israel, that made USA a target as well.

Another fault of the USA is that they think their form of government is the best their is. They want to convince the rest of the world of this but sometimes they meet resistance. That's when the military gets involved.

[Francis]

this sounds more like a case of "You will do it this way or we send in the soldiers!" Bully boy tactics is probably the best way to describe it. The use of nuclear weapons, no matter how small, will only result in more powerful ones being used either by accident or just to prove the next guy has somethng bigger or to push the envelope on what they can get away with in the new legislation. "Hey, I built this big bomb, but they won't let me use it. So I'll build and use a smaller version. So instead of blowing up 5 mile radii and causing untold havoc within 50 miles of it, we just have 1/4 mile blown up and a 5 mile radii of destruction". Meanwhile the fallout drifts and affects many hundred miles more! Remember Chernobyl? That didn't explode with the capacity of a nuclear bomb, but with a much smaller affect, but still spewed radioactive isotopes over thousands of miles. When will the world learn that if you have weapons of mass destruction as deterrent, then you encourage others to have them as a deterrent. Sooner or later, someone with enough 'sadism' (for want of a better word) is going to use these deterrents as an offensive weapon and when you least expect it. A while back we had a discussion on 'dirty' bombs which basically irradiate an area making it unfit for habitation. Is this what is being proposed for these lower yield nuclear explosives? Reduce it to a clean version of a dirty bomb and the public will go with it? When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they only ended the japanese involvement in the second world war because the Japanese knew that they had nothing to retaliate with. Had they had the capacity for nuclear weapons, do you think for one second that they would have hesitated in using them? Sending in the military is just another way of saying "I've got a bigger stick than you". The unfortunate consequence is that "Mr. Smaller Stick" will defend himself even if he knows he will lose. The other problem arises when Mr. Smaller Stick gives up and a guy with a slightly bigger stick will say "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" and then where will it end? When Mr. Big Stick has control of the whole world? Of course it won't. Displace one smaller stick and another ten will show up, sort of like the kid saying that he's going to get his big brother. Back to the original point, nuclear weapons, no matter how small, should not be used on a justifiable basis or the whole issue will snowball and, we, the people of this planet will end up suffering the ultimate prize, a totally desolate and unhabitable world.

[Highluc]

MHO if the US doesn't have these "deterrent" weapons, someone *much* worse will

Since when is a Bunker penetrator weapon deterrent? Do you really think it will encourage the headquarters to be relocated in soft buildings?

This is the purest example of an offensive nuclear weapon for actual use, not for deterrence.

Second point, who is worse as somebody already planning on developping and stocking such low threshold weapons?

And last, it is about time the world powers align Israel in also allowing the International Atomic agencies to inspect their sites. They sometimes have trigger happy leaders there and have proven to dare some radical actions in the past under the cover of "preventive defense".

[j-turbo2002]

The US Government likes to build techlology that it will never use.

[j-turbo2002]

This should make the USA eligeable for an invasion so the rest of the world can destroy these weapons of mass destruction threatening the survival of the earth itself.

I have a question for you. An invasion from who, where, and most importantly how?

[Highluc]

I have a question for you. An invasion from who, where, and most importantly how?

Psssst, if I tell you, I'll have to kill you

[j-turbo2002]

Psssst, if I tell you, I'll have to kill you

Hmmmmmm - I see. You have to kill me huh? I thought that you were a liberal pacifist (or something like that) who hated war.

[Bubba136]

Turbo wrote:

I have a question for you. An invasion from who, where, and most importantly how?

You can bet your last BF that it won't be Belgium or France out in Front!

As to wheather or not the USA should resume nucular testing, that's a question for the US Government to answer and it's no one elses business wheather they do or not.

!

[Highluc]

I just find it increadible and bothersome how far apart Europe and the USA grew apart since Bush Junior took over. Before him we all were pulling roughly the same strings and got along well. After 9-11 things got even worse with the Americans seeing evil in everything and anybody after the irrational: if you are not with us, you are against us (or something similar) doctrine. I'm sure in the deepest of their heart some posters here just don't make any more difference between Belgium, France, Germany, North Korea, Irak, Afghanistan. This development just scares me and I sincerely hope the USA will get a more nuancated (correct word?) president after next elections. Between black and white there is also gray, democracy also means freedom of speach and thoughts, and freedom should be for everybody on earth as long as they don't harm anybody. We are so many different cultures that one model of life just cannot be exported for everybody, how well it sometimes even seem to work. Let's all be a bit less egoistic in our aims and help create compromises for a better world for everybody on earth.

[Julietta]

In Britain our police, apart from a few, do not carry guns. They have said this week that they still do not want to carry guns even though there is an increase of guns on the streets. The thinking behind this is that if the police carry guns, more of the baddies will arm up and before you know it we in turn will have to have arms to protect our homes and loved ones. "If you live by the sword you die by the sword"

[Trolldeg]

Turbo wrote:

You can bet your last BF that it won't be Belgium or France out in Front!

As to wheather or not the USA should resume nucular testing, that's a question for the US Government to answer and it's no one elses business wheather they do or not.

!

so, it's OK for the US to mind what other countries are doing, but not for other countries to mind what the US is doing?

there is one word for that:

hypocrisy!

[j-turbo2002]

so, it's OK for the US to mind what other countries are doing, but not for other countries to mind what the US is doing?

there is one word for that:

hypocrisy!

Surely, being the incredibly intelligent person that you are, I thought that you knew that currently the following countries inspect the US WMD arsenals. The US also destroys WMDs for these other countries as well.

1) Russia

2) United Kingdom

3) France

4) India

5) Sweeden

6) Argentina

7) Australia

Brazil

9) Egypt

10) Japan

11) South Africa

12) Taiwan

13) Ramania

14) Ukraine

[j-turbo2002]

I just find it increadible and bothersome how far apart Europe and the USA grew apart since Bush Junior took over. Before him we all were pulling roughly the same strings and got along well. After 9-11 things got even worse with the Americans seeing evil in everything and anybody after the irrational: if you are not with us, you are against us (or something similar) doctrine. I'm sure in the deepest of their heart some posters here just don't make any more difference between Belgium, France, Germany, North Korea, Irak, Afghanistan. This development just scares me and I sincerely hope the USA will get a more nuancated (correct word?) president after next elections. Between black and white there is also gray, democracy also means freedom of speach and thoughts, and freedom should be for everybody on earth as long as they don't harm anybody. We are so many different cultures that one model of life just cannot be exported for everybody, how well it sometimes even seem to work. Let's all be a bit less egoistic in our aims and help create compromises for a better world for everybody on earth.

Highluc, I have a question for you. Have you ever studied the 9-11 highjackers? I hope that you do someday because you will be surprised to find out that most of them did not have a supreme hatered for the US until they lived, schooled, and trained in Europe. There is evil brewing in Europe now-and-days. It was brewing long before 9-11. Everytime I traveled to Europe I always had a "bad vibe" about that place. I guess that resentment really does breed hate now-and-days. I also want to say that Bush will be our next President. He has very high approval ratings here in this country and his odds of winning the next election are pretty good. As much as you hate him you are going to have to get used to him because he is going to be around for a while.

[Highluc]

Everytime I traveled to Europe I always had a "bad vibe" about that place. I guess that resentment really does breed hate now-and-days

Nope, never studied HIGHJACKERS (nor did anybody else), but I got educated in civic behavior and learned not to carry hate and certainly not on the basis of bad vibes.

[j-turbo2002]

Nope, never studied HIGHJACKERS (nor did anybody else), but I got educated in civic behavior and learned not to carry hate and certainly not on the basis of bad vibes.

Good, now go and tell that to the rest of your fellow countrymen! Their animostiy gave me those "bad vibes".

As usual you missed my point. The Americans don't hate the Europeans it is the resentment (of America being the great country that it is) that the Europeans have that are causing them to hate us.

I myself don't hate the Europeans either. I like them and I have done business with them on many occasions. You, on the other hand, don't want to hear this as you have continuously demonstrated. As usual you continuously want to falsely accuse me of things that I have never and will never do.

BTW, I certainly know that you didn't study the 9-11 Highjackers but, how do you know about everyone else?

[Bubba136]

Highluc worte:

I got educated in civic behavior and learned not to carry hate"

Wow, you sure can't tell it from the comments you've posted thus far!

(yo mamma's so ugley that mirrors break when she walks by)

[shyguy]

Xenophobia creeps into this discussion. I live by the simple thing my father taught me, there is good and bad in ALL races on this planet. Don't hate all of them because of what one of them does. Please don't stoop to this base level of name calling, get back on with the (rather good) debating of the topic. There are some highly intelligent and articulate people here, lets hear them instead of berating those with different views.

[texasbumpkin]

In reply to the highjackers, t hey were brainwashed by people who twisted and distorted the Quran. Islam is a peacful religion, the terrorists wanted to bring hatred, and the rath of Allah against the infidels.

[azraelle]

Nuclear energy, like gunpowder, is a tool, nothing more. Anyone can misuse a tool, even the French (who resumed nuclear testing quite some time ago, if memory serves me correctly). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Hiluc, Firefox, et al. According to you, it is apparently OK for the French to test nuclear weapons, because they are European (and therefore trustworthy), but it is not OK for the US because they are, what? Of Mixed European descent?? No longer part of the European sphere? Descendents of the poorest and least sophisticated amongst you? Descendents of the Europeans who had the intelligence to realize that the European culture was stagnating? All of the above??? :x

[Francis]

excuse me, but we weren't all that happy that France restarted testing. It's not an anti-US thing here, just an anti-nuke thing. Does it matter who wants to test them, the fact is that testing and using them will only create problems and not solve them. So, please, come down of the soap box and stop believing that the world is anti-US and pro-european. My sister's father was a nuclear physicist on submarines and I know a lot of effects of nuclear radiation, blasts and fallout. I would be against Britain testing nukes and I'm british. So it's not a US thing, but a global thing. I don't care who wants to test them, the answer from me is, NO!

[Dr. Shoe]

No one should test nuclear weapons. Before I joined the RAF I was pro-nuke but since studying the damage they can do and how usage of them can destroy nations far beyond the intended target I have become anti-nuke. The problem is, we have opened a Pandora's Box, we cannot simply uninvent them. The US develop and build a new nuclear bomb. Then the Russians do. The UK and France and China have to do the same as a "deterrent" against the Russians. India want to maintain their place in the nuclear club so they build more and so do Pakistan. An uprising or coup in Pakistan turns it into a fundamentalist country and suddenly the taliban have nukes! It is a fact that terrorists don't stay in one place long enough to dig a deep bunker. Was Bin Laden found at Tora Bora? He probably left a few trusted men behind to make it look like he was there. Terrorists almost by definition hit a soft target then melt away into the background. Bin Laden himself is probably living in Southall and attending Finsbury Park Mosque. Suppose Sadman Insane (I like it) claimed that he was developing a nuclear bunker buster to assist with the hunt for terrorists? Suppose he said that his (not yet found) chemical weapons were intended to flush terrorists out of their bunkers?

[Julietta]

excuse me, but we weren't all that happy that France restarted testing.

It's not an anti-US thing here, just an anti-nuke thing. Does it matter who wants to test them, the fact is that testing and using them will only create problems and not solve them.

So, please, come down of the soap box and stop believing that the world is anti-US and pro-european.

My sister's father was a nuclear physicist on submarines and I know a lot of effects of nuclear radiation, blasts and fallout. I would be against Britain testing nukes and I'm british. So it's not a US thing, but a global thing.

I don't care who wants to test them, the answer from me is, NO!

Nicely said Francis thanks and ditto

[Julietta]

excuse me, but we weren't all that happy that France restarted testing.

It's not an anti-US thing here, just an anti-nuke thing. Does it matter who wants to test them, the fact is that testing and using them will only create problems and not solve them.

So, please, come down of the soap box and stop believing that the world is anti-US and pro-european.

My sister's father was a nuclear physicist on submarines and I know a lot of effects of nuclear radiation, blasts and fallout. I would be against Britain testing nukes and I'm british. So it's not a US thing, but a global thing.

I don't care who wants to test them, the answer from me is, NO!

Nicely said Francis thanks and ditto

[azraelle]

As I said, nuclear energy is a tool, nothing more. The vast majority of what we know about the inner workings of the atom (particle physics) would not have been discovered were it not for the 800+ nuclear bombs exploded underground since 1963 in the US and others elsewhere (principally Australia and Russia). Having been intimately involved in the US underground testing program for 12 years, I can attest that the Americans, at least, learned from their mistakes (the few that there have been were rather spectacular, and resulted from scientific arrogance at least as much as from stupidity or miscalculation). Americans are as rabidly anti-nuke, for the most part, as the majority here seem to be. American nuclear scientists are very much aware of this, and were designing their experiments during the final years of America's testing program with more and more redundant safeguards exactly for the purpose of not ticking off the anti-nuke crowd (or giving them further ammunition). The last few devices that were set off, as well as those that were scheduled but cancelled in 1993, were purely physics experiments, very small scale (on the order of 1-20 tons, not even kt), with no military involvement whatsoever. Compared to the Russian program (or the British in Australia, for that matter), our safety record, even with F-ups like Baneberry in 1968, was exemplary. After the cessation of testing in 1993, I helped write the first radiation safety manual for the Nevada Test Site, to insure compliance with national and international nuclear law, and can attest that if testing is ever resumed, the safety constraints that will be required (and therefore the cost of implementation by the government) will dwarf what existed before by several orders of magnitude.

(My reason for classifying the British experiments as less than exemplary was their classification of the Australian aboriginee population in the vicinity of their open-air testing site [before 1962] as part of the "local wildlife" so that aboriginal human casualty counts due to primary and/or secondary nuclear effects were "justifiably" deemed as unnecessary, and therefore not taken! There apparently wasn't even any effort to temporarily relocate them out of harm's way--at least we did that to the residents of Bikini atoll in the Pacific.)

That said, were the US really serious about using nukes for bunker busting, the only reason to test them would be to reassure themselves that a minimum of harmful radiation would be released (and to quantify the amount that would result, and demonstrate the amount of cleanup that would be required afterwards). Rest assured, the technology exists to put such a device into production right now (if indeed such nuclear bunker busters aren't already in the system!). Would you prefer that the US use an untested bomb during the next war?? Arguably, even those used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been rudimentarily tested (at White Sands in July 1945) before their use.

[IHeels]

No for defence purposes. I may take a softer stance re, other purposes.